I suggest to improve LEADERS command by adding one more row: Activity.


The Mortal Leaders of Thera
LEADERS ACTIVITY
Commander of Battle : Akedeh : 8 hours
Drillmaster of Battle : Tontik : 3 hours

ACTIVITY row shows average playing time per week. It can be per day, per month.

This way players will see most active leaders and it will save leaders from being accaused in inactivity, if they have different playtime with those who are blaming them.

At the same time, those numbers will motivate leaders to play more: it will bring an inner competition between leaders (at least, between those who care). Example: any social game in facebook with global rating AND rating between you and your friends who are playing in the same game. Does it work? Oh yes!

I'm not completely sure if it will it work in CF, but chances are good. Even if it may increase leaders presence for 10%, it would be a great improvement (imho).

I'd post it to santa zulg, but I'm out of the tickets already. :(

We don't need even more OOC ways for people to see when the cabal they want to play is in power.

if it was a weekly average it could get thrown off by a bad week or two (like right now with finals and the week before finals) but like twist said i think it is to much of a OOC.....maybe have one that has thier most visible time maybe if you are having problems getting an induction but i honeslty dont think that happens to often anymore...oh well

I became a leader and played:
- 8 hours this week
- 6 hours next week
- 11 hours next week
- 3 hours next week
- etc etc etc


So we would get average from 8,6,11,3 and it would be average playing time. It would be objective result. Is it bad?

Everyone knows which cabal is in power and which is not. Such statistic information wouldn't be a secret knowledge. But it can highlight some not active players who are keeping leaders positions for unknown, mysterious reasons. Maybe you don't want to show this to the players, because they will realise that some players are leaders because they are favorite players, and not because their characters are leaders?

Yeah the imms often play favorites to deadbeat cabal leaders because they like the players that consistently make these deadbeat cabal leaders.

Just lay it out there...which leaders arent active enough for you?

.

The disconnect here is you think being logged on a lot is the sum of what makes a good cabal leader, and we don't.

I'd rather have a good leader that plays less than a ####ty one that plays lots.

But if a good player is not playing, for the whole cabal (and game too) will be to exempt him from the duties and open leader's position, if there are no other good players in that cabal (and this is almost never happens - in one cabal you always can find a good leaders). Again, I never said that ####ty players must be leaders just because they are playing a lot.

And I've been speaking not about removing inactive leaders here, no. I've been speaking about letting players see the full and objective picture and make game a little more democratic. You don't even need to change anything - just let players see what is going on. Why are you afraid to let us know those things?

I see Twist's point: players might see which cabal is most powerful and join it (I disagree - some players, me including, are underdogs and would never join the strongest cabal). Okay, if it's the real reason (though I don't believe it), let members of the cabal see average playing time of their leaders. They have right to know it, don't you think?

P.S. And I really think that it's better to have an empty leader's spot in the cabal than a f...r who is logging once per 2 weeks for 1 hour just to keep his shienies/character/position alive. At lease, for the empty place other players would come. But if such place is being occupied by an imm-favorite player, and players knows that imms won't ever do anything to him until he delete/agedie himself, there won't be competition and many players joining such cabal.

You said you agreed with me, and then totally went right on as though you hadn't even read what I wrote. :P

I meant "I can't argue with that no matter of playing time ####ty players who invest a lot of playtime shouldn't be leaders". Thats all :)