Forgotten Tales

@Tangled

Refer to this post viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16535&p=108418&hili ... el#p108418


It was my solution a while back for greater clan customization

In war there is deceit and treachery.

In peace there is deceit and treachery.

Storms7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:09 pm In war there is deceit and treachery.

This was just a lone player (Who is new) being a jerk. However, even if he wasn't new, to pass this off as a legitimate game mechanism and strategy is shockingly poor. Theft and espionage is always expected but abusing trust & deleting something that in some cases would take many, many hours to siege - no, that's just a whole new level of scummy behaviour that should never have been tolerated within the accepted rules.

A game that actively encourages and rewards insidious deception of this level to abuse a game mechanic that had initially not been intended to be used in this manner only suffers for it.

terminator wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:15 pm @Tangled

Refer to this post viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16535&p=108418&hili ... el#p108418


It was my solution a while back for greater clan customization

Actually a great idea that, Term. Whether compb will advance the clan set up is a little hard to rely upon, tho. Rules on the other hand are easier to implement or alter.

What is your suggestion for a rule?

As I understand the issue a rule would have to cover: (1) allowing clan members to put items into shared storage that other clan members can use without asking for permission, (2) allowing clan members to put items into shared storage that other clan members cannot use unless they ask for permission, (3) allowing clan lords to sell structures without explicit permission of dukes when a duke has allowed open or broad use of powers or acting in the duke's stead, and (4) prohibiting clan lords from selling structures without explicit permission in other situations.

A rule would have to both allow and prohibit the same actions depending on the facts.

It's a tricky one, isn't it? Although we've read here about a building(or wall) being sold out of malice, they can also be sold for beneficial reasons to the clan. The duke (of course) cannot be on permanently and so it's a bit of a catch 22.

At the moment, it relies on trusting those in your clan. As we've read , this has its own pitfalls.

Even with the "Duke's Menu" it boils down to trust. Because the second he clicks on elevated levels he is giving permissions that can, and will be, abused by some traitorous person that "acted good to gain the trust".

So:
Duke
Lord
Marshal
Member

Dukes: Simply put the people you trust at the level you believe they belong and "hope for the best".

This is a slippery slope that we're on. The game was designed this way. This issue has been discussed many times over the years and nothing has ever changed. Don't promote players that you don't trust. It's pretty simple really. When someone joins a clan, their initial rank(member) does not allow them to access any towers. That rank is there for a reason. So that the player can gain trust before they are promoted to a Marshal from a member. To bypass these two ranks directly to a Lord is not a wise decision at all. In my old clan players had to be a member for some time before they were promoted to a Marshal to be able to access towers to remove items.

I fully understand that reasoning.

My thought is that if anyone does not find the current approach satisfactory and believes these issues can be addressed by creating a rule it would be nice to see a proposal. I'm actually encouraging that by suggesting issues to keep in mind.