Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel General Discussion



Message

SouL Prisoner -> Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 22:55:20)

Hey guys ,

Their was a lot of talk about the Founder step down feature , while many other(including me ) Suggested Co-founder feature . What do you guys prefer ??


Founder step down Features.

- Present Founder of the faction leaves the faction , giving some one else the stand .

- The founder even after Leaving the faction still has the control over the faction , i.e he can take over the faction when ever he feels like .( but the founder cannot join another faction , until he for fits all his control over the faction .

- If the founder takes over the faction again , before he for fits all his control ,then all his data relating to faction , i.e his donation , wins ext is restored .


Co-Founder Features.

- can add a new member to the faction , as well as remove him from the faction.

- can promote a member to officer and even can Demote him back to member .

- can edit title for himself ,as well as for all the Officer's . ( NOTE : Co-Founder cannot edit title for the founder)

- After all this powers given to Co-Founder , Founder of the faction is still Superior to Co-founder , i mean Founder can still edit every one's title , add player etc . Founder can do everything he can do now . Founder decides who will be the Co-Founder, so choose wisely [;)]


So guys what feature do u support , Founder step-down or Co-Founder ???


(Discuss)



DeathGuard -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 22:58:57)

I'd go for Co-Founder, a founder should be the founder until he disbands the faction, a new leader can't replace or fit the place of the last leader, that is my point of view.



rej -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:01:47)

I really like both ideas. Why can't both be implemented? Co-founder could tie directly into founder step down, as the co founder would automatically be named as the full founder when the origanal founder steps down.

Double supported.

If I had to go with one, though, I would go with co-founder.



goldslayer1 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:15:19)

supported. (both should be implemented)
and if u dont like cofounder cause u think you may get hacked.
then dont make a co founder, the feature would be optional, and u dont need to make a co founder, just like u dont need to make an officer.

and i like what rej said, when theres a co leader, and the leader decides to quit, the co leader would become the leader.



Elf Priest JZaanu -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:17:11)

I will lean towards Co-Founder. The issue with Step-down has the possibility of abuses. For one example, some players are great at starting factions, but don't have the patience to keep it long term. This could open up for possible corruption in regard to buying and selling factions.


With Co-Founder, with strict preset controls managed by Founder, this will be an amazing feature. Factions can evolve where players can run factions even if they don't have the varium to buy them, but they are a great leader within the community. This also allows the Founder to take time off without worry of the faction fragmenting due to their inactivity.






SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:21:23)

Even i believe Co-founder is a better feature , Specially when the founder is on vacation , Co-founder can take care of the faction for a while .

Now if you talk about founder step down , Personally i like this feature , a Founder can take a break for a while from his faction , but if this feature is implemented , a lot of faction spamming could take place , how???

well i wouldn't like to tell it , all in open , i would only be giving ideas .




VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:22:29)

45% supported Why? Cuz it should be like this :

Founder should never step Down to officer or Member!

I do prefere if Co-Leader have his own Spot in faction that it's called " Co Leader " + The Leader should ADD his Permissions by a Tool called Co Leader Permission Tool , the leader is free to give u permission to add players or to not add players or to remove players or to Not remove players or to demonte or to promote , I will explain more by adding a Screenshot about (((CoLeader Permission Tool))) ^ .

-VIX



SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:25:54)

@ VIX i like the idea ,but this is kinda complex and would require a lot of place .

if u could adjust all the feature in a screen shot ,as u said , it would nice and helpful :)



DeathGuard -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:29:28)

VIX: I think your feelings can be described with this phrases: "A captain should always sink with his ship" and "A captain is a captain until it is dead"
A captain's(by saying captain I'm referring to a founder) pride is a valuable thing and I don't think it would be fair that its own work should be given out to other player, if he payed and worked hard for it, it shouldn't be given or stepped down to another.

An own spot would just create different bands on what is the faction causing problems from the inside itself causing it to disband. It would be like a "civil war" inside the faction to say so. Many may think the Co-founder is better at leading and others may think original Founder is better on it, I think leader should have the absolute power of faction and no one else, because many will feel ressented if they don't get pick as co-founders.



VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:35:10)

@soulprisnerx : Check this out small idea about the Faction SPOT : http://i42.tinypic.com/osen11.png

Co-Leader Permissions : http://i42.tinypic.com/2rfdnc1.png

That's would keep the faction more safe + you won't be caring or scared that maybe your co leader might remove a member that u wanted it badly , like this u can limite them by permisson ;)

-VIX



SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:43:23)

@ VIX , are you sure 2 Co-founder is ok ???


coz i feel 1 is better , if they are 2 of them it would only cause prob in between them , i feel 1 co-founder is more responsible and would be easy for you to know , who kicked the following players or edited the titles .



VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:45:41)

@soulprisnerx:

2 Co Leaders have 2 different permissions :p , 1 adding members and removing members and 1 Changing titles and promoting and demonting ;)



Algorithm -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:45:49)

This feature has been talked about since old EDF lol, and the idea itself isn't bad.



DeathGuard -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:46:48)

@soul:A log of what does faction members does should be implemented
It would show the register of what members donated tokens each day, how many wins, if they were promoted/demoted, if they quitted faction, and if co-founder would be implemented, it will show which member he promoted/demoted, removed members and title edits.



My Name is Jake -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:49:06)

I support both.



SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:51:34)

@ VIX

Having different settings for each Co-Founder is a difficult job(placing the setting is a pretty much a challenge) , the screen shot u gave about the setting is good , but it could be used commonly for the Co-founder and the setting would only appear for Founder's in the settings panel .


@ Death guard

ya , juzz like the war kills , made each day and can be seen by visiting the Conductor in central station .



goldslayer1 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/25/2012 23:59:39)

quote:

Check this out small idea about the Faction SPOT : http://i42.tinypic.com/osen11.png

Co-Leader Permissions : http://i42.tinypic.com/2rfdnc1.png

That's would keep the faction more safe + you won't be caring or scared that maybe your co leader might remove a member that u wanted it badly , like this u can limite them by permisson ;)

i love the idea. and maybe they should allow up to 2 co leaders.

also u know the symbol that leader has, and then co leader has another symbol before its name.
they should make another one but for co leaders (thats like a mix of leader symbol and officer symbol)
or maybe the same as the leader symbol, but without the red gem for co leaders.

also vix, u should add Changing flags along with tittles.



SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:16:23)

@ gold

quote:

also vix, u should add Changing flags along with tittles.



i think that's founders personal choice , no way effecting the faction play , so it should only be done by Founder .



rej -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:22:50)

^I agree with Soul. Flag changing is no real priority, so it is not necessarily to give that power to a co founder. Flag changing is more of a personal preference for the leader.



VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:27:20)

Edited Things! More Clear:

  • Small idea about Co-leader Spot In faction:
    [image]http://i41.tinypic.com/m2fwg.png[/image]

  • Co-Leader Permissions :
    [image]http://i43.tinypic.com/2s0ya10.png[/image]

    That's would keep the faction more safe + you won't be caring or scared that maybe your co leader might remove a member that u wanted it badly , like this u can limite them by permisson ;)

    I'm Sure u guy asking why there is " Check Boxes " Near every member , I will explain :

  • The leader ONLY can put a check near the memeber that he will be kicked soon , The Co Leader can see the member that has a Check near his name so he can only kick the member that has a check near his name. so the leader can set the kick for Co-leader .

    Well yeah i think 2 Co leader is enough, and it would keep the faction more controlled by The leader and by the 2 Co leaders.

    Why 2 Co leaders ?

    If the 1st Co leader was busy There is another Co leader that can takecare of the faction while the leader + the 1st leader is Busy , and like i said both of them have Different Permission.

    Example:

  • GoldSlayer1 permissions will be ( Adding Members + Removing members + Promoting + Demonting )
  • TurkishIncubus Persmissions will be ( Changing Titles + Changing Flag Style )

    i don't See any point of 2 Co-leaders u trust and both of them accepted their permissions to fight each others for whatever was the reaon.

    And about Changing Flag Style it's not bad idea either.

    I hope this is Helpfull for your idea soulprisnerx .

    -VIX



    • DeathGuard -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:28:28)

    I'm still thinking that some perks sould be Founder only, co-leaders shouldn't have so much freedom on their duties. Lets think for the future, there will be some greedy co-leaders and they will ask for more and more until they will have it all.

    Here is a phrase that I read in a story:
    Humans should be given knowlegde bit by bit, if they're being teached will all the knowledge that exists, they will seek for more and more and that greed for knowledge and will make destroy others for it until only one stands and then he dies knowing all but no one to share it with.



    SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:35:55)

    @ VIX


    Thnx for the help :)



    quote:

    GoldSlayer1 permissions will be ( Adding Members + Removing members + Promoting + Demonting )
    TurkishIncubus Persmissions will be ( Changing Titles + Changing Flag Style )



    and what if Turkish wants to do both the stuff or for a emergency he needs to remove or add players to the faction , then???


    and so is the fact with Gold's permissions , specific permissions will only create annoying prob ,as i mentioned above and a difficulty for DEv's to add on such features .


    @ death


    quote:

    I'm still thinking that some perks sould be Founder only, co-leaders shouldn't have so much freedom on their duties. Lets think for the future, there will be some greedy co-leaders and they will ask for more and more until they will have it all.



    Agreed .

    if to much is given to Co-Founder , Founder would lose respect and their would be no need of being a Founder any more or any job left for the Founder to do .



    VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:38:58)

    @ soulprisnerx :


    quote:

    and what if Turkish wants to do both the stuff or for a emergency he needs to remove or add players to the faction , then???


    and so is the fact with Gold's permissions , specific permissions will only create annoying prob ,as i mentioned above and a difficulty for DEv's to add on such features .


    I'm Sure Devs are Clever Enough to know how to make " Permissions " to 2 Co leaders Fair .

    They prob won't add adding\ removing players if they ever made this as a features.

    i still thinking tho , if i found any idea about this i will let u know ;)

    -VIX



    goldslayer1 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:46:25)

    quote:

    if to much is given to Co-Founder , Founder would lose respect and their would be no need of being a Founder any more or any job left for the Founder to do .


    like i said, co leader would be an optional features. u can use it if u want to. u dont have to do it.

    but not putting in a feature cause of things like these would be unfair for those who actually want and need it.
    for example lets say ur the leader, and ur at school.
    but ur co leader happens to be on mostly while ur at school.
    that means u have a leader/co-leader presence that can handle factions issues at all times.



    SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 0:54:55)

    @ gold


    quote:

    like i said, co leader would be an optional features. u can use it if u want to. u dont have to do it.



    i dont say that their shouldn't be a option to make 2 Co-Founder , its cool if they add this feature , i think the mixed idea of 2 Co-Founder and Adding permissions would do great job in keeping the Faction neat and clean .

    quote:

    for example lets say ur the leader, and ur at school.


    (btw I am graduating [;)] )




    Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.078125