Is it time to do a purge of inactive coalitions?

bk1234

Our alliance started a new coalition last Monday. They went into RtO with 15 active players and finished with an all time score of 2472 -- and their all time rank jumped from 24,492 to 8984 -- that's 15, 508 spots in one week.  

In the past few months, we've noticed that when our top 500 all time coalitions open spots, they don't get filled. We've even gone so far in weeks when several teams who rank all time from top 10 to top 500 have open spots to do random searches for them. After hours and hours, none of them ever pops up. 

Top 10 spots fill fast because everyone can see those teams -- but all of the coalitions in this game who aren't attached to a top 10 coalition are at a distinct disadvantage because we have at least 15,000 coalitions who we can safely assume are inactive. 

That means players looking for teams cannot find them because teams looking for players, opening spots for players are not searchable. 

Yesterday was the 2 year anniversary of coalition play -- I think it's reasonable to call for a purge of inactive coalitions. 

Coalition play is the biggest factor in engagement and retention in this game. If great players can't find teams and great teams can't find players, that amazing tool and the entire meta of the game is a moot point. 

Laeuftbeidir

The coalition part seems to be avoided by the devs. It's still the base implementation, with no advanced searching tools etc.. Any update to it would probably be good for the game, and this suggestion targets directly the newer players. So.. I think it'd be important, especially to make the game more attractive for new players

ElfNeedsFood

We should definitely have a great purge. Maybe a revolving policy as well that if a coalition has 0 points in 90 days they go poof or something...

ManiiNames

We split off from TerraNova (was 22nd ranked) and formed TheCartel.  Started at like 28k rank, after two weeks (came in 23rd! last weekend) now we are in 5000th or so?  Acceleration is insane, so yea that points to many dead / inactive coalitions for sure.  

Here's the thing though, what is the benefit (revenue generation) of deleting the inactive ones?

bk1234

ManiiNames said:

We split off from TerraNova (was 22nd ranked) and formed TheCartel.  Started at like 28k rank, after two weeks (came in 23rd! last weekend) now we are in 5000th or so?  Acceleration is insane, so yea that points to many dead / inactive coalitions for sure.  

Here's the thing though, what is the benefit (revenue generation) of deleting the inactive ones?

The benefit is increased engagement and retention. That means spenders stay around longer. 

Dodecapod

In principle this seems like a great idea, although I’d have a few reservations about an outright purge unless it were also accompanied by careful communication far in advance, since if it were executed carelessly, a change that drastic could be disorienting or even alienating for infrequent, returning, or solo players who aren’t well-connected and wouldn’t understand what was happening or why without a detailed in-game explanation (e.g. “Where did my coalition go?”, “I wanted to keep my all-time points!”, “How do I find my old teammates?”, “I just spent 50 crystals last week to change the name and now my team is gone; I was tricked out of my currency”, etc. could all be natural reactions if the move came as a surprise).  The problem of connecting active players with active coalitions through the game itself is real though, and some form of significant overhaul to the existing UI and functionality seems essential in the long run in order to preserve a critical mass of self-organization capabilities among any players who aren’t especially inclined to pursue external resources extensively as part of their experience with this game.

There are probably several possible approaches for how to effectuate more robust coalition management tools, with varying levels of both difficulty to implement and impact on the user experience, but these are a few other ideas I've often seen in other games that might help alleviate some of the most frustrating aspects of the existing UI if improving community accessibility is a priority for the devs and if they were to decide against an outright purge (or if they wanted to build in features following an initial purge that would render additional purges in the future less likely to become necessary):

1. Use the Inbox! - I can’t overstate how important this is; currently, the primary use seems to be for ad-like banners touting new vault offers, with occasional update links or gifts mixed in, but in principle, this could also be used as a resource for players and coalitions to PM one another (among many other possibilities); currently that functionality doesn’t exist at all, and players who are kicked from coalitions can’t contact their leaders or vice versa to clear up any misunderstandings or follow up on “musical chairs” situations when a random player takes a freshly opened spot intended for another specific person then is unceremoniously kicked soon after.
2. Add search filters for players seeking coalitions - The possibilities here are endless; a toggle to display full coalitions (it's hard to seek out the leader or other representatives of a coalition someone can't find or doesn't know exists), a filter by X or more/less average score in the last Y coalition events, a filter by X or higher/lower average rank in the last Y coalition events, a filter by number of members who participated in the last coalition event, a filter by X or higher/lower all-time rank, a filter by date founded, a filter by preferred language/region for primarily non-English-speaking players and coalitions, a filter by total number of events a coalition has participated in, and myriad other possibilities would all represent meaningful improvements for uninitiated players looking to find a suitable home without having to wade through thousands of false positives in the process.
3. Add more ways for leaders to customize the members they attract - Here too, there are numerous ways to improve the current situation, but one of the simplest would be for leaders to have the option to keep their coalitions closed even with fewer than 20 members; for more nuanced differentiation, requiring X or more/fewer cards owned, X or more/fewer cards mastered, X or higher/lower mastery tier, etc. in order for a player to join would help with ensuring prospective recruits aren't blindly diving in anywhere only to either get kicked or stumble across inactive coalitions dozens of times before finding one that's right for them.  Naturally, it would also reduce the burden on leaders to be online at the same time as a specific recruit in order to offer them a spot (allowing leaders to send private invites that only a recipient could use to join would be an even more convenient extension of this idea).
   
4. Allow leaders to post a short, permanently visible welcome message that non-members can see before joining - This would allow coalitions to communicate basic expectations (e.g. "always play to progression", "achieve X% or better ribbons", "play for X hours per week", "only for people who love pizza and ASCII art", etc.) to prospective members, again helping both sides to find the right fit more efficiently without haphazard searching.
5. Add "officer" roles that a leader can assign to specific members - This would reduce time zone or schedule burdens when a leader and a specific prospective member can't be online simultaneously; allowing leader changes helps somewhat already, so that alone is a huge step forward, but allowing leaders to grant other members privileged abilities (e.g. the option to kick other members with lower privilege levels, the option to change the coalition name, the option to change private/public status, etc.; multiple privilege levels with varying subsets of powers could exist, or only one level could be implemented as a kind of "leader-lite") would add even more flexibility as far as ensuring at least one co-leader or similar could be present for crucial functions at all times without the original leader having to risk an unexpected coup or other mishap in the process.

Overall, there are plenty of potential methods for how to approach the situation, but when over 60% of all coalitions in the game have apparently played the equivalent of less than one active event as a full team, something between "random" and "search by name" would clearly go a long way towards helping to connect like-minded players with each other, whether that's implemented via a purge to the existing pool, a revision to the search functionality, or some other idea entirely.

bk1234

@Dodecapod maybe it could be as simple as random searches only including coalitions that added any points in the last 7 days. 

bk1234

Another idea — whose credit goes to @boopers from his Q&A question is making the all time leaderboard scrollable. This would allow people to click on any coalition in the leaderboard. 

It’s definitely not a solution, but it would be a big help. 

FindingHeart8

I don't really see the issue here.

Sure there are probably a lot of dead coalitions or coalitions run by super-casuals or only a few active players, but active players with coalitions speeding past the inactives is a motivator to keep playing this game, not a deterrent. 

On top of that, purging inactive coalitions might also alienate returning players.

I dunno though, my coalition isn't that high and there's consistently about an hour or two window maximum between me booting a player and a new one joining.  I'd be amazed to hear a longer turnover with higher coalitions.

bk1234

FindingHeart8 said:

I don't really see the issue here.

Sure there are probably a lot of dead coalitions or coalitions run by super-casuals or only a few active players, but active players with coalitions speeding past the inactives is a motivator to keep playing this game, not a deterrent. 

On top of that, purging inactive coalitions might also alienate returning players.

I dunno though, my coalition isn't that high and there's consistently about an hour or two window maximum between me booting a player and a new one joining.  I'd be amazed to hear a longer turnover with higher coalitions.

Our top 25 and 50 coalitions can open for 4 days and never have anyone join. 

Our top 10 coalitions can go a whole day -- and those who do join find them by the all time leaderboard, not by the search functions.

My biggest concern is the feedback I get from players when they join the alliance. Mostly how they're close to quitting the game because they've jumped from one dead coalition to another. 

Also after posting this, I did an experiment last night since I was a passenger on a long drive. Knowing of 6 top 100 coalitions who need players and have open spots (mostly outside of my alliance) and about 10 more fairly new teams who are not top 100 all time, but are very active and do well in events, I hit the refresh on the random search for about an hour. Each time checking the coalitions that came up. Not a single one had any chat history. They were all dead. I looked at over 100 teams. 

If a player is doing this and taking an hour of their time just to not find an active team -- what kind of experience is that for them?

Perhaps the solution is what I said above -- only teams that have put up (any) points in the last 7 days should be searchable using the random search function. 

But it's clear, I've done the experiments -- great players are not finding great, active teams -- and great coalitions are not finding great, active players. 

Mburn7

I wonder, what if you could sort coalitions by average individual score over the last month (or 2 or 3 months for better average)

That would be a sort by activity while simultaneously allowing people to pick coalitions that might be a good fit for them.  I know a lot of the time its good for a top coalition to get a newer player and build them up, but for some top players who are languishing in dead coalitions this could help them get out.

FindingHeart8

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I don't really see the issue here.

Sure there are probably a lot of dead coalitions or coalitions run by super-casuals or only a few active players, but active players with coalitions speeding past the inactives is a motivator to keep playing this game, not a deterrent. 

On top of that, purging inactive coalitions might also alienate returning players.

I dunno though, my coalition isn't that high and there's consistently about an hour or two window maximum between me booting a player and a new one joining.  I'd be amazed to hear a longer turnover with higher coalitions.

Our top 25 and 50 coalitions can open for 4 days and never have anyone join. 

Our top 10 coalitions can go a whole day -- and those who do join find them by the all time leaderboard, not by the search functions.

My biggest concern is the feedback I get from players when they join the alliance. Mostly how they're close to quitting the game because they've jumped from one dead coalition to another. 

Also after posting this, I did an experiment last night since I was a passenger on a long drive. Knowing of 6 top 100 coalitions who need players and have open spots (mostly outside of my alliance) and about 10 more fairly new teams who are not top 100 all time, but are very active and do well in events, I hit the refresh on the random search for about an hour. Each time checking the coalitions that came up. Not a single one had any chat history. They were all dead. I looked at over 100 teams. 

If a player is doing this and taking an hour of their time just to not find an active team -- what kind of experience is that for them?

Perhaps the solution is what I said above -- only teams that have put up (any) points in the last 7 days should be searchable using the random search function. 

But it's clear, I've done the experiments -- great players are not finding great, active teams -- and great coalitions are not finding great, active players. 

well that's very interesting to hear.  I've never been outside the castle walls of the coalition I started (which consistently refills very quickly after I boot an inactive).  I had no idea it was such a barren wasteland out there.

Going off the information you've provided.  If they the developers don't do a purge, they should add an option to display coalitions by player activity (like last time a player logged into it).

This would also be a good feature to add to coalitions, so co-leaders can be aware of the last time a member logged in.

bk1234

The problem with adding that feature is it doesn't help the search issue -- yes, players can see better if a coalition is active, but they can see that when they enter it anyway -- however, they're still going to spend hours and hours coming across only dead coalitions before they find the right one. 

When a brand new coalition that isn't full jumps more than 15,000 all-time spaces in one PvP event we have a problem. This means 15,000 coalitions have put up less than 2.4K points in 2 years (I put up this much alone in a month with the right mix of events)-- and these are all what are coming up in searches. 

The system is broken -- no one realizes it because, like you, they don't leave the castle walls. 

FindingHeart8

I see what you're saying in that there's a lot of clutter (aka the rubble of dead coalitions scattered across the land) but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a broken system.

If I was a new player, not trying to start my own coalition, and looking to join another...I would try to find the highest level coalition that has an open spot.  Perhaps if players could scroll through all the lists, see which ones have openings, and when players last logged into the coalition, perhaps that would solve the problem.

A dead coalition is going to sink to the bottom of the ranks, so new players should be able to catch on pretty quickly that if they don't want to join a dead coalition, to seek a higher ranking coalition.  This should be an intrinsic pursuit, as you don't play this game to intentionally have a low score lol.

bk1234

FindingHeart8 said:

I see what you're saying in that there's a lot of clutter (aka the rubble of dead coalitions scattered across the land) but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a broken system.

If I was a new player, not trying to start my own coalition, and looking to join another...I would try to find the highest level coalition that has an open spot.  Perhaps if players could scroll through all the lists, see which ones have openings, and when players last logged into the coalition, perhaps that would solve the problem.

A dead coalition is going to sink to the bottom of the ranks, so new players should be able to catch on pretty quickly that if they don't want to join a dead coalition, to seek a higher ranking coalition.  This should be an intrinsic pursuit, as you don't play this game to intentionally have a low score lol.

I adding making the leaderboard scrollable -- however it still creates the problem of having to pick and choose. Also I know for a fact there are several top 100 alltime coalitions that are completely abandoned. So should a player hop into one of those and have to spend 2 weeks playing to figure out no one else is there? Or should active coalitions at rank 105 not get top 100 designation because completely dead teams are cluttering up the leader board?

FindingHeart8

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I see what you're saying in that there's a lot of clutter (aka the rubble of dead coalitions scattered across the land) but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a broken system.

If I was a new player, not trying to start my own coalition, and looking to join another...I would try to find the highest level coalition that has an open spot.  Perhaps if players could scroll through all the lists, see which ones have openings, and when players last logged into the coalition, perhaps that would solve the problem.

A dead coalition is going to sink to the bottom of the ranks, so new players should be able to catch on pretty quickly that if they don't want to join a dead coalition, to seek a higher ranking coalition.  This should be an intrinsic pursuit, as you don't play this game to intentionally have a low score lol.

I adding making the leaderboard scrollable -- however it still creates the problem of having to pick and choose. Also I know for a fact there are several top 100 alltime coalitions that are completely abandoned. So should a player hop into one of those and have to spend 2 weeks playing to figure out no one else is there? Or should active coalitions at rank 105 not get top 100 designation because completely dead teams are cluttering up the leader board?

Again though, I don't think that'll be an issue for long.  An inactive coalition will not be increasing its score, while all the active coalitions will be catching up and surpassing it.  It'll sink to the bottom and be forgotten with all the other dead coalitions.

An inactive coalition won't be participating in events, so a rank 105 not being in the top 100 would only lose out on bragging rights, and only temporarily.

Going beyond that though, purging would just be a temporary solution.  Players can still make and abandon coalitions.  We would, eventually, get back to where we are here.

bk1234

FindingHeart8 said:

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I see what you're saying in that there's a lot of clutter (aka the rubble of dead coalitions scattered across the land) but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a broken system.

If I was a new player, not trying to start my own coalition, and looking to join another...I would try to find the highest level coalition that has an open spot.  Perhaps if players could scroll through all the lists, see which ones have openings, and when players last logged into the coalition, perhaps that would solve the problem.

A dead coalition is going to sink to the bottom of the ranks, so new players should be able to catch on pretty quickly that if they don't want to join a dead coalition, to seek a higher ranking coalition.  This should be an intrinsic pursuit, as you don't play this game to intentionally have a low score lol.

I adding making the leaderboard scrollable -- however it still creates the problem of having to pick and choose. Also I know for a fact there are several top 100 alltime coalitions that are completely abandoned. So should a player hop into one of those and have to spend 2 weeks playing to figure out no one else is there? Or should active coalitions at rank 105 not get top 100 designation because completely dead teams are cluttering up the leader board?

Again though, I don't think that'll be an issue for long.  An inactive coalition will not be increasing its score, while all the active coalitions will be catching up and surpassing it.  It'll sink to the bottom and be forgotten with all the other dead coalitions.

An inactive coalition won't be participating in events, so a rank 105 not being in the top 100 would only lose out on bragging rights, and only temporarily.

Going beyond that though, purging would just be a temporary solution.  Players can still make and abandon coalitions.  We would, eventually, get back to where we are here.

If it were a regular thing, it wouldn’t be an issue. 

FindingHeart8

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I see what you're saying in that there's a lot of clutter (aka the rubble of dead coalitions scattered across the land) but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a broken system.

If I was a new player, not trying to start my own coalition, and looking to join another...I would try to find the highest level coalition that has an open spot.  Perhaps if players could scroll through all the lists, see which ones have openings, and when players last logged into the coalition, perhaps that would solve the problem.

A dead coalition is going to sink to the bottom of the ranks, so new players should be able to catch on pretty quickly that if they don't want to join a dead coalition, to seek a higher ranking coalition.  This should be an intrinsic pursuit, as you don't play this game to intentionally have a low score lol.

I adding making the leaderboard scrollable -- however it still creates the problem of having to pick and choose. Also I know for a fact there are several top 100 alltime coalitions that are completely abandoned. So should a player hop into one of those and have to spend 2 weeks playing to figure out no one else is there? Or should active coalitions at rank 105 not get top 100 designation because completely dead teams are cluttering up the leader board?

Again though, I don't think that'll be an issue for long.  An inactive coalition will not be increasing its score, while all the active coalitions will be catching up and surpassing it.  It'll sink to the bottom and be forgotten with all the other dead coalitions.

An inactive coalition won't be participating in events, so a rank 105 not being in the top 100 would only lose out on bragging rights, and only temporarily.

Going beyond that though, purging would just be a temporary solution.  Players can still make and abandon coalitions.  We would, eventually, get back to where we are here.

If it were a regular thing, it wouldn’t be an issue. 

It's a great ideal, but I considering we're struggling to get the developers to make any significant changes to improve the game, I'm not sure how practical it would be to expect them to commit to regular purges.

I mean, they aren't even committing to a regular Q&A

Laeuftbeidir

What if there was an option for coalition leaders to mark the coalition as "recruiting"? Only those coalitions who have it activated get shown in the list. The status reverts every week, but can immediately be re-enabled by the leader (who also gets a notification whenever the status gets set back). This way, 99% of the dead coalitions won't show up anymore without harming fresh groups.

bk1234

Laeuftbeidir said:

What if there was an option for coalition leaders to mark the coalition as "recruiting"? Only those coalitions who have it activated get shown in the list. The status reverts every week, but can immediately be re-enabled by the leader (who also gets a notification whenever the status gets set back). This way, 99% of the dead coalitions won't show up anymore without harming fresh groups.

This is a really cool idea! 

Gunmix25

FindingHeart8 said:

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I see what you're saying in that there's a lot of clutter (aka the rubble of dead coalitions scattered across the land) but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a broken system.

If I was a new player, not trying to start my own coalition, and looking to join another...I would try to find the highest level coalition that has an open spot.  Perhaps if players could scroll through all the lists, see which ones have openings, and when players last logged into the coalition, perhaps that would solve the problem.

A dead coalition is going to sink to the bottom of the ranks, so new players should be able to catch on pretty quickly that if they don't want to join a dead coalition, to seek a higher ranking coalition.  This should be an intrinsic pursuit, as you don't play this game to intentionally have a low score lol.

I adding making the leaderboard scrollable -- however it still creates the problem of having to pick and choose. Also I know for a fact there are several top 100 alltime coalitions that are completely abandoned. So should a player hop into one of those and have to spend 2 weeks playing to figure out no one else is there? Or should active coalitions at rank 105 not get top 100 designation because completely dead teams are cluttering up the leader board?

Again though, I don't think that'll be an issue for long.  An inactive coalition will not be increasing its score, while all the active coalitions will be catching up and surpassing it.  It'll sink to the bottom and be forgotten with all the other dead coalitions.

An inactive coalition won't be participating in events, so a rank 105 not being in the top 100 would only lose out on bragging rights, and only temporarily.

Going beyond that though, purging would just be a temporary solution.  Players can still make and abandon coalitions.  We would, eventually, get back to where we are here.

I guess a better question is this. If you've a room full of clutter... do you simply keep adding to it and call it controlled chaos because you know how to look for something within it? Is it okay for someone who has no clue of the disorganized manner in which everything is placed and technically being reallocated (as various new coalitions die off or fresher ones gain rank) to find what they are looking for, just because it's better to leave alone? I personally don't think that is a good idea

The whole visual about tagging an active coalition without any actual narrowing perimeters is similar to painting a few leaves pink in a huge pile of leaves. In order to find them you've got to put in a little effort to toss about some unpainted leaves ( the dead coalitions) in order to find the live ones. And then hope they have room. 

Any game needs a maintenance clearing. In Mobsters the Devs put out a notice over 30 days. You saw it when you logged in, you saw it randomly when you switched between screens. The message simply stated that clan leaders were required to turn on the new "active" button. Which lasted 3 months. In which it needed to be reactivated sometime during the 4th month. We had been told to contact them if say a leader quit without transferring power to avoid the clan from being removed from the system in the 5th month. It worked beautifully and allowed new players to see only active clans upon starting the game. 

Mtgpq needs a bit of clean up. Personally I expected something like this to have happened ages ago. As long as D3 and okatagon implement safety protocols that buy players some time to ensure their coalition is still alive and well... the whole process has my blessing.