Poor sportsmanship

There was some chatter about that in the https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/81259/player-retention#latest thread (there was a lot of talk about a lot of things in there lol).

Seems desperate times call for desperate measures for a lot of coalitions.

I would hope, in a rare, emergency case like that, your loyal coalitionmate who the team was passed down to would give it back when you returned.

However, when I took over my coalition, tinykitty, last summer, they really could have used a failsafe like this. They were a top 25 coalition and their leader ghosted. No one could get in. The current players didn’t want the responsibility of leadership, and even if they did, the leader was gone to hand it down. The only recourse was for someone to abandon their all time score and let me in, then several members of the coalition had to send tickets requesting leadership be passed to the top scorer who then passed it to me. We could then let the player who left back in after kicking the original leader. It was ridiculous.

Except it wasn’t that easy. We had to go through a lot of red tape to get there. And they had me, the forum mod, who had to ask Brigby how to even do that. Even then it took 2 months. Does a regular coalition know how to do that? Would it even occur to them to come here and ask for help? Or go to support?

I agree it's poor form to poach players from active coalitions. It shouldn't be done. And it goes beyond bad taste and into the bizarre if the primary goal truly is, as has been suggested, to actually sabotage those coalitions.

I also agree that advertising active coalitions to non-coalition-engaged players in inactive coalitions is solidly healthy for those players and for the game, given that the in-game coalition tools are lacking.

The group of coalitions I'm a part of (TP9) finds both of the above points to be obvious and uncontroversial as a matter of policy. I obviously can't speak for other groups.

But if anyone feels like your active coalition is a poaching target, why not start by talking directly with the person responsible and their group? Then, whether you foiled their nefarious plot to bring down your coalition, or they approached you in error, you'll actually know the facts according to Mystery Poacher X, and we can all respond accordingly.

You could always message me privately. I have a good relationship with most of the big groups and will handle these things confidentially, and put you in touch with the appropriate person once I get their permission. I believe this is a healthier outcome for the community as a whole.

What are some of the ways that other games cope with the inactive coalition problem?

Pantagruel said:

What are some of the ways that other games cope with the inactive coalition problem?

bken1234 said:

This is an interesting conversation, that as an alliance leader, we tackle frequently — so I hope that you all will welcome my perspective openly without attacking me.

There are not a lot of open avenues for recruitment in this game. The forum is not a big avenue. There are not a lot of new users. Forums are not the most up-to-date communication tool in gaming. MTGPQ players aren’t seeking this venue for information. The Facebook pages are unofficial, same with the reddits, Discords, etc. However there are tens of thousands of coalitions, most of which are led by inactive leaders.

At one point there was a supposed purge. You will never, ever convince me it was done, because the numbers at that time went up, not down. When new players come in, many of them join random coalitions. We seek these coalitions with inactive leaders and try to engage these players. You should, too, because these players, without an active coalition will eventually lose interest in the game and quit.

When that happens, the game doesn’t grow.

Every now and then, we make mistakes and come across an active coalition. I can’t speak for other groups, but I know mine politely shows ourselves out, or we make new friends where we send players who don’t want to be part of a big alliance. We have tons of friends we’ve made this way and it’s great for the game.

However, I made a point above that I want to address:

There are likely tens of thousands of coalitions which are either dead or have 1-2 active players in them with an inactive leader. This game should have a recourse for this. Almost every other game does.

It shouldn’t be something that is unknown and inconveniences players, like them having to contact support. After one month inactive, leadership is dropped down to the highest scorer. After 90 days of an entire coalition being inactive, the entire coalition is dissolved.

This would really go a long way in ending the confusion we see here.

There are likely tens of thousands of coalitions which are either dead or have 1-2 active players in them with an inactive leader. This game should have a recourse for this. Almost every other game does. 

It shouldn’t be something that is unknown and inconveniences players, like them having to contact support. After one month inactive, leadership is dropped down to the highest scorer. After 90 days of an entire coalition being inactive, the entire coalition is dissolved. 

This would really go a long way in ending the confusion we see here.