It would help the leaders of alliances if there was a way to tell when the last time there members were on. That would help keep track of the members that are actually helping it grow please add this in an update:)
Actually a very good idea.in my alliance I always kick that player who does not donate for the continuous 4 days without posting any valid reason.i had already kicked around twenty non helping players from the day I formed my alliance.if your suggestion get included then it would be great help to the leaders to track precisely.
I definitely agree with this
I would also like to see how much players donate when they aren’t a member of an alliance, so I don’t have to kick them right after accepting the application when I find out they only donate 2,000.
I could see and understand the reason for this but it seems a little quick to kick someone based on that reason because players like even I as a leader are offline for multiple days at a time for personal matters, work, and school and are unable to donate. Some of Our members in the Alliance have the same issue but they make sure to at least donate within a week and to also remain from going inactive. I’m not saying on how other Alliance’s should be run but solely to kick a player on this seems a bit much and even to the lower donating half of Alliances. United We Stand has members that still donate 5,000 but We stick together because We’re a team and lower members provide as much contribution and chat aid as Everyone.
Just my idea on it being a reason for kicking someone, I’d like to have the option to see when my members are online to announce a message or get ahold of someone since some members don’t have or don’t access to the forums.
This is really your first post? I feel bad for anyone in your ban-happy alliances.
I think one of the biggest problems with the alliance update right now is that they are too competitive. Don’t get me wrong, competition is good and can lead to further involvement (perhaps obsession) with the game, which leads to more revenue and more dedication, both good things for Flaregames.
Generally, when alliances or guilds or anything of the sort is implemented in a massively multiplayer game like Royal Revolt II, there are two paths the game can take. One path is that the game remains a cutthroat, competitively fun battling game where the players unwilling to invest enough time quit playing, and this is the path Royal Revolt II appears to have taken thus far. We shall see what the end of the road will be, but it is too early to tell now. The other path is that the game becomes more of a social media site of sorts. In general, every game with a good global chat generally becomes a social media site, where people log on to talk to their friends more than to play the game. While this path tends to have more loyalty from its fans, it also becomes less glamorous and generates less revenue due to the lack of competition. I’m a fan of both paths, but we’ll have to see where Flaregames goes.