Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Don’t want clans to get jacked but ...

  1. #41
    Pro Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Climbing Mt. Ebott
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Deafkate View Post
    [Dear Jesus, do I ever hate forums. People don’t take the time to read what has been posted in their rush to bloviate nonsensical blather. I take solace knowing that I am not alone. Amen]

    Your guess on who would corner the market on clans make no sense to me. After Prohibition ended in the US, there was not an explosion of speakeasies all over the country. How can anyone corner the market of clans when the biggest producer, Supercell, is in the market? Why would only people with ill intent get the clans? Who are they hoping to sell them to if “buyers” can go to the source and legitimately resurrect one?

    You still say “stolen” but it is not stolen if you pay Supercell for it. Under the current rules an inactive leader is demoted to member after 90 days. After cycling through the rest of the coleaders, Supercell will have “stolen” it from you.

    I think that my proposal strengthens the community aspect because, instead of returning to a dead clan, you might return to find what other clashers have built upon the foundation you started.
    Apparently my response was so blasphemous that the name of Jesus Christ was invoked. One more for forums bingo. Anyway, you don't need sesquipedalianism to sound smart. Just make good points.

    There are a very limited number of high level clans. What ends up happening is people make spam accounts and steal any available clans they can find. That's literally my point.

    I say steal because the players put time and effort into raising a clan, but others, without their consent, are taking it away from them and reaping the rewards. I guess if that doesn't count as stealing then we must find a new term for raiding resources. How about "borrowing and never giving back?" Because that's what's going to happen.

    Apparently the complete stranger who takes over the clan will be forever grateful to the inactive accounts that created the clan. As such, they will deify them and offer sacrifices to them every Monday.
    Last edited by Ostentatious; April 25th, 2021 at 12:50 AM.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ostentatious View Post
    Apparently my response was so blasphemous that the name of Jesus Christ was invoked. One more for forums bingo. Anyway, you don't need sesquipedalianism to sound smart. Just make good points.

    There are a very limited number of high level clans. What ends up happening is people make spam accounts and steal any available clans they can find. That's literally my point.

    I say steal because the players put time and effort into raising a clan, but others, without their consent, are taking it away from them and reaping the rewards. I guess if that doesn't count as stealing then we must find a new term for raiding resources. How about "borrowing and never giving back?" Because that's what's going to happen.

    Apparently the complete stranger who takes over the clan will be forever grateful to the inactive accounts that created the clan. As such, they will deify them and offer sacrifices to them every Monday.
    Haha. I think you got my joke then. “Sesquipedalianism”, quite an ironic word. I am not alone. Let’s see about making good points.

    You keep saying “steal” based on, I guess, a moral right to the fruits of one’s time and effort. However, Supercell literally owns the clans. See the terms. That’s why a clan cannot be stolen from clashers because they literally don’t own it. Under the current rules and adopting your moral right of ownership, Supercell is already literally stealing the clans from clashers if they are inactive for too long. Under current rules, clashers who are leaders of a clan cannot leave the game indefinitely and expect to retain their leadership. By the time they come back, they should expect to be demoted to member in a clan with an inactive leader and no way of regaining leadership. Clan dead, lost, gone. And that can happen in as few as 90 days under the current rules. That is my point. My proposal adds a couple more steps (taking years to run to give lots of time to clan leaders to log in) to the current process that allow clans to live on.

    Your point about the spam accounts soaking up all the high level accounts is a guess of what might happen. But your guess is only focusing on the actions of the scammers. Scammers scam if there is an unmet demand they can exploit. Your guess does not consider the change in behavior of the people the scammers are trying to scam. If those people have a legitimate marketplace to go find a clan, instead of going to a scammer, then the scammer runs out of customers. Also, unlike your assumption, the scammers won’t be the only ones looking for those dead clans so they would be competing with reasonably active clashers. And the resurrection fee would make it even less worthwhile for scammers. Granted not complete eradication, but meaningful reduction.

    People dress up as archer queens and barbarian kings, so why not make sacrifices to clan founders? I would probably give gifts of gems, but probably only once a year.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by chased123456 View Post
    Never once did I suggest you ever were suggesting a name change. Thats a very tough interpretation to get to so I'm not entirely sure why you felt the need to add this.

    Next im really not sure you understand what leaders can do. When someone is leader of a clan they can demote and kick anyone out. It doesn't matter if they were once leader or a very old co leader. The leader has the power to remove them. So back to my example.

    My friends and I stop playing for +2 years and we come back because whatever. The following events could have happened under your idea:
    1) Our closed clan got set to anyone can join.
    2) a new player joined and got leader
    3) the new person kicked me and all my friends out of the clan
    4) we return expecting to be in the clan we made for our group of friends for us to be kicked and clanless

    So again who is this idea actually good for? You make this sound like people should be happy they got their clan taken. And since you love saying supercell owns the clans so they can't be stolen, feelings do not have to follow a legal basis. They can feel like something was taken even if its not theirs. So if I came back expecting to still be leader of the clan dead clan and looking forward to reviving it with my friends and ut was taken by someone else, why should I be happy? Why should I be excited the thing I was excited to do was ruined? If the clan was closed and had always been closed because it was a friend and family clan, why should I be thrilled its thriving when it was never meant to have strangers? Your " welcome back" sounds like its just a slap in the face and we are expected to say thank you.

    Lastly as I pointed out supercell has expressed they have an interest in returning players being able to find their old clans whether or not you believe this fact. How does this idea encourage this even if youre the only person left in the clan and you can have it taken while its closed?

    First, I was not aware of the clan name change and acknowledging that we agreed that clan names should not be changed. And it’s great that clan names can’t be changed. I believe that Supercell has an interest in having clashers find their way back to familiar clans. My proposal helps that goal.

    You are describing a very special fact pattern. How many friends are in your clan? Do you all maintain contact outside of Clash of Clans? Will all of you always be sure to be able to get back to your Clash of Clans account? Assuming five friends in a clan with one leader and four coleaders, then under the current rules, if you come back after 450 days (5 x 90 day cycle for promotion to leader and demotion to member), you can continue with your clan as long as the account the leader role landed on is a friend you can reach outside of Clash of Clans and they can still access their account. If not, the clan is lost because, with an inactive leader and a few members, no one can be promoted and no one can start clan wars. Clan is dead after 450 days, less than two years. If you want to call it “stolen” because of your feelings, then it has been “stolen” by Supercell. Those are the current rules. Happy now?

    Under my proposal, in your specific example, there would be another 365 days for any existing member to “claim leader role” without a resurrection fee. You and your four friends would have a total of 815 days to get active in your clan again. My proposal helps clashers return to an active, usable clan.

    By discussing the leaders powers were you suggesting that one of your friends would be leader, kick everyone else, and close the clan to keep it for future use? That could retain the clan indefinitely as long as the designated friend can be reached outside of Clash of Clans and keeps the account. Under my proposal, the designated friend would have to log in to the account once every 455 days (90 + 365) to restart the clock. Under my proposal, you could keep all your friends in the clan and, after the first 815 days, anyone of you could login once every 455 days to restart the clock. How is that not an improvement for your fact pattern?

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by eitiel View Post
    I like the OP idea, BUT I think the resurrection fee should be paid with actual money, something like 100$ for a dead level 10 clan. Otherwise you aren't making SC part of the market, but only gifting lots of dead clans to the black market.

    With such a high price, the black market dealers wouldn't be interested in resurrecting clans. And possibly neither would be those same clans ex-members. But if they really care for that name and war log, "let them pay with a smile".
    The price for each level would need to determined based on supply and demand. I would expect that Supercell has the marketing data to determine the right price to deter scammers, keep clashers from going to scammers, and make money for themselves.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by toofinedog View Post
    This idea isnt great since you can probably take a brand new clan to lv 10 (or close enough to be acceptable growth) with b2b wars, CWL, and clan games in 730 days.

    If you plan to rebut with, "a new clan needs 5 for war, 13 for clan games (to max), and 15 for CWL," consider you need the same number of players to do the same things in the clan you're trying to hijack, so what's the point of stealing a high level clan when you don't have enough players do anything with it?

    The 730 days is the time to make sure the clan is good and dead so that it is not hijacked from an active leader. It makes it very inconvenient scammers to sit around for two years hoping that no one logs in even once to restart the clock.

    For a reasonably active player that doesn’t have all the connections you do, they could choose between starting a new clan at level one for 40000 gold and start recruiting members or spend more, maybe even real money, for a level 10 clan and start recruiting from there. Clashers can spend money to accelerate upgrades for their villages. Clashers are turning to scammers for a similar option for clans. Supercell does not need to legally but maybe morally they should develop a fair process within the game to reduce scammers influence and help keep clashers from getting scammed.
    Last edited by Deafkate; April 25th, 2021 at 10:33 AM.

  6.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Deafkate View Post
    The 730 days is the time to make sure the clan is good and dead so that it is not hijacked from an active leader. It makes it very inconvenient scammers to sit around for two years hoping that no one logs in even once to restart the clock.

    For a reasonably active player that doesn’t have all the connections you do, they could choose between starting a new clan at level one for 40000 gold and start recruiting members or spend more, maybe even real money, for a level 10 clan and start recruiting from there. Clashers can spend money to accelerate upgrades for their villages. Clashers are turning to scammers for a similar option for clans. Supercell does not need to legally but maybe morally they should develop a fair process within the game to reduce scammers influence and help keep clashers from getting scammed.
    If Supercell want people to be able to accelerate advancement of clans, then I am sure they will introduce ways to do so.

    I am also 100% certain it would not involve your idea.

    Your idea is clearly advantageous jainly to black marketeers/scammers, which is bad for the game. Sobwhat advantage does it bring to the game which will offset that?

    Nobody here has yet given any real advantages to the game from this idea, just to a few lazy players.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajax View Post
    (1) Supercell never to my knowledge attempt to return lost leadership. Support say they do not get involved in clan politics, and consider lost leadership to be such.


    (2) There is, but only because people are too lazy/greedy/impatient to put in the required effort to get a high level clan.


    (3) I don't think either of those are better, and I also think that the number of times this would happen is so minuscule as to be not worth considering as a reason for making a not insignificant change.


    (4) This might just reduce the value a little. It certainly wouldn't cause the problem to go away, but instead would significantly increase it, since it would now be very much easier for the scammers to get hold of a clan.



    (5) Actually, clan levels is one of the things in Clash that you can't pay to rush. This would introduce a back door method of doing so.


    (6) No they aren't.
    Any clan leader can choose to transfer the leadership to any other player they choose. No restrictions at all.



    (7) They most certainly do NOT need a way to lift these so-called restrictions.

    (8) There is no doubt whatsoever that the main result of the change would be a significant increase in the black market in clans.

    (9) And I can't see any real benefit to it for legitimate players.
    Briefly responding to each of Ajax’s statements. I am a trainee and not as adept at the formatting as our moderator, Ajax. I have numbered the paragraphs from Ajax prior post to respond to each comment below.

    (1) Exactly. Totally agree. That is what I meant. Thank you for confirming.

    (2) You just described all of humanity and the reason Supercell, like most profitable businesses, makes money. This is a reason Supercell should offer a resurrection option to the clan life cycle. There is a need to be filled.

    (3) You don’t think either finding the clan active or finding a button to resurrect it is better than finding it dead? If the choice is between chocolate or vanilla you would rather have none. If the choice is between going to Paris or Hawaii, you would rather stay home. If the choice is between losing your eyesight or hearing, you would rather die. Under the current rules, there is a significant chance of losing a clan to an inactive leader after a long absence. The proposal adds a couple of steps to the existing leader rotation process.

    (4) You just said in paragraph (3) that “the times it would happen is minuscule” but here you say it happens so much that it increases the scammer problem. Which is it? Scammers scam because clashers are looking for an upgrade they cannot find in the game. If there is a legitimate, in-game option, reasonably active clashers will scoop up available clans as fast as scammers and not turn to black market websites.

    (5) I know. That is what I am saying is part of the problem. There is a need which scammers fill. The scammers are the back door method. My proposal makes it a legitimate part of the game.

    (6) This has nothing to do with what my proposal addresses. Of course leaders can abdicate the role to others. The proposal is addressing the problem when a leader of the clan is inactive and another leader cannot be appointed. If there is an active, responsible leader then this issue doesn’t arise.

    (7) If the scammers are a problem Supercell wants to address then they need to provide a legitimate, in-game option to close the back door that clashers are turning to scammers for.

    (8) There is no certainty of this whatsoever. It is totally false that black market clans would increase. When Prohibition ended in the US there was not an increase in illegal alcohol sales. With my proposal, scammers would be competing for supply with reasonably active clashers. Then they would be hoping to sell it in a black market for more than what they just paid Supercell. Which will be risky because the black market would have fewer customers since clashers would have a legitimate, in-game option.

    (9) Benefits to my proposal are discussed through out the thread. I will try to clearly summarize here: 1. Not eradicate, but reduce black market; 2. Provide reasonably active clashers an option to upgrade clans faster; 3. Give clashers more time before their clan becomes dead from the current leader rotation process; 4. Give clashers a way to resurrect there clan if it ends up stuck with an inactive leader account; 5. Increase the chances that a long absent clasher will return to an active clan

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Deafkate View Post
    First, I was not aware of the clan name change and acknowledging that we agreed that clan names should not be changed. And it’s great that clan names can’t be changed. I believe that Supercell has an interest in having clashers find their way back to familiar clans. My proposal helps that goal.

    You are describing a very special fact pattern. How many friends are in your clan? Do you all maintain contact outside of Clash of Clans? Will all of you always be sure to be able to get back to your Clash of Clans account? Assuming five friends in a clan with one leader and four coleaders, then under the current rules, if you come back after 450 days (5 x 90 day cycle for promotion to leader and demotion to member), you can continue with your clan as long as the account the leader role landed on is a friend you can reach outside of Clash of Clans and they can still access their account. If not, the clan is lost because, with an inactive leader and a few members, no one can be promoted and no one can start clan wars. Clan is dead after 450 days, less than two years. If you want to call it “stolen” because of your feelings, then it has been “stolen” by Supercell. Those are the current rules. Happy now?

    Under my proposal, in your specific example, there would be another 365 days for any existing member to “claim leader role” without a resurrection fee. You and your four friends would have a total of 815 days to get active in your clan again. My proposal helps clashers return to an active, usable clan.

    By discussing the leaders powers were you suggesting that one of your friends would be leader, kick everyone else, and close the clan to keep it for future use? That could retain the clan indefinitely as long as the designated friend can be reached outside of Clash of Clans and keeps the account. Under my proposal, the designated friend would have to log in to the account once every 455 days (90 + 365) to restart the clock. Under my proposal, you could keep all your friends in the clan and, after the first 815 days, anyone of you could login once every 455 days to restart the clock. How is that not an improvement for your fact pattern?
    So really simple solution to my fact pattern that you seem very adverse to. Don't force closed and invite only clans to open. My problem is solved. Very simple. Let people go inactive without being punished. It happens. Your idea is truly punishing to various groups of people even outside of my fact pattern your stuck on. I gave an example and your solution is "just don't go inactive" which doesn't always happen. You have to consider how players who don't play your way will react too.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by chased123456 View Post
    So really simple solution to my fact pattern that you seem very adverse to. Don't force closed and invite only clans to open. My problem is solved. Very simple. Let people go inactive without being punished. It happens. Your idea is truly punishing to various groups of people even outside of my fact pattern your stuck on. I gave an example and your solution is "just don't go inactive" which doesn't always happen. You have to consider how players who don't play your way will react too.

    I would not call it perfect, but would not be adverse to it.

    Also, as you must be aware, but just to be clear for other readers, all it would take is for one friend to open their account, just to look at the village, scroll through the clan rooster, or browse the latest changes to reset the clock.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Deafkate View Post
    I would not call it perfect, but would not be adverse to it.

    Also, as you must be aware, but just to be clear for other readers, all it would take is for one friend to open their account, just to look at the village, scroll through the clan rooster, or browse the latest changes to reset the clock.
    I think whats hurting this conversation is you refuse to acknowledge there are many players who have not played for years and did not sign in quarterly or semiannually during that time. There are clans who haven't done that either. However some of these players are coming back and we see them on the forums asking for help catching up. You need to consider the experience of a returning player and what your idea does to these players.

    The irony here is you complained about people not reading before rushing their answers and this is the 3rd or 4th time I've addressed returning players and you still have yet to discuss returning players in any of your responses. Instead you seem to only talk about players that are on breaks.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •