53 replies · 758 views · thread synced · 3 days ago
· View on torn.com
About this thread
Posts archived:54 / 54 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
Archived posts
54
Discussion span
→
Authority score
63 / 100
Historical score
37 / 100
Story score
57 / 100
Engagement score
79 / 100
People posting, likes and official posts are not counted for this thread yet: on threads longer than one page they come from a periodic pass over the archive, which has not covered it.
Most-liked replies
Chedburn[1]Admin
· 16 likes · Why would a co-leader ever require this? Unless the faction has no proper leadership.
Harley[258120]Wiki Contributor
· 9 likes · as I'm also a co-leader, here's my input on the matter:
mug[553318]Committee
· 9 likes · i believe this is a suggestion and not a bug ched posted in beerstein's general thread his view on this.
I'm a co-leader and owner of a well-established faction, but can't upgrade faction tree?!
A co-leader is just as important as the leader and in the absence of the leader (whatever it might be - temporary real life issues etc.) a co-leader should be able to fully manage the faction as he had been trusted to be in the position to run the faction by the leader.
If you can't trust your co-leader - don't have one, simple as that. Might as well remove the option to appoint a co-leader...
In most established old factions the leader is not the owner.
Why put all of the workload on the leader's shoulders when the co-leader is trusted to run the faction when the leader is away? In the old system both leaders could upgrade specials, so why not in this one?
I system as intricate as the upgrade trees needs a single mind / person making the final decisions. Having both leaders and co-leaders making updates can cause confusion and accidents are far more likely to happen.
I also feel that leaders are the actual leaders / owners of a faction - not the co-leaders. And only the actual leaders of factions should have this important ability that can cause harm to a faction if mistreated. If a faction has a leader who is inactive, that entire faction is inactive in my eyes, and the leader must be replaced (by the leader themselves, or automated due to activity) or the faction isn't a real faction.
Ched -- I disagree. You're assuming there isn't team work in factions. For years you wouldn't let Co-Leaders do NAPs.
Don't baby-sit factions. We appreciate your viewpoint; however, If a leader doesn't feel comfortable with their CoLeader making changes, then they a) have the wrong Co-Leader or b) they can just not have no one.
Right now we're switching and switching around Leader role in Relentless and it's a pain and silly. We work together as a team as many faction leaderships do. If a faction has a leadership that isn't a good team, then that's their problem -- not yours.
Alternatively, if you are really fixated on this -- give an option to the Leader to give permission to the CoLeader."
If the game would allow us we would have 3 equal leaders, then we wouldn't need to swap leadership positions, especially during wars. I can understand there's no need for smaller factions.
And like BraveKath said - we work as a team, no important decision is made by the leader only. Let us decide what we can and can't!
For the first couple of weeks (until territories release), unsetting of specialization upgrades will take only one minute. After this time, unsetting will be brought back to the default of 100 hours. This will help factions who accidentally unlock upgrades they do not want or wish to experiment with certain trees.
That is what Ched said.
It seems vitally important the co-leader should be able to make the adjustments during this period, should the leader be offline.
"I system as intricate as the upgrade trees needs a single mind / person making the final decisions. Having both leaders and co-leaders making updates can cause confusion and accidents are far more likely to happen.
I also feel that leaders are the actual leaders / owners of a faction - not the co-leaders. And only the actual leaders of factions should have this important ability that can cause harm to a faction if mistreated. If a faction has a leader who is inactive, that entire faction is inactive in my eyes, and the leader must be replaced (by the leader themselves, or automated due to activity) or the faction isn't a real faction." http://www.torn.com/forums.php#!p=threads&f=2&t=15995231&b=0&a=0&start=40&to=17533207
What happens if I get sick or go to the hospital in real life and I have no access to login then Janet can't do nothing for the 30 or 90 days it takes for her to gain control of leeadership to continue running the faction and upgrades? It slows down and stops proper management of most factions. It takes more then 1 person to effectively run a faction!
Why don't you let us decide what we need? Isn't this game supposed to be a bit like a sandbox? If we feel it's better for us to manage a faction with 2 or even 3 leaders then why wouldn't you allow us to?
It's not a 1 man job to run a 90+ member faction.
Having two people who can do the job is better than one. If one was enough we would set co-leader to no one.
We have co-leaders because 1 leader can't be around 24 hours.
In all major factions, only a person with utmost trust is normally given the post so I don't see any major issue in allowing a co-leader to run upgrades.
Till now, we've had co-leaders declare wars, do NAPs, claim/abandon territories, etc....... why restrict them now?
In any case, as Bravekath, BFM & Htr said above, this decision should be left for the faction & its leader to decide.
This seems to only be reported / supported by factions who have no real leadership currently, so very bias. I cannot make a decision like this, so it could be brought back up for discussion in the future.
I agree with Ched's decision, i don't want my co-leader to have the ability to potentially ruin the hard work and dedication that i have put into my faction, Subversive Alliance.