and basically taking another need to login away from the game. we are making it so simple and promoting inactivity.

I've done some more thinking about this and would like to challenge the idea that automatic contributions are a bad idea.

I still think a tax/fee should be imposed if you want to automatically aid a specific player, but I think we should consider the idea of free automatic deposits into a shared family bank.

I realize that people will think this will lead to players just going inactive as they no longer have to log on to send aid.  Again, I think the thought process isn't correct there.  Those players are going to go inactive anyway.  If they're only logging on to send aid then they aren't really a contributing member of the family to begin with: they're just there for funds.

What this will allow is the removal of the burden from players who go actually do go inactive.  Right now you can spend the first half the round investing into a banker only for him to disappear on you.  That sucks and isn't anybody's fault except that banker but now the whole family suffers.

With inactivity being such a problem, I think this will actually improve things.  If we make inactive players less of an issue then the entire family will lose less when somebody does go inactive, instead of the current system which often leads to a chain reaction of apathy.

I think being able to designate a % of your cash/resource production to go into a family bank (or player with a fee) will help with this problem, not hurt it.

I do understand that argument, but for me it goes back to "meaningful" activity.  To me, aiding isn't necessarily a meaningful thing.  If a players' only contribution to the family is that he logs in to aid, he might as well be automated anyway.

Put it this way, if activity requires dependency on something that could be automated, isn't that activity inherently thoughtless anyway?

That's not quite the same though, because 1) retakes involved multiple levels of decision making within a much more complicated context and more simply 2) it involves non-willing participants.

Aid does involve some planning too, but nothing that couldn't be supplanted with a proper family bank system.  Automating transfers and automating fleet sends don't require the same level of attention, nor the same kind of attention simply by the fact that the targets of the action are very different.

I do get what you mean though, but I think it's because I misstated my point.  Let me say it again this way:

If activity requires dependency on a relatively simple task that only affects willing participants, and this task could be automated, isn't that activity more tedious than strategic?

This is what everybody says and I really don't think this is true, from an individual perspective anyway.

If I'm personally active nearly 24/7 but 3 of my players aren't, I lose no edge here.  This doesn't take away any edge of me being active, rather it lessens the burden of having inactives in your fam, which is a good thing imo.

I will say though, that active families will lose the large gain they currently have simply because they have members who are able to log on to aid, regardless of any actual skill involved.

Active players will still benefit from being active.  All this will do is make it less painful when people do go inactive.  It will make the game more about skill than simply having family members who are active enough to click the aid button.

Aha! Now you're heading towards my idea.  Which suggests that IC needs to move towards Solo play.

Yes, we need to retain the family concept somehow - but my idea is that people need to be wholly responsible for their own empires and inactivity of others, shouldn't affect your own performance.

I completely agree.  I think though, that this concept can also be incorporated into team play if we are thoughtful about it.  I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we should preserve the game's tedium because it requires people to be active.

It's an incredibly high barrier of entry to the casual gamer, a filter.  We're screening out players who can't compete on the same level as the super-active.  In other words, you're either in a family full of active players or you don't stand much of a chance.  We shouldn't be preserving this, we should be figuring out how to change it.

Ah, I see.  I've never heard the 6 docs thing =P

I get what you mean, but I still think that the "vocal majority"  is not reflective of the actual majority.  This is kind of a tagent, but this also is good reason for us to have a feedback process for the community that involves more than just the forum posters.  But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Back to the "tedious" thing, my point is that the act of logging in to send aid isn't indicative of meaningful activity.  As you say, it's very easy to accomplish.  That's the exact reason why automating it won't significantly impact any meaningful interactions between the already-active players.  Rather, it will allow the active players to more easily co-exist with players who can't be quite as active.

It would reduce the pain of inactive team members, rather than causing active ones to be less so as many people seem to be afraid of.

That's a very good point, which is why I do understand the argument against this.

However, I worry that we're taking this too far.  I've used this example elsewhere but I'll give it again in here: what if sending fleets required entering a CAPTCHA?  By the logic above, the addition of this required action would improve activity.

Of course that's ridiculous, but I think it's an appropriate analogy in that people seem to be so against removing something because it will cause required activity to drop and therefore non-required activity will also drop.  It's an understandable argument but one based in assumption and feeling more than reason and logic.

And I don't mean that to say to say people aren't logical, but rather that there is a logical fallacy at play with the stament, "A task requiring activity means that if you remove the need to do the task, activity will suffer".  Like I said, people who want to be active will be active anyway.  You may lose the benefit of "hooking" people in by said required activity, as you suggest.  However I think the value of those gained players isn't worth the value of players we lose by requiring such meaningless tasks in order to be successful.