Uncollected

CapWW2

Plantesan wrote: »

I can understand the reasoning to the OP. I’m curious though about how often you ask for screenshots?

Monthly

IOSJasoN

@CapWW2 (This is a bit of a tough post)

I completely agree there should be a different colour title (Only reason I see for not having one is maybe they don't want any high up players to feel embarrassed for not being able to 100% it)

And I completely agree an alliance can set out any rules they like (You must do a handstand for 5 hour straight twice a day) as long as the rules are put to the players upfront before joining.. Then it's entirely their choice to join or not..

However.. I disagree with your main reason for wanting the different title.. I also disagree about the asking of screen shots.. It sounds like there's no trust whatsoever with in your alliance and a member is required to prove their innocence (following the rules).. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right for me.. Seems quite sad.. When I used to play in an alliance they became a second family, asking them every month to provide proof they belong in your family just seems disrespectful..

Anyway to sum up.. Title, I agree.. Alliance rules, I agree.. Reason for it, I disagree..
2 our of 3 isn't bad..

Supermanoj

There's certain guys i know and trust to do the monthly uncollected EQ without having to get the screenshot to know they've done it. They're very competitive and don't like wasting opportunities to get further resources. But there's others who need that push and structure to make them attain those goals otherwise they'd let it slide. I post my screenshot publicly so everyone knows I'm not trying to pull a fast one and there's complete transparency from me as well. When it's very easy to fall down in the ranks, because of stagnant progression, officers and leaders need to ensure the chances of this happening are slim and that you constantly overtake the competition.

CapWW2

Supermanoj wrote: »

There's certain guys i know and trust to do the monthly uncollected EQ without having to get the screenshot to know they've done it. They're very competitive and don't like wasting opportunities to get further resources. But there's others who need that push and structure to make them attain those goals otherwise they'd let it slide. I post my screenshot publicly so everyone knows I'm not trying to pull a fast one and there's complete transparency from me as well. When it's very easy to fall down in the ranks, because of stagnant progression, officers and leaders need to ensure the chances of this happening are slim and that you constantly overtake the competition.

I trust my main core. We are 15 guys who have stayed for years. But we have tons of new guys. It is not disrespectful in any way. If you completed the quest and you have nothing to hide providing proof should not be an issue. This how I handle things.

I am in your same boat. Why have 20 guys pushing for top monthly rewards and 10 tanking. People attacking us for a tittle request should look in mirror.

CapWW2

IOSJasoN wrote: »

@CapWW2 (This is a bit of a tough post)

I completely agree there should be a different colour title (Only reason I see for not having one is maybe they don't want any high up players to feel embarrassed for not being able to 100% it)

And I completely agree an alliance can set out any rules they like (You must do a handstand for 5 hour straight twice a day) as long as the rules are put to the players upfront before joining.. Then it's entirely their choice to join or not..

However.. I disagree with your main reason for wanting the different title.. I also disagree about the asking of screen shots.. It sounds like there's no trust whatsoever with in your alliance and a member is required to prove their innocence (following the rules).. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right for me.. Seems quite sad.. When I used to play in an alliance they became a second family, asking them every month to provide proof they belong in your family just seems disrespectful..

Anyway to sum up.. Title, I agree.. Alliance rules, I agree.. Reason for it, I disagree..
2 our of 3 isn't bad..

This is a game and at the same time all 30 need a common goal. I display requirements in chat before they join. If you dont agree dont join.

I give all members freedom to rank champs.
I require Act 5 100 percent.
I require uncollencted and master quest monthly.
I play AQ 3 & 4
I play AW 2 Bgs and freedom to rotate and take breaks.
I do not have minimums.
All events optional except Item use, SA and completion.
I required LOL easy path.

These are the leaders and officers rules. If people dont comply they get kicked plain and simple.

Tittles make my life easy because we have deadlines for accomplishments.

Primmer79

CapWW2 wrote: »

IOSJasoN wrote: »

@CapWW2 (This is a bit of a tough post)

I completely agree there should be a different colour title (Only reason I see for not having one is maybe they don't want any high up players to feel embarrassed for not being able to 100% it)

And I completely agree an alliance can set out any rules they like (You must do a handstand for 5 hour straight twice a day) as long as the rules are put to the players upfront before joining.. Then it's entirely their choice to join or not..

However.. I disagree with your main reason for wanting the different title.. I also disagree about the asking of screen shots.. It sounds like there's no trust whatsoever with in your alliance and a member is required to prove their innocence (following the rules).. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right for me.. Seems quite sad.. When I used to play in an alliance they became a second family, asking them every month to provide proof they belong in your family just seems disrespectful..

Anyway to sum up.. Title, I agree.. Alliance rules, I agree.. Reason for it, I disagree..
2 our of 3 isn't bad..

This is a game and at the same time all 30 need a common goal. I display requirements in chat before they join. If you dont agree dont join.

I give all members freedom to rank champs.
I require Act 5 100 percent.
I require uncollencted and master quest monthly.
I play AQ 3 & 4
I play AW 2 Bgs and freedom to rotate and take breaks.
I do not have minimums.
All events optional except Item use, SA and completion.
I required LOL easy path.

These are the leaders and officers rules. If people dont comply they get kicked plain and simple.

Tittles make my life easy because we have deadlines for accomplishments.

On a completely unrelated note, I am curious about some of your rules. I usually see some of your rules in more competitive alliances, because it aids everyone. But that usually means at least map 5 for AQ or 3 bgs in war to stay competitive in seasons. Just curious for why you do that you do, as I can't make that correlation for your guys.

CapWW2

Primmer79 wrote: »

CapWW2 wrote: »

IOSJasoN wrote: »

@CapWW2 (This is a bit of a tough post)

I completely agree there should be a different colour title (Only reason I see for not having one is maybe they don't want any high up players to feel embarrassed for not being able to 100% it)

And I completely agree an alliance can set out any rules they like (You must do a handstand for 5 hour straight twice a day) as long as the rules are put to the players upfront before joining.. Then it's entirely their choice to join or not..

However.. I disagree with your main reason for wanting the different title.. I also disagree about the asking of screen shots.. It sounds like there's no trust whatsoever with in your alliance and a member is required to prove their innocence (following the rules).. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right for me.. Seems quite sad.. When I used to play in an alliance they became a second family, asking them every month to provide proof they belong in your family just seems disrespectful..

Anyway to sum up.. Title, I agree.. Alliance rules, I agree.. Reason for it, I disagree..
2 our of 3 isn't bad..

This is a game and at the same time all 30 need a common goal. I display requirements in chat before they join. If you dont agree dont join.

I give all members freedom to rank champs.
I require Act 5 100 percent.
I require uncollencted and master quest monthly.
I play AQ 3 & 4
I play AW 2 Bgs and freedom to rotate and take breaks.
I do not have minimums.
All events optional except Item use, SA and completion.
I required LOL easy path.

These are the leaders and officers rules. If people dont comply they get kicked plain and simple.

Tittles make my life easy because we have deadlines for accomplishments.

On a completely unrelated note, I am curious about some of your rules. I usually see some of your rules in more competitive alliances, because it aids everyone. But that usually means at least map 5 for AQ or 3 bgs in war to stay competitive in seasons. Just curious for why you do that you do, as I can't make that correlation for your guys.

Because we are relax but competitive. We like to be middle class in the game. We are not a dead alliance

Primmer79

CapWW2 wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

CapWW2 wrote: »

IOSJasoN wrote: »

@CapWW2 (This is a bit of a tough post)

I completely agree there should be a different colour title (Only reason I see for not having one is maybe they don't want any high up players to feel embarrassed for not being able to 100% it)

And I completely agree an alliance can set out any rules they like (You must do a handstand for 5 hour straight twice a day) as long as the rules are put to the players upfront before joining.. Then it's entirely their choice to join or not..

However.. I disagree with your main reason for wanting the different title.. I also disagree about the asking of screen shots.. It sounds like there's no trust whatsoever with in your alliance and a member is required to prove their innocence (following the rules).. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right for me.. Seems quite sad.. When I used to play in an alliance they became a second family, asking them every month to provide proof they belong in your family just seems disrespectful..

Anyway to sum up.. Title, I agree.. Alliance rules, I agree.. Reason for it, I disagree..
2 our of 3 isn't bad..

This is a game and at the same time all 30 need a common goal. I display requirements in chat before they join. If you dont agree dont join.

I give all members freedom to rank champs.
I require Act 5 100 percent.
I require uncollencted and master quest monthly.
I play AQ 3 & 4
I play AW 2 Bgs and freedom to rotate and take breaks.
I do not have minimums.
All events optional except Item use, SA and completion.
I required LOL easy path.

These are the leaders and officers rules. If people dont comply they get kicked plain and simple.

Tittles make my life easy because we have deadlines for accomplishments.

On a completely unrelated note, I am curious about some of your rules. I usually see some of your rules in more competitive alliances, because it aids everyone. But that usually means at least map 5 for AQ or 3 bgs in war to stay competitive in seasons. Just curious for why you do that you do, as I can't make that correlation for your guys.

Because we are relax but competitive. We like to be middle class in the game. We are not a dead alliance

I'm not saying you are dead, I'm mainly curious. What are you competitive in? It sounds like lower AQ and lower War (for seasons anyway). Im curious as to your viewpoint of the game/alliance. Honestly. I guess the only thing I can think of is a relaxed alliance to compete on a war-to-war basis, while giving members a flexible schedule. But, like I said, its a guess, I wanted to know your thoughts.

CapWW2

Primmer79 wrote: »

CapWW2 wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

CapWW2 wrote: »

IOSJasoN wrote: »

@CapWW2 (This is a bit of a tough post)

I completely agree there should be a different colour title (Only reason I see for not having one is maybe they don't want any high up players to feel embarrassed for not being able to 100% it)

And I completely agree an alliance can set out any rules they like (You must do a handstand for 5 hour straight twice a day) as long as the rules are put to the players upfront before joining.. Then it's entirely their choice to join or not..

However.. I disagree with your main reason for wanting the different title.. I also disagree about the asking of screen shots.. It sounds like there's no trust whatsoever with in your alliance and a member is required to prove their innocence (following the rules).. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right for me.. Seems quite sad.. When I used to play in an alliance they became a second family, asking them every month to provide proof they belong in your family just seems disrespectful..

Anyway to sum up.. Title, I agree.. Alliance rules, I agree.. Reason for it, I disagree..
2 our of 3 isn't bad..

This is a game and at the same time all 30 need a common goal. I display requirements in chat before they join. If you dont agree dont join.

I give all members freedom to rank champs.
I require Act 5 100 percent.
I require uncollencted and master quest monthly.
I play AQ 3 & 4
I play AW 2 Bgs and freedom to rotate and take breaks.
I do not have minimums.
All events optional except Item use, SA and completion.
I required LOL easy path.

These are the leaders and officers rules. If people dont comply they get kicked plain and simple.

Tittles make my life easy because we have deadlines for accomplishments.

On a completely unrelated note, I am curious about some of your rules. I usually see some of your rules in more competitive alliances, because it aids everyone. But that usually means at least map 5 for AQ or 3 bgs in war to stay competitive in seasons. Just curious for why you do that you do, as I can't make that correlation for your guys.

Because we are relax but competitive. We like to be middle class in the game. We are not a dead alliance

I'm not saying you are dead, I'm mainly curious. What are you competitive in? It sounds like lower AQ and lower War (for seasons anyway). Im curious as to your viewpoint of the game/alliance. Honestly. I guess the only thing I can think of is a relaxed alliance to compete on a war-to-war basis, while giving members a flexible schedule. But, like I said, its a guess, I wanted to know your thoughts.

We are competitive in Alliance war just like u said. In order to remain competitive we must complete all monthly quest to be able to rank champs and keep getting 6 stars shards and maybe good 5 stars.