**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Kicking Members Before Season Rewards End - Solution
mum_m2
Posts: 1,776 ★★★★
Problem: This is by far the worst part about this game and to screw someone over like this is awful. Just don't do it. Officers and leaders have 0 right to take away rewards for someone who's seemingly earned it regardless. It's on the officers and leaders to recruit solid people, and if you kick someone in the final days because you think they didn't do anything to earn it other than even being there, then that's on the officers and leaders for recruiting that person.
Here's a solution to the problem.
Just had a thought as to how prevent officers and leaders from kicking members before rewards come in.
When rewards come, if there's anything less than a full number of rewards given to the alliance there is a 10% penalty to everyone in the alliance for those rewards.
So, lets say you have 20 people in your alliance, and you end up in silver 1. You are expecting 1000 5* shards 1000 4* shards etc. but if you were to kick any member in the final 5 wars, you then would only get 900 5* shards etc. Kick out two members and you lose 20% and so forth.
If the game could recognize the number of eligible members vs the number of kicks in the final 5 wars, it could easily determine this penalty.
Just an idea. Haven't heard it before. Correct me if wrong.
Here's a solution to the problem.
Just had a thought as to how prevent officers and leaders from kicking members before rewards come in.
When rewards come, if there's anything less than a full number of rewards given to the alliance there is a 10% penalty to everyone in the alliance for those rewards.
So, lets say you have 20 people in your alliance, and you end up in silver 1. You are expecting 1000 5* shards 1000 4* shards etc. but if you were to kick any member in the final 5 wars, you then would only get 900 5* shards etc. Kick out two members and you lose 20% and so forth.
If the game could recognize the number of eligible members vs the number of kicks in the final 5 wars, it could easily determine this penalty.
Just an idea. Haven't heard it before. Correct me if wrong.
11
Comments
and yes, @Drooped2 that real world analogy can work. because if your boss fires someone on your team, your work load increases without getting more pay.
but you can't say that the current system is working because it's obviously not.
I do like the idea of the "pro-rata" basis as another person pointed out tho. or the alliance should lock everyone into the last 5 wars to prevent them from kicking at all. just bouncing ideas.
I think the rewards should be distributed based on points earned for the alliance during the season, so if you did next to nothing you get next to nothing, if you were an MVP, you get the best rewards. Everyone should be participating equally (roughly) and therefore should mostly come out with a similar amount of points.
No. See that's not right. It's your responsibility to recruit people who belong with you. You should not have the right to take something away when the game dictates for you who is eligible for those rewards. Even if they do nothing at all, under the current eligibility rules, they earned those rewards. It should never be up to you to take that away from someone.
If the game wants to change it based on points they'd have to make a lot more changes to the way the do war. Some paths automatically give you more points as it stands right now. So it's not fair to someone who died 10 times on path 1 or two but explored all of it to someone who cleared path 5 up until their mini.
For example. Player 1 is in a gold 1 alliance all season. Player 1’s phone breaks somehow after the cutoff. Can’t come back to help the alliance with the final 4-5 wars. The alliance can remove the account knowing that it will receive the rewards, while bringing in a spare account that won’t receive the rewards.
Remember the requirements would be to have 5 wars done before the 5 wars remaining cutoff. Because in theory the alliance couldn’t cut someone and bring in someone so both get the rewards. So it would still be the same amount of prizes handed out to that alliance. And it would force alliances to make decisions before that cutoff. Also if too much “power” is put in the hands of the player (like not try after the cutoff) the alliance can still kick the person and bring in help. While they still get the rewards it’s fair because they were there for most if not all the season.
so there's 12 wars to a season - so if member 17 competes in 5 of those wars then they are eligible. if members 17 gets kicked with less than 5 wars to go, how would they retain their eligibility if they were to move to a different alliance to help them out?
this is why i think a penalty would just deter any officer or leader from doing so, because they would be hurting not only themselves but everyone else in the alliance for kicking people out. if there's a member that cannot access the game for whatever reason, and the alliance needs to kick that individual to retain their standing in the war bracket then that should kick that person out and find a replacement.
this could also just apply to just after matchmaking closes for the last time of war season
basically, my thought is, if the officers are going to be jerks about doing it, you're going to hurt everyone in your alliance by doing so including yourself.
The problem with this is Kabam would have to somehow implement something to make sure players only get season rewards from one alliance. What would stop a player from earning rewards in one alliance and hopping to another to get those rewards too? Also what if someone starts in Gold 2, does 5 wars, then goes to Gold 1? What determines your rewards?
And its all well and good saying 'you should only recruit good people', but unfortunately, people lie.
I'm just saying, the vast majority of people who get kicked without rewards actually deserve it. This is a game of commitment and dedication. And yes, real life does take priority over a game, but if your life is that hectic that you can't get on at least every 5 hours during wars and quests to use your energy, a good alliance won't keep you long.
I am strongly against kicking before rewards come in. Almost as much as I am about this idea.
Only way around this problem would be make the rewards individual. If you stayed in an alliance for 5 AW you get those rewards.
If you bounce from alliance to alliance it will go off the alliance you spent most time with.
If the account joins a new Alliance and stays untill season rewards are handed out he gets their rewards if he participate in at least 5 wars again(might be better. Might be worse). If not he gets what hes been flaged for. If he doesnt join a new Alliance he also gets what hes been flaged for.
Except you have no right to those rewards until kabam says you do, after they calculated the points. Also if you did nothing youve "earned" nothing, your alliance earned them, not you., it is a group effort not individual.
you didnt think that ahead did you.... So imagine alliance number 1, best in the game, they play 5 matches, remove a couple people, play 5 more, remove some people, play 5 more. Every person who played now get the top ranked package, who cares if it is say, 50 people?
but that's not the eligibility rules. it might not be right sure, but that's not how it is. the only requirement is to be there for 5 wars.
and how would someone be untouchable by what I'm suggesting.
I've suggested:
A penalty for kicking people in the last 5 wars - not a popular or preferable method of addressing the problem.
A lock after final match making to kick people out of the alliance before rewards come in.
EDIT: There's also a direct incentive to doing wars for people. The best people compete in every war to earn war rewards.
That IS eligibility rules, the rules are eligibility is you must have completed 5 matches with that alliance AND be a member of that alliance when the timer runs out. A better incentive would be to just stop being a bad player and contribute properly.
you could carry atleast 9 crappy players without any difficulty change, plus a but load of good players and still come out..
Aren’t you creating an incentive to perform really well over 5 wars and then beg to get kicked? The player could lock in high rewards with no consequence for the alliance going on a losing streak and dropping a tier.