As soon as an account reaches the required number of AWs(5) he gets flaged for getting season rewards. If the account leaves the alliance a snapshot of the current Alliance Rank in aw will be taken and bound to the account. Lets say its silver2.
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.
Player 9 in last war of season decides to screw your allaince cause it's his buddies allaince your facing.
Hes untouchable and gets rewards for screwing you over..
Yup that's gonna be awesome
Im pretty damn sure thats a tiny minority compared to the "lets boot him. He dont deserve the rewards" mentality. Also just because you think he performed bad on porpuse doesnt prove its the truth. Lets assume he dc'd in one fight and having lags in another. Would you believe it or just assume he wants to do his buddy a favor ? Lets assume further next war its you whos facing his old buddies when everything is on the line...
Good times getting booted just because someone assume right ?
As soon as an account reaches the required number of AWs(5) he gets flaged for getting season rewards. If the account leaves the alliance a snapshot of the current Alliance Rank in aw will be taken and bound to the account. Lets say its silver2.
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.
Player 9 in last war of season decides to screw your allaince cause it's his buddies allaince your facing.
Hes untouchable and gets rewards for screwing you over..
Yup that's gonna be awesome
Im pretty damn sure thats a tiny minority compared to the "lets boot him. He dont deserve the rewards" mentality. Also just because you think he performed bad on porpuse doesnt prove its the truth. Lets assume he dc'd in one fight and having lags in another. Would you believe it or just assume he wants to do his buddy a favor ? Lets assume further next war its you whos facing his old buddies when everything is on the line...
Good times getting booted just because someone assume right ?
And I am pretty sure the amount of people who unjustly get kicked at the end of the season is just as small.
And what is the difference between he performed bad on purpose and he just sucked...
I'm on the other side of this. I think Leadership should absolutely have the ability to outright deny rewards to people that haven't pulled their own weight. Running an alliance is a lot of work to keep things organized and running smoothly. One guy that thinks the rules don't apply to them can easily mess things up. How is that fair to the rest of the alliance?
I find it very difficult to believe that the people that complain about getting unfairly booted before the war season ends are being effective team members. It's hard to find good, reliable people with a team-oriented attitude. Alliance leadership would have to be insane to randomly boot good people.
Obviously I don't know the whole story in all of these situations, but, speaking from experience, there are a LOT of self-important people that play this game and somehow see themselves being above the rest of the people that they play with. I've had the pleasure of booting more that a couple people who believed they were "the best player in the alliance". Good fighters that aren't good teammates are easily replaced.
It is a problem if those being kicked had a dispute with someone and they are getting kicked as a revenge method. I would also classify it as an issue if they are not performing as desired and were left in the alliance until the last minute and then kicked. That indicates a method of revenge again.
Why not have Alliance rewards and individual rewards. Alliance stays as is. Individual awards are based on personal performance in a cumulative manner for the season regardless of the alliance you are in. If you get kicked you lose out on the alliance awards but still have your performance rewards. If you are in multiple alliances during the season your personal performance is recorded and awarded based on all wars you played.
It is a problem if those being kicked had a dispute with someone and they are getting kicked as a revenge method. I would also classify it as an issue if they are not performing as desired and were left in the alliance until the last minute and then kicked. That indicates a method of revenge again.
Why not have Alliance rewards and individual rewards. Alliance stays as is. Individual awards are based on personal performance in a cumulative manner for the season regardless of the alliance you are in. If you get kicked you lose out on the alliance awards but still have your performance rewards. If you are in multiple alliances during the season your personal performance is recorded and awarded based on all wars you played.
That is not a bad idea, I just dont think it is worth the programming time, I dont believe we are talking about more than a few individuals a season.
That is not a bad idea, I just dont think it is worth the programming time, I dont believe we are talking about more than a few individuals a season.[/quote]
I gotta believe it is a larger number than you think if it is a topic every off-season. Plus it would also provide incentive for people to strive for a better performance in the wars.
As soon as an account reaches the required number of AWs(5) he gets flaged for getting season rewards. If the account leaves the alliance a snapshot of the current Alliance Rank in aw will be taken and bound to the account. Lets say its silver2.
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.
Player 9 in last war of season decides to screw your allaince cause it's his buddies allaince your facing.
Hes untouchable and gets rewards for screwing you over..
Yup that's gonna be awesome
Im pretty damn sure thats a tiny minority compared to the "lets boot him. He dont deserve the rewards" mentality. Also just because you think he performed bad on porpuse doesnt prove its the truth. Lets assume he dc'd in one fight and having lags in another. Would you believe it or just assume he wants to do his buddy a favor ? Lets assume further next war its you whos facing his old buddies when everything is on the line...
Good times getting booted just because someone assume right ?
Lol you don't know master allainces those guys have multiple accts and get into enemy allainces and sabotage wars already.
You want to reward that behavior
Afaik there is one "proven" case. MirageNoir calling out NYC. Anything else is like. Uhm smells fishy but cant prove it...also master bracket is not even 0,1% of the total amount of alliances participate in AWs. The majority is within stone to silver and usuualy dont have to deal with those things at all.
That is not a bad idea, I just dont think it is worth the programming time, I dont believe we are talking about more than a few individuals a season.
I gotta believe it is a larger number than you think if it is a topic every off-season. Plus it would also provide incentive for people to strive for a better performance in the wars.
[/quote]
its usually only 1-5 people, and generally the same 1-5 people.
I think the main problem here is people who barely contribute, or are constantly late, or don't respond when needed, still think they deserve the rewards for the little bit of effort they put in, even if they've cost the alliance some wins, I've kicked people before they can get rewards. But Ive done it because they didn't deserve the rewards.
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.
You had me in your corner up until the point of doing nothing. People jump in and float all the time. That doesn't mean they're entitled to Rewards. That's the whole point of being able to remove people. It's up to the Leaders and Officers to decide along with the rest of the Ally whether or not they feel like carrying people.
It sucks when people get shafted, but there is very little they can do to police inner politics of Alliances. Sometimes we choose to work with people we can't trust. It happens. Doesn't make it fair, but it's a part of learning lessons. It's equally the responsibility of people to find a place they fit themselves as it is the responsibility of Leaders and Officers to find people that fit.
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.
However much I'm in favor of exploring options to problems related to this behavior, this problem statement itself violates what I consider to be a cardinal principle of organization. Authority and responsibility must always be counter-balanced. If officers have the responsibility to manage alliances, they must also have the authority to take punitive action upon members that fail to properly follow the rules of the alliance. If you state categorically that alliance officers "have zero right" to take away rewards, then they should have zero responsibility to see that members behave according to the rules. But that eliminates the notion of alliances as player-run organizations. You might as well hire Kabam staffers to run the alliances for the players, and run them in any way they see fit.
The problem is not, and cannot be the authority to do things, it is the abuse of that authority. That's a much stickier problem to solve, because abuse is a judgment call. If an alliance directly tells every prospective member before they join "do this, no exceptions, or you will be kicked and lose rewards" you can't say that's wrong, unless you don't want player run alliances in the game. And if someone is opposed to player-run alliances, they shouldn't join them.
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 pay wouldn't be decreased. Your work is already increased by running a bg with 9 members. Rewards don't change for the same amount of group work done.
just a bad analogy. Something should be done. If you're kicked in the last 5 wars, get prorated rewards for your last alliance. or something.
I would argue to say the player is responsible for finding an Ally that fits their capacity with people who play straight up with no drama.
If ur getting kicked frequently, you are in the wrong ally. I don’t think I’ve ever been kicked from an ally. Being legit. I’ve never seen a problem for anyone getting kicked except people who die easily in AQ/AW and people who aren’t on ever/don’t donate.
Absolutely garbage idea. If getting kicked before rewards is something that has happened to you more than once, the problem is obviously with you, and your lack of commitment/communication/time management.
I would say the easiest way to stop this is to lock alliances for 24 hours before the war rewards come out. Basically disable the kick function. While it ultimately falls on the alliance officers to be decent human beings that won't always be the case. I firmly believe if someone contributed to 5 wars and are still with the alliance at the end of the last season war they should receive rewards even if they were not a good fit for the alliance. If you are talking about kicking someone 5 ws are into the season I'm fine with that since they have the opportunity to find another alliance still and get their 5 wars in. I'm not a huge fan of aw since it is destroying alliances with its level of competition and the constant YouTube videos and posts about collusion and cheating. That said I don't think it's right regardless of the reason to kick players hours before rewards drop.
This whole thread is ridiculous, should of named it 'Self-Entitlement Vs Common Sense' 😂😂😂
I don't care what anyone says, good alliances don't kick good, active players for no reason.
Good, active players are hard to come by, and are not kicked lightly, or at least not by any good alliance.
So common sense and logic dictates that either you deserved to be kicked before you got your rewards, or you weren't in a good alliance.
Either way, that's your **** up, your mistake, your problem, nobody else's, quit crying and either up your game, or find a good alliance. Even better, do both just in case...
I would say the easiest way to stop this is to lock alliances for 24 hours before the war rewards come out. Basically disable the kick function. While it ultimately falls on the alliance officers to be decent human beings that won't always be the case. I firmly believe if someone contributed to 5 wars and are still with the alliance at the end of the last season war they should receive rewards even if they were not a good fit for the alliance. If you are talking about kicking someone 5 ws are into the season I'm fine with that since they have the opportunity to find another alliance still and get their 5 wars in. I'm not a huge fan of aw since it is destroying alliances with its level of competition and the constant YouTube videos and posts about collusion and cheating. That said I don't think it's right regardless of the reason to kick players hours before rewards drop.
If they are in the alliance at the end of the war they get the rewards...
I would say the easiest way to stop this is to lock alliances for 24 hours before the war rewards come out. Basically disable the kick function. While it ultimately falls on the alliance officers to be decent human beings that won't always be the case. I firmly believe if someone contributed to 5 wars and are still with the alliance at the end of the last season war they should receive rewards even if they were not a good fit for the alliance. If you are talking about kicking someone 5 ws are into the season I'm fine with that since they have the opportunity to find another alliance still and get their 5 wars in. I'm not a huge fan of aw since it is destroying alliances with its level of competition and the constant YouTube videos and posts about collusion and cheating. That said I don't think it's right regardless of the reason to kick players hours before rewards drop.
If they are in the alliance at the end of the war they get the rewards...
You must be a member of the alliance when season rewards are calculated and handed out to receive them. If you leave or are kicked after the last war but before season rewards are specifically send to your alliance you won't get them.
This needs to be up to the leadership. Members need to take more accountability. If i was booted before rewards came in i would take a hard look in the mirror as to what i did to deserve it.
This whole thread is ridiculous, should of named it 'Self-Entitlement Vs Common Sense' 😂😂😂
I don't care what anyone says, good alliances don't kick good, active players for no reason.
Good, active players are hard to come by, and are not kicked lightly, or at least not by any good alliance.
So common sense and logic dictates that either you deserved to be kicked before you got your rewards, or you weren't in a good alliance.
Either way, that's your **** up, your mistake, your problem, nobody else's, quit crying and either up your game, or find a good alliance. Even better, do both just in case...
man im just trying to have a discussion about how to address the problem of kicking people before season rewards come in. that's it.
you're putting all of the stress on the player, and the eligibility to get those rewards are just to be in the alliance and participate for 5 wars period. which means the guy who did nothing in the war, the guy at the end of the bench who didn't play a minute in the game, gets a championship trophy - gets the reward. if the person entered war, placed defense, died on the first fight 5 times in a row they deserve season rewards for that alliance period in the most standard way possible.
now, if you have an alliance, or join an alliance that dictates things a little bit differently, then to each their own. but it's completely wrong to blind side someone who's done the minimum, and kick them. Kabam can easily do something to mitigate this, and I'm just asking the community for some feedback to a seemingly bad idea to expand upon and get some hopefully good ideas from someone out there so that Kabam will consider making a change to this problem.
Lastly, if they kick after the last war, it's of no change whether or not the person they kicked get those rewards. makes no difference. they're playing God, and abusing their power at that (IMO). but no, people who do that would rather be self righteous than just let it be. should have kicked that person out before it even got to that point. but no, they waited til the last minute to be a jerk about it.
and I agree with @DNA3000 but there's got to be a way for kabam to step in and mitigate the problem.
so thank you, @Drooped2 but you're saying that a basketball player like Quinn cook didn't deserve an NBA Championship ring because he didn't do as much as Steph Curry???? This is a game, a team game at that, and it's not how it works. the team rewards are the same and everyone gets the same thing.
and you said contribute, and that's exactly what I implied. It doesn't take much to contribute. I've given multiple examples as to how one can contribute.
it is an issue whether you recognize it or not - that's your prerogative.
Just as an FYI, if your alliance is constantly hounding you to get in the game and move, or to get your donations in, don't be surprised when you are booted before rewards.
I think everyone should spend some time as leadership in an active alliance. You'd be surprised how much your perspective would change :-)
Just as an FYI, if your alliance is constantly hounding you to get in the game and move, or to get your donations in, don't be surprised when you are booted before rewards.
I think everyone should spend some time as leadership in an active alliance. You'd be surprised how much your perspective would change :-)
sure, so, why wait until the last minute to kick them??????????????
there's got to be a way for kabam to step in and mitigate the problem.
Whenever I see a problem in MCOC, I don't think mobile game, I think MMO. MCOC in terms of literal gameplay is very much like any other mobile fighting game. But in terms of its overall structure, it is far more like a conventional MMO. We have players interacting with other players in an environment where that interaction can have large positive and negative consequences, including the disruption of rewards. So how do MMOs address this problem?
Most MMOs have long understood the concept of "griefing." Griefing is when one player deliberately does something that has the explicit intent of hurting another player's game experience outside the bounds of reasonable play. For example, in a PvP game killing a player might make them feel bad, but that's reasonable play. Following them around everywhere and killing them over and over while hurling expletives doesn't break any literal rule of the game, but could be considered griefing.
Griefing is generally considered counter-productive to a well managed game, and most MMOs have a way to "petition" or otherwise report what they perceive to be griefing. If the report appears to be valid and contain all of the necessary elements to support a charge of griefing, the game investigates. Based on that investigation, the offending player could get a warning, they could be penalized, they could receive temporary or permanent bans. Or they could be exonerated.
This requires a good set of rules that govern what conduct is and is not acceptable, and a system that allows the game operator to investigate individual cases in a reasonable amount of time. No such system is perfect: in fact most probably work only half the time. But they can act as a deterrent for obnoxious behavior.
I don't know if such a system is currently compatible with the way Kabam chooses to operate the game, however. The fact that they allow players to essentially sabotage alliances with conduct that can draw alliance-wide penalties but *not* direct player penalties, and no one is allowed to know why it happened, suggests Kabam doesn't hold the same attitude towards griefing as literally the entire rest of the MMO-related cosmos.
Well said man, well said.
And m2, again, good alliances don't kick good players. If you get kicked it's because you were in a bad alliance, or you weren't performing. It's as simple as that, I've never been kicked from anywhere without rewards unless I've deserved it, I've got lazy a couple times in the past and I fully admit it was my own fault I got kicked, but I've always took a good look at the alliance before joining, and I've been in some pretty great alliances. If you're getting kicked from multiple alliances, the common denominator there is you...
Comments
Good times getting booted just because someone assume right ?
And I am pretty sure the amount of people who unjustly get kicked at the end of the season is just as small.
And what is the difference between he performed bad on purpose and he just sucked...
That’s assuming one is good enough to hang with Master level alliances for 5 wars and not get kicked after the first.
I find it very difficult to believe that the people that complain about getting unfairly booted before the war season ends are being effective team members. It's hard to find good, reliable people with a team-oriented attitude. Alliance leadership would have to be insane to randomly boot good people.
Obviously I don't know the whole story in all of these situations, but, speaking from experience, there are a LOT of self-important people that play this game and somehow see themselves being above the rest of the people that they play with. I've had the pleasure of booting more that a couple people who believed they were "the best player in the alliance". Good fighters that aren't good teammates are easily replaced.
Why not have Alliance rewards and individual rewards. Alliance stays as is. Individual awards are based on personal performance in a cumulative manner for the season regardless of the alliance you are in. If you get kicked you lose out on the alliance awards but still have your performance rewards. If you are in multiple alliances during the season your personal performance is recorded and awarded based on all wars you played.
That is not a bad idea, I just dont think it is worth the programming time, I dont believe we are talking about more than a few individuals a season.
I gotta believe it is a larger number than you think if it is a topic every off-season. Plus it would also provide incentive for people to strive for a better performance in the wars.
Afaik there is one "proven" case. MirageNoir calling out NYC. Anything else is like. Uhm smells fishy but cant prove it...also master bracket is not even 0,1% of the total amount of alliances participate in AWs. The majority is within stone to silver and usuualy dont have to deal with those things at all.
Well in that case, yes. Sounds like a good deal to me.
I gotta believe it is a larger number than you think if it is a topic every off-season. Plus it would also provide incentive for people to strive for a better performance in the wars.
[/quote]
its usually only 1-5 people, and generally the same 1-5 people.
You had me in your corner up until the point of doing nothing. People jump in and float all the time. That doesn't mean they're entitled to Rewards. That's the whole point of being able to remove people. It's up to the Leaders and Officers to decide along with the rest of the Ally whether or not they feel like carrying people.
It sucks when people get shafted, but there is very little they can do to police inner politics of Alliances. Sometimes we choose to work with people we can't trust. It happens. Doesn't make it fair, but it's a part of learning lessons. It's equally the responsibility of people to find a place they fit themselves as it is the responsibility of Leaders and Officers to find people that fit.
However much I'm in favor of exploring options to problems related to this behavior, this problem statement itself violates what I consider to be a cardinal principle of organization. Authority and responsibility must always be counter-balanced. If officers have the responsibility to manage alliances, they must also have the authority to take punitive action upon members that fail to properly follow the rules of the alliance. If you state categorically that alliance officers "have zero right" to take away rewards, then they should have zero responsibility to see that members behave according to the rules. But that eliminates the notion of alliances as player-run organizations. You might as well hire Kabam staffers to run the alliances for the players, and run them in any way they see fit.
The problem is not, and cannot be the authority to do things, it is the abuse of that authority. That's a much stickier problem to solve, because abuse is a judgment call. If an alliance directly tells every prospective member before they join "do this, no exceptions, or you will be kicked and lose rewards" you can't say that's wrong, unless you don't want player run alliances in the game. And if someone is opposed to player-run alliances, they shouldn't join them.
But you pay wouldn't be decreased. Your work is already increased by running a bg with 9 members. Rewards don't change for the same amount of group work done.
just a bad analogy. Something should be done. If you're kicked in the last 5 wars, get prorated rewards for your last alliance. or something.
If ur getting kicked frequently, you are in the wrong ally. I don’t think I’ve ever been kicked from an ally. Being legit. I’ve never seen a problem for anyone getting kicked except people who die easily in AQ/AW and people who aren’t on ever/don’t donate.
I don't care what anyone says, good alliances don't kick good, active players for no reason.
Good, active players are hard to come by, and are not kicked lightly, or at least not by any good alliance.
So common sense and logic dictates that either you deserved to be kicked before you got your rewards, or you weren't in a good alliance.
Either way, that's your **** up, your mistake, your problem, nobody else's, quit crying and either up your game, or find a good alliance. Even better, do both just in case...
If they are in the alliance at the end of the war they get the rewards...
You must be a member of the alliance when season rewards are calculated and handed out to receive them. If you leave or are kicked after the last war but before season rewards are specifically send to your alliance you won't get them.
man im just trying to have a discussion about how to address the problem of kicking people before season rewards come in. that's it.
you're putting all of the stress on the player, and the eligibility to get those rewards are just to be in the alliance and participate for 5 wars period. which means the guy who did nothing in the war, the guy at the end of the bench who didn't play a minute in the game, gets a championship trophy - gets the reward. if the person entered war, placed defense, died on the first fight 5 times in a row they deserve season rewards for that alliance period in the most standard way possible.
now, if you have an alliance, or join an alliance that dictates things a little bit differently, then to each their own. but it's completely wrong to blind side someone who's done the minimum, and kick them. Kabam can easily do something to mitigate this, and I'm just asking the community for some feedback to a seemingly bad idea to expand upon and get some hopefully good ideas from someone out there so that Kabam will consider making a change to this problem.
Lastly, if they kick after the last war, it's of no change whether or not the person they kicked get those rewards. makes no difference. they're playing God, and abusing their power at that (IMO). but no, people who do that would rather be self righteous than just let it be. should have kicked that person out before it even got to that point. but no, they waited til the last minute to be a jerk about it.
and I agree with @DNA3000 but there's got to be a way for kabam to step in and mitigate the problem.
and you said contribute, and that's exactly what I implied. It doesn't take much to contribute. I've given multiple examples as to how one can contribute.
it is an issue whether you recognize it or not - that's your prerogative.
I think everyone should spend some time as leadership in an active alliance. You'd be surprised how much your perspective would change :-)
sure, so, why wait until the last minute to kick them??????????????
to be a jerk is all.
Whenever I see a problem in MCOC, I don't think mobile game, I think MMO. MCOC in terms of literal gameplay is very much like any other mobile fighting game. But in terms of its overall structure, it is far more like a conventional MMO. We have players interacting with other players in an environment where that interaction can have large positive and negative consequences, including the disruption of rewards. So how do MMOs address this problem?
Most MMOs have long understood the concept of "griefing." Griefing is when one player deliberately does something that has the explicit intent of hurting another player's game experience outside the bounds of reasonable play. For example, in a PvP game killing a player might make them feel bad, but that's reasonable play. Following them around everywhere and killing them over and over while hurling expletives doesn't break any literal rule of the game, but could be considered griefing.
Griefing is generally considered counter-productive to a well managed game, and most MMOs have a way to "petition" or otherwise report what they perceive to be griefing. If the report appears to be valid and contain all of the necessary elements to support a charge of griefing, the game investigates. Based on that investigation, the offending player could get a warning, they could be penalized, they could receive temporary or permanent bans. Or they could be exonerated.
This requires a good set of rules that govern what conduct is and is not acceptable, and a system that allows the game operator to investigate individual cases in a reasonable amount of time. No such system is perfect: in fact most probably work only half the time. But they can act as a deterrent for obnoxious behavior.
I don't know if such a system is currently compatible with the way Kabam chooses to operate the game, however. The fact that they allow players to essentially sabotage alliances with conduct that can draw alliance-wide penalties but *not* direct player penalties, and no one is allowed to know why it happened, suggests Kabam doesn't hold the same attitude towards griefing as literally the entire rest of the MMO-related cosmos.
And m2, again, good alliances don't kick good players. If you get kicked it's because you were in a bad alliance, or you weren't performing. It's as simple as that, I've never been kicked from anywhere without rewards unless I've deserved it, I've got lazy a couple times in the past and I fully admit it was my own fault I got kicked, but I've always took a good look at the alliance before joining, and I've been in some pretty great alliances. If you're getting kicked from multiple alliances, the common denominator there is you...