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.
The problem is the timing. If you see a guy who barely contribute since the beginning, I'm with you, that guy deserve to be kicked immediatly. But if you allow him to participate in 5 or more wars (specifically until the end of the season), and then you kick him out before getting the rewards, well, you are an idiot. I know a lot of greedy leaders who are just impatient to get something/someone new with absolutely no respect for anyone, especially if they need new players before AQ starts... I now refuse to stay in very big alliance because of this, as I saw people who thinks they rule the world just because they are leaders in a stupid game.
If they're barely cobtributing and there that long, they're already getting Rewards along the way. Is it a douche move? Could be. Perhaps they also waited until the end of the Season to reevaluate who contributed, or perhaps they just decided then. Point being, it's not as if they are booted with nothing. If they're not really doing anything and collecting Rewards up until they're booted, there's not much argument for fairness.
Let's say in the worst case scenario b you find your self with a freeloader with ,5 wars to go.
You hit two options, let freeloader stay, or recruit someone else.
If you let freeloader stay you are saying he's got a value because he's better than nothing. Then it's your choice to keep him there. He deserve rewards because you decided to keep him her whoever
Let's say in the worst case scenario b you find your self with a freeloader with ,5 wars to go.
You hit two options, let freeloader stay, or recruit someone else.
If you let freeloader stay you are saying he's got a value because he's better than nothing. Then it's your choice to keep him there. He deserve rewards because you decided to keep him her whoever
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.
The problem is the timing. If you see a guy who barely contribute since the beginning, I'm with you, that guy deserve to be kicked immediatly. But if you allow him to participate in 5 or more wars (specifically until the end of the season), and then you kick him out before getting the rewards, well, you are an idiot. I know a lot of greedy leaders who are just impatient to get something/someone new with absolutely no respect for anyone, especially if they need new players before AQ starts... I now refuse to stay in very big alliance because of this, as I saw people who thinks they rule the world just because they are leaders in a stupid game.
And if you contribute tou never get kicked its a non issue of freeloaders wanting rewards they dont deserve
As I said, there are a lot of greedy guys who kick players just because they have someone else to add with better prestige or better defenders/attackers. That's the problem. I don't think anyone is so stupid to come here and complain after doing nothing.
See the problem is not why but WHEN you kick some1. If he underperforms kick him. If he doesnt Play by the rules kick him BUT
Dont wait untill last Minute to teach a lesson/vent your anger.
And on a side node. If hes good enough to have his 5 defenders hes good enough to recieve rewards. Because his 5 defenders are making a difference right ? It doesnt matter that 9 ppl in his BG have to put in more work. Without these 5 defenders all 29 would be screwed if no replacement could be found...
Show up to work tomorrow but refuse to do your job.
Post back here the results.
Sorry just showing up isnt enough to justify a reward
You're considering that individual, not you as a leader officer. It's you're choice to pay that person or not. Your choice to kick or not whether or not they deserve it.
I love work examples:
Hire a temp to perm position. Fire temp a day before his official hire date when you know he's not going to work out or fire them with months left on his contract when you know he's not going to work out???
See the problem is not why but WHEN you kick some1. If he underperforms kick him. If he doesnt Play by the rules kick him BUT
Dont wait untill last Minute to teach a lesson/vent your anger.
But then if you lock within the last five wars you're saying people can misbehave in any manner they wish during the last two weeks because no one can do anything about it. That's equally bad.
And on a side node. If hes good enough to have his 5 defenders hes good enough to recieve rewards. Because his 5 defenders are making a difference right ? It doesnt matter that 9 ppl in his BG have to put in more work. Without these 5 defenders all 29 would be screwed if no replacement could be found...
This is ridiculous. Now you're saying that someone that places five defenders and then doesn't attack at all should get rewards because any contribution at all deserves full credit. That if you'd be worse off without any little thing someone does, that makes them critical. So I could place one defender, and I'm still making a contribution.
No sane person judges participation that way. You don't contribute to an alliance on your terms. You do so on theirs. Or you leave. Because any alliance leader will tell you that the most important reason to kick someone is that everyone else doesn't want them there. If someone is sandbagging, you have to kick them. Or else soon enough you won't have anyone else around either.
I would rather lose with nine than win with ten if one of them was deliberately not putting in comparable effort as the rest. Because in the long run, those rewards won't be enough to compensate for the trouble that would cause.
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.
It's a non issue. Contribute and you qont be kicked sorry the guy on the bench doesnt deserve rewards.
We need to do away with this participation trophy ****.
You want equal rewards to what I get? Do equal work to what i do
I disagree with your assumption that anyone kicked was kicked for a valid reason. I've encountered guys who are forced to rank champs to the detriment of their accounts. Use resources on aw for silver and bronze tier rewa6that would have been better spent growing an account to actually be productive. I've seen these same guys kicked just before rewards drop by spiteful leaders simply because they questioned orders that made no real sense. Not all leaders and officers are reasonable decent people looking out for the welfare of the alliance as a whole. Its these people who are kicking just for the self gratification of doing it that this thread is about.
See the problem is not why but WHEN you kick some1. If he underperforms kick him. If he doesnt Play by the rules kick him BUT
Dont wait untill last Minute to teach a lesson/vent your anger.
And on a side node. If hes good enough to have his 5 defenders hes good enough to recieve rewards. Because his 5 defenders are making a difference right ? It doesnt matter that 9 ppl in his BG have to put in more work. Without these 5 defenders all 29 would be screwed if no replacement could be found...
Show up to work tomorrow but refuse to do your job.
Post back here the results.
Sorry just showing up isnt enough to justify a reward
You're considering that individual, not you as a leader officer. It's you're choice to pay that person or not. Your choice to kick or not whether or not they deserve it.
I love work examples:
Hire a temp to perm position. Fire temp a day before his official hire date when you know he's not going to work out or fire them with months left on his contract when you know he's not going to work out???
I fire the minute i.have a problem if that's payday so be it. Same as rewards.
5 mins before rewards go out oh well you're a problem your removed
Right but you wouldnt keep that person around long enough to see the light of day...
That's all I'm saying. You get rid of them immediately not suck them dry
See the problem is not why but WHEN you kick some1. If he underperforms kick him. If he doesnt Play by the rules kick him BUT
Dont wait untill last Minute to teach a lesson/vent your anger.
And on a side node. If hes good enough to have his 5 defenders hes good enough to recieve rewards. Because his 5 defenders are making a difference right ? It doesnt matter that 9 ppl in his BG have to put in more work. Without these 5 defenders all 29 would be screwed if no replacement could be found...
Show up to work tomorrow but refuse to do your job.
Post back here the results.
Sorry just showing up isnt enough to justify a reward
You're considering that individual, not you as a leader officer. It's you're choice to pay that person or not. Your choice to kick or not whether or not they deserve it.
I love work examples:
Hire a temp to perm position. Fire temp a day before his official hire date when you know he's not going to work out or fire them with months left on his contract when you know he's not going to work out???
I fire the minute i.have a problem if that's payday so be it. Same as rewards.
5 mins before rewards go out oh well you're a problem your removed
Right but you wouldnt keep that person around long enough to see the light of day...
That's all I'm saying. You get rid of them immediately not suck them dry
Cool so if they cause an issue after war ends but before season rewards. They go right away.
Even if they did 12 wars
See how that works.
Unless the person is just a terrible human being shouting racist and derogatory **** then yeah gotta give them the rewards...but I mean can't really cause in game issues when every thing is said and done in terms of war.
To me it’s simple, if you’re eligible for rewards you did your part to earn those rewards regardless of circumstance or attitude on your last day on the job when you get fired or when you show up on payday. Like RL if you do the work you get paid, society does not allow employers to withhold pay after the fact so neither should a leader.
Having said that there is no governing body in MCOC that will/can enforce/regulate such things like in RL, this means you’re at the mercy of the people above you in your alliance so choose your alliance/actions carefully and check your attitude if you want to get paid after doing something to get fired.
To me it’s simple, if you’re eligible for rewards you did your part to earn those rewards regardless of circumstance or attitude on your last day on the job when you get fired or when you show up on payday. Like RL if you do the work you get paid, society does not allow employers to withhold pay after the fact so neither should a leader.
Having said that there is no governing body in MCOC that will/can enforce/regulate such things like in RL, this means you’re at the mercy of the people above you in your alliance so choose your alliance/actions carefully and check your attitude if you want to get paid after doing something to get fired.
So guys who do 1 fight a war should get full. Or none cause these are possible things.
Place 1 defender you get full rewards no attack. You would keep that guy? Say he does it last war of the season?
1 war= rewards for playing in that war.
Last war of the season? If he played the other 4-12 and did not present those issues he earned season rewards.
I wouldn’t keep him but i also wouldn’t withhold his paycheck because I felt slighted by his actions (which likely didn’t effect the season anyways).
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.
Kabam needs to fix this or I believe in a penalty as well. You should have your stuff in order and set in by the 10-12 day deadline
How is this still going on man. The amount of people who get unjustly kicked is minimal, the problem is most think they deserve the rewards when they most likely don't. If you've only earned 50k points over the entire season, then I'm sorry but you've cost that alliance a higher war rank so you should lose your rewards. I've been playing for 3 years and Ive seen endless amounts of it, people back chatting their leaders and officers, thinking they know best, not listening to commands and just generally being an irritating member or not participating.
Here's an idea, why don't one of you create an alliance for all the 'badly done to' people,
I guarantee within a week you'll realise why they were kicked, you might get 1 out of the 30 thats a good active player, but the vast majority with be trash, the alliance will get nowhere, then everything we've been saying will start to sink in.
Most run their alliance like an actual army, and in the army you don't back chat your Commanding Officer, you don't just not turn up for training, and you do what you're told to the letter, nothing more, nothing less, and you certainly don't question it.
If you cant take orders, and you can't handle authority, just play the game solo, because you won't stay in any good alliance for long...
This thread needs to be put to bed, it's got ridiculous...
In fact after reading the thread over again, this is the same argument as people on benefits/welfare use.
"the eligibility for war rewards in game is you have to be a part of 5 wars to get rewards, so if you've been a part of 5 wars you should get rewards"
That is exactly the same argument as "why shouldn't I claim benefits/welfare instead of working, they are available, I'm eligible, so I deserve them and I'm taking them, even though I'm capable of working"
The epitome of self-entitlement.
News flash...
You don't deserve anything you don't work for, thats the law of the universe in general, you reap what you sow.
In other words you work hard and your hard work will reward you, if you don't it won't...
Wow... this is obviously a matter that needs discussing. A reflection is that this seasons system seems overly complicated. I miss the good old days when you received rewards for each war. But, I guess we have seasons for a reason.
However, if the biggest problem here is that people get kicked after the season ends, but before the rewards are awarded. Shouldn't the rewards be calculated and set the moment war season ends, and then at least those who were participating in war that season get the rewards, even if they have been kicked out of the alliance after the war ended?
Sure, an evil officer might still kick someone just before it ends. I guess life isn't fair. Just like RNG.
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.
Ill share you some griefing stores from masters/platinum1 on people
1. We had a person who said they didn't have enough "resources" unit/glory to buy potions, so some of pitched in a gifted him so we can 100% the war, gave him heads up he was gona have to go. He took it the wrong way and in chat said he was thinking of just leaving right on the spot at the time
he died..to r3 hood using r5 blade he died like 6 times
2. Just before the cutoff an officer, messed up and dies abunch of times in war, he knew he was gona get kicked...
so he booted more than half of the alliance before he was kicked
and ofcourse I also see a lot of players leave mid war
How is this still going on man. The amount of people who get unjustly kicked is minimal, the problem is most think they deserve the rewards when they most likely don't. If you've only earned 50k points over the entire season, then I'm sorry but you've cost that alliance a higher war rank so you should lose your rewards. I've been playing for 3 years and Ive seen endless amounts of it, people back chatting their leaders and officers, thinking they know best, not listening to commands and just generally being an irritating member or not participating.
Here's an idea, why don't one of you create an alliance for all the 'badly done to' people,
I guarantee within a week you'll realise why they were kicked, you might get 1 out of the 30 thats a good active player, but the vast majority with be trash, the alliance will get nowhere, then everything we've been saying will start to sink in.
Most run their alliance like an actual army, and in the army you don't back chat your Commanding Officer, you don't just not turn up for training, and you do what you're told to the letter, nothing more, nothing less, and you certainly don't question it.
If you cant take orders, and you can't handle authority, just play the game solo, because you won't stay in any good alliance for long...
This thread needs to be put to bed, it's got ridiculous...
you're missing the entire point man. it's all about the TIMING of it.
here's the issue once again: alliance leaders and officers are kicking people out of the alliance to prevent them from earning rewards even after the final war has completed.
That's the problem people are facing.
all your reasons to kick someone are VALID. get rid of the dead weight.
*****
now I'm not trying to protect freeloaders. I'm not trying to side with people who should be booted. I'm trying to PREVENT leaders and officers from sucking the life out of someone, waiting until the very last war of the season to kick someone out when they SHOULD have done it wars ago. get that please and stop derailing this thread by making it about why it's justified to kick someone out.
*****
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.
From my opinion is # lets say we have 3 weeks for 1 aw season. #when the bracket is locked,whole rewards on 1 season is divided to per war. So if someone get kicked, he didnt loss the prize.
Personally if we had a situation where we should win the war/ complete whole aq 100% BUT because some people holding others (either die easily and only gain little point on aq or even worse, didnt move much and make others need to do more work) i dont like that kind of player (even tho they still participating, better than not at all ).
But i also feel bad if officer/leader kick them when they really close to get the prize, and they miss all the prize, and even they try to join new alliance they cant get the prize because the time is not enough.
Comments
If they're barely cobtributing and there that long, they're already getting Rewards along the way. Is it a douche move? Could be. Perhaps they also waited until the end of the Season to reevaluate who contributed, or perhaps they just decided then. Point being, it's not as if they are booted with nothing. If they're not really doing anything and collecting Rewards up until they're booted, there's not much argument for fairness.
You hit two options, let freeloader stay, or recruit someone else.
If you let freeloader stay you are saying he's got a value because he's better than nothing. Then it's your choice to keep him there. He deserve rewards because you decided to keep him her whoever
Are you familiar with Henny Penny?
As I said, there are a lot of greedy guys who kick players just because they have someone else to add with better prestige or better defenders/attackers. That's the problem. I don't think anyone is so stupid to come here and complain after doing nothing.
You're considering that individual, not you as a leader officer. It's you're choice to pay that person or not. Your choice to kick or not whether or not they deserve it.
I love work examples:
Hire a temp to perm position. Fire temp a day before his official hire date when you know he's not going to work out or fire them with months left on his contract when you know he's not going to work out???
But then if you lock within the last five wars you're saying people can misbehave in any manner they wish during the last two weeks because no one can do anything about it. That's equally bad.
This is ridiculous. Now you're saying that someone that places five defenders and then doesn't attack at all should get rewards because any contribution at all deserves full credit. That if you'd be worse off without any little thing someone does, that makes them critical. So I could place one defender, and I'm still making a contribution.
No sane person judges participation that way. You don't contribute to an alliance on your terms. You do so on theirs. Or you leave. Because any alliance leader will tell you that the most important reason to kick someone is that everyone else doesn't want them there. If someone is sandbagging, you have to kick them. Or else soon enough you won't have anyone else around either.
I would rather lose with nine than win with ten if one of them was deliberately not putting in comparable effort as the rest. Because in the long run, those rewards won't be enough to compensate for the trouble that would cause.
I disagree with your assumption that anyone kicked was kicked for a valid reason. I've encountered guys who are forced to rank champs to the detriment of their accounts. Use resources on aw for silver and bronze tier rewa6that would have been better spent growing an account to actually be productive. I've seen these same guys kicked just before rewards drop by spiteful leaders simply because they questioned orders that made no real sense. Not all leaders and officers are reasonable decent people looking out for the welfare of the alliance as a whole. Its these people who are kicking just for the self gratification of doing it that this thread is about.
Right but you wouldnt keep that person around long enough to see the light of day...
That's all I'm saying. You get rid of them immediately not suck them dry
Unless the person is just a terrible human being shouting racist and derogatory **** then yeah gotta give them the rewards...but I mean can't really cause in game issues when every thing is said and done in terms of war.
Having said that there is no governing body in MCOC that will/can enforce/regulate such things like in RL, this means you’re at the mercy of the people above you in your alliance so choose your alliance/actions carefully and check your attitude if you want to get paid after doing something to get fired.
Last war of the season? If he played the other 4-12 and did not present those issues he earned season rewards.
I wouldn’t keep him but i also wouldn’t withhold his paycheck because I felt slighted by his actions (which likely didn’t effect the season anyways).
Cash me outside.
Kabam needs to fix this or I believe in a penalty as well. You should have your stuff in order and set in by the 10-12 day deadline
Here's an idea, why don't one of you create an alliance for all the 'badly done to' people,
I guarantee within a week you'll realise why they were kicked, you might get 1 out of the 30 thats a good active player, but the vast majority with be trash, the alliance will get nowhere, then everything we've been saying will start to sink in.
Most run their alliance like an actual army, and in the army you don't back chat your Commanding Officer, you don't just not turn up for training, and you do what you're told to the letter, nothing more, nothing less, and you certainly don't question it.
If you cant take orders, and you can't handle authority, just play the game solo, because you won't stay in any good alliance for long...
This thread needs to be put to bed, it's got ridiculous...
"the eligibility for war rewards in game is you have to be a part of 5 wars to get rewards, so if you've been a part of 5 wars you should get rewards"
That is exactly the same argument as "why shouldn't I claim benefits/welfare instead of working, they are available, I'm eligible, so I deserve them and I'm taking them, even though I'm capable of working"
The epitome of self-entitlement.
News flash...
You don't deserve anything you don't work for, thats the law of the universe in general, you reap what you sow.
In other words you work hard and your hard work will reward you, if you don't it won't...
However, if the biggest problem here is that people get kicked after the season ends, but before the rewards are awarded. Shouldn't the rewards be calculated and set the moment war season ends, and then at least those who were participating in war that season get the rewards, even if they have been kicked out of the alliance after the war ended?
Sure, an evil officer might still kick someone just before it ends. I guess life isn't fair. Just like RNG.
Ill share you some griefing stores from masters/platinum1 on people
1. We had a person who said they didn't have enough "resources" unit/glory to buy potions, so some of pitched in a gifted him so we can 100% the war, gave him heads up he was gona have to go. He took it the wrong way and in chat said he was thinking of just leaving right on the spot at the time
he died..to r3 hood using r5 blade he died like 6 times
2. Just before the cutoff an officer, messed up and dies abunch of times in war, he knew he was gona get kicked...
so he booted more than half of the alliance before he was kicked
and ofcourse I also see a lot of players leave mid war
1 strike/day and you're out.
Or, it needs 3 kicks from 3 different officers/leader
you're missing the entire point man. it's all about the TIMING of it.
here's the issue once again: alliance leaders and officers are kicking people out of the alliance to prevent them from earning rewards even after the final war has completed.
That's the problem people are facing.
all your reasons to kick someone are VALID. get rid of the dead weight.
*****
now I'm not trying to protect freeloaders. I'm not trying to side with people who should be booted. I'm trying to PREVENT leaders and officers from sucking the life out of someone, waiting until the very last war of the season to kick someone out when they SHOULD have done it wars ago. get that please and stop derailing this thread by making it about why it's justified to kick someone out.
*****
**** idea ,just **** off
# lets say we have 3 weeks for 1 aw season.
#when the bracket is locked,whole rewards on 1 season is divided to per war. So if someone get kicked, he didnt loss the prize.
Personally if we had a situation where we should win the war/ complete whole aq 100% BUT because some people holding others (either die easily and only gain little point on aq or even worse, didnt move much and make others need to do more work) i dont like that kind of player (even tho they still participating, better than not at all ).
But i also feel bad if officer/leader kick them when they really close to get the prize, and they miss all the prize, and even they try to join new alliance they cant get the prize because the time is not enough.
I hope kabam consider this matter