Retention Incentives

Can there be an additional title with limited permissions above officer.

As the alliance leader i think it would be nice to bestow almost ceremonial titles on alliance members that don’t really enhance their ability to change things in the alliance.

I let people be officers as a recognition of their contributions over time or because they have some specific skill set. It’d be nice if I could promote members to something that is more or less symbolic.

As dumb as it is people like being promoted to officer but I don’t think its the best plan to give out the authority to do things with it.

Leader - full editing authority
Officer - start wars, approve new members
Jr. officer - approve new members
Members- participate in AW/AQ

Not a huge deal but i have good people who’ve intimidated they are hoping to become officers but the value is diminished because there’s only two layers.

Comments

  • Drooped2Drooped2 Posts: 2,206
    I'd more support a different structure I mean Jr officers meh that's work without any real ability.


    How about things like
    Guru (promote guys who know everything and help everyone)

    Maybe something for war defense(my officers are all solid recruiters but we have a guy who just does defense) hes barely an officer hes just the defense guy
  • SummonerNRSummonerNR Posts: 957
    I’ve suggested something similar, but switching what you’ve described as Officer vs Jr Officer. Any type of Officer should be able to startup next days AQ/AW (although new changes to AW helps, wish they would implement similar for AQ too), or being able to move Defense around.
    But only higher Officers should be able to affect Alliance Membership.
  • TChallla wrote: »
    Can there be an additional title with limited permissions above officer.

    As the alliance leader i think it would be nice to bestow almost ceremonial titles on alliance members that don’t really enhance their ability to change things in the alliance.

    I let people be officers as a recognition of their contributions over time or because they have some specific skill set. It’d be nice if I could promote members to something that is more or less symbolic.

    As dumb as it is people like being promoted to officer but I don’t think its the best plan to give out the authority to do things with it.

    Leader - full editing authority
    Officer - start wars, approve new members
    Jr. officer - approve new members
    Members- participate in AW/AQ

    Not a huge deal but i have good people who’ve intimidated they are hoping to become officers but the value is diminished because there’s only two layers.

    want to show folks appreciation without giving them kicking power? press the Gift button.
  • GmonkeyGmonkey Posts: 366
    A title like boss killer or something
  • TChalllaTChallla Posts: 53

    want to show folks appreciation without giving them kicking power? press the Gift button.

    I have a pretty consistent system for incentive gifting but people still want to be recognized for their efforts. The game could use an extra layer where leaders and officers should be distinguished from say someone who’s just been around for a while. That or a co-leader model.
  • JeniouisJeniouis Posts: 179
    How about "Captain" instead of Jr. Officer. Functionally, this would be helpful. I have 2 officers, one for each BG (I run a BG myself) and it would be extremely helpful if each BG could appoint a captain to help lead the rest when the officers (or myself) will be busy with other things. I don't want five officers because then there's too many "cooks in the kitchen" as they say. The officers and I could run the alliance, and the captain could assist.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    Why would you want to promote members except for them to help facilitate the alliance is beyond me.

    People stay in alliances because it’s well managed and have nice friendly people. It’s a 2-way street.
  • TChalllaTChallla Posts: 53
    xNig wrote: »
    Why would you want to promote members except for them to help facilitate the alliance is beyond me.

    People stay in alliances because it’s well managed and have nice friendly people. It’s a 2-way street.

    I run a well managed alliance with friendly people and reward system outside of what the game offers already. My members still want to be promoted with titles. I don’t mind that but I also don’t want all members to facilitate the alliance.

    I don’t see why everyone needs to have the ability to make minor changes or why we couldn’t use a fluff title that gives folks the recognition without the power.
  • _I__I_ Posts: 163
    umm.. may be not. leader chooses officers wisely most of the time from his top players who has team spirit. but if better players are singled out by title or special rewards as token of appreciation then the whole atmosphere of team unity might get affected as players who would be left out might feel insecure which will also give rise to jealousy n unhealthy competition within the members. then instead of netting the goal players will more likely snatch the ball away from each other. one player might intentionally not remove a node to make life harder for his competitor. sometimes when u can't win nothing prevents us from ensuring no one else also win that game. it happens however much we say oh we are not like that. so just words of encouragement should be doled out not any rewards. besides too many officers jr or sr would be like too many cooks which ultimately will spoil the broth.
  • TChalllaTChallla Posts: 53
    Lots of speculation to unpack there. People will react differently I suppose. I have faith that my alliance wouldn’t dissolve into that cluster of backbiting and drama you just described.

    Right now i have officers that dont use the authority. I have a couple that do.

    I’d like to be able to recognize contributors without them being able to at least start wars.
Sign In or Register to comment.