**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
I think this is more like you were hired for a certain schedule , and once the manager found out you weren’t in school / or had other obligations they told you that they need you working this shift that was out of your schedule. You say no then they fire you for someone who can work your schedule.
s
S
If the leader wants to have full control over the ally he should not appoint anyone.
In order to be eligible for AW rewards a member needs to participate in 5 wars , in 14 days I’m not sure how many wars they can get in. ( im not 100% sure?
I agree , expectations are different .
For example, if I were to run an Alliance, I would appoint Officers, but they would only be in charge of planning. I would be solely in charge of Alliance politics. If I wanted to kick someone, it is my choice and my choice only. In this example, I have a team, and I need a team for AQ/AW purposes, but the decision is purely mine.
14 days is about two weeks of AQ. If they force quit your ally , next ally they join, they won’t be able to do this. They have to be kicked in agreement in order to not use their token.
As a Leader, I wouldn’t want to have to share my power with people who don’t own the Alliance. It’s my Alliance, so logically I should be able to control who I want in my Alliance. If the Officers vote to keep a Member that I personally don’t like, I don’t see the point in being Leader.
Sure, I appoint people to be the second-in-commands, but that doesn’t mean I want to share all powers and responsibilities with them. I want to share the responsibility of planning paths, but that’s just me as a Leader. Other Leaders can decide what they want to share with the Officers; that shouldn’t be automatically shared. The position of being Officer and the ability to partake in Alliance politics are mutually exclusive.
Alliances are player-ruled organizations. It sucks when they are ruled badly, but I don't think Kabam should be in the business of enforcing organizational rules on them. It is not a far step to take from Kabam forcing officers to not kick and deny rewards, to saying players should be able to appeal to Kabam to require alliances to not kick at all, because they "deserve" to be in that alliance.
Can we kick a player with four participation credits and one war in the season to go? Can we kick a player in the middle of an AQ week? Can we kick a player ten seconds *before* an alliance event like Gifting starts to make it extremely difficult for them to find a new alliance in time? Are we going to appoint a Greek council to arbitrate all the "unfair" ways players can get kicked from an alliance and denied rewards?
I know people hop around between alliances and I know people get kicked from alliances and move on to other alliances all the time. But I think the primary purpose of alliances is to foster a connection to a small group of players that is small enough for such connections to be formed. It adds a sense of community to a game with hundreds of thousands of players most of us will never meet or interact with. They aren't just reward containers to exploit for stuff. So I don't think it is a bad thing globally for the game to effectively reward cohesion, by granting rewards to players who participate, and stick around. I think if someone is thinking that alliance rewards are personal rewards they earned themselves and they deserve whether they are in the alliance or not when the rewards are issued, that's not the kind of perspective to alliances the game should be honoring or promoting.
Yes there are bad side effects of this, and there are players who end up with the short end of the stick. But I think there's a presumption that this is not a bad side effect of a good thing, but just a bad thing period. But I think changing it ultimately probably does more harm than good.
When my alliance went from only one bg of map 7 to all 3 bgs of map 7 I lost half the alliance. Most was from people not wanting to make that leap but others it was a skill issue. Way too many factors for Kabam to control, so they should just allow people who have participated until the end to get their rewards and if they jump then I feel officers should feel that burden. It comes with the territory.