Or be more open to looking into tickets if people claim they got wrongfully kicked (with some prof of activity level.) Rather than saying they don’t interfere with alliance internal discussions
How do you define "wrongly kicked?" Is Kabam technical support going to contact all thirty members of the alliance and conduct an investigation into what each person was told when they joined, what the leader's directions and requirements were, and whether a particular individual did something or failed to do something that justifies the leader kicking? How is that supposed to work? If the leader tells you that you have to donate by Wednesday but you don't donate until Thursday, can he kick you for that? Or are you saying Kabam gets to decide what every alliance's rules are going to be? Maybe Kabam is going to tell you that you have to keep a player because they demonstrated to customer support that they have a specific need to take the kids to gymnastics for the next four weeks and as that is just a temporary burden the rest of the alliance has to accommodate it, because that's the right thing to do.
You want Kabam looking at this, you don't get to decide how they look at this.
I think introducing a voting system where a certain amount of people must agree in alliance to kick someone might help some situations. If the individual is looking at getting kicked and the majority of people agree that kicking the person is warrented they can use a majority vote to do it
I actually kind of like this idea and wouldn't mind if they implemented this.
In a sense it sounds good but all those new alliances where people just started playing then quit would be stuck with an empty alliance and not have the players to vote and kick them.
If you participate all war season and get kicked after the last war.....didn’t the summoner participate in the required number of wars??? Why shouldn’t they receive the rewards. That’s the part I’m not understanding.
If you participate all war season and get kicked after the last war.....didn’t the summoner participate in the required number of wars??? Why shouldn’t they receive the rewards. That’s the part I’m not understanding.
Is it 5 wars or the last 5???
The rules for alliance war rewards have always explicitly stated that a) you must have participated in at least five wars with the alliance you last joined and b) you must be a member of the alliance when rewards are sent out.
For clarification, if you leave or are kicked by an alliance and join the same alliance again, that counts as joining an alliance. You must participate in five wars after joining, even if you're rejoining after being kicked or leaving voluntarily. The game doesn't recognize "rejoining" only "joining."
No, if you need to swap someone for AQ it doesn't make sense to lock the ability to kick. It should always be the option for the leaders of the alliance. I think for AW rewards it would be best if you qualified for the reward and were in that alliance after the last war you should receive the rewards still but I don't know if that is possible or easy to code to implement. If not then I think it should stay how it is.
Agreed No idea how easy or viable it is form a coding perspective, but each player should be given the rewards of the last alliance they are qualified for So you bounced around and never hit the minimum war requirement from any ally, you get nothing, but if you hit the requirements for one, your get their rewards, unless you jump to another ally and qualify there too, in which case you get those rewards
It's **** that you can work all season, spend resources etc and then get kicked before getting rewards
So in this scenario Player A gets booted from an alliance sitting gold 1 But due to replacing the weaker player they climb to plat 2 or 3. Because player A was holding then back. Does player A then get to take the rest of the season off and claim plat level rewards despite them being the problem in the alliance? Why does he get to benefit from their hard work?
No, if you need to swap someone for AQ it doesn't make sense to lock the ability to kick. It should always be the option for the leaders of the alliance. I think for AW rewards it would be best if you qualified for the reward and were in that alliance after the last war you should receive the rewards still but I don't know if that is possible or easy to code to implement. If not then I think it should stay how it is.
Agreed No idea how easy or viable it is form a coding perspective, but each player should be given the rewards of the last alliance they are qualified for So you bounced around and never hit the minimum war requirement from any ally, you get nothing, but if you hit the requirements for one, your get their rewards, unless you jump to another ally and qualify there too, in which case you get those rewards
It's **** that you can work all season, spend resources etc and then get kicked before getting rewards
So I can fight in five wars, then take the rest of the season off. Because I'm going to get the rewards no matter what the alliance does. If they kick me, eh, I just wait until next season and join another random alliance. Who will have no idea what my history is or have any realistic way to find out.
Crazy alliance leaders are not the only crazy people in the game. There are almost certainly just as many if not more crazy players willing to exploit this loophole as there are crazy alliance leaders who abuse their members. And you're taking away the one tool alliance leaders can use to try to protect themselves from this.
Or be more open to looking into tickets if people claim they got wrongfully kicked (with some prof of activity level.) Rather than saying they don’t interfere with alliance internal discussions
How do you define "wrongly kicked?" Is Kabam technical support going to contact all thirty members of the alliance and conduct an investigation into what each person was told when they joined, what the leader's directions and requirements were, and whether a particular individual did something or failed to do something that justifies the leader kicking? How is that supposed to work? If the leader tells you that you have to donate by Wednesday but you don't donate until Thursday, can he kick you for that? Or are you saying Kabam gets to decide what every alliance's rules are going to be? Maybe Kabam is going to tell you that you have to keep a player because they demonstrated to customer support that they have a specific need to take the kids to gymnastics for the next four weeks and as that is just a temporary burden the rest of the alliance has to accommodate it, because that's the right thing to do.
You want Kabam looking at this, you don't get to decide how they look at this.
Ok, catching me in a pissy mood...lovely! I’m talking about the situations where a few kids in the group have been the good soldiers, making donations on time, contributing on a consistent basis, holding their own in aq/aw, and have not angered anyone.
But the day they are about to receive rewards, someone kicks them with no explanation at all because the leader/officer is on a spiteful power trip. It’s THAT kind of situation where Kabam’ default “S.O.L kiddos” is BS and you know it.
I’ve dealt with enough people that should’ve gotten the boot during that last cutoff range because of being, but our ally would not boot due to:
-lack of people willing to commit knowing they aren’t getting rewarded -being an overall dink move over a video game
Tl;dr look into inquiries on a case by ****** case basis
Comments
You want Kabam looking at this, you don't get to decide how they look at this.
Is it 5 wars or the last 5???
For clarification, if you leave or are kicked by an alliance and join the same alliance again, that counts as joining an alliance. You must participate in five wars after joining, even if you're rejoining after being kicked or leaving voluntarily. The game doesn't recognize "rejoining" only "joining."
Player A gets booted from an alliance sitting gold 1
But due to replacing the weaker player they climb to plat 2 or 3. Because player A was holding then back.
Does player A then get to take the rest of the season off and claim plat level rewards despite them being the problem in the alliance?
Why does he get to benefit from their hard work?
Crazy alliance leaders are not the only crazy people in the game. There are almost certainly just as many if not more crazy players willing to exploit this loophole as there are crazy alliance leaders who abuse their members. And you're taking away the one tool alliance leaders can use to try to protect themselves from this.
I’m talking about the situations where a few kids in the group have been the good soldiers, making donations on time, contributing on a consistent basis, holding their own in aq/aw, and have not angered anyone.
But the day they are about to receive rewards, someone kicks them with no explanation at all because the leader/officer is on a spiteful power trip. It’s THAT kind of situation where Kabam’ default “S.O.L kiddos” is BS and you know it.
I’ve dealt with enough people that should’ve gotten the boot during that last cutoff range because of being, but our ally would not boot due to:
-lack of people willing to commit knowing they aren’t getting rewarded
-being an overall dink move over a video game
Tl;dr look into inquiries on a case by ****** case basis