New recruits and alliance management ideas.

I have a few ideas that could make managing an alliance easier. I doubt im the first one to think of this, but I wanted some feedback regardless.

1. When a new person enters an alliance they should have a "locked" designation. This means the player is unable to join Alliance wars or quest or contribute in any way. Alliance officers and leaders will be able to "unlock" these players to enable them to join those events and quests. This could be helpful in many ways.
Unlocking a player.
-allows them to join Alliance quests right away. Even if it has already begun.
-allows them to join Alliance wars assault in a Battle Group that is short a player or more.
Locking or leaving them locked gives us security. Allows us to make sure they know whats expected, or join our coms so we can communicate with them first before deciding to keep them or direct them to a bg for war or quest. IT WOULD FORCE THEM TO COMMUNICATE! Players cannot be locked after they have been unlocked!

2. A way to refund donations to players leaving or being booted from an alliance, or for donating the wrong donatable item. These people would only be entitled to what they donated.

3. Id like a bench. A place to keep second accounts or prospects that dont count towards any alliance events, quests, or being able to donate. People that we can swap with exsisting players if they go away for a few days to a week. Some players have second accounts. This would allow a player to be eligible for anything upon coming in off the bench. In case someone leaves the alliance before a war or quest or just goes away for a few days.

4. A way to remove players defensive champs in Alliance wars and champs in Alliance quests. So many times people join the wrong bg, or join with absolute garbage characters, or just forget a character. Sometimes they join an Alliance war or Quest and then leave the alliance! This would allow us to make room for a different person or fix any mistake or misjudgement by a player.

Its hard to manage a 30 person bg without any safe guards, or the ability to have more than 30 to provide back up. The in game chat is all but useless. We need something to protect ourselves. I know some would say lock your alliance. Invite only as a solution to some of this and I get it. Not everyone has the time or energy to recruit and manage 24/7. These suggestions at least allow us to fix player mistakes and manage our players in bgs. More importantly, force new recruits to communicate before being able to participate.

Thank you for your time.

Comments

  • _solidsnake_solidsnake Member Posts: 133
    Yes, yes and yes. These are all great ideas. If you are an officer or leader you should be commenting on this post or liking it at the very least. These would all be great alliance management tools and would relieve a lot of headaches.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    Thanks solid! Not many views or responses. Oh well.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    Couple more readers. Respond if you agree!
  • Tthunder2058Tthunder2058 Member Posts: 115
    I agree with this idea, I have been a leader and officer and it gets to be a pain when new members jump into a battlegroup with out checking or reading the useless game chat that the Battlegroups have a set lineup, locking out would be great, and if they could change the friends to 30 you could add potential members and tell them what is needed before joing the alliance.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    Indeed. Not gaiming much traction. New forums are meh.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    Indeed. Not gaining much traction though. Would love to hear how feasible somethimg like that would be...
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Member Posts: 2,396 ★★★★
    also the ability to lock quest battlegroups so if you are only running 1 or 2 it stops some noob starting a 2nd or 3rd by themselves at the last minute thinking they are helping.....
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    edited May 2017
    Exactly! Great point! I can see one flaw in being able to unlock a player. Alliances trying to up their prestige could easily remove a player with lower p.i., start aq, invite them back, and have them participate in it. However, that 2 could be fixed with a timer that doesnt allow them to be unlocked if they were just removed or left from an alliance. 24hr lock.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    The bench could be used in multiple ways as well. New recruits, when they first join, go to the bench. People who will be away fo an extended period. Or even someone whos been incommunicae for awhile. Why not let us have the ability to manage bgs and our playera in them. I especially love the idea about being able to lock a bg to prevent people from joining when only you and your officers know who will be available to fight that round. Great idea!
  • This content has been removed.
  • PleswalkerPleswalker Member Posts: 5
    Love the bench idea!
  • winterthurwinterthur Member Posts: 8,059 ★★★★★
    I am thinking whether there are too much power vested on the Leader and Officers.

    There are members with much much higher rating than officers and a reason they are not made officers is to prevent sabotage by kicking every other member, ... well there are other reasons too.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    edited May 2017
    I would disagree and say we dont have enough. We cant force people to join aw or aq. We cannot remove their champs if they join the wrong bg or place horrible champs. We cant stop them from joining any bg before they communicate with us. It would be nice to be able to place a player in a bg. Then once placed they would then place their champs in that bg. Then if they leave or you they messed up and only placed 4. You can then remove that player from the bg and in turn it removes that players champs..
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    We just had a situation where we ran aw short three people. I asked that we go 9 per bg. Well one guy coming back from vacation just joined his regular bg. Giving us 10 in bg1. 8 in bg2 and 9 in bg3.... that should not be allowed to happen. Seems like it would be a simple task to be able to make things like this manageable...
  • winterthurwinterthur Member Posts: 8,059 ★★★★★
    :) I have two accounts and in two separate alliance. In one, I am an officer, in another I am a member. Interesting to see both sides.

    If your member is not willing to listen, then maybe get members sharing the same goals. If I was in a group vested with powers which you suggested, I may leave.

    In the group in which I am an officer, I face the same issues you explained. If the Leader accepts the status quo, I toe the line.

    Anyway, your ideas are fair. I just voice my opinion on control going overboard.
  • Hawksfan74Hawksfan74 Member Posts: 29
    I just dont see anything suggested above as being overboard. We're merely talking about safeguards that enable alliances more freedom to organize and protect themselves. Im not talking about running a prison. Whats overboard about refunding a players gold, loyalty, or battlechips? If you decide to remove them after they have donated? Whats overboard about having the option to place players in the bg you want and then they can place their team? Even the bench... allowing a player to join your alliance, and immediately come off the bench and contribute when a player suddenly leaves for no reason? You disagree with being able to remove a players champs from aw defense if they only place 4? Or for some reason place inadequate champs? Or being able to put someone on the bench who may be leaving for an extended period of time? Maybe you're referring to the ability to lock and unlock an aq bg in order to keep people from starting a bg they cannot finish?

    Whats more interesting is that you do see both sides and yet make no plausible argument other than find like minded people. Ha. If i kicked everyone that didn't immediately join our line ap or respond in alliance chat. I wouldnt have much of an alliance. The only control officers and leaders have over their alliance is the ability to kick, invite, and start aw or aq. Thats it. I for one would like to see alliances have better tools to help accomodate players and themselves.


  • Nomi_007Nomi_007 Member Posts: 1
    Absolutely & completely agree to this. U'd thinking adding alliance features is good but actually adding alliance CONTROLS is much much much better
  • Firethumb_1Firethumb_1 Member Posts: 64
    Agree totally alliance management needs better tools at their disposal to make it easier for them without line id be lost the in game chat is useless in line I have separated each bg 12&3 and invited the relevant players I don't see why the officers/leader can't do this in game click on a players profile and assign a battle group for them once they've been assigned a battle group they get the rewards and can join straight away weather they just joined the alliance or not
  • Firethumb_1Firethumb_1 Member Posts: 64
    I don't think the refund thing will ever happen though there is to much room for exploitation players low on gold etc getting it from the treasury
  • This content has been removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.