More control for Leaders and Officers in AQ and AW

I was just wondering if Kabam would ever think about giving Leaders and Officers more control over AQ and AW. By this I mean would it be possible for us to allocate members to specific groups.

I personally think this would be a HUGE improvement to the game.

Many thanks for your time

Comments

Blackbeard

I already suggested it. But it seems got no response. This way atleast we can ensure unwanted participations and stop waste potential participations.

gone_again

Exactly my reason for asking, would make the game a lot better in my opinion

HoidCosmere

What would be nice with wars is if the leader can assign the members and pull the champs he wants from the roster for placement.

winterthur

I've seen quite a number of alliances where the members are far stronger than the Leader and Officers.

These suggestions do not add value to those alliances.

gone_again

winter could you explain your comment as I'm a bit confused by it (and I'm being genuine here not sarcastic) sometimes leadership wants groups a certain way with certain players in certain groups, I don't see how members being stronger than the leader or officers would have any impact on that. Just want to say thanks to you all for replying with your thoughts on the matter too, I really appreciate it

Colvin35

Alliance leadership doesn't need to pick other players champions. If they constantly use subpar champs, then they can be removed from the alliance. Members also do the monthly quests or AQ and may be using using those champs for that.

It would be nice for the leadership to be able to assign members to battle groups for both AW and AQ.

winterthur

gone_again wrote: »

winter could you explain your comment as I'm a bit confused by it (and I'm being genuine here not sarcastic) sometimes leadership wants groups a certain way with certain players in certain groups, I don't see how members being stronger than the leader or officers would have any impact on that. Just want to say thanks to you all for replying with your thoughts on the matter too, I really appreciate it

I am not in favour of Officer (I am one in my alliance) having too much control. Currently, a member can be kicked out by just one Officer. I would have thought at least a second Officer to activate kick confirmation.

Members in the alliance should work together for the benefit of the alliance. If they don't listen, you already has the power to kick.

I am reading some alliance even demand members share access login for others to move in AW & AQ. Or buy a 'seat' in the top alliances to get T4CC etc.

The whole idea is to prevent abuse and control.
Just my thoughts.

Vinitlalka1988

While the idea seems good...the point of having an alliance is not only everyone having sound skills..but also great communication & co-ordination.....that is how an 7 mil alliance can beat an 9 mil alliance inspite of probably having inferior skill capability....makes it even sometimes....and also the reason why alliance choice should not be entirely based on overall PI rating......

winterthur

gone_again wrote: »

, I don't see how members being stronger than the leader or officers would have any impact on that.

There is an element of being conversant on the champ abilities with node buffs. A player who is meticulous with it can get good understanding on champ placement but still lacking the practical experience of actually having played with champs. E.g. An awakened rank 4 SIM. Which tile do you place him?

In alliance where Officer's champ strength is low (and I have seen quite number) compared with Members, do you really think the Officer gives orders? Maybe ...

gone_again

The only thing I would like is to be able to allocate members to specific groups, every alliance likes to try out different combinations in AQ and AW and that can sometimes, understandably , lead to some confusion for members, communication is a must I agree, but mistakes can and will happen in the very best of alliances.

I do agree that it really does depend on your abilities with champs that should take precedence over the ranking/rating of a champ and it really does depend on who you fight best with to maximise your abilities.

And an Officer isn't there to give orders as such in our alliance, its to help out with placement and managing groups, and general 'running' of the alliance. We also don't kick a member without full discussion between officers and leader, unless of course the said member is being abusive or horrid to another member, then its instakick.

A feature I do like that Kabam have recently brought in is the auto placement if a member accidentally doesn't place a champ in AW, saves 'wasting' a champ - good call Kabam!!

Jkw634

If people consistently join wrong group and don't listen it may be time to remove them from the alliance. As an alliance we use line app. We have our main discussion chat then each bg is broken down into their own chat so do not clog up main chat.

wray1976

Colvin35 wrote: »

Alliance leadership doesn't need to pick other players champions. If they constantly use subpar champs, then they can be removed from the alliance. Members also do the monthly quests or AQ and may be using using those champs for that.

It would be nice for the leadership to be able to assign members to battle groups for both AW and AQ.

We assign members to certain groups for AQ/War its not that difficult to figure out with players who can listen or follow directions. Communication is simple honestly.

wray1976

Jkw634 wrote: »

If people consistently join wrong group and don't listen it may be time to remove them from the alliance. As an alliance we use line app. We have our main discussion chat then each bg is broken down into their own chat so do not clog up main chat.

We do the same thing. Its really easy to figure out.

Cano29848

One thing that kabam should do is make a donation history that way you can see who donated. As far giving the officers the power on who to put in aw I'm not a fan of this idea. But be able to lock a player from playing in AW\AQ if not performing well that is something that can help the leadership.

wray1976

HoidCosmere wrote: »

What would be nice with wars is if the leader can assign the members and pull the champs he wants from the roster for placement.

Why would you even want to play in that alliance? I'm a grown adult I can figure out what champs to use. Some players play better with specific champs so someone else telling me how to play wouldn't fly. Sounds like a power control issue honestly.

gone_again

its not a case of not communicating at all, we have main chat and battle group chats for each battle group, it boils down to human error which all of us have been guilty of at one time or another, if we can allocate then that takes that margin for error away, and like I said when we try different groups then it would make it easier for the alliance as a whole.

Choosing a players champs is taking it a bit too far I would certainly agree with that, and I agree that there are specific champs people play better with. The treasury history would be a good idea too and being able to lock out a player would be handy too.

We as an alliance don't just kick for kickings sake, we try to give people chances, if they don't take those chances then we will release them from the alliance.

Thanks to everyone who has commented, its nice to get other peoples oppinions :-)