GREE has locked syndicates longer after the war, is this a GOOD move?

[TMI]

This is deserving of a new poll because it is not hypothetical anymore. This is the first war that this has happened with.
We have now seen the real effects of this change (Locking syndicates after war)


YES - This will protect PLAYERS that participate in wars to receive their prize after the war, regardless of syndicate politics that may have occurred during war.

ie. Protect players from unjust actions of their syndicate


NO - We need to protect the SYNDICATE from leechers/players who lied to them about their participation, took up a spot in the syndicate, and never showed up to any battle just to receive the prizes.

ie. Protect syndicates from unjust actions of their players

[CJ54]

Poll reopened.

[CCKallDAY]

No,..no way

[jmeijer]

I voted yes. If there are people not putting up what they need according to the requirements of the syndicate, they need to be booted. But basicly screwing them by not giving them prizes is a bad thing in my opinion. If the leader and officers of a syndicate accept a lot of lazy members, then it's just a matter of bad management. The leader and officers decide on who they let into the group and they're the ones responsible for their own actions.

[Ben Raines]

Joy gree has found another way to screw over those that spend the time and money to do well and be a productive teammate... First they do nothing with cheaters, now freeloaders are protected to get prizes... its the only recourse we have to protect the syndicate and those that put out an effort...

[TMI]

Thanks you CJ54 for reopening this thread.

PLEASE ppl, don't swear or insults GREE, etc. maybe give your reasoning. maybe some anecdotes (examples of how this has affected you), etc. GREE has shown that they will read threads (our opinions), but noone wants to go through a bunch of swearing and/or insults.

If you have an opinion and would like to express it. please do so intelligently. no need for insults, etc.

Thanks again CJ54

[TMI]

I voted no.
My experience has been only with leechers.
ex. Our team is struggling to make a top prize and a few ppl never even show up!
There has been an agreement between the leader/officers and members: you put up x min ip, and you have the chance of getting top y prize. Sure, it's not "in writing" but it's understood (it may actually be in writing on groupme or whatever). I have seen this EVERY battle (LEECHERS)

There are FAR MORE leechers than crazy syndicate leaders. That being said, it's far easier for the "free market" to work against crazy synd leaders than leechers.
For example. If there are 3 ppl in my sydicate, that clearly lied just to get top prizes (not talking about RL problems, etc), how would ppl know about these leechers? IT'S VERY DIFFICULT!
Compare that to a psyco leader that boots ppl unjustly. Surely, we, the CC community, would know about them far easier. Then we can make an INFORMED choice, whether or not to be part of that syndicate, knowing the past history of the leader.
It is far more difficult to know the past history of a LEECHER, and thus, the officer/leader wouldn't be able to make a truly INFORMED decision.

Makes sense?

anyone have any other examples?

Edit: TLDR. My point is that the free market can better deal with abuse from syndicate leaders, than abuse from individual players (Leechers)

[Sandukan]

Kicking someone out before prizes distributed is unfair. You go into battle with that team. Leaving the decision to syndicate leaders is not a good idea. Too many chances for potential abuse.

[Im-in]

Thanks you CJ54 for reopening this thread.

PLEASE ppl, don't swear or insults GREE, etc. maybe give your reasoning. maybe some anecdotes (examples of how this has affected you), etc. GREE has shown that they will read threads (our opinions), but noone wants to go through a bunch of swearing and/or insults.

If you have an opinion and would like to express it. please do so intelligently. no need for insults, etc.

Thanks again CJ54

Ive been an officer for a couple syndicates (top 10 and top 25). Most leaders are responsible. A player who gives a commitment and understands the minimum rarely will get booted from the syndicates if he is performing as the other members who see this will notice that it can be done to them. The bigger problem for the higher spending syndicates are lying, mooching campers and conspirers. The options to release them without prizes, is a deterrent for them to hunt in the first place as it will waste their war prizes also. We should have the option to release a player without prizes before war ends.

[GU7 F4WK3S]

Kicking someone out before prizes distributed is unfair. You go into battle with that team. Leaving the decision to syndicate leaders is not a good idea. Too many chances for potential abuse.i voted that way to but knowing we share logic isn't conducive to what i look for in a nemesis. i'm changing my vote.

[CJ54]

Compare that to a psyco leader that boots ppl unjustly. Surely, we, the CC community, would know about them far easier. Then we can make an INFORMED choice, whether or not to be part of that syndicate, knowing the past history of the leader.
It is far more difficult to know the past history of a LEECHER, and thus, the officer/leader wouldn't be able to make a truly INFORMED decision.

Here's the thing, is that "leacher" or "unjust" are relative terms. Let's say the leader/officers sets the participation bar relatively high (common). Lets say that someone spends a bunch of gold to get to that arbitrary point total, they don't reach that arbitrary point total, they get booted before prizes. The upshot to us is that someone just spent a lot of gold and may have spent a significant amount of hours of their real life on something and got no return. Nadda, zip, zilch.

And you can say "Well, they shouldn't have agreed to something they might not have been able to do", but the syndicate leader isn't the one who's receiving the money for that purchased gold. We can't set it up so that people who didn't participate at all don't get a prize, so we're going to default to "We'd like to ensure that people who DID participate in the event get the prize". The variable participation requirements set by individual guilds are agreements between individuals rather than a mechanic, and are not something that we can directly support or enforce at this time.

This is just spitballing and I don't know the feasibility, but what if we added something like a feature at the end of a Syndicate event, where the leader/officers could distribute a reward to players that met participation goals? In that hypothetical scenario, we'd be hands-off about that since it would expressly be at the leader/officers discretion to reward. Carrot instead of stick.

[Sandukan]

i voted that way to but knowing we share logic isn't conducive to what i look for in a nemesis. i'm changing my vote.
I am not your nemesis.
I am you.
If you were a god.

You were made in my image.

[dgwalker]

I wish there was a middle ground here.

It would be nice to be able to kick members that scored less than 25% of the Average IP.

Here is an example of how this would work: If your syndicate of 60 scored 5M points then the average players scored 83K IP. 25% of 83k is 20K. Anyone scoring less than 20K could be kicked without a prize.
This protects active players from d-bag syndicate leaders. I also protects syndicates from complete no-shows.

-Dgwalker

[Sandukan]

Here's the thing, is that "leacher" or "unjust" are relative terms. Let's say the leader/officers sets the participation bar relatively high (common). Lets say that someone spends a bunch of gold to get to that arbitrary point total, they don't reach that arbitrary point total, they get booted before prizes. The upshot to us is that someone just spent a lot of gold and may have spent a significant amount of hours of their real life on something and got no return. Nadda, zip, zilch.

And you can say "Well, they shouldn't have agreed to something they might not have been able to do", but the syndicate leader isn't the one who's receiving the money for that purchased gold. We can't set it up so that people who didn't participate at all don't get a prize, so we're going to default to "We'd like to ensure that people who DID participate in the event get the prize". The variable participation requirements set by individual guilds are agreements between individuals rather than a mechanic, and are not something that we can directly support or enforce at this time.

This is just spitballing and I don't know the feasibility, but what if we added something like a feature at the end of a Syndicate event, where the leader/officers could distribute a reward to players that met participation goals? In that hypothetical scenario, we'd be hands-off about that since it would expressly be at the leader/officers discretion to reward. Carrot instead of stick.
Your proposal seems ok.
You guys also had considered a participation prize at the outset but retracted the idea. I thought that was fair.

Just be aware that the leaders will give prizes to their buddies and problems will arise there.

In my opinion the less involvement leaders have in delegating prizes the better.

[Im-in]

Here's the thing, is that "leacher" or "unjust" are relative terms. Let's say the leader/officers sets the participation bar relatively high (common). Lets say that someone spends a bunch of gold to get to that arbitrary point total, they don't reach that arbitrary point total, they get booted before prizes. The upshot to us is that someone just spent a lot of gold and may have spent a significant amount of hours of their real life on something and got no return. Nadda, zip, zilch.

And you can say "Well, they shouldn't have agreed to something they might not have been able to do", but the syndicate leader isn't the one who's receiving the money for that purchased gold. We can't set it up so that people who didn't participate at all don't get a prize, so we're going to default to "We'd like to ensure that people who DID participate in the event get the prize". The variable participation requirements set by individual guilds are agreements between individuals rather than a mechanic, and are not something that we can directly support or enforce at this time.

This is just spitballing and I don't know the feasibility, but what if we added something like a feature at the end of a Syndicate event, where the leader/officers could distribute a reward to players that met participation goals? In that hypothetical scenario, we'd be hands-off about that since it would expressly be at the leader/officers discretion to reward. Carrot instead of stick.

If more protection is required for the player, they can always approach the officers. Maybe you give the officers and leader the right to eject players on based on majority votes while the leader cannot depose the officers only members.

Having said, I can say in top 10 and 25, if their is nut job, unfair leader, all the players will know and flee. Right now the most coveted are high stat, gold players and they are recruited and coddled if they perform. They can goto any syndicates. The problem currently is are those taking advantage of the system setup. It doesnt often happen in PVP! for a reason.

[TMI]

This is just spitballing and I don't know the feasibility, but what if we added something like a feature at the end of a Syndicate event, where the leader/officers could distribute a reward to players that met participation goals? In that hypothetical scenario, we'd be hands-off about that since it would expressly be at the leader/officers discretion to reward. Carrot instead of stick.

OMG, that's a great idea! I'm floored! I understand your POV now as well: GREE puts up the rewards lists of top prizes for syndicates, so you have to keep your word about that. With this bonus, left at the discretion of the syndicate leader:
1. It'll be out of your hands, because GREE is not promising that extra bonus.
2. The free market will still be able to work in isolating psycho syndicate leaders who "unjustly" abuse this, see number 1.

I would really be interested to see any devil's advocates, on this hypothetical; possible downsides? (I already know about stats inflation, but that's happening anyways)

Eidt: just read the above posts. For the post two above me; the free market would still be able to work to leaders who give it to their "buddies", IF the free market decides that kind of behaviour is "unjust"

[tom73]

I like the reward option for sure. I still think that we need the ability to kick. I understand the logic here for top teams. Point is that the vast majority of teams are not top 25. Everyone from 500 down will look at this much differently. Many teams do not set ridiculous goals. In our syndicate the cutoff was 0 this time. 0. And we kept one person who usually contributes.

[The Fonz]

I voted yes. If there are people not putting up what they need according to the requirements of the syndicate, they need to be booted. But basicly screwing them by not giving them prizes is a bad thing in my opinion. If the leader and officers of a syndicate accept a lot of lazy members, then it's just a matter of bad management. The leader and officers decide on who they let into the group and they're the ones responsible for their own actions.
I disagree with this assessment, and here's why. When a recruit is brought on board, there is no way to gauge how well s/he will perform during syndicate battle weekend until the event has started. The recuit may do everything right to that point to validate their membership (e.g. contribute their income, participate in PvP tournaments (which is something done at one's own pace)), but the true measure of dependability and loyalty comes from activity during that key battle weekend, and there are occasions where the leader, officers and/or other members try to reach out to that individual for assistance, but they either fail to follow instructions or try to make themselves inconspicuously absent for battle. No recourse is available during that span, but there is one when battle wraps up on Monday, and the individual in question shouldn't benefit from the toil and sweat of others.

[CJ54]

Your proposal seems ok.
You guys also had considered a participation prize at the outset but retracted the idea. I thought that was fair.

Just be aware that the leaders will give prizes to their buddies and problems will arise there.

In my opinion the less involvement leaders have in delegating prizes the better.

Also a fair point. It might be time again to dust off the participation award idea.

EDIT: Part of the problem with the participation awards in the first place, that applies to some similar suggestions is that the reward script is already a complicated hogbeast of epic proportions and adding more bits to it could be Dangerous.

[apotheosis]

If there are leeching players out there than put up a list of player mafia codes that have been leechers in your syndicate that other syndicates can use to back check players against.

On a side note when is Gree going to do something about players with half as much attack as I have defense. Nobody attacks players even when they aren't banking money. You get way more xp and only $30k when attacking someone who is not banking. But you can rob someones LTB for millions and get very little xp. There needs to be a change now that especially with the way everybody stats are just exploding so high now. Gree can change it so that attacking non-bankers reduces their defense from items by half. 2nd option would be to increase the amount of xp substantially from robbing. Someone with just 500k attack being able to rob someone with a million defense just isn't fair.

[CJ54]

OMG, that's a great idea! I'm floored! I understand your POV now as well: GREE puts up the rewards lists of top prizes for syndicates, so you have to keep your word about that. With this bonus, left at the discretion of the syndicate leader:
1. It'll be out of your hands, because GREE is not promising that extra bonus.
2. The free market will still be able to work in isolating psycho syndicate leaders who "unjustly" abuse this, see number 1.

I would really be interested to see any devil's advocates, on this hypothetical; possible downsides? (I already know about stats inflation, but that's happening anyways)

Eidt: just read the above posts. For the post two above me; the free market would still be able to work to leaders who give it to their "buddies", IF the free market decides that kind of behaviour is "unjust"

I'll be floating the idea and the other ideas past the CC devs; we're sympathetic to the leader point of view here too (it's no good for people ending up having to carry other people), but we would like it to be an incentive rather than a punishment given the circumstances, if possible.

[apotheosis]

Gree could put up a new stat on the players profile indicating ip from last war or average ip from wars or wins and loses during wars or all of the above so syndicate leaders have stats to gauge the player by.

[apotheosis]

P.S. I don't think Cerberus is going to like this new 1st prize award either. Maybe make it so that banking your money pays out a dividend of 1% of your total banked money every 24 hrs. The more money you keep banked the more you will get every time.

[TMI]

Just be aware that the leaders will give prizes to their buddies and problems will arise there.
In my opinion the less involvement leaders have in delegating prizes the better.
First sentence; the free market would be able to address that.
Second sentence: Upon reading that sentence, i'll have to agree with you. I can't really put my finger on it, but too much 'power' in leaders' hands, doesn't sit well with me either. Although, i still think the free market would respond to that.



Gree could put up a new stat on the players profile indicating ip from last war or average ip from wars or wins and loses during wars or all of the above so syndicate leaders have stats to gauge the player by.
Wow, novel idea! ip scores would be part of the stats! However, we'd have to think about how knowing rivals' previous ip scores would affect all other aspects of gameplay, pvps, robs, recruiting, etc. It is, in a sense, showing gold spent, and i think there were concerns around that in a previous thread.

[IBTL]

This is just spitballing and I don't know the feasibility, but what if we added something like a feature at the end of a Syndicate event, where the leader/officers could distribute a reward to players that met participation goals? In that hypothetical scenario, we'd be hands-off about that since it would expressly be at the leader/officers discretion to reward. Carrot instead of stick.

I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. This idea still opens up the possibility of unscrupulous or embittered leaders/officers. But I love that you're willing to throw ideas out there. Here's an idea I've kicked around in the past:

Include a feature in the syndicate menu that allows the syndicate leader to set a minimum - either total wins or total IP. When prizes are awarded, only those players who have met the total wins and/or total IP receive the prize.

I admit that I have no idea how difficult it would be for programming to implement this idea, but I do believe it would be practical and fair on two levels: 1) all syndicate members would know the minimum requirements upon joining the syndicate and 2) the freeloaders would be eliminated pretty quickly, which would lead to more balanced teams.

[Ben Raines]

I like the participation award idea... the reason. I voted no is because the last war we had a member who had been with us for awhile and did well... decided he was over the syndicate and decided to declare war constantly when we weren't supposed to and we ended up just missing out on our goal of top 500...

Can we lock the battle button for officers/leader then to help with that issue?

[IBTL]

Criticisms of my idea:

1) What if someone spends time and gold and just barely the minimums?
2) What if the leader changes the minimums at the last minute?

Responses to criticisms:

1) Advertising the minimums let's other know what is expected of them. If they bit off more than they can chew, well ... that's sort of on them. I think the large majority of players know how much time and resources it takes to hit a given number of wins or IP.

2) Minimums can be changed only once per battle, but not during the week leading up to war. This way, leaders cannot make last minute changes and if they do make a change, members have a week to find a new home if so desired.

[jfeezy1210]

Ive been an officer for a couple syndicates (top 10 and top 25). Most leaders are responsible. A player who gives a commitment and understands the minimum rarely will get booted from the syndicates if he is performing as the other members who see this will notice that it can be done to them. The bigger problem for the higher spending syndicates are lying, mooching campers and conspirers. The options to release them without prizes, is a deterrent for them to hunt in the first place as it will waste their war prizes also. We should have the option to release a player without prizes before war ends.

Being a programmer myself, it wouldn't(shouldn't) be too difficult to implement a voting system within syndicates to allow officers to vote someone out and the leader being the deciding vote, for example.

Edit: Deciding vote in case of a tie.

[crazyman1]

i know some games has a min. to get a prize i think that should be it . this will fix leeches to a certain point

[crazyman1]

example would be top 4000 would be like 500 points top 1000 2000 points top 750 5k and so on

[Mack The Knife]

First off. Its great to see a Gree member actively participating in this thread. Thank you for that.

Secondly. how about a time lock. basically the first half of the event the Syndicate is open. If by the midway point you notice that some people have not met the requirement or aren't even participating, it seems fair to be able to expel them. The last half of the event would then be locked. Who you have is who you have.

[highgrass]

I'm the leader in my syndicate. We, the officers and I, discuss beforehand who to kick. Saying that when we have members who didn't score one point in the battles I don't think they deserve to get the prizes. We had two people who we wanted to kick because they didn't fight and they never responded to any post that we posted on their walls.

[CCKallDAY]

I voted yes. If there are people not putting up what they need according to the requirements of the syndicate, they need to be booted. But basicly screwing them by not giving them prizes is a bad thing in my opinion. If the leader and officers of a syndicate accept a lot of lazy members, then it's just a matter of bad management. The leader and officers decide on who they let into the group and they're the ones responsible for their own actions.But sometimes the people lie. I can't always get proof, because once we had a leech in our syndicate who said would score 200k (was with syndicate previously, scores 300k so i trusted him) then he joined and scored 10k -_- they shouldn't get a prize for lying. we also had a person that said they could score 20k (old req) then got 1 win and 4,000+ losses. They should NOT receive the prizes.

[CCKallDAY]

I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. This idea still opens up the possibility of unscrupulous or embittered leaders/officers. But I love that you're willing to throw ideas out there. Here's an idea I've kicked around in the past:

Include a feature in the syndicate menu that allows the syndicate leader to set a minimum - either total wins or total IP. When prizes are awarded, only those players who have met the total wins and/or total IP receive the prize.

I admit that I have no idea how difficult it would be for programming to implement this idea, but I do believe it would be practical and fair on two levels: 1) all syndicate members would know the minimum requirements upon joining the syndicate and 2) the freeloaders would be eliminated pretty quickly, which would lead to more balanced teams.bad idea, what if you have lets see 1 million influence point scorer but he goes on vacation, and doesn't have wi-fi, he won't get the prize for not participating, even though he ALWAYS does better than everyone in your syndicate? And what if the leader doesn't make the point requirement (lets say he has a business trip) the leader won't get the prize? dumb idea

[highgrass]

Now this is an idea with looking at. Some syndicates have accepted a player the day before the war. If that player had a stay indicating what they did last war we would know if they were a slacker or not.

[CCKallDAY]

I voted no.
My experience has been only with leechers.
ex. Our team is struggling to make a top prize and a few ppl never even show up!
There has been an agreement between the leader/officers and members: you put up x min ip, and you have the chance of getting top y prize. Sure, it's not "in writing" but it's understood (it may actually be in writing on groupme or whatever). I have seen this EVERY battle (LEECHERS)

There are FAR MORE leechers than crazy syndicate leaders. That being said, it's far easier for the "free market" to work against crazy synd leaders than leechers.
For example. If there are 3 ppl in my sydicate, that clearly lied just to get top prizes (not talking about RL problems, etc), how would ppl know about these leechers? IT'S VERY DIFFICULT!
Compare that to a psyco leader that boots ppl unjustly. Surely, we, the CC community, would know about them far easier. Then we can make an INFORMED choice, whether or not to be part of that syndicate, knowing the past history of the leader.
It is far more difficult to know the past history of a LEECHER, and thus, the officer/leader wouldn't be able to make a truly INFORMED decision.

Makes sense?

anyone have any other examples?

Edit: TLDR. My point is that the free market can better deal with abuse from syndicate leaders, than abuse from individual players (Leechers)Definitely agree. You can ask the previous leader of his old syndicate, assuming you can talk to him. He can lie, there's no way you know if he's lying or not. Anyone can lie, but most people would talke his word (like me) but then he lied and your syndicate gets screwed because he's supposed to score 100k influence but your syndicate misses top 50 by 50k points. You could have made it if he had scored the 100k quota.

[Zaz42]

I think there should be involvement with the leader and officers in the syndicate. Do not just delegate to the syndicate leader to say one person did acceptable/unacceptable. Make a group council of some sort at the end of a war to vote people out or not award them prizes because they are a leech.

I've been in syndicate where you know you is participating or not. There is enough communication prior to war to let people know RL stuff going on and they will not be able to assist.

Also, have more rankings in the syndicate like a probationary member status.

[CCKallDAY]

Now this is an idea with looking at. Some syndicates have accepted a player the day before the war. If that player had a stay indicating what they did last war we would know if they were a slacker or not.Yes, of course. No one knows if he isn't a lier. I also trusted the person that scored 10k I was talking about
he was with our syndicate previously and got us some good pointsand he lied also. I don't want to give him the reward for LYING!!

[archambeau]

bad idea, what if you have lets see 1 million influence point scorer but he goes on vacation, and doesn't have wi-fi, he won't get the prize for not participating, even though he ALWAYS does better than everyone in your syndicate? And what if the leader doesn't make the point requirement (lets say he has a business trip) the leader won't get the prize? dumb idea

We make it clear to our members that as long as they give us advanced notice that they can't participate and it's not a common occurrence then they are fine. If a member doesn't tell anyone and just doesn't participate then they are just being thoughtless and deserve to be removed without getting prizes! What about protecting the other members of the syndicate that used their hard earned money and lost sleep and put up amazing IP? I think that's who Gree should be worried about! They are the ones buying gold not the members that don't participate. I understand this is a game and real life gets in the way of battles sometimes but seriously send the leader of your syndicate a message saying why you won't be able to participate. It's that simple!

[CCKallDAY]

I think there should be involvement with the leader and officers in the syndicate. Do not just delegate to the syndicate leader to say one person did acceptable/unacceptable. Make a group council of some sort at the end of a war to vote people out or not award them prizes because they are a leech.

I've been in syndicate where you know you is participating or not. There is enough communication prior to war to let people know RL stuff going on and they will not be able to assist.

Also, have more rankings in the syndicate like a probationary member status.What rank? Syndicates aren't always organized, you must be in a top syn, at least top 100? Well my syndicate has a council, for all the loyal people and the ones with good ideas. But that idea doesn't always work either!! Nothing is perfect

[CCKallDAY]

We make it clear to our members that as long as they give us advanced notice that they can't participate and it's not a common occurrence then they are fine. If a member doesn't tell anyone and just doesn't participate then they are just being thoughtless and deserve to be removed without getting prizes! What about protecting the other members of the syndicate that used their hard earned money and lost sleep and put up amazing IP? I think that's who Gree should be worried about! They are the ones buying gold not the members that don't participate. I understand this is a game and real life gets in the way of battles sometimes but seriously send the leader of your syndicate a message saying why you won't be able to participate. It's that simple!Good idea, I will make that a requirement from now on. Thanks for that!

[Bandit_]

Locking the syndicates mainly prevents people that performed from being unfairly booted and and being denied a prize they deserve. Maybe if there was a way to set a syndicate minimum ip before battle, and that minimum wasn't reached, a player could be denied a prize.

[reesebutton]

Rewards are to reward group participation. IP alone does not win a battle. U need a DL hitter and wall bashers, who don't get much IP for all their efforts.

Tie the rewards to min battles actively participated in (def IP does not count). As u go up the tiers,the min follows up.

But it need not be too stringent. Just to ensure a base level of participation. Protects syns from those awful freeloading no shows .

[Zaz42]

What rank? Syndicates aren't always organized, you must be in a top syn, at least top 100? Well my syndicate has a council, for all the loyal people and the ones with good ideas. But that idea doesn't always work either!! Nothing is perfect

Been in 2 top 100 syndicates, 1st one fell apart because alot of people were leeches. They relied too heavily on one person to make the most IP. The one guy had to be out for the next war and syndicate dropped to outside of top 250. The few of us that put forth the effort left because nearly 15 people did jacksh*t, leader wanted to keep them instead of looking for other people who were willing to put forth the effort. We all merged into another syndicate and now top 150 with couple top 100 wins.

You are right though, nothing is perfect. But it would have been nice to have more influence from other members in a syndicate instead of the leader having the only say.

[the_dude]

I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. This idea still opens up the possibility of unscrupulous or embittered leaders/officers. But I love that you're willing to throw ideas out there. Here's an idea I've kicked around in the past:

Include a feature in the syndicate menu that allows the syndicate leader to set a minimum - either total wins or total IP. When prizes are awarded, only those players who have met the total wins and/or total IP receive the prize.

I admit that I have no idea how difficult it would be for programming to implement this idea, but I do believe it would be practical and fair on two levels: 1) all syndicate members would know the minimum requirements upon joining the syndicate and 2) the freeloaders would be eliminated pretty quickly, which would lead to more balanced teams.

I thought of this as well, but the problem is this punishes wall hitters and DL power attackers. How about setting a participation minimum based on energy used?

[Asvaldr]

Here's the thing, is that "leacher" or "unjust" are relative terms. Let's say the leader/officers sets the participation bar relatively high (common). Lets say that someone spends a bunch of gold to get to that arbitrary point total, they don't reach that arbitrary point total, they get booted before prizes. The upshot to us is that someone just spent a lot of gold and may have spent a significant amount of hours of their real life on something and got no return. Nadda, zip, zilch.

And you can say "Well, they shouldn't have agreed to something they might not have been able to do", but the syndicate leader isn't the one who's receiving the money for that purchased gold. We can't set it up so that people who didn't participate at all don't get a prize, so we're going to default to "We'd like to ensure that people who DID participate in the event get the prize". The variable participation requirements set by individual guilds are agreements between individuals rather than a mechanic, and are not something that we can directly support or enforce at this time.

This is just spitballing and I don't know the feasibility, but what if we added something like a feature at the end of a Syndicate event, where the leader/officers could distribute a reward to players that met participation goals? In that hypothetical scenario, we'd be hands-off about that since it would expressly be at the leader/officers discretion to reward. Carrot instead of stick.

I like to, and in fact have kicked, people for not participating in the fight like everybody else. Yet, I agree to you logic and the change. Leaders and officers just have to filter out new member more carefully before going into the war event.

[name]

There are numerous ways of finding out whether or not someone joining your team should be fit for your syndicate. IP screenshots or asking to talk to their old leader or sneakier ways.

I do get that sometimes our leaders still make mistakes, which is a loss to a team for one war for 1/60th. Bad luck (or not enough research) happens, so what. You can kick them out after.

I like the lock-in for several reasons;
- We are one team now, we need to all perform to get our goals. There are only 59 others who can help me reach our goal.
- There can be no flow between teams. Players who have secured a certain position for their team cannot start helping other teams.
- It pressures leaders into thinking who they want to take into battle, forcing them to examine players more thoroughly.
- It protects us from malicious leaders who get into a fight with a single guy (which might not be IP related, different opinions could also be the reason).
- It protects gold investments. Your gold invested returns your prize.

So I voted Yes, protect. But what the hell do I know, I've never swapped syndicates and I have a very capable leader.

[Born2Lose]

A blind 80% syndicate or leader and officer vote option at then end of syndicate battles would solve this problem.

[Wai]

First I think Gree should go back and read why the lock was put there in the first place. What has changed that necessitates this change.

I can see the boards here alight with people that genuinely believe they worked hard, yet were denied a reward.

I can see the boards light up with people that worked very hard and spent many hours assisting by hitting walls etc as they were required. Only to be booted in favour of someone sitting on the synd requests lists that is a MUST GET now and sorry buddy but we need the room and cant wait or he will be somewhere else.

I see the comment that MOST leaders are fair. This is likely true, but that comment infers there are some that are not.

In this proposed new system it is inevitable that some people at some stage will be duped.

Doing the right thing in a synd during war is a subjective test. The leader may genuinely think one thing, the player may genuinely think the opposite and I guarantee there will be differences of opinion though out. A bit like any vote you see here, people have legitimately different views. Or there may be very valid truthful reasons that the leader just does not accept as either valid or truthful.

Oh so we have Gree set a minimum participation for you. So the slackers just meet the minimum and thats all. The problem is not solved. Not to mention that people do get sick including family members during the Gree weekend. Some have preplanned arrangements months in advance and Gree never gives a consistent weekend or much notice for planning personal lives. They even vary dates.

Or when Gree are searching for ways to make an extra buck for the shareholders as they are entitled to do. So do we then have a higher participation rate set next war and a higher one the war after until free players cannot achieve it without little sleep or just buy that little bit of gold to qualify this time. Buying sleep time. And next time more until the light gold players have to buy more than usual. Seriously think through what you are asking for because what you end up with may have unintended consequences.

There is only one solution. Take the road where no one can possibly get hurt and no one can possibly get sued and Gree does not have to put up with lawyer requests for disclosure of computer records. Keep it simple and leave it exactly the way it is and just deal with it, boot them afterwards and move on like everyone else does without squealing.

[The Fonz]

Been in 2 top 100 syndicates, 1st one fell apart because alot of people were leeches. They relied too heavily on one person to make the most IP. The one guy had to be out for the next war and syndicate dropped to outside of top 250. The few of us that put forth the effort left because nearly 15 people did jacksh*t, leader wanted to keep them instead of looking for other people who were willing to put forth the effort. We all merged into another syndicate and now top 150 with couple top 100 wins.

You are right though, nothing is perfect. But it would have been nice to have more influence from other members in a syndicate instead of the leader having the only say.
I believe this is where the syn officers have to step up, by offering input (advice / recommendations) to the syn leader when members are 'no shows' or substantial underperformers. We have diligent officers that monitor the activities of every recruit that's brought on board and we offer each person a grace period to allow them to display activity, be it contributions, PvP tournament participation, etc. Communication is key: we post on their walls, encouraging them to introduce themselves to the remainder of the syn and signing up for GroupMe. If we don't see or hear a peep from them after a certain period, the officers and leader will convene to discuss a course of action regarding their future.

[bald zeemer]

I am strongly opposed to booting people without prizes who were in a synd for a war, regardless of whether or not they leeched. You take a risk in taking someone on. As a leader it is up to you, and your officers, to vet your personnel and manage your team. For the same reason I am strongly opposed to any attempt to automate prizes based on participation. They take basic management out of the hands of the leaders of the synd. Any leader who is in favour of booting people without prizes for non-participation but in favour of having an automated system do their job for them really should take a long, hard look at themselves.



I wish there was a middle ground here.

It would be nice to be able to kick members that scored less than 25% of the Average IP.

Here is an example of how this would work: If your syndicate of 60 scored 5M points then the average players scored 83K IP. 25% of 83k is 20K. Anyone scoring less than 20K could be kicked without a prize.
This protects active players from d-bag syndicate leaders. I also protects syndicates from complete no-shows.

-Dgwalker

Sweet jesus please don't implement this.


Having said, I can say in top 10 and 25, if their is nut job, unfair leader, all the players will know and flee. Right now the most coveted are high stat, gold players and they are recruited and coddled if they perform. They can goto any syndicates. The problem currently is are those taking advantage of the system setup. It doesnt often happen in PVP! for a reason.
Because syndicate PvP prizes are borderline worthless?


I disagree with this assessment, and here's why. When a recruit is brought on board, there is no way to gauge how well s/he will perform during syndicate battle weekend until the event has started.
Apart from evidence of performance in previous wars, references from previous syndicates (not always forthcoming, I know, but still can be available) or even evidence of their syndicate history (someone who's never done 2 wars in the same synd should probably ring some alarm bells, for example).

Just as when hiring an employee, you have to do the best you can to assess what they're likely to bring to the team. If it doesn't work out you can get rid of them, but deciding they were so bad that you won't pay them should and will likely end you up in hot water.


P.S. I don't think Cerberus is going to like this new 1st prize award either. Maybe make it so that banking your money pays out a dividend of 1% of your total banked money every 24 hrs. The more money you keep banked the more you will get every time.
That is a terrible idea. Buildings would become worthless, instantly.


i know some games has a min. to get a prize i think that should be it . this will fix leeches to a certain point
Ok, say I'm in a synd with a 500k min. I put up 3mil in one war. 0 in the next (due to real life), 2 mil in the one after, 5 mil, then 0 again (real life). You're saying an automatic lockout from those 2 wars is a legitimate response to my "leeching" in this instance, regardless of the intentions of the leader/officers?

[The Fonz]

I thought of this as well, but the problem is this punishes wall hitters and DL power attackers. How about setting a participation minimum based on energy used?
I can see how this scenario would affect a player's IP score, but if the syn is set up in a manner where certain players have designated / pre-assigned roles heading into a syndicate battle, then the leader is (or at least, should be) aware that person 'A' will earn significantly less IP than their teammates, and shouldn't be dismissed because s/he failed to meet syn-designated IP requirements. Then again, I believe this is where scouts have to step up by seeking viable targets to assist LLPs or those with lower stats increase their IP earnings, but in order to do so, communication is vital: these players have to speak up, indicating that assistance is required. So many issues can be averted / resolved by keeping the lines of communication open and constant, and it has to be a two-way street: we need to hear from you, and vice versa.

[budman68]

Once again Gree messing things up. Now what would be helpful is showing a players stats before you accept them, past ip points would be helpful. But twice now in a weekend Gree messing with game design without consulting the actual players.

[The Fonz]

Once again Gree messing things up. Now what would be helpful is showing a players stats before you accept them, past ip points would be helpful. But twice now in a weekend Gree messing with game design without consulting the actual players.
This has been on our wish list for the longest period. We (the leader and officers) would like the ability to preview a player's profile in full (stats, inventory & in-wall comments, i.e. the same functionality that comes from clicking a rival's profile) before bringing him/her on board. This would help tremendously in filtering our pool of potential applicants.

[Ciara]

As a synd leader myself, I take a number of factors into account when deciding who should be booted and they are in themselves variables, so it shouldn't be up to Gree to set a minimum, even if it is a percentage of the whole team's ip.

Cash contributions, communications, participation are all important, but so is the history of the player within the team over time, which may be affected by RL commitments. IP is less of a deciding factor for acceptance than activity as 1) a player coming up into a higher syndicate may take some time to achieve that same ip against tougher rivals and 2) loyally hitting the wall and DL won't reflect in their ip.

I appreciate effort and a good attitude as much as outcome on our leaderboard. Quite often, my best performers also happen to be my highest ranked, but some of my middling players have also batted above their weight.

I like to think I take an holistic, evidence-based view, and though I am possibly too lenient sometimes because of that, I think that makes for fairness, and prevents bias, bullying and injustice. My priority, however, will be always the the collective's "happiness".

[bald zeemer]

Bravo ciara.

A leader who is keen to display leadership. This is what syndicates are all about. :)

[Ciara]

Thanks, Bald Zeemer, and now I feel mean picking up on some of your points, but I think they're worth entering into the debate.


As a leader it is up to you, and your officers, to vet your personnel and manage your team. For the same reason I am strongly opposed to any attempt to automate prizes based on participation. They take basic management out of the hands of the leaders of the synd. Any leader who is in favour of booting people without prizes for non-participation but in favour of having an automated system do their job for them really should take a long, hard look at themselves. That's too simplistic. There is only so much chivvying and handholding and encouragement one can offer. The proof of the player is in their battle performance. It's not poor management to have players who refuse to play ball when you least expect it. Give a player a number of opportunities and if they fail to take them or, particularly loathsome, sabotage our efforts, and we should have the option to deprive them of prizes to which they did not contribute.

I agree that I wouldn't want to see an automated system because that would fail to allow for differentials in ip due to approved absence or assigned role within the battle squad.
Apart from evidence of performance in previous wars, references from previous syndicates (not always forthcoming, I know, but still can be available) or even evidence of their syndicate history (someone who's never done 2 wars in the same synd should probably ring some alarm bells, for example).Just as when hiring an employee, you have to do the best you can to assess what they're likely to bring to the team. If it doesn't work out you can get rid of them, but deciding they were so bad that you won't pay them should and will likely end you up in hot water.
References aren't always easy to get and it's not always to easy to know what syndicates they've been in. Past performance is not always an indicator of future performance, as they say in the finance world. People clear their message walls so you can't always see what would have been distraught or angry pleas for activity from their previous team mates. And in itself, the absence of past comms could be the sign of someone devious or of someone who's OCD about keeping their wall tidy.

I think it's perfectly fine not to pay someone for work not delivered. New employees have to go through a probation period before they accrue privileges. Failure to ever turn up for work as a new starter would not earn you any salary in real life. If I employed a crew of workmen to renovate my house, I wouldn't be paying anything out to any of them who never lifted a shovel or laid a brick. They could sue me all they wanted. I know who'd win.

[bald zeemer]

Thanks, Bald Zeemer, and now I feel mean picking up on some of your points, but I think they're worth entering into the debate.
A debate is never a personal affront. I'm more than happy for you to poke holes in my reasoning wherever you believe them to exist.
:)

That's an interesting point you raise, in regards to viewing syndicate members as sub-contractors or employees (ie, those who are paid for work delivered vs. those who are paid and are then expected deliver work). I'll sleep on that, because TBH I'd not considered it.

I'm still opposed on principle to the ability to boot (for the reason that it raises the possibility of someone receiving nothing for something, which I consider more important than the risk of someone receiving something for nothing). But I definitely need to consider it under the contractor-approach, and see what merry path that leads me down.

In regards to background checks and the difficulties that arise, I agree that there can certainly be an information vacuum. As you suggested, the lack of information in and of itself may be relevant, and a diligent leader will take that into consideration. But the fact that several means of obtaining indicative information exist also provides more solidity to proper analysis of this information.

For example, someone who doesn't have proof of previous IP but does have a good reference from a previous leader as well as positive references from peers (either within your synd or your CC social circle) would be a strong candidate, whereas one with amazing IP screenshots but no confirmatory information from previous synd members or people on their level may raise eyebrows. Balancing how reliable you view the various pieces of information available to you, as well as gleaning information in regards to character and intent through conducting personal interviews is the hallmark of a good personnel manager.

[The_]

Pointless topic. I'd rather risk rewarding inactive members and kick them afterwards than risk the possibility of having an insane leader booting everyone from the syndicate, leaving nobody with the rewards that they've earned. If they're going to be booted anyway, giving them the prize wouldn't hurt the syndicate, maybe just your ego. Any mature person wouldn't care.

[Ciara]

I'm not sure the topic is pointless, if you think long-term. There will be players who make a habit of syndicate hopping to acquire rewards for no effort. Without an infallible vetting process or intel sharing, these players can join multiple syndicates, each time being booted out, but why should they care? On to the next syndicate and the next unearned prize.

I've never come across an insane leader so I can't comment, but I'm sure that their reputation would get out and they'd find it hard to recruit. Sounds more like the whine of someone who has been kicked out themselves in the past.

You do troll a lot, don't you? It's nothing to do with ego or immaturity, and everything to do with protecting the syndicate. Saying it doesn't affect the syndicate is rubbish - of course, it affects the whole team if the undeserving leech off them. Players dedicate a lot of time (and gold in some cases) to playing the game, so whilst you say "it's just a game" in other threads, it's not one where you can play for ten minutes when you feel like it once a month if 1) you expect to remain in anything but a camper syndicate or 2) maintain stats parity.

That's not to say your nonchalant attitude isn't fine for a lower tier syndicate but it wouldn't win you friends where team spirit and caring about collective success matters. I applaud your non-competitive spirit and I dare say you will "win" the game sooner than most players with that attitude but whether you think others are stupid or immature or something else derogatory for taking the game "seriously", time spent = commitment and those who don't contribute, don't deserve.

I find that decent people who aren't lazy freeloaders in RL tend to have that same work ethic in the game.

[Mack The Knife]

I really think during the vetting process prior to accepting a new member the syndicate leader or officer should be able to say flatly: "you need to have made it to x% of the agreed upon ip commitment by a certain time or we will remove you. I think syndicates should have the ability to remove someone up until the halfway point, or if preferred the first day only. That way someone who joined your syndicate simply to freeload through wouldn't be able to get away with it as egregiously as some have.

New members should be in a probationary standing. The latitude afforded other proven members should not have to extend to unknown variables who may just be taking advantage of the system.

[kimberleyj]

i would normaly click no because my old team had loads of leaches but seen as i have just moved to a new team and they changed the min ip with only 6 hours left of the war , i am gonna vote yes.

[Rebels]

There are plenty of people who are a waste of a spot in syndicates. There will always be leaches and its just the risk of taking someone on.
I would love to take out my fustration and boot all the slackers after a battle before the rewards are received. But at the end of the day it was syndicate and ultimatley the leaders choice to take that person on.

After reading CJ54's post I can see another side to the argument.
After the rewards have gone out. Kick out the dead weights and move on.

[TMI]

After reading the comments and deeper thought, I’ve change my mind, and I think, YES, lock syndicates. I’ll say why I think it HAD to be done.

It has to be done from a legal aspect (lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong), which is what I think CJ54 was alluding to.
If GREE “advertises” that you will get x prize if your syndicate comes in top 50, and you don’t get the prize, the player can get a lawyer, get computer records to show they were in that syndicate, then show that they don’t have the prize in their inventory. I think from a legal perspective, GREE would have to give the player the prize because otherwise, it’s false advertising. I think that’s also why GREE is considering “bonus” prizes that would depend on the syndicate’s wishes; it’s out of their hands.

This is also why minimum IPs can’t be put in either, otherwise, in the prize list they put out, they would have to stipulate the min IP of basically all of the syndicates. GREE has to keep it simple, in that, if your syndicate comes in top whatever, you get that prize.

And this is also why the contractor analogy doesn’t work here as well, because the prizes are for top whatever, GREE can’t put top whatever plus this IP for this team and that IP for that team, etc. which is what they would have to do to eliminate false advertising. That analogy would work for the “bonus” prize, but not the prizes that GREE advertises.
All these rules would be “syndicate” dependant, and so GREE can’t advertise the prizes as they are doing now, with just top whatever. It would be near impossible to micromanage all the syndicates.

The “bonus” prizes, though, is an idea that wouldn’t get GREE into legal “hot water”. It may cause other problems too (although I still think the free market would be able to deal with that). But bear in mind, what kind of coding would be required to give syndicates x amount of bonuses to hand out, and they use y amount (like maybe they give it to all members, or maybe only 20? I wonder if the SNoTTi’s will hack that lol)

On a side note: I also can’t help but feel that we are transferring our (leader/officer) responsibility, to someone else (GREE).

Edit: Perhaps it's just the "cost" of having syndicates.

TLDR: I think GREE has to lock syndicates for legal reasons.

[Asvaldr]

I agree with GREE on this... Locking in the Syndicate. There is a lot of questions for fairness and this is a proper solution. But reason for legal, especially "false advertisement", is poor one and a poor argument at that. GREE has its own ToC when you play the game!!

[Sal The Stockbroker]

While I do appreciate you acknowledging it at the end of your novel, this still must be done........

http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag96/qwerty9702/image_zps4d164218.jpg (http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/qwerty9702/media/image_zps4d164218.jpg.html)


http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag96/qwerty9702/image_zpsa94e58f1.jpg (http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/qwerty9702/media/image_zpsa94e58f1.jpg.html)



After reading the comments and deeper thought, I’ve change my mind, and I think, YES, lock syndicates. I’ll say why I think it HAD to be done.

It has to be done from a legal aspect (lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong), which is what I think CJ54 was alluding to.
If GREE “advertises” that you will get x prize if your syndicate comes in top 50, and you don’t get the prize, the player can get a lawyer, get computer records to show they were in that syndicate, then show that they don’t have the prize in their inventory. I think from a legal perspective, GREE would have to give the player the prize because otherwise, it’s false advertising. I think that’s also why GREE is considering “bonus” prizes that would depend on the syndicate’s wishes; it’s out of their hands.

This is also why minimum IPs can’t be put in either, otherwise, in the prize list they put out, they would have to stipulate the min IP of basically all of the syndicates. GREE has to keep it simple, in that, if your syndicate comes in top whatever, you get that prize.

And this is also why the contractor analogy doesn’t work here as well, because the prizes are for top whatever, GREE can’t put top whatever plus this IP for this team and that IP for that team, etc. which is what they would have to do to eliminate false advertising. That analogy would work for the “bonus” prize, but not the prizes that GREE advertises.
All these rules would be “syndicate” dependant, and so GREE can’t advertise the prizes as they are doing now, with just top whatever. It would be near impossible to micromanage all the syndicates.

The “bonus” prizes, though, is an idea that wouldn’t get GREE into legal “hot water”. It may cause other problems too (although I still think the free market would be able to deal with that). But bear in mind, what kind of coding would be required to give syndicates x amount of bonuses to hand out, and they use y amount (like maybe they give it to all members, or maybe only 20? I wonder if the SNoTTi’s will hack that lol)

On a side note: I also can’t help but feel that we are transferring our (leader/officer) responsibility, to someone else (GREE).

Edit: Perhaps it's just the "cost" of having syndicates.

TLDR: I think GREE has to lock syndicates for legal reasons.

[TMI]

While I do appreciate you acknowledging it at the end of your novel, this still must be done........

http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag96/qwerty9702/image_zps4d164218.jpg (http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/qwerty9702/media/image_zps4d164218.jpg.html)


http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag96/qwerty9702/image_zpsa94e58f1.jpg (http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/qwerty9702/media/image_zpsa94e58f1.jpg.html)

Hahahahahahahahahhaa LMAO, that first pic was so funny! The second one, meh. But, man that first pic!! LMAO. Made my night, haha.

[Mack The Knife]

Thanks for this. Make a lot of sense.



After reading the comments and deeper thought, I’ve change my mind, and I think, YES, lock syndicates. I’ll say why I think it HAD to be done.

It has to be done from a legal aspect (lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong), which is what I think CJ54 was alluding to.
If GREE “advertises” that you will get x prize if your syndicate comes in top 50, and you don’t get the prize, the player can get a lawyer, get computer records to show they were in that syndicate, then show that they don’t have the prize in their inventory. I think from a legal perspective, GREE would have to give the player the prize because otherwise, it’s false advertising. I think that’s also why GREE is considering “bonus” prizes that would depend on the syndicate’s wishes; it’s out of their hands.

This is also why minimum IPs can’t be put in either, otherwise, in the prize list they put out, they would have to stipulate the min IP of basically all of the syndicates. GREE has to keep it simple, in that, if your syndicate comes in top whatever, you get that prize.

And this is also why the contractor analogy doesn’t work here as well, because the prizes are for top whatever, GREE can’t put top whatever plus this IP for this team and that IP for that team, etc. which is what they would have to do to eliminate false advertising. That analogy would work for the “bonus” prize, but not the prizes that GREE advertises.
All these rules would be “syndicate” dependant, and so GREE can’t advertise the prizes as they are doing now, with just top whatever. It would be near impossible to micromanage all the syndicates.

The “bonus” prizes, though, is an idea that wouldn’t get GREE into legal “hot water”. It may cause other problems too (although I still think the free market would be able to deal with that). But bear in mind, what kind of coding would be required to give syndicates x amount of bonuses to hand out, and they use y amount (like maybe they give it to all members, or maybe only 20? I wonder if the SNoTTi’s will hack that lol)

On a side note: I also can’t help but feel that we are transferring our (leader/officer) responsibility, to someone else (GREE).

Edit: Perhaps it's just the "cost" of having syndicates.

TLDR: I think GREE has to lock syndicates for legal reasons.

[Ciara]

What about the false advertising on the part of the freeloader?

Gree rarely gives away anything for free and saying "you'll get a prize for being in a syndicate" doesn't equate to "don't do anything, just keep breathing and you'll earn a prize".

It is implicit that being in a syndicate requires involvement unless the syndicate has explicitly defined itself as a a camper with no requirements for any activity. But no donations, no activity and no communications = waste of space.

Gree is not a charity and nor should syndicates be expected to be.

The legal argument is flawed - the player can whine all they want but if the records show zero participation (particularly over time), it is the syndicate's decision. We are not required to accept applicants and we are not required to keep them. There is a premise termed "good faith" - if the player has acted in bad faith, they have no legal recourse.

Also, you suggest that you don't think it's right that leaders are handing over responsibility to Gree? Well, that is precisely what you are doing by agreeing to a lock-in.

[Wai]

I agree with GREE on this... Locking in the Syndicate. There is a lot of questions for fairness and this is a proper solution. But reason for legal, especially "false advertisement", is poor one and a poor argument at that. GREE has its own ToC when you play the game!!

No ToS can override or exclude the law. No contract can waive any legislated or constitutional right. A ToS must comply in every respect with the prevailing law. They can't re-write the law.

That's a principle of contract law.

[Wai]

What about the false advertising on the part of the freeloader?

The person booted, whether a freeloader or not does not advertise anything and is not liable for anything


Gree rarely gives away anything for free and saying "you'll get a prize for being in a syndicate" doesn't equate to "don't do anything, just keep breathing and you'll earn a prize".

The game is advertised as a free game Ciara.


It is implicit that being in a syndicate requires involvement unless the syndicate has explicitly defined itself as a a camper with no requirements for any activity....

There is nothing implicit upon entering a syndicate and no warning or advice prior to entering.


The legal argument is flawed - the player can whine all they want but if the records show zero participation (particularly over time), it is the syndicate's decision.

Thats not what is advertised Ciara. If you are part of a syndicate that achieves a certain level then you get that reward. Don't read anything into the words.


We are not required to accept applicants and we are not required to keep them. There is a premise termed "good faith" - if the player has acted in bad faith, they have no legal recourse.

You mean failing to act in good faith. That is in relation to contracts. You don't have a contract with anyone but Gree, Ciara. If they comply substantially with the ToS then they are not failing to act in good faith with Gree. It has nothing to do with syndicates. In any event, it is not for the person to prove they were acting in good faith, its for Gree to prove they were not. Not the leader, officer(s), anyone else or even by way of a vote. Unless there is a specific & clear clause describing that relationship and power, then it is irrelevant to the ToS. Gree cannot create and enforce contracts between other parties, just between themselves and the consumer.


Also, you suggest that you don't think it's right that leaders are handing over responsibility to Gree? Well, that is precisely what you are doing by agreeing to a lock-in.

No person as far as I am aware ever 'agreed' to the lock in. That is what Gree determined. They do not need your agreement to lock or unlock or to do anything else that's not in breach the law or the contract between you and Gree.

[Ciara]

Look up the words "metaphor" and "simile", honey. If you're going to debate with me line-by-line, then it would be great if you could improve your sensitivity to the nuances of the English language. Sometimes it is literal, sometimes it is analogous.

"False advertising" was used metaphorically, as in "promotion" or "presentation" of one"s gaming activity. In the same way, I was using business terms to signify a code of behaviour. There is plenty that is implicit/explicit in the recruiting process. (And it is inadequate to challenge my words and ignore the deliberate caveat that my generalisation does not apply where a syndicate self-declares as a camper ie no activity expected.)

Syndicates offer the use of their bonuses and the collective support of other team members to achieve prizes, a member is supposed to reciprocate by their input and often pledges it by claiming ip/activity, etc. This is the condition on which that recruit is accepted. If the syndicate did not have the bonuses promised, the recruit would leave. Same if the recruit is deceptive, they should leave. There is an expectation on both sides.

"Free" doesn't have to relate to the presence or absence of a literal financial contract, it denotes contribution in some form. CC is not a free game in the sense that you can create an account and wait for the rewards to roll in - you have to build, rob, attack to progress.

Ditto, my use of the word "contract' - it was illustrative of a principle. I'll substitute the word "commitment" if the concept is clearer to you that way. A syndicate bands together to achieve something greater than the individual can achieve on their own, this requires all members to contribute. If an individual is not prepared to, then they should not enter into that commitment. If there was no requirement for activity, syndicates would not exist and individuals could sit on their butts and Gree would award them prizes for just having an account. (The scratcher cards sort of serve that function for the non-active in that all you have to do is turn the game on)

"Agreeing" was used in the sense of "accepting" or "acceding to" with good grace. I am perfectly well aware that Gree can do what they please, I was drawing a comparison.

Frankly, I suspect people who defend the rights of players who do stuff all are probably the freeloaders of whom we speak.

[R_G]

well my friend and myself were kicked from a syndicate without a message on teh wall or anything. Although we generated the most points in the sltq and over 15k influence points as requested form the syndicate.

So I voted yes. It is not a good behaviour to get kicked without a notice + external forum locked + no reply on groupme. I installed just out of curiousity groupme after they kicked me and I just was removed without a notice.

There is always just talking about leechers but serious no comment, and we made the required points. Also that syndicate advertised with full bonuses but only had a quarter of that. I dont play that game such long, i just play 20 hours a day so i reached level 150+.
Syndicates than may blackmail players, kick wihtout warning or anything. It is the syndicate risk to scout for good people who participate.

It is not good practise to ask for peeps who generate 10k points and to kick without warning peeps who make 150 percent of that requirement, who generated tons of the sltq requirements.

I vote yes and stated why.

[Mack The Knife]

Gree is required by law to make good on advertised Goods and services. The player is not. Regardless of how we feel about that that's the way it is. There is no legal accountability on the player end. Just an agreement to the ToS
What about the false advertising on the part of the freeloader?
Gree rarely gives away anything for free and saying "you'll get a prize for being in a syndicate" doesn't equate to "don't do anything, just keep breathing and you'll earn a prize".

It is implicit that being in a syndicate requires involvement unless the syndicate has explicitly defined itself as a a camper with no requirements for any activity. But no donations, no activity and no communications = waste of space.

Gree is not a charity and nor should syndicates be expected to be.

The legal argument is flawed - the player can whine all they want but if the records show zero participation (particularly over time), it is the syndicate's decision. We are not required to accept applicants and we are not required to keep them. There is a premise termed "good faith" - if the player has acted in bad faith, they have no legal recourse.

Also, you suggest that you don't think it's right that leaders are handing over responsibility to Gree? Well, that is precisely what you are doing by agreeing to a lock-in.

[xRedfoxx]

Far more leachers than bad syndicate leaders. If leaders boot good players, it will get around real fast. So give the Boss's the choice to boot players even during wars.

Another approach could be showing the syndicate history of a player in the application, so a leader could see how much someone has bounced around before being accepted. And even better would be able to see how many points they have put up over the past several wars.

[Wai]

Look up the words "metaphor" and "simile", honey. If you're going to debate with me line-by-line, then it would be great if you could improve your sensitivity to the nuances of the English language. Sometimes it is literal, sometimes it is analogous.

"False advertising" was used metaphorically, as in "promotion" or "presentation" of one"s gaming activity. In the same way, I was using business terms to signify a code of behaviour. There is plenty that is implicit/explicit in the recruiting process. (And it is inadequate to challenge my words and ignore the deliberate caveat that my generalisation does not apply where a syndicate self-declares as a camper ie no activity expected.)

Syndicates offer the use of their bonuses and the collective support of other team members to achieve prizes, a member is supposed to reciprocate by their input and often pledges it by claiming ip/activity, etc. This is the condition on which that recruit is accepted. If the syndicate did not have the bonuses promised, the recruit would leave. Same if the recruit is deceptive, they should leave. There is an expectation on both sides.

"Free" doesn't have to relate to the presence or absence of a literal financial contract, it denotes contribution in some form. CC is not a free game in the sense that you can create an account and wait for the rewards to roll in - you have to build, rob, attack to progress.

Ditto, my use of the word "contract' - it was illustrative of a principle. I'll substitute the word "commitment" if the concept is clearer to you that way. A syndicate bands together to achieve something greater than the individual can achieve on their own, this requires all members to contribute. If an individual is not prepared to, then they should not enter into that commitment. If there was no requirement for activity, syndicates would not exist and individuals could sit on their butts and Gree would award them prizes for just having an account. (The scratcher cards sort of serve that function for the non-active in that all you have to do is turn the game on)

"Agreeing" was used in the sense of "accepting" or "acceding to" with good grace. I am perfectly well aware that Gree can do what they please, I was drawing a comparison.

Frankly, I suspect people who defend the rights of players who do stuff all are probably the freeloaders of whom we speak.

Now I'm really confused. But thank you for the lesson in English, Contract Law and Business.

I really didn't need to be spoken down to Ciara, I don't think there was anything in what I said that necessitated that apart from it being a different view.

I will try harder to guess what meaning you may place on what you say next time.

And to infer that I am a freeloader because I have a different view to yours in plainly nonsense. I never accused you of anything at all. To debase a discussion with that without any substance to your inference, is astonishing. I have also dealt with freeloaders. I don't need any special tools to do that.

Good luck with your synd.

[bald zeemer]

Frankly, I suspect people who defend the rights of players who do stuff all are probably the freeloaders of whom we speak.
Oh do you, now? How interesting.

[potvin]

Basically get new recruits to prove previous point totals, otherwise don't let them in on their word. And if they don't produce, use your own discretion. No need to lock syndicates