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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBTL

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Yes, of course. No one knows if he isn't a lier. I also trusted the person that scored 10k I was talking about

Quote:

---

he was with our syndicate previously and got us some good points

---

and he lied also. I don't want to give him the reward for LYING!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCKallDAY

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archambeau

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!

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCKallDAY

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBTL

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?