'reward period'

[roookey1]

Is it true that players who are kicked right at the end of an event and before rewards are delivered (message 'rewards are checked across guilds'), those players will still receive rewards as if they'd still belong to the guild?

So far I was thinking that only if they belong to the respective guild during the 'reward period', they will receive the rewards.
That would mean there's no way to prevent lurkers from receiving their non-deserved goods.

[Gronk]

Until i found a guild i liked i left a fair few the moment a war ended and still recieved the prize.

I was also removed immediately after a raid t25 run for pointing out a guilds selfish strategies and players during the run (the enforced hitting high level targets then scouted and farmed low ones for themself when on). I still got the rewards.

[busteroaf]

Is it true that players who are kicked right at the end of an event and before rewards are delivered (message 'rewards are checked across guilds'), those players will still receive rewards as if they'd still belong to the guild?

So far I was thinking that only if they belong to the respective guild during the 'reward period', they will receive the rewards.
That would mean there's no way to prevent lurkers from receiving their non-deserved goods.

Pretty much. That is the way its always been. If someone is in the guild, they get the rewards. The counter to this is you can't add someone prior to the rewards, you know, moving people from lower ranking guilds to higher ranking to get better rewards.

You win some, you lose some. And leeches, lurkers, spies, whatever you want to call them, they still get whatever rewards they're supposed to. It also prevents someone from simply being a douche and kicking a bunch of people so they miss out on rewards.

[roookey1]

I see, and although kinda unsatisfying in case of lurkers, it makes sense in a broader context. Can't think of a potential better solution just now.

thx for the feedback!

[Marco_]

I see, and although kinda unsatisfying in case of lurkers, it makes sense in a broader context. Can't think of a potential better solution just now.

Well, I guess they could implement a feature of the GM being allowed to lock in a "points needed to get rewards" value before the war/raid.

GM trolling with an impossible high number of points would then just result in the guild taking the day/weekend off and probably leaving afterwards. though an intentional rogue declarer could ruin things for guildies if the GM sets that minimum too sharp. You'd leave leeches and most spies without reward though.

[busteroaf]

Well, I guess they could implement a feature of the GM being allowed to lock in a "points needed to get rewards" value before the war/raid.

GM trolling with an impossible high number of points would then just result in the guild taking the day/weekend off and probably leaving afterwards. though an intentional rogue declarer could ruin things for guildies if the GM sets that minimum too sharp. You'd leave leeches and most spies without reward though.

People have talked about the minimum for a while now, since as long as I can remember due to leeches and stuff. But then you also have to deal with players who don't meet the minimum, but have been long standing members and want a pass for that war. Or something happens to their phone and they can't access the game. They get punished as well, just like a leecher. Is that what guilds want? Or what about someone like say, a Beth that used to collect data during the wars. She wasn't constantly playing, and may not have made the minimum, but was a solid theorycrafting part of the team. Hell, even the GM, if they were a switching GM, aren't attacking 24/7.

Just playing devil's advocate. Every way you use to curb cheating or preventing "bad" people from getting rewards unjustly, lends itself to someone decent also being able to get screwed for no reason.

[Marco_]

Well, I kind of tried to cover that with not setting the minimum too sharp. If the GM knows he/she has such people in the guild, he/she should be wise enough to set such a reward minimum low enough to not trip those people, but high enough to filter out leeches while at the same time communicating a higher target to their guild.
(Of course I might be overrating the smartness of the average GM there...)

[Ant venom]

Pretty much. That is the way its always been. If someone is in the guild, they get the rewards. The counter to this is you can't add someone prior to the rewards, you know, moving people from lower ranking guilds to higher ranking to get better rewards.

You win some, you lose some. And leeches, lurkers, spies, whatever you want to call them, they still get whatever rewards they're supposed to. It also prevents someone from simply being a douche and kicking a bunch of people so they miss out on rewards.

Yep agreed, so it really doesn't feel rewarding in that case.

[Gronk]

If gree really wanted to help us on this issue. Im sure they could make it so gm could set a minimum and also have a box next to each player to highlight they dont need to make minimum.

If it was to be done i think should be done properly. With the ability to set different mins for each rank as officers. Or even better the ability to set them for each person. At least if u can do it for each individual you only have to set a min on those your worried about.

[Ant venom]

If gree really wanted to help us on this issue. Im sure they could make it so gm could set a minimum and also have a box next to each player to highlight they dont need to make minimum.

If it was to be done i think should be done properly. With the ability to set different mins for each rank as officers. Or even better the ability to set them for each person. At least if u can do it for each individual you only have to set a min on those your worried about.

This idea has been proposed for over a year now, it GREE actually had plans for implementing it, it would be implemented by now, not being suggested again by a K&D Forum user.

[busteroaf]

If gree really wanted to help us on this issue. Im sure they could make it so gm could set a minimum and also have a box next to each player to highlight they dont need to make minimum.

If it was to be done i think should be done properly. With the ability to set different mins for each rank as officers. Or even better the ability to set them for each person. At least if u can do it for each individual you only have to set a min on those your worried about.

So... you can set the minimum for one person to 1000, another to 25000... discriminate much? Yeah, its just a game I know, but you could easily have people come back, argue to google/apple that their experience was changed because someone "GM" decided that they weren't allowed to play the game as fairly as someone else. Gree would never leave armor distribution up to the individual players.

You'll never get a per-person minimum. Besides, if you suspect someone as a leech, you don't leave them in the guild. You get rid of them. Period.

[cafedecoy]

Well, I guess they could implement a feature of the GM being allowed to lock in a "points needed to get rewards" value before the war/raid.

GM trolling with an impossible high number of points would then just result in the guild taking the day/weekend off and probably leaving afterwards. though an intentional rogue declarer could ruin things for guildies if the GM sets that minimum too sharp. You'd leave leeches and most spies without reward though.

Hmm idk, i could see pros and cons to this idea. I don't like the idea because it gives way too much power to the GMs. What if your GM turned greedy and raised these minimums to a ridiculous amount to extort points out of their players?

[Ant venom]

Hmm idk, i could see pros and cons to this idea. I don't like the idea because it gives way too much power to the GMs. What if your GM turned greedy and raised these minimums to a ridiculous amount to extort points out of their players?

How would that make a GM greedy? Raising the mins would benefit the entire Guild. Logic