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.