PDA

View Full Version : Battle for Empire City Event Requested Changes - Eliminating Disgruntled players.



ski2bbad
06-26-2014, 10:20 AM
I am sure some of you have had the unfortunate displeasure of participating in a Battle for Empire City weekend event with a disgruntled syndicate member. If you havenít, itís pure hell!! And it baffles me how syndicates are powerless against such players. Rogue players can single-handedly destroy the goals of 59 other members and or lead to the demise of an entire syndicate. My syndicate was recently the target of such an occurrence and although we have survived the ordeal it certainly has left a bad taste in everyoneís mouth.

I believe GREE needs to take a hard look at this growing issue to prevent such rogue players from completely annihilating one of the most fun and demanding events of the game. Rogue players are a serious threat to our game and the community should heed to this threat and avidly ask for changes. Unless we band together and ask Gree for changes, this will continue to be a plague affecting us all.

Proposed changes against rogue and or disgruntled players in a syndicate during War weekend:


Leaderís ability to kick member out of syndicate during War Event
Officer Restricted Declare Button


Giving our syndicate leader the ability to remove such rogue player(s) from the syndicate when teamwork is vital to event success is a must! GREE can and perhaps should limit the number of kicks a leader can make (i.e. 3 members maximum) during WAR Events. Restricting who can and cannot declare war should be a no brainer. We already have that in place for Raid Boss, why not for WAR?

While these two suggested changes may fall on deaf ears , the fact remains that Battle for Empire City Events needs some fail-safe put in place so that our syndicates do not become easy prey for disgruntled players.

abnugget
06-26-2014, 10:58 AM
Agreed. Gree there needs to be an Officer Restricted Declare Button. Officers typically earn that title and deserve such responsibilities. This game requires complete organization on syndicates part and one bad apple can now ruin hard work.

namedud
06-26-2014, 11:13 AM
You have three weeks between battle weekends to deal with problem players. Not Gree's fault if you fail to do so.

narsly
06-26-2014, 11:14 AM
Just wait till you get a high level mole into your team that when battle starts drops all mafia to become a pig for the slaughter.. Fun times...

Blaggard
06-26-2014, 11:24 AM
I agree with this. Would be a good addition.

Dandd1821
06-26-2014, 11:56 AM
having 3 weeks doesn't mean anything when something happens during battle weekend....you obviously have never had a rogue player during war....i am in the syndicate that this happened too this past weekend and i promise you there needs to be some way to handle these situations....we have a lot of time and and money being invested in our battles and to have one person screw up our streaks and wins is unacceptable....gree needs to implement some kind of fail safe...and for anyone who hasn't experienced something like this all i can say is i hope you never have too , we need everyone to speak up , gree needs to make changes and we as the players need to stick together and make sure something is done so if it does happen....you dont have to sit with your hands tied and watch helplessly with no options

sap_pete
06-26-2014, 11:58 AM
Agreed, it bit us in the a twice. Enable kicks during war or make battle summons officer level only.

Dandd1821
06-26-2014, 12:11 PM
the declaring isn't as bad and is easily fixed .....having someone lose on purpose during last of a streak or running score up early on in weekend are things that we need to be able to remove someone for....just having the option to remove someone may be enough to stop someone from sabotaging the whole team . the way it is now is unacceptable

-MI- BkThug
06-26-2014, 12:26 PM
I totally agree with officer declarations only.. And maybe just allowing leader to remove 1 troublemaker during battle. And sometimes you don't who that is until its too late, so to say you have 3 weeks to deal with a problem player you really don't with last minute anonymous additions..

namedud
06-26-2014, 12:56 PM
having 3 weeks doesn't mean anything when something happens during battle weekend....you obviously have never had a rogue player during war....i am in the syndicate that this happened too this past weekend and i promise you there needs to be some way to handle these situations....we have a lot of time and and money being invested in our battles and to have one person screw up our streaks and wins is unacceptable....gree needs to implement some kind of fail safe...and for anyone who hasn't experienced something like this all i can say is i hope you never have too , we need everyone to speak up , gree needs to make changes and we as the players need to stick together and make sure something is done so if it does happen....you dont have to sit with your hands tied and watch helplessly with no options

If leaders are given the ability able to kick mid-war, expect to see a flood of complaints about rogue leaders.

Part of the challenge of syndicates is to vet players before accepting them to your syndicate. Your strategy is probably to have a full team of active, trustworthy players. Some people's strategy involves sabotaging others.

Get better at the game and "fail safes" to deal with this type of situation aren't necessary. Gree doesn't get involved in player disputes, including accusations of intentional sabotage. Problem in your syndicate? You deal with it. Not Gree's job to hold our hands through every game decision made.

kimberleyj
06-26-2014, 01:27 PM
i agree we normaly have button pushers and people who don't score ip. we should be able to ditch them why should they get weapons when they did nothing to earn them.

Kitty McPurr
06-26-2014, 03:34 PM
I will be the devil's advocate and say, NO we should not be able to boot people during war. Perhaps officer only declarations are okay. The reason I say "NO' to booting during war is that is forces some level of respect for team mates. You can't revefully decide somebody doesn't deserve a prize package. It also helps ensure you are managing your team correctly. Every leader should know, last minute recruits are impossible to vet, so buyer beware.

pdrsn
06-26-2014, 04:31 PM
This rouge actually was a member for several months before going crazy.. It came out of nowhere.
Maby some sort of a system where you need 50 of 60 members to "agree" with the boot before it can happen?

Tadaaah
06-26-2014, 04:52 PM
OP,

You have created a well-worded case. We will bring up these suggestions. The "declare" restriction may be a stronger case as we cannot meddle in player disputes. That makes the other one a bit more tricky (imagine rogue/troll leader). That could get really sticky.

Additionally, thank you all for the additional input. Good suggestions.

Dertin
06-26-2014, 05:19 PM
I totally agree with officer declarations only.
Gree this is easy, you already do it with Raid Boss, where only officers can summon.
It works very well for Raid Boss, please implement for war, thanks

abnugget
06-26-2014, 10:54 PM
What about events like the 24 hour event coming up? We had a battle last weekend and are now taking in new members. How can we weed out the bad ones in just one week? I don't know if there is a declare button for new event or if syndicate is locked? But still if that is the case we would have very little idea if new recruits are bad....