Make teams more in depth.....Please!

Teams & The social aspect of the game are 2 of the biggest parts of the game.

Basically you have a leader, officers and a wiki…That’s it! Lol
There should be so much more which would make it 100x better!

Allows teams to have a class for members who would be considered 2nd in charge? Like your 2 best officers! Maybe have it open to where teams can have actually up to 2 leaders.
Maybe you can add a recruit tag on a new member and once they are proven the leader can take it off?

I’ve seen stuff mentioned about a team vault I think that would be a great idea too!

Maybe something to be able to reward a member…Not MVP but like the leader can claim a member of the week/month?

We have talked about a lot more in depth bio’s that would be great and actually helpful too!

Monthly reports on teams/members I think would be neat just stuff like # of flames in war, attacks, successful defenses, average rank in events, etc.

I know you can have teams where they can stay but I would like to have it to where you have 3-5 spots for temporary inactive members. Like if someone is going on a trip they can be placed here for XX days until returned.

Idk I could throw out 20 more things but I just think it could be way more improved and much more in depth and everyone would enjoy that!

5 Likes

I’d like it so that at least the leader can add an officer to be able to edit the wiki and team settings as well.

Also have the auto kick option actually editable. Seems like someone meant to make it editable but it’s not.

1 Like

Would be great to add all defense points earned (not just successful ones) for those who defend for hours😋

Because you want inactive people to stay on the team? I have NEVER even seen anyone be auto kicked before (in 3 years) so it doesn’t seem to be that high a priority to me.

2 Likes

Would like to see the stats of which players is doing what in wars (how many in defences or ranking for each areas) would greatly help make sure people who aren’t pulling their weight will then need to explain themselves.

4 Likes

In the lower leagues autokick is a daily occurance.

1 Like

Until this is developed, which some of the suggestions would be nice, you can utilize google sheets to keep up with your player base.
By sharing the link with your officers you can additional help in retrieving and managing the information.

As a leader, I’m okay with having a “second in command” listed but nothing beyond that for “special” members or top 2+ officers. I don’t want to pick favorites in my officers or even have the mechanics to do so (as this would promote a leader picking favorites). As for two leaders - why? An officer can literally do everything a leader can except Edit the team.

I don’t see the necessity of this.

In Atlas which I slowly working its way out.

SUPER against rewarding members like this. Creates favoritism (fabricated or real) and will cause more issues.

I’ve asked for a statistical analysis page on members for forever. Just a table for leaders where I can see attacks per day, time online a day, defends per day, resource received to resource donated, event scores, etc. All on one neat table.

Ehhh no. Get an alt and swap ‘em out. This would mess with wars too much.

5 Likes

I’ve always been interested in getting real player stats in our profiles. Maybe a toggle to set them public or not? Things such as:

Battles fought
Win/loss ratio
Time spent in game
Food/lumber used
Rubies spent
Gold chests opened
Wars fought

I’m sure there are some other interesting ones I’m missing.

6 Likes

Value packs bought :eyes:

1 Like

Really? Why do you need so much information?

We just need one special role: Atlas Officer

Why do we “need” to play the game? I don’t “need” these things but it would serve to tell a lot about a player’s activity.

Did you get unbanned yet or at least any response from PG?

2 Likes

The wiki is not limited to only the leader. Those who create pages can limit edit access.

1 Like

A lot of this seems to be promoting division within the team and even the officers. We used to do member of the week/month. We stopped because there were a ton of people who did things that ought to be recognized. So we recognized them. Nothing with flags and fireworks. It isn’t what they were looking for anyway. Just a nod to their efforts.

Keeping track of who does what as far as attacking, yes, I see the value in. I also like the personal tracking system I set up.

2 Likes

Still waiting. Not a single reply yet

I used to play a game where you had 3 leaders and that was it, leader, sentinel, and champion

My team has 2 leaders which take the leader position in turn. Still, nothing is different since we talked a lot about our team and stuff. IMO, it’s much better than having structured team government.

1 Like

The player of the week or month would be automatically picked by Attacks/Defense, RSS sent, Flames earned, etc.

Not a “Hey your my best friend want to be 2nd in charge”? Lol

Also the 2nd in charge or tier right below the leader would be great if they had more benefits obviously that would have to be added…That’s what the whole thread was about adding more to teams. And this would be for a team if they have 1-2 officers who really go out of their way to help members…Obviously most all officers do but just thought it would be nice to have specific tiers in a team rather then just leader, officers and members!

Could give officers, members and recruits something to work towards by moving up the ranks in a team.

I was throwing stuff around that took about 5 minutes. I just think it would be much better to have different tiers in team and be able to get more in depth with the team and members. Right now it seems about as very basic as it could be.

Eh. If there is no reward other than bragging rights, seems fine.

Some teams do have different stages and groups of people. As a leader, I cover kind of a hodge podge, politics, and member things. We also have an Atlas Officer, War/Ranking/Raid Officer, Communication/Chats Officer, and a Player Progression/Participation Officer. If teams have officers not all pulling their weight, that’s their fault and they need to get on that.

I just don’t see what “control” could be given to a second in command though, honestly. It seems like it’d be in title alone.

If it’s just titles you’re after, I guess I could see that, but i feel that each team would have a different idea in what they want, which would make adding a set of names kind of a headache.

It was actually meant to do the opposite!

Most teams will have lots of other players worthy of being an officer but you simply don’t have the ability to do that.

It doesn’t have to be rated in order after the tier of 2nd in charge they could just have tiers and titles.
It would allow more responsibility throughout the team.

There’s so much that could be done…

You could have your leader & 2nd in charge Commander/Captain whatever you want to call him.

Officers also a tier for Scouting/Recruiting made for members who do most of the recruiting and answering emails about joining.

You could even have your warriors (meant for the bigs who do most backing in war)

Members and Recruits…Recruits being new members.

Obviously all of this could be changed and a lot more thought out. I don’t think it would divide the team at all but instead give members and recruits something to work towards and give other members more responsibility!