Alliance leadership should control the war "opt out" box, not the members MASTER

[Rabbitsmoker]

I’m sick of having to kick people out who don’t read chat, don’t participate and straight up don’t care about their teams. I’m also sick of losing wars giving new players the benefit of the doubt only to have them straight up no show for the wars.

War chests are for team players and only team players

Only the alliance leader and co-leaders should be able to opt members in for wars and at the VERY least that box should NOT be automatically checked for opt in.

Please consider giving alliance leadership control over this function

This way only players that participate in their alliances via Titan consistency or even just saying you know, like “hello” once in a while will be invited to join the war effort.

Members who actively request to join wars are far far more likely to do their part and quite frankly those are the kind of players we all want on our teams

Love, Hams and Heroes Guys!!

Thanks for a super fun game. Lets’ make it even better

[Khaleesi-MOD]

I like where this thought is going… can perhaps, the leaders & co’s at least be able to see who has opted themselves in/out of war at all times (only within alliance, not being able to see opposing)?? Thank you for the thought Rabbitsmoker & thank you SG Team!

Happy Holidays!

[Kerridoc]

I like the idea of knowing who is in/out. I hate the idea of leadership opting people out without their permission. Set clear standards, communicate them effectively, and enforce them though demotions and the boot. But opting people out involuntarily is open to serious issues and will piss people off.

[Khaleesi-MOD]

Agreed @Kerridoc I could not have said it better or agree more!

[JoyDivision]

War Chest has created a really nasty “carrot” - in the end it is always zero sum game.

I would really like a loss to be 2,5 points so more relaxed and casual alliences could complete their war chest too

Right now being in casual allience means that you are gimping your progress

[Lagun]

Sometimes. It needed, when the member go to holiday and forget to out. But a good leader will never abuse the power to opted member without their permission, if so, thats time to say goodbye for them.

[Rabbitsmoker]

Agreed. If your leader is a jerk about just leave the alliance. I have multiple players that opt in and then just no show. That’s abusive to all of my other players that are actually doing their part.

How is it that this idea is somehow worse than kicking people out of the alliance for NOT clicking the opt out box?

I have constantly remind people every war that they need to opt out or show up. It doesn’t make sense to me.

If you sign up with a group of your friends for softball in the park on Saturday they are going to expect you to be at the park.

Half the time in our leveling alliance I don’t even think those players have ever even opened the war tab.

It should be up the team and the leaders to make the decision. It will encourage lazy anti social people to get more active in their guilds and it promotes a healthy team environment.

The alternative is pestering people to uncheck a box they have no intention of bothering with.

alliances are a dime a dozen. Solid team members are not.

I’d rather be asked to sign people up for war than have to be policing the alliance.

[Rabbitsmoker]

What sounds better?

“Hey Gang. some of you just popped level 12 and are now eligible to join the war team with us. Let us know if you would like to participate and we’ll sign you up and coach you.”

Or…

“OK Puffstick and Deepshock (I’m making these names up) Once again you did not show up for war and you cost us another one. I’m not going to say it again, opt out or you will be kicked.”

And then I have to go monitor them and police the situation.

Just think about it… It should be up to the team leaders

[Lagun]

Yes we kick one for that, the war point is so tight, we will win if he used his flag since he have a really good roster, we saw him online, we shout his name in game chat, but he even not read it! Our team work so hard just to get lose in his ignorant behavior. Since then line is a must, we coordinate, communicate and remind then , if no response kick that anti social is a best way to appreciate other member hard work.

[Sorsha]

I am not in war, my alliance knows and it is ok. Would never join an alliance that insists on war. Would leave instantly if I have to participate unvoluntary just because I am useful as Level 50 Player in wars in the eyes of the leader.
I lead an alliance myselve for a long time. In case I cleary state in discription that war and titan attacks are a must and members to not follow any of this those rules, they are kicked. Problem solved.

[Lagun]

As long as the player output themselves from war it should be oke, but if not thats a problem. Thats why its good if leader can have option to output the member if the member never participate in war but they not output themselves.

[Redeye]

The only way this could possibly be okay is if it’s the leader only. You can’t let however many people you decide to grant a co-lead spot to control others’ participation. I had a guy whose kid broke his phone and it took three days to get new one. He got in touch via email, but I couldn’t opt him out. If you start using it as a punishment, I could see the complaints to SG piling up. In principal its a great idea, but might generate too much drama for the developers to consider.

[Rabbitsmoker]

Except you can already kick people out as a punishment. That already exists so why not kick out less people AFTER they cost the team a war?

This is not open to any kind of abuse. The system is already abusive in that regard. This will make tings less abusive. Especially for the players on your teams who are dedicated war players.

The entire team suffers when one lazy slacker just doesn’t bother participating in the war.

My proposal will drastically reduce the need for policing and monitoring your players too and then demoting and kicking them. That is far more drama and “Abuse” than it has to be if you just give the war sign up to leadership

[Rabbitsmoker]

This idea doesn’t seem to be gaining a lot of traction. I guess not enough team leaders are chiming in.

How about this one then? At the very least change the system so the war box is not checked in advance. I would rather have people who specifically choose to join war do it consciously. How many players are just here to play boards and hit Titans and don’t even pay attention to that tab?

[Kerridoc]

I could get on-board with the idea that the default setting of the war participation box is “no”. Then if someone is counted on the war matching, it’s because they said they’d show up. If they don’t, then alliance leadership has a clear case for action.

[Rabbitsmoker]

@Kerridoc YES!! Thank You! That would make things a lot easier and eliminate the players who just don’t even pay attention to the war tab.

[NDarkNS]

Ok what do u do if u have members who show up and attack once? Never post in chat but do try hard with titans? We have 4 that have only attacked once. Like rabbit I have repeatedly asked people to opt out or in based on thier commitment. I grow tired of having to monitor with no outcome each war. We are only scrapping by on a handful of 4* titans so were still in early stages…

I would like see everyone have to opt in every war. That way if someone gone for holidays they wont take up useless space.

I would like to be able to set a desired attack quota that if these players dont attack 3 times, get blocked from the next war.

Both these options would give me and my co leaders the info on whether to kick or not…

[Gryphonknight]

I could get on-board with the idea that the default setting of the war participation box is “no”.

From the war change log and Devs comments they obviously want lots of war participation. Unlike raiding war needs lots of participation to make war matching data remotely accurate since it doesn’t use an Elo based formula.

However the Devs have learned this is not realistic and added the “2 consecutive no shows= not participating “ rule which leads to the need for an individual opt out visual indicator ( or they would be overloaded with bug reports ).

Considering how much the Devs have changed from their preferred position, any further movement is unlikely. Especially since Devs have tweaked the Titan algorithm so forming new alliances is easier and faster.

I saw this struggle between Devs roadmap and players expectations in Book of Heroes with individual PvP. Book of Heroes added individual PvP after launch so many players had joined liking a non-PvP MMO even though the Devs had advertised PvP during beta but cut it due to lack of development cycles. Small Giant added ear after launch ( “ear” for “war” ?! WTFlux autocowreck) so many players joined Empires liking that PvP of any kind was optional.

Both Book of Heroes and Empires have resisted more automation of alliances member stats because there is always a more pressing feature needed to monetize game or attract F2P accounts not because they fail to see the usefulness of the feature ( many Devs have personal wish lists they would love to program, but roadmaps are based on game design being a business and development cycles being finite ). The inconvenience to leaders & co-leaders is just not economic to fix. Most MMO that have something like this involving stats are 3rd party add-ons using public API s already in the software.

[Rabbitsmoker]

Thank you @NDarkNS , Those are exactly the kind of issues that could easily be fixed. I too am building a lower level alliance and your additional points are spot on.

All of the drama and negativity in our alliance comes from having to police the war participation.

This an excellent app game and I have spent money on this one without any regrets and it is exceedingly annoying to have a constant stream of selfish players who are automatically included in a war they have no intention of participating in. This exact problem has cost us multiple wars.

I’ll say it again, Half the time these players have never bothered to open their war tab. They just want to play candy crush with monsters. That’s fine. Let them do that but give us the means and control to decide who is allowed to join war. That specific aspect of this game is by far the most challenging and interesting but it’s just not for casual solo players.

The need to have a 30 hero roster means that the people who are serious about alliance wars are far far more likely spend money on building a team than those who slack or just don’t pay attention. Because of that @Gryphonknight I have to disagree with your assessment that making alliance wars better for regular players will somehow cost the Devs money . From my point of view the opposite is true.

And here is another possible adjustment to alleviate this concern (Which I don’e share) that @Kerridoc brought up earlier regarding abuse; Why not remove the war chest progression from having to be opted in? Just like Titans.

If you win a war, you get the 5 points. If you opt out for 2 weeks to go Antarctica or something so you are not a burden to your team, when you do opt back in, your 5 points is still there .

And most definitely change the default to opted out. Having to opt back in for every war is even better.

There are all kinds of reasons people no show. The 22 or so good members on my team who do have team etiquette, who do spend time, effort and money should not be the ones to suffer from one or two players that just don’t show up.

Your consistent, interested and team oriented players are your bread and butter. Those are the players who are inclined to drop money to get new summons for their roster, myself included. Those are the players who are going to drop money to snag that mysterious tonic to ascend their beasts. Not the other way around.

This is by far the best phone app game I’ve ever played and I have played many. Because of that it is also the one I have spent the most money on.

I have 22 regular players who are all leveling and actually care about their team. Why is it that we should be the ones who have to constantly police the few who create losses for the entire team.?

Easy fix compromise is:

The default for the opt in button is changed to opted out

You must opt in for each war (Thanks NdarkNS!)

The war chests are separated from the opt in/ opt out mechanism just like the Titan/hero/monster chests

This will greatly benefit your consistent, team oriented, war participating, Hero roster (Hello?? $$$) building players

[Witch]

If you are so serious about player participation, then I don’t understand why you don’t kick your careless players…
As the leader of an alliance, I would rather spend my time coaching interested members than policing participation to the extent that you describe. We have a participation rule in place for titans and wars. If someone cannot make it, they will say so beforehand. If I notice someone is no longer pulling their weight, I will inquire why. If I don’t get a response - then that player is kicked. I am no longer willing to let one (or however many) player/s hold the rest back. Fussing around a player that doesn’t show any team spirit may cost you members that do… especially if it means losing out on war chests… because it takes a LOT of losses to fill that one…
something to think about.