If like the leader and co-leads to have control. I know with our alliance, Our leader and co-leads lead by committee and no decisions about promotions or kicking someone is done without agreement. We’ve had plenty of problems with people adhering to our rule of us all your flags or sit out the next war. It usually comes from people who give us the whole “well, I’m constantly scoring 400+ pts, so it’s BS you force me to sit out.” That ends up being an automatic kick, but it would be nice if the leadership could opt them out and let them make the decision to leave because it helps end more drama later we’ve found.
It would be nice if when personal issues arise an apology is offered. I messed up badly a couple of weeks ago and have opted myself out until I’m confident there won’t be a repeat… The leader and co leads were totally cool about it. I don’t feel they should have to police me…
At the very least team leaders and co leaders should have the option to opt members out of alliance wars.
I don’t see what the issue with SG is and why they just don’t opt everyone out after each war and then those that want to participate would just need to opt in during matchmaking.
This would not only solve this issue TOTALLY but also avoid any and all presumed conflicts.
Then anyone who opts in and doesn’t use their hits should then be booted if that is the choice of the alliance, those that don’t log on for a few days due to work or other commitments then would not feel bad when they come back on to find out they are no longer there because they had a family to look after.
After all from what I here in the chat rooms E&P has more adults/mature persons playing this game than actual kids/minors, not saying there are no minors of cause but there are a heap of mature working and married players playing this game and as such these people have real life commitments as well as kids and families… For SG to not consider these players for who they are and constantly and purposely create mayhem amoungst players IMO is quite childish in it’s self.
I am 60yrs old in an alliance with 25 to 30 married and working members and we all are extremelydedicated to this game for great on 3 years now, and yes there are times when one is caught up at or had to take their kinds to hospitals and doctors etc etc… SG do you honestly think that this game should prevail over our families for the of keeping the peace in an alliance on this game? And don’t forget it’s those mature players money that keeping you in business.
As I stated above, fix the problem once and for all and just opt everyone out after each war and let the rest live happily ever after.
The type of player who wants to leave in the middle of War is the same guy who just wouldn’t play those flags even if required to stay.
Plus I have seen times when the drama was so bad over some issue or belief that the only solution was immediately leaving or kicking.
Tiny Little swords by our profile names would tell us who is opted in ahead of matching.
Yet we still wont’ have a warning message when someone is leaving DURING war?
Excellent idea. I’m not waring atm because the matches make me ill. I just pop in a polite post saying “opted out” in ally chat and wait for acknowledgement from a leader or co lead.
Is it not possible to start participation in the war by a new starting alliance member only after admission / acceptance by the leader and to build in this through an activation button at the leader. Now it happens too often that new alliance members, who are just starting, too soon accidentally join the war without enough heroes or too weak heroes. Another option could be that as a leader you can set the level from which an alliance member can participate in the war.
I like that idea - just like alliance minimums.
Just opt everyone out after each war and then the only controller to participate in the next war is yours and yours alone, no one is controlling anyone then.
WHAT is so dammed difficult about that.
I think leaders and co-leaders should be able to check our uncheck a member participation on a war. Be able to let a member to open the chest our not, seems a little too much. Participation our not, could be helpfull for that member that forgets to uncheck our like a warning for not attacking on the previous war, etc.
Since we can’t control member participation in wars, what if we could open/close seats at the war table?
Recruiting is a pain and often comes up empty handed. As a smaller alliance we compete against the monster groups for players so we have an open enrollment with requirement to check in on chat. These players never do and often jump into war when they hit lvl12. If we ruthlessly kick them for non-activity we lose the possibility of a potential top player. Its quite possible they don’t know what they are doing.
Setting an “invite” option would require action on the new players part. If they don’t like it, they can find another alliance.
Plus if spies are infiltrating this would solve that rumor too…
Actually it should happen … Sometimes we have to fight with members we never wanted to join.
There should be a strict rule for people leave durring running war…So war jumpers dont betrayed any alliance!! Something like they dont allowed to join any other alliance for next 7 days or wont be able to participate in war/titan for 7 days so atleast players will not leave durring war!!
I’m in America and sometimes it’s as simple as restarting you pc. I’ve been playing with 3 alts. And every fricken war lately I lose an alt. It refuses to recognize my passwords. Last time it replaced my 73 level alt with a band new alt. I was lucky this time because I restarted my iPad and my old alt came back.
We had a new member , that sent a spy into our enemy alliance. I guess he had a family member or secondary account. Don’t know. He was showing off and posted it in our chat. Nobody cared, so he left. Personally we think spying is a waste of time.
i agree with that, but let`s see…
Why not an option for ALLIANCE LEADERS to
ban members only from Wars but not the Alliance?
I think for Alliances which are at lower levels this would be very helpful. For those with many members at lower levels.
Also for newer members to Empire’s game it might keep those members who would have to be REMOVED from an ALLIANCE due to THEIR SITTING IN WARS YET NOT USING THEIR FLAGS from being dumped out of some ALLIANCES.
This would only help Empires.
Because we can REASON those BANNED from WARS only might come to realize the value of teamwork. Plus help Empires to retain said MEMBERS BANNED from WARS but not an Alliance since some LIKELY QUIT THE GAME WHEN REMOVED FROM AN ALLIANCE.
Of course NOT all quit the game. Some surely have in the past. But with that option delivered to ban solely from Wars perhaps more player retention happens?
A Win***Win for Alliances and for Empires.
Our ALLIANCE has serious issues with NO SHOW MEMBERS during War they opted into. It appears likely a percentage of such players do this TO GRAB FREE LOOT WITH ZERO ACTIVITY from the War Team members who did show up!!
Why NOT DEFINITELY PENALIZE ANYONE SHOWS UP FOR WARS BUT USES ZERO FLAGS? BY EMPIRES!!
A GAME RULE!!
LOCK THEIR PARICIPATION 2 WEEKS?
REMOVE THEIR GEMS!!!
BY A # THAT MAKES THEM REALIZE THEY DON’T TOY WITH ANY ALLIANCE WAR TEAMS IN EMPIRES!!
REMOVE THEIR OTHER ITEMS TOO!!
MAYBE REMOVE PULL TOKENS.
MAYBE REMOVE ANY ABILITY TO GAIN ITEMS FROM ALL AREAS IN EMPIRE ACTIVITY UNLESS THOSE TYPES HAVE NOT USED WAR FLAGS PAY EMPIRES $$ FOR THEIR GAIN? SET IT AT 6 WEEKS DURATION.
RESTRICT THEIR ABILITY TO GAIN ANYTHING AT ALL IN EMPIRES OTHER THAN TO PAY FOR IT WITH $$$ FOR 6 WEEKS. ONE WEEK FOR EACH UNUSED FLAG??
PEOPLE KNOW TO NOT PUT AN ENTIRE WAR TEAM AT RISK FOR LOSSES BUT DO IT WITH ZERO REGARD FOR ALLIANCES, ZERO RESPECT FOR OTHER EMPIRES PLAYERS!!
DEFINITELY this approach would greatly curb THE NONSENSE!!