Please read the thread before commenting. We are a leveling alliance. We have the rules in place but that does not help me unlose wars when people no show. I’d much rather have some semblance of control in advance. Wouldn’t you?
You have control. Kick the no shows.
Again…AFTER we lose another war…
Why not make some improvements? When things get better they get better. Progress is good
To clarify what I’m in favor of – when a player first reaches level 12, that should trigger the war tutorial, ending on the screen where the player can check the “opt-in” box, and invite the player to check it. Thereafter, the box stays checked.
I have read the whole thread - that is why I commented.
So you have rules in place - but you don’t enforce them? Which is why your careless players don’t care… because there are no consequences for not adhering to the rules.
You, as the leader, have to make up your mind what kind of alliance you want - and then find the players that want to play the same way.
I don’t need or want that kind of control. It puts more (unneccessary) responsibility in the leaders hands - they would have to opt players in and out because of vacations or other RL issues… and it could be abused by leaders to ‘punish’ members for real or imagined issues…
If they aren’t helping the team effort, why do you want them in the alliance? Casual solo players can play without an alliance. Joining an alliance is not mandatory in the game.
I get all that Witch but we lose our wars when people don’t show. I can’t enforce it in advance. I can’t read the future.
How could leadership somehow magically start abusing a war option control when they already have kick control? If a leader wants to be abusive they can just kick people,It doesn’t open anything new up for abuse when leadership can kick people out of the alliance
I don’t see how that’s any different or open to some new form of abuse. It would save me a lot of trouble if people were not automatically opted in.
It may not be an issue for you because you have opted to just be hard core heavy handed about it. I personally do not enjoy being that much of an enforcer. It’s just not how I like to game.
I would much rather have the players who are actively interested in participating in war say so, and request to be added to the war team instead of having to wait until I’ve already lost a war and then go on a kicking spree.
We are a leveling alliance. We take new players all the time and watch them hit 12 and then no show. I don’t want to have to be the constant strict enforcer. It’s negativity I could live without and would disappear if it was up to us who was on the war team and not automatically selected in advance by the system.
Does that make sense?
And I am not THE leader of this alliance. I am co-lead and I’m in a nasty argument right now on the Line app because someone in the big sister alliance got all grumpy that I kicked his little brother.
There are a number of people who will join an alliance and hit the titans but completely ignore the war tab. I have zero way of knowing who that is going to be until I have already lost yet another war due to no shows.
Putting the war team in full control of leadership completely eliminates that gamble. No more surprises. And it would be way less work for me. Way less.
Then again, maybe I should just join an alliance like yours that is strictly enforcing participation. It would save me a lot of headaches.
I am neither hard core nor heavy handed. But I value my members that are team players and do not wish to lose them by catering to the whims of people that want to play casually. There are plenty of casual alliances that do not have any rules and would be a better fit for such players. And I value my piece of mind. I don’t want to have to fuss with people that apparently don’t care whether we win or lose a war or whether we take down the titan.
I’m a hundred percent with you on all that
Well, that might just be the solution…
Find an alliance that plays the way you play…
There are plenty of dedicated alliances that are friendly, helpful and drama-free…
I’d offer you a spot, but all of our communication is in German…
What’s the name of your alliance if you don’t mind me asking? Sounds like a place that values the dedicated team players.
Forza della Strega - but as I mentioned in my edit, we communicate in German…
I don’t know if that would make it an ideal fit for you
Ahh… yeah that wouldn’t work… Happy hunting though! May the board gods bless your bash!
If you do decide to ‘shop around’ for a different alliance - just a suggestion. Post under alliance recruitment that you are looking for a new home - you will have lots of offers from some wonderful people that are active on the forum…
Happy hunting for you too!
@Kerridoc I’m confused, before I thought you agreed on need for “opting in” each war and now something about staying checked? Might just be understanding wrong. If it’s a need for everyone manual opt in every war I’m all for it and wish we could get the devs to implement it asap.
As for giving leaders control, thought about it and definitely dont think leaders need have control over another player in alliances. Yes, we will always have to monitor activity levels so think people missing the point that its about giving tools to help navigate the options. I dont believe that the devs will lose out on profit from making a profit.
Opting in for each war isn’t what I meant to endorse. That’s way more effort for what should be a default activity for an alliance member. Hence my clarifying post: I realized people were thinking I said something else.
Well guys at the very least that box should not be automatically checked and fixing that will go a long way to weeding out people that just don’t even pay attention at all. I would consider myself lucky if just that got implemented and it certainly doesn’t seem difficult to make it reality.