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

alliance_wars

#83

Mean this?

If so ask moderator to merge…


#84

@Kerridoc @Rook @JonahTheBard could you merge topics? Thanks.


#85

How is giving leaders control to opt player out of war subject to abuse more than the existing control that makes leaders demote or kick out?

A kicked out player may not even know why he or she was kicked for whatever reason, yet been denied the team play and may have to recourse to seeking another alliance yet this is considered okay versus when the player can be opted out of war momentarily for inactivity, but can still participate in Titan and can query why he or she is opted out, and still have ground to discuss with the team, not only the leaders for corrective actions.


#86

It’s very obvious that you’ve been kicked from an alliance, and you can take action accordingly. It’s not so obvious that you’ve been opted out of a war until the war actually happens. If you get a banner warning you when you log in that you’ve been force-opted-out, then I guess I really don’t mind.


#87

I think the members having control of their opt out is a great start. But I would Agree the leader should also have the option to turn off a person’s war.

Just like my alliance, we had an active member who’s computer went down. We got a message from a friend through a friend. If we could have turned off her war for her until she was up and running again that would have been great. But we are stuck just hoping she will rejoin the alliance and doesn’t take it personally.

Would really like a leader controlled off switch for individuals.


#88

Such banner would be a nice idea!


#89

The more we get into AW the tougher the opponents and I am glad someone brings out this idea. It just so happens some casual members in my alliance are lagging in war participation but we need their hits on titans. They only hit war one or two times and sometimes dont even bother. They do not seem to care whether we win or lose, they are just in for the chance of opening the war chest, of which rewards are surprisingly nice for a change!!
Thus, I support the idea that leader can opt member out of the war so that it will make the laggy players take the war more seriously!


#90

Translation (German): You speak, or write to me, almost from the soul.

Top Post! thanks!


Reminder: All posts (except in Foreign Language Section) are to be written in English.


#91

Sorry @KOOK, no German allowed…only is “foreign langues”…


#92

I just wanted to mention that my alliance at the beginning had problems in war with participation … but after settling down we know each other and everyone knows what to do and I do not have to walk behind anyone. it does not count them for the continuation in the ALLIANCE to participate in war … only the Titan. and we usually win almost all. participation is almost 100%


#93

As an allience leader the opportunity to remove players who don’t opt out would be a great advantage.

Example; our allience enforces titans but not AW’s but yet some players who never participate in AW’s don’t opt out and this creates issues with matching.

A leader is there to control the allience but yet has no power over what others do except for booting them. Not every player deserves to be booted and if a player is great at “like in our case” titans then you don’t want to lose that player but if at the same time that same player doesn’t participate in AW then he/she doesn’t deserve to reap the AW chest rewards others have worked so hard for.

These players who don’t hit in AW’s disturb the allience matchmaking process providing more opponents than we should actually have would these none hitters have opted out making it harder for those that do not.

A good leader that is wanting to take their allience forward should have the right to control these situations and will not abuse it and most definitely won’t opt player that do not out.

As stated above if your being abused then change allience. “Come to ours” lol. Check recruitment threads for more details as I hold comps as well.


#94

This is a great idea. as a leader/co-Lead for 14months it’s been a schelp recording and enforcing strikes/kicks on what was a strong alliance.

Wars have been the most fun part of the game, but also the most frustrating to manage because we have players who have been hitting Titans daily for over a year, but don’t want to go on LINE. so do we kick someone who’s been 100% committed for a year and is like family?
Personally I think that’s not in the spirit of gaming.

Great idea for Leader to be able to OptOut a player from War.


#95

For those who like the idea, don’t forget to click the vote button. I’m seeing a lot more positive posts than actual votes :slight_smile:


#96

If a player misses 2 wars in a row, they’re automatically opted out. They aren’t counted in matching after that, and they don’t get participation in the war chest.


#97

As a leader, I can actually confirm that the automatic opt out didn’t work, we had a player that missed out two consecutive wars, yet the defense team was on the field on the third. It may be possible that the current update have taken care of that, but previous version didn’t.
Had to eventually boot him after several alliance chat messages and no response, yet the player do show up online, we also do not have means to know if he read the message or not.


#98

My suggestion is that members should stil keep the opttion to check in participate or not, but just as the leader are equipped with option to kick, additional option should be equipped for leader to opt player out of AW.
The opt out can be used instead of outright kick, in the case of two concecutive inactivity at the warfront.


#99

Could the forum devs please enforce commenters to vote before they’re allowed to comment?

:yum:


#100

Not sure if I have voted, but I guess I have spent my voting tokens as I could only see limit.:grinning:
Yes, I should be counted as voting for this option.


#101

Most of us burned out votes long ago.


#102

@NPNKY. Good to know. Seems I missed that note…where did it stand?