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

alliance_wars

#103

It was in one of the updates. 15, I think.

https://forum.smallgiantgames.com/t/version-15-releases-notes/48590?u=npnky


#104

It says inactive players are exempted from matchmaking, the “inactive” is vague. Perhaps it means players who had not been on line for a period… How long defines the inactivity?, not sure.

But for player who has consistently being online but not participating in AW, yet tick participate and had df team set up… They consistently get included in the match making.


#105

2 consecutive wars with no hits is the criteria for inactive


#106

Thanks NPNKY…but it only says “inactive players”. Not defined what that means… @Petri can you clarify maybe? THX!!


#107

If this was the case then we would have players no showing up in the lineup and yet they still are there.

The devs must understand that is it is important for leaders to have more allience control to be able to manage a good allience.

I have good loyal membership of 25 where titans are concerned but only about 18 for AW but they don’t opted out. For me to be able to opted them out when we set our defenses up would be a great advantage for every other member that works towards AW goals.

If the devs don’t want to give leaders added power then they at least make the default AW for every member automatically opted out after each AW instead of opted in this way only those how really want to partake in AW’s will opted back in.

I feel that to be a much fairer comprise.


#108

Still don’t understand what’s hard about givin people the boot. We have 28 members…all 28 opted in. All 28 will use 6 flags. If any don’t, they won’t be here after war. Simple.


#109

AW isn’t everyone’s number one priority as for us titans come first.

Our allience is made up of working class members with families and not everyone has the time for everything. Doesn’t make them bad people.


#110

So wars are optional. Make it clear to your members that while wars are optional, opting in or out is required. If they don’t respect the others enough to opt out, boot them then. Post something like this: If you don’t want to participate in Alliance War, that’s fine. You must opt out so your absence doesn’t hurt the rest of us. If you don’t opt out, we expect you to use all 6 flags. If you refuse to do either one, you will be kicked.


#111

My thoughts exactly

Myself and the rest of the members in Crew are all adults with familes and jobs

They still manage to opt out if inavailable for war

Devs really aren’t needed to fix every problem players have with other players

Devs have done things certain ways to make this even easier:

  • war prep and war start times are on the same days every week to make it easier for players and alliances to be able to plan ahead and know if they’ll have time to participate

-we have a countdown to when matchmaking is going to start

-we have individual opt outs

-we have alliance opt outs if the whole alliance doesnt want to participate

  • we have automatic opt outs if opted in players go 2 wars without using flags

I really don’t know why these measures aren’t enough

Every time devs go 1 mile to make things easier on players, the players want another mile

Guaranteed even if they implemented the suggested feature, it would be 24 hours before we saw another suggestion/idea for something else to add to it


#112

Yes. It takes less than 30 seconds to opt out. It isn’t unreasonable to expect players to ■■■■ or get off the pot, as my Dad used to say.


#113

Yea doing and done that but this is suppose to be a game not a life threatening (using extreme example there, lol) frustration.

Games are meant to be fun not something you should need to change your life’s routines over which is why the devs should this into consideration.

Booting out only means more player searching time involved.


#114

I’d rather have 20 players that work as a team than 30 individuals who don’t care about the others. Either way, the solution is in your hands as a leader. Step up and lead.


#115

Even easier for the devs to set the default status to opted out after every AW instead of opted in.
That requires a tick in the settings which sets it across the board and would also only take 30 secs to do.

This would solve the problem for everyone remembering I am not the OP author here.


#116

This is a great idea and I often talked about the need for it when I was leading an alliance.

It’s not productive for the alliance when the leader has to badger alliance members to participate in war or opt out. THEN call people out for not using their flags. When you have to openly criticize people (there’s no PM) it sets a bad tone in chat.

The only other option is to kick people. What if they’re missing every other war? What if they hit the titan? Kicking is kind of extreme.

Allowing leaders to opt people out of wars allows for better alliance management. Better alliance morale. Less hurt egos and drama.

This just seems like a feature that should already be in the game.

and the people saying “I don’t want to be required to use my war flags!”, quit that alliance and join one that is chill about flag use and war rewards.


#117

So your idea is to punish active players that forget to opti in over punishing players that choose not to opt out?

Nice logic.

Alliances are a team
If a player doesn’t pull their weight in the team = boot and replace

If a player participated in every other game in the nfl even though a head coach and team owner expected the player to play in every game, what do you think they would do? They would cut the player. They wouldn’t call the nfl to change rules to better suit the player.

Again very simple logic…


#118

Being a leader means you have to set expectations and stick to them. Make your expectations clear to the players, and make the tough call to boot if they can’t or won’t meet expectations. That’s part of being a leader.


#119

Being able to look at a situation with nuance and manage with said nuance, not a hammer, is also part of being a good leader.

Wars, titans, and trophy counts are also different. Many alliances have, or would like to have, different requirements for each.

This feature would simply allow those alliances to fine tune their specific situations better without having to kick people or call them out in chat.

I’ve seen situations where someone is good with titans and fights every other war or uses a few flags, is put into question. Should they be kicked? What if the alliance has trouble getting new people? Should they still be kicked?

Opting out the member who half participates in wars would do one of three things - first is they stay opted out and continue with titans as normal. Second is they get mad about it and quit. Third is it wakes them up to the importance of alliance wars, they opt their self back in with the intention to participate more. Without a “leader opt out” option the only recourse is to kick the person or reprimand them (which might cause them to leave).

This is simply about giving alliances more ability to manage themselves.

I’ve been in many different kinds of alliances. In the active and top alliances, yeah there are strict rules. If you don’t follow them you get kicked.

Most alliances are not like that. They are more relaxed. They are in a blurry place between training and serious alliances. They would like to do better in wars yet can’t afford to be too harsh on their players-kick or scald them-because getting new members who at least hit the titan regularly is tough.

I’ve seen good alliances fall apart because they are in the blurry category. They either get tired of losing wars and kick half their members which is not good when you’ve gotten used to your “alliance family”, or they don’t kick and people lose interest because they keep losing wars.

A leader opt out option could help in situations like that. Allow the alliance to be relaxed yet do better in wars.


#120

Kicking players out of alliance is not always the best option, Alliance is to foster team play and should be fun, we have had a case of a good member who for very strong family reason couldn’t opt out of war, who then came after many days to explain the situation, it would not have promoted a good team play kicking such player.
Don’t know why we are hammering on kicking option, which is actually more drastic than just simply opting the a player out and such player could easily be reinstated.
Team play is organistic part of every game, with strong social interactions and it’s definitely not mechanistic approach of kicking players. Kicking should be the last resort .


#121

Every player won’t fit every alliance
Every alliance won’t fit every player

If they did then recruiting wouldn’t be needed and we’d have a fraction of the alliances we have now

Players are supposed to find alliances that fit them

Alliances are supposed to find players that fit them

SG has made that very easily doable

If alliances and players choose not to do that because “they don’t want to spend the time recruiting”, that doesn’t fall back on developers to fix. Don’t like recruiting? Don’t be in leadership. Don’t like enforcing expectation? Lead a casual alliance with lower expectations. Don’t want to meet expectations of your current alliance? Find a better suited alliance.

You guys are really making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

@AnjaValkyrie how does your alliance handle players that don’t want to be apart of war?

@Jedon same question about your current alliance

And I’m sure there are a lot more players i could ask.

There are some issues in the game that should be addressed. This isn’t one of them.

Btw when a player opts out of war I’m 99.9% positive it doesn’t automatically opt back in


#122

Crew-Serfs
Is casual alliance and thats why I joined I only like titans.
But as for AW C-S require to opt-out if you wont be there to use all the flags during the war period.