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



Do you feel like being asked to opt out if you can’t participate is too much to ask?


Not at all … I am not doing AWs and always opted out. Infact I am greatful they do require being opt out :smile:


Thank you.

I rest my case.


We are permitted to use the individual opt out.


Does it put you out to opt out? Apparently the consensus is that asking players to opt out if they don’t want to participate is asking a lot from players. So just thought I’d ask players who regularly opt out


Of course that does not put me out, dear.
It is no trouble at all.
I remove the check mark for the war participation, and that’s it.


That’s what i thought

Thank you anja!


I am a leader in another online game, so I totally understand this perspective. I also understand that, as a leader, I am taking on the role of making certain decisions. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s why I chose to be the leader. If someone doesn’t participate as expected, it’s my role to do a couple of things:

  1. Make sure, ONCE, the person understands the expectations, and also understands the consequences. And yep. That DOES mean checking after events to see who participated. I have a form message I send. Not hard.
  2. Consequences HAVE to apply to everyone, even if the player has an amazing team, if they mess up, they don’t get out of consequences. It doesn’t have to be getting kicked out of the alliance the first time, but should make an impact.
  3. We have a messaging system. Make sure other players know who did and didn’t participate. This doesn’t have to be in a rude way. Just post a list of people who did and did not participate. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. Of course, don’t list people who didn’t opt in.

On this matter above… I believe the player should always be able to choose opting in or opting out. I honestly thought, for this first war I just participated in, that the leadership of my alliance could choose not to include me just because I AM new. I absolutely agree that leadership should be able to tell a player they need more experience, or tell them they cannot participate because they messed up last time. Finally, the war chest should be split in levels of participation. That way newbies like me feel like we can learn, not cost anyone, and still gain from the experience.



It is a lot more complicated because we’re people and though this is just a game, alliances are still about complicated people having human interaction. There’s a lot of grey areas, it’s not always black and white “If you don’t like your alliance leave!” and “If you don’t like lazy players kick them!”.

Having the option to opt players out would allow for more nuance in managing the alliance without having to go to the extreme of kicking someone who is otherwise a good contributor or having to badger them in chat.

Some alliances are low key in chat so it can be difficult to form a line of communication. Do you kick someone who’s been with you from the start of the alliance? What about someone who hits the titan but seems to forget about war? Simply being able to opt them out of war would solve all that without having to kick them. They could opt themselves back in and if they do yet continue to neglect wars then you kick them.

Again, managing/ruling with a blunt hammer is not necessarily the best way.

There’s a lot more to having a good alliance than just having people who use their flags. There’s the social factor, there’s the friendships people form. Many people refer to their alliances as their alliance “family”.

Using your flags is of basic importance but the good alliances have something more. It kind of ruins that, it’s extreme to kick someone who isn’t participating in wars… at the same time it’s not fair to those who use their flags.

So let’s find a middle ground. An option for leaders to opt members out, or make the war chest an individual system that counts your participation and flag use.

Wars should be fun, they shouldn’t force us to have to kick or criticize people in chat. Which only serves to disrupt the alliance.


It’s only as complicated as you make it.

It’s a game. A team fits together or it doesn’t.

It’s not extreme to kick players for lack of participation if that’s a ground rule for the alliance.

That would be like me saying it’s extreme to kick a player that doesn’t hit titans but participates in war even though our main rule is hit titans

If you don’t care if players participate in wars or not, don’t make it a rule for them to do so.

If you want them to opt out, make the rule.

If they don’t respect you, your alliance, or their teammates enough to follow rules then they’re just a number. I recruit people, not numbers.


Oh and forgot to mention one thing : if a team member just puts a weaker team for AW, dont bother to update or worse just put a weak tank when there are other stronger heroes. Have told them many times but they dont seem to care, they hit war all right but still…


I cant make this any simpler. Set ground rules for your alliance. Make sure your players know what they are. Set consequences for not following them. Enforce those consequences.

If you want wars optional, put that in your rules.

If you require that players either opt out or opt in, put it in the rules.

If you want full participation from all opted in players, put it in the rules.

Make it clear that a player who has not opted out of wars, but doesn’t use their flags, is hurting everyone else.

If you don’t want to go to the trouble of stating and enforcing your expectations consistently, then don’t complain when your players don’t meet them. And don’t expect SG to fix it for you.

I don’t think any alliance leader should be able to tell another player what parts of the game they are permitted to play.


I disagree and I’ve made that point clearly. So have others.

There are different perspectives to alliance leadership than black and white-kick or not. If you call approaching alliance leadership with some nuance “complicated” that’s your perspective. Hopefully SG considers the idea because it seems a lot of people want it.

I don’t see the reason for the resistance against it. It’s not going to take away from your game play. It’s only gonna benefit alliances which are in “complicated” situations.


When someone was participating in war and suddenly he is not on for days or he requested a permission to be out for a while, and he forgets to uncheck the partitipation in war I cant uncheck him in order to exclude him or her from war. Also if I kick out someone and match making for the war is going on he is still participating in war as an ex member so we lose points.


Can’t give you enough likes - and this really sums it up.

And if this is so, why do some members of your ‘family’ let you down?

I understand that people form relationships - but if they are based on mutual respect, then I would expect your members to either opt out of their own accord or to use their flags in war.

I am sure no one here is suggesting to kick players that miss a war once, due to whatever reasons. But if it happens repeatedly, or the member does not have a reason for missing and not opting out - then that member is definitely not a team player.
If alliance leaders want people in their alliance that aren’t team players, that are not willing to help their alliance with alliance activites - well, that is up to them. I really don’t see it as an issue for SG to spend time fixing.


It would take SG devs no more than a minute to fix this problem as it’s just a matter of either checking or I’m checking the default setting in their AW settings admin panel and this solves the problem right across the board. So if they don’t do it then purposely encourage player/team aggression between member

Playing a game is meant to be fun and happy players spend more money. Some of our members who never spent money before do in small amounts now because some others do and they see some benifits.

A GOOD LEADER anywhere is one that can keep an allience happy and understands that everyone has other commitments. A good leader is one that can understand that real life family and work commitments comes first.

A bad leader is one that doesn’t give 2 hours about others and boots them because it’s suit thier needs.
A bad leader is one who thinks this game is more important and should come first before real life needs.

A bad business is one that provokes aggression rather than prevent it to keep the peace. Happy players spend more money.

If your only respond is to boot people out then you clearly show no common curtisty of respect for others. I am sorry if this comment disappoints some of you but you guys seem to think this game is the bees knees of all games and that nothing else should matter and if you don’t follow our every single rule you will be booted.

In real life this behavior would be considered extremely extreme and coukd even bring on legal issues but hey let’s take advantage of it being an online thing and treat ours like crap because they will never know we are anyway.

Sorry guys I have respect for other people all over no matter where they are from so I guess we will never see eye to eye on this matter so this topic for is done for as it’s clearly going nowhere.

Remember it’s a nothing more than a game and ARE meant to be fun. No fun in aggression and frustration thus no money.

Take care.


17 isn’t a lot of people for a game of this scale and that went down from 22 votes i believe

Good luck


It’s a problem for 17 people and only about 5 that are strongly defending(rough estimate as i haven’t read every post)

Not a problem for the majority. Hope they dont change a game for 5 million people based on the opinions of 17.

This “problem” is a you problem, and not a community problem.

Good luck


This is true. A good leader also knows that their team players get upset, when some of the alliance members are not pulling their weight. So does the good leader make decisions based on the player that doesn’t care about the rest of the alliance - or based on the majority of players - team players - in the alliance?

Most of the members in my alliance must be happy, because they have been in the alliance for well over a year. And this, inspite of the fact that I don’t have to give them money to make them happy @Ozy1:wink:


I give them money as you call it but hold a competition which mot everyone partakes in anyway but a bit of fun to the game.

Seems the only argument against it is to upset others by booting. This careless mentality might be the norm for sime of you but it isn’t for most of use.

Please show me 1 suggestion that has had millions or even thousands of votes.

This forum is mostly of same old few regs responding and supporting SG.

But no surprise you could come up with a rediculous comeback like that.

OP had the same idea.