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


@Ozy1 You are making this more difficult and more extreme than it needs to be. If having players opted in for wars and not using flags is a problem with you, COMMUNICATE with them! That’s what a leader does. Ask them why they aren’t using their flags. If they don’t want to do wars, say, “OK, cool. Please opt out so your team doesn’t count in matching. Do you know how to do that, or do you need me to talk you through it?”

If you aren’t willing to communicate with them, you aren’t going to be an effective leader.



I think we definitely need a down vote button in this section.

I agree with @Rigs, us leaders need to be actively managing our teams, and that means to be interested in what happens ON and sometimes OFF the game.

I lead a very nice and commited alliance, but there is always a newcomer that comes in with no respect nor commitment whatsoever.

Well, I learned to not let it become a problem.

I wrote a set of rules which all them agreed to, and now, every time a new player comes in and does not accept, or worst, follow these rules, he gets kicked out, no matter how high level he is, no exceptions.

I don’t even do it myself sometimes, co-leaders do it, right away, and we are all happy, yes, sometimes loose wars, but stick together.

1 Like


I had something happen this past war that relates to this. One of my members had her purse stolen and needed to cancel all of her credit cards. iOS frequently makes you verify your card information when downloading, even if it’s a free download. She has not been able to get the newest big update and thus can’t log into the game at all. If I could have, I would have opted her out of this past war, but I couldn’t and we ended up with a non participating person on the battlefield.

1 Like


If a player does not know why he was kicked out, leader is not doing a good job.



I agree and that would be a step in the right direction.

Again not every alliance is super active in chat. Not every member realizes they’re even opted in. Sometimes people are out sick.

A feature like this wouldn’t effect the super active alliances where everyone is on chat every day and the leaders have everything running like an Olympic team.

I’m in an active alliance, we don’t need this feature. I’ve also been in alliances that aren’t as active and could have used it. Sometimes in casual alliances kicking is not the best option. It would simply allow alliances more control over how they manage themselves without having to use blunt methods that don’t always have the best effect on morale.



No more than the handful that think it doesn’t need changing.



Came by this by accident, completely forgot it was there.



Its just a suggestion,but it would be awesome to have leaders and co leaders to either check or uncheck the war participation buttons or make it so the leaders or co leaders can approve it in case of that person doesn’t understand you or speaks in a different language you don’t would be awesome to see this idea come to life.



@Yugioh10 You’re not alone in this idea, others have proposed it too, e.g. this fairly long discussion:

(@Kerridoc @Rook Possible Merge of Topic)



how am I glad to have members who participate and win almost all the wars, if they do not do it it will not be why they do not try it … in the last one we only had 16 shots to give … that for me is almost 100% participation. if something is not broken, do not touch it …



I keep getting sorry an error has ocuured. Not sure if the other players are receiving inquiries or my response’s? It happened when I tapped the 3… Dots. Not sure how to post what it did.



This feature is what is missing from Leadership control in this game. I was going to create a post for this and glad I searched first.

OP is 100% correct in that we have to kick people from the Alliance rather than opt them out of the War. As a leader I should be in charge of who can and can’t participate in wars without dismissing the player from the group entirely. It would be easy enough to simply discuss it in chat, but the members who are inactive in wars are the same ones who don’t read chat.

1 Like


Sometimes being a leader means making the hard decisions. If you have made your expectations clear and they aren’t meeting them, you have to enforce the consequences. If you don’t, it’s unfair to the people who are meeting expectations.

1 Like


I just recently had a situation where this feature would have been useful. A player who hits the titan regularly and does a good job at it was slacking at wars - using a flag every other war or so. I didn’t kick them because others could pick up the slack and they do good against titans.

I stated many times in chat that they need to opt out or participate in wars.

What to do in a situation like this? Make a “tough” choice? Life isn’t always so black and white. How would it be fair to the rest of the alliance if they had to go down in titan loot because one of the top hitters is kicked?

A leader opt out option would be nice in situations like this.



100% correct and well said.

1 Like


I had a discussion with another alliance leader yesterday about war participation. She mentioned that it would be nice if the leader of an alliance could opt members out of war individually. Is this something that has been considered before, our discussed? I like that members have the option to opt out on their own. However, if for some reason the member was unable to get into the game to do this it would be a good option for a leader. Any thoughts on this?

1 Like


I agree that leaders shouldn’t opt members out of wars without notice. That would cause problems within the alliance. It would be a nice feature though to allow leaders to have that function. We would know who is participating and who isn’t. Could also help with strategy when you know who is participating. Allowing individuals to opt out is good but leaders should be able to control this as well. I’m sure there will be some that would use this option the wrong way but it would be minimal. I know I’d be upset if i was a member looking to fill my war chest and the leader took me out of war without asking! I don’t see this becoming an issue overall though.



I agree like in every situation there is hoing to be so e that abuse anything they can get their hands on but the overall decent players or leaders in tbis case who want their allience to do well won’t opt out participating members.

This is about having the ability to remove those that affect participating members not controlling them.
And stereo typing everyone at being bad is just simply plan wrong when the greater majority aren’t.

1 Like


Excellent, but that should just be part of it. Also, the tutorial should include a note about the War Chest. I’ll admit, I thought it was just there for looks for awhile and that the rewards was what was given after each battle. I probably missed a full chest before discovering it one day.

We have people who occasionally ‘disappear’. We’re not full, only at 28, and try not to be a-holes and boot people on a dime. Alliance leader should still be able to remove people.



If the alliance member does not agree with the leadership opting them out of war then they have the option to opt out of the alliance! Clearly I agree with this option of leadership control! The player that opts in will have the leadership approve or opt them out of war. Better than kicking out of the alliance!

1 Like