This thought just popped into my head… I haven’t given it a great deal of thought, so feel free to shoot it down or point out any glaring issues…
But what if the leader could opt a member out, which would then send a message to that member’s inbox letting them know they’ve been taken out? The member would then have to option to opt back in, or if they haven’t checked the message before the war starts, they remain out.
This way, if the member decides to opt back in, and still doesn’t end up using their attacks, you can give them the boot without feeling any guilt.
In order to somehow solve this problem, I propose to prohibit the participation in the clan’s war for members of the clan who have the lowest rank, even if he has a check mark to participate in the war. This will solve the first problem and allow the clan, by lowering the rank of a member, not to let certain people participate in the war.
Would it be possible for a change in capabilities for Leaders and CoLeaders to have the ability to remove players from Wars. There are some that refuse to fight but mark themseves as War Participants. We want to ise this as a tool to motivate participation as oposed to kicking them all together. The idea is stemming from players wanting to gain the spoils of the war but not use thier usable flags. This obviously hurts and demotivates the active players. We as a team try to be fair and motivate players. Kicking them off the team altogether demotivates the palyer and that as a team is not our primary goal. We could use this feature to give fair warning before we take the final step of removing the player drom our team.
Lots of good responses and ideas here. I’m glad the discussion got deep because it is clearly a problem for many.
The rank system is a great way to solve it. Maybe start a new low rank “Grunt” or “Noob” or something. And definitely send a message to the player when they are logged out of war.
I hear that some of you haven’t had this problem but for the rest of us there is bound to be a simple solution. Things don’t improve without at least attempting to improve them, That goes for life outside of gaming as well.
It’ll be frustrating for weaker members to be opted out from the fun of wars. If you think sb isn’t worth participating, you’ll better ask for opting out or you’ll better going to kick him/her.
I was almost all of the time dead during my first wars, but gained experience and scored some points though. Would have joined another ally, if I had been opted out by the leader.
If you were dying on the battlefield then this thread really isn’t pertaining to you brother. This is about the rampant issue of people straight up not showing up for the wars they “participated” in.
besides that, and I see a whole lot of people completely forgetting this fact, any alliance leader that wants to can instantly kick people completely out of their alliance with the click of a button.
That fact is far more punitive than anything I have proposed here.
We are just looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t need to exist
Totally agree. Im sick of seeing the same players with 5-6 flags at the end of the war. But we also need the same players to kill the titan. So kicking them out is a little like cutting our own nose off…
Give the option to the leaders not players. Its about time.
I agree with you 100%! After reading through all of the replies I believe some are missing the point. The ability to remove a memeber from wars when nonactive is a tool to motivate and give fair warning. Kicking is a final action and anyone who knows how to lead a team knows that along with positive reinforcement, sometimes disciplinary actions are required. As to the multitude of different personalities you deal with as a coach/ leader. Hopefully this tool will be added. The current kick only option is more demotivating then helpful.
Sone of you responding here seem to forget that this topic is about having the ability to opt pkayers out because they are not using their hits whilst having participated in AW’s just for the sake of receiving the chest rewards which affects every other player and isn’t really fair play as they let everyone else di all the hard work and still get rewarded for it.
This request is to have the ability to remove those players. Any player who uses their hits shouldn’t have anything to worry about weather they are strong or weak players gas no bearing on the issue.
If for reason a leader opts players out that do participate then it’s up to the player to find a more worthy allience but a good fair leader who has a relationship with their members won’t opt a participating player out they just remove those that don’t hit.
Some of you say having this option can lead to abuse, well isn’t opting in just for the rewards and not using hits called abuse?
Another option here for solving this kind of abuse as the chest is called a participation chest is not to reward those that don’t use any hits at all which means even if you are opted in you nothing if you don’t use any hits.
This may not solve the team aspect of the issue as it can still affect the playing outcome but it will eliminate the reason fir players opting in and not using hits, Allience leaders should still have opt out options.
What’s the point of having a leader of a team if that has no control over what that team does for the good of the rest of the alliance. Booting is not always necessary or good for the alliance if that player contributes well in other ways.
I would like to see a feature where leaders and/or co-leaders can remove/exclude teams from the alliance wars if necessary. There are times when we have had ex- members on the field or someone that failed to complete their team. If someone hasn’t been on in a few days, it would be nice to exclude them if necessary. If they get back on, the leader can reinstate their war privileges.
I am co-leader of my alliance. We fall into the relaxed category. What we did was set a few rules about participation. Titan battles required, Alliance wars optional - people are to opt out if they can’t fight a particular war then opt in when they can. Lack of activity beyond a set number of days = kick. The rules were set by the alliance and are enforced by the leader and co-leader. Requiring the use of all 6 flags is something we don’t use because some of our players don’t have 6 complete teams. Some only have one maybe two viable teams. We are more interested in building a team of players that do the best with what they have. So a player that has one team and uses that team is just as valued as the ones with more teams. We get a lot of new players many who turn into dedicated team members who participate. The ones that don’t generally leave or stop participating and are eventually kicked. It works for us, and when it stops working then we will discuss and add additional participation rules.
Having said all of that, I like the idea of giving the leader AND co-leader the ability to opt players out of alliance wars but players should still have the ability to opt in and out. I would rather have them take responsibility than be their parent putting them in “time-out”. I don’t call them out specifically in chat, but remind the alliance about opting in and out. The one or two who haven’t always opted out are active in titan battles so I don’t want to kick them.
Everyone finds different things in the game that make it fun to play. An alliance is a group of people that ought to have a similar approach, if not there will be frictions and it will make the game less fun for all of the alliance mates.
As a leader you need to clearly state what the goals are IF you have goals.
As a member you need to think if this is reasonable for you and you enjoy playing the way the alliance wants to play.
Assuming the alliance has decided that winning wars matters and everyone is aware of this then you must conclude that members repeatedly opting in and not using flags are going to sap the fun of the game from the rest and should go to another alliance.
I understand the conundrum of not wanting to lose Titan hitters but there are many good players out there that hit Titans AND choose to respect the rest of the team.
Short term, kicking this player out may be painful but in a few months you will have a happier alliance pulling together as a team, new members will join that share the alliance’s objectives.
A disrespectful alliance member will not change their attitude if there are no consequences and a pattern of behavior that proves disrespect should be enough of a hint.
Wow i cant believe this thread got this long. war participation is required by people who want to participate. if your alliance is about winning wars, your leader and coleaders and all member will know who is and who is not contributing.
no one wants to waste time on someone who is not gonna cooperate or compete without being nudged. usually when someone joins an alliance that knows how to do wars everyone prompts them on what to do and how to make best of what they have currently or opt out till the ready. if you are a detriment to everyone else you will be kicked. and everyone will agree with that. someone having control of other people account decisions will open an argument you dont wanna deal with
The problem is that some people have real life issues. Not really a booting offense
Such as one’s wife had emergency surgery, one’s computer died.
Don’t want to boot people for things like that.
If the alliance is serious about wars but the member is not then perhaps the member needs to be in a different alliance. The resulting opt-out opt-in seesaw will only lead to that eventually anyway.
