Alliance Participation Controls aka Auto-Kick

Many Alliances are frustrated by the lack of participation of some members, but don’t want to be overly militant in enforcing mandatory Titan and Alliance War Hits, because recruitment is so competitive.

Why not give the Alliance Leader auto-settings for Titan Hits, AW, and Inactivity?

This is an extension of the auto-remove function that has recently been introduced in AW.

Three Settings should work, and it would look something like:
Titan Hits: (1-6) per day
AW: (1-6) flags per war
Inactivity: (1-14) day maximum

Once any of these requirements weren’t met by an Alliance Member, they are automatically kicked from the Alliance.

The Leader and Co-Leader would need to be able to exempt Members in the event of notified absence or non-participation.

If everyone who joined an Alliance knew that the Requirements were automatically enforced, it falls onto them to maintain the Alliance’s stated rules.

This function would remove one of the widely experienced Alliance frustrations.


welcome I already raised this idea. But I was told that there is no basis for an automatic release, since the leader of the alliance can simply exclude non-accepting players

1 Like

OK. How long ago did you suggest it? I wonder if that thinking has changed now that they have introduced an automatic removal in AW. And an ‘Opt-out’ function.

This seems like a logical progression that would save a lot of stress for a majority of alliances.

1 Like

Unfortunately, I suggested this immediately after the change in the introduction of an automatic change in the war. Try again, maybe there will still be changes.

1 Like

I’ll do my best! Thanks for the heads-up

1 Like

I don’t see the need. As leader just kick the players you want out. If you enforce your rules your members will know that and it will be just as effective as an auto kick.

Each alliance has different standards so the rules would have to be setup and configured by each alliance. I think the time could be spent on other things.

How do you know that a majority of alliances are stressed over this?

1 Like

Except most low to mid level alliances don’t do the kick.

You say that each alliance is different, that’s my point. This is a set of programmable and consistent requirements that are preset and automatically monitored.

I know its an issue because it constantly comes up in the forum as a question from Leaders. Most recently here:

I’m genuinely interested - why do you think this is not an issue? Because my experience in Alliances, and from reading the forum, is that this is widely felt and often a pressure point.

Again, though, it’s a lot of effort to code what a leader can just do with a tap of a button.

If alliances don’t kick people for being inactive, then maybe that’s not the alliance for you. If you’re the leader, stop being so lazy.

Every leader has their own style. It’s impossible for a set of code to exemplify that style. You can’t take the human aspect out of that.

By having a set of programmable settings, you are actually establishing the style for the Alliance by definition. You seem quick to dismiss this as a ‘the leader can just boot’. That doesn’t take into account the complexity of keeping an Alliance active and the effect that a human-decision to boot can have on morale. It always results in a lot of examination within the group, putting pressure on the leader not to misstep.

If it was a pre-determined criteria for being in the Alliance, then it is up to the individual players to maintain their involvement. At the moment, the grey-area, human factor is too prominent, especially in Alliances that struggle to recruit and keep members active. In my opinion.

I am the leader of an alliance called ‘All Zeros will be Kicked’ and from the name and from the explicit rules that we share with recruits when they join we make it fairly clear what the covenant is. This manages expectation on all sides and empowers me and my fellow co-leaders to kick members for non-participation.
In my experience it is about communication and an acceptance of the rules. Some form of coding and automation would be complex and open to mistake and error. I agree that human intervention can also be subject to the same, but as a leader you accept responsibility to lead and sometimes have to make hard and difficult decisions .
I know this is not everyones cup of tea as far as alliance management is concerned, but ‘c’est la vie’

1 Like

I agree that yours is the optimum way to run an Alliance. It sounds like you have been crystal clear with your expectations and regulate them well. And I assume that the higher it gets, the more likely this is to occur.

I think my suggestion is attempting to set a baseline for lower and mid level Alliances, and make it easier for them to maintain an active group while ensuring that everyone contributes.

Maybe if this was a function / tool that was available to Alliances if needed?

I understand you point and thank you for making the suggestion

1 Like

TY for taking the time to share your experience as well. I really appreciate it

@Olgavit You were right about the response to the idea. lol. I think it would help a lot of alliances get on the path to building an active group

It doesn’t work.
I have a member in the alliance which plays only titans. Others don’t have time for titan one day but they come in time for war. What you’ll gonna do? kick him out automatically for non-participating?
I would rather send a warning then on X times warnings the member can be kicked out.

1 Like

In which case(s) you set your parameters to be flexible enough to accommodate your Alliance’s needs. I am suggesting adjustable setttings, that can be regulated by the Leader

In theory, I could see why a leader may want this, but there are dozens of reasons why someone might not be able to participate. What if your best player lost his phone and can play for two day:automatic kick? Internet goes out: automatic kick? Had a long day at work and fell asleep: automatic kick? Then what… oops I didn’t mean to kick that person, but now they decide to move on to another alliance.

Especially since it’s not that difficult to scan through and see who isn’t participating and manually kick them.


Absolutely agree. All of those are valid reasons. That’s why the original (and ongoing) settings would be able to be set by the leader to reflect the type of alliance.

It’s only an idea at this point, not a function. So maybe it needs to have a final check (as exists with current kick), where the ‘Auto’ kick must be confirmed by a Leader or Co-Leader?

I’m simply trying to suggest a solution to what is an issue for many Alliances. I’m not saying that my idea is anything other than that… an idea.

Of course, the devil is in the detail and would need to anticipate the issues you raise.

I see too much risk that the automated process would push someone out who the leader would keep.

Leadership just needs to get a spine and communicate. If the leader is holding onto someone with weakmperformance, tell people why. If someone needs to go, first warn them then, if nothing changes, kick them.

I don’t want SGG spending scarce dev time coding up something to compensate for a leader shirking his or her duty.