I would like to propose the following options to help all alliances handle participation in war. We just loss (which is ok) by a 100 points and two members were online in the 24hr period and decided not to attack once. We also have a member who consistantly every war attacks once and can be seen active multiple times in the 24hr period. So I think there should be options and here few ideas.
*leader can set a “next aw ban” for a member who doesn’t participate. OR…
*an auto block on “next aw ban” for members who dont reach a SET minimum attack amount (example leader set requirement to 3). OR…
*everyone has opt in EVERY war
*more ideas to come…
Please input and vote because I’m sure alot of everyone is frustrated.
give them a warning to opt out, kick them out of the alliance if they ignore it. if you are able to force someone to opt out of the war then they will probably quit anyway. so all that dev work would have been for nothing.
It’s your alliance. Set minimum requirements for wars and titans, communicate them to the members, encourage them when they meet or exceed the requirements and kick them if they dont.
I feel u all and agree. Communication is an issue that we have cause not all use group chat. I could become more strict but would hate loose activate players cause I kicked them for having real life issue. My idea is to help members stick to their commitments.
If (co)leaders could contact people in game it would all much easier!
It happened to us that people entered the game, attacked and only AFTER they went in the chat. Just in time to discover that it would have been better for them to attack someone else!
@HarryDeB it does. However I have random participation. One guy I’m ready to kick cause he attacks once every other war. I feel like he might be using us as a second alliance. Other members after last war only attacked 1 or 2 times and I asked for 3minimum this time. You can view when last online and its aggravating to see someone on 10min ago and they still have 5 arks in war. If I deleted everyone who did this, I’d have no alliance.
The problem is that alliance member’s just add their team and never battles in war. May be their time line is difference.so kicking them our is not that good idea because they are active in other events. Also their hero’s limit is also problem.
So yes I suggest the leader of co leader should have a certain privilege to accept the player in war since they are warlords. Kicking out is not a better option for the alliance small and new kike I have.
Which why I suggest the alliance can select war participation limit and let the game do your punishing for you. I dont want to kick anyone if it can be helped. What if someone broke there phone? Or it gets confiscated? Instead of a two day wait on removal it would remove u for next war and block u from opting in on the next war. Think ppl will get the message to commit or not join in war allowing those that care enough to have a more enjoyable experience.
Then if the pattern repeats itself every 3 wars, u know it’s a justified kicking out.
I’ve just read a similar proposal but not focused on penalties, although the concept is basically the same, leaders being able to tick any members war off, so I agree. I also agree with the comments about communication/kicking, but we all know how it works like nowadays…and this feature wouldn’t just come out handy as a punishment but also for when someone warns they are going to be offline for a few days and forget to tick wars off.
The description for my Alliance explicitly reads: “Miss two titans or wars in a row and you’re gone”. I make exceptions if a player announces it in group chat. For me, a single attack every other war, and you know the player is active would be a boot. He’s just there trying to collect scraps off your war chest without actually doing any work.
If you’re the leader, then lead. Put your foot down and kick players that are using you for whatever reason.
There is only myself in my Alliance right now. About a week ago, a person joined, attacked my titan twice, then did nothing even though he was online. I kicked him so he would not screw up the war matchmaking. He was obviously using muy alliance for some motive other than being in the alliance. Not sure what or why, but he is gone.
Good leaders in anything know when to have mercy and when to drop the hammer.
@OsirisAnkh0716 I fully agree with you. However, we dont have players itching to be part of our alliances yet. The player I was using as reference helps demolish our lvl4 titans so need him to help us out in that aspect. This war he attacked twice, which was one more then usual. Were good. However, this war I had 2 members who never attacked and one is unlike him to not participate. The other is new, max score 1550. Were not a solo guild which means we need members. Circumstances is of course different for every alliance. If you had an option to make players participate, you wouldn’t have random people joining for thier own motives. Example, set it for 6 attacks (maybe instead of temp banning it prohibits chest rewards). No one would join if they never planned to participate.
There are alot of benefits to this idea. Alliances can still be governed however a leader wishes to handle it.
