[MASTER] Unused war of 3 Kingdom flags

Leaving flags is an issue. But another issue is players hitting for 0 points.

I would have thought placing people by points scored into ranked war bands so those who scored more move up into harder war bands and those who scored less move down. Eventually everything would even itself out. (Although I don’t like it you could even have better loot for higher ranked war banded to encourage people to want to move up)

In my social network community, I conducted a survey on how many people signed up for the war and did not use any of their flags. People sent me about a hundred screenshots, on each of these screenshots from 10 to 20 players who have 0 flags used. People are very angry at such players. And this is a really big problem. Two equally serious problems that SG is obliged to do something about are leeches and people not using their flags at all. But in the course of the survey, another point came to light. I got a few comments from those people who didn’t use flags. They explained this by saying that they were not going to participate in the war and joined, that they were forcibly enrolled automatically in the war. Could there be such a thing? I wanted to get a response from the staff.


you have a wonderful initiative opinion but i suppose this idea can be hugely improved. besides punishment, my opinion is those fully participated players should also rewarded as well for their commitment to the game.

i just wonder if SG / Zynga are really want to make an improvement, even though SG had take a bit action.

1 Like

I posted this in another thread and I’ll post it again here.
I think the best thing to do with people who don’t use their flags is to put them on the same teams in the next 3 kingdoms war.
And divide it up by how many flags used.
So if you leave 10-12flags you’re on a team of similar people, same with 6-9, 3-6, and 0-3.
Has anyone else proposed this before and does anyone else think its a good idea?


Wrong idea, especially for this war (Wot3K) where people who attack whole enemies and kill 4 of them get less points than those who are waiting just to finish one remained enemy with 100HP and get double than one mentioned who attacked first.

I’ve seen many of them who did just like that


That sounds bit dodgy … Has anyone on the forum witness this be interested to hear more about it…

There was this topic about raid tournament

+1 to this! Many psych and human behavior theories support this too


People who Opt into a battle and then use zero flag are making an aggressive move that negatively affect the rest of the team.

If people are automatically enrolled, it is a different problem. But this solution works for them also as they didn’t plan to enroll anyway.

In Either case, it is not so much a punishment to them for not using flags, but a reward for the rest of the team for using their flags that they are allowed to enroll in the following W3K event.

So instead of preventing people from enrolling if they didn’t use all their flags, but reverse it, and only allow those who did use all of their flags to enroll in the next event?

In both cases, what you do is with minimal coding changes, create an environment where people who understand teamwork can take raids to the next level.

If you do not understand teamwork, cooperation, and pulling your weight for the good of your team, you have no business being in this team event.

Either restrict future events based on unused flags, or only allow enrollment in the following event, if you use all of your flags.

Now, ask yourself what the goal is here. We want everyone in the event on our team to use all of their flags and hit hard. We want to win.

The problem is trolls who opt into the event and do absolutely nothing. It is doubly harmful, because you are matched with a team who has the same amount of people and they use their flags, so one person on your team not using their flags versus that same opponent also using their flags creates a Delta of 24 flags between the score boards PER TROLL who opts in and doesn’t use their flags.

So, don’t look at it as a punishment, but rather like a balance change to create a more favorable environment for those to Want to opt into.

1 Like

All this amounts to nothing. There is no fix. Don’t enter if you don’t like the way it is.

This is a seperate issue which can be solved by having a 30 sec timer where the original attacker has the right to start another attack. The original idea would work either way (because at least even the lurkers are using flags and scoring points) but I agree would be better if the lurking problem was solved too.

Yupp, but I think it’s even better that the normal attack should be awarded like at the real war which means if u kill 4 out of 5 enemies you’ll get 60-65% of points and not like in Wot3K where in best case you get less than 30% of points.

So, it’s not about lurkers, it’s about ■■■■■■■■ system where it’s better/easier to kill half of enemy for 23 of 30 points, than to risk, kill 4 1/2 enemies and get only 8 of possible 30 points.

Continuing the discussion from [MASTER] Unused war of 3 Kingdom flags:

That’s why this is here so based off some of the suggestions you just would be put into a different warband with players that had the same thing happened or left flags on purpose … either way.
No harm next time you’d move to the next one.

Or you’d have to sit out a war … based on suggestions but no not really cause she would know you had a issue so that wouldn’t happen…

If I didn’t use my flags for I don’t care why I wouldn’t mind sitting out till me or the game figures life out.

Also another suggestion was less loot wel that’s fair since no participation regardless of why they game can compensate you if there was a server issue they have and will.

So ……

Yeah let just keep the event active and fun

Im also a alliance leader and I kick for left flags …

Sometimes I’m wrong and maybe they couldn’t log in but they know the rules and it is a game after all.

Enp has been known to compensate when there’s a server issue so this doesn’t apply at all.

Some members have came back and told me this or that rl issue or couldn’t log on and I’ll let them try again

More then half the time tho it’s a chronic issue they end up kicked again.

They few awesome ones that stay forever are what I’m looking for anyway.

I have too many ppl that work over 50 hours a week and try to hard to use all they war flags and hit the titan to be able to put up with someone who is absolutely fine and enjoying them selfs and nothing wrong with them. Ruining 28 other ppls gaming experience… in this case 95 others.

If they can’t see they are effecting that many other ppls game then I cannot see why it matters if they have some sort of “punishment” or restrictions….

Might sound like a monster.

But it’s perspective.

Trying to keep ppls game fun and other ruin it. Who’s the monster?

this is the best compromise. there are folks like me who are still up and coming who don’t have 12 full teams yet. I have 6 full teams I can fight with and a few stragglers. by the next tournament I may have a 7th. so if I join and use all of my teams then I get x reward but should not punish the team. you used all 12 and should get a better reward. the team should not be punished for unused flags.

I still don’t see why it isn’t reasonable to implement a system by which the warband assignment algorithm takes the number of flags you used in the last skirmish into account. I would prefer to be in a warband next time in which everyone used the same number of flags I did last time. If that’s six because of depth issues or time issues, that’s fine. If that’s twelve, that suits me personally. If that’s zero, well, I don’t see a valid complaint.


SG need to add visual notification for unused flags at the main page (the one with buildings) so players will know if they still have flags remaining.

@mhalttu @Petri @KiraSG @ScottySG @heive @ChuckSG


While your suggestion isn’t unreasonable on the surface and it’s literally a handful of lines of code, there are many variables to consider. “Used flags” doesn’t really mean anything when there are a ton of players that “use” their flags and get a bunch of 0’s by attacking/leaving immediately. They’ve “used” their flags, technically. Which is about as useful as someone who hasn’t used their flags.

Or players who use a few flags with viable teams then the rest are in and out just so they “use” their flags.

Unless they actually track what’s happening during the attack itself I feel like it wouldn’t solve this issue. To implement this, they’d need to invest in a stats system that actually tracks and sends this data to their backend. I’m afraid cost of developing a stats system for this may not be on their radar now or any time in the future.

Yeah, I don’t immediately see how to address that, but I should point out that this may not be as widespread a practice as some people have suggested. I’ve literally never seen it once, although my sample size is very small (something like five total between my main and alt accounts). I won’t dispute that it happens, and it sounds very annoying, but I would absolutely take my chances “settling” for a “raw count” solution as a first pass. I cheerfully admit that this might only raise the bar from “abysmal” to “mediocre,” but up is up.

I totally agree.

However, after reading some of the comments about players automatically being opted in, I didn’t know that was a thing but definitely a possibility …

The thought occurred to me - how do we know ALL those players are active players? Perhaps some are accounts from Zombie / inactive alliances to “fill in” empty spots :thinking:. In alliance wars, sometimes we’re facing alliances with +1 or -1 opponent. Whose to say SG haven’t just “opted in” dormant player accounts to make up a 100v100 war :thinking:. So, in my hypothetical musings… There will always be unused flags because inactive accounts have been opted in. Is it a possibility? Perhaps.

I agree, some of the unused flags would be of players who opt in with no intention of participating… I wish they wouldn’t, but they obviously have their own agenda.:disappointed_relieved: But 500 unused flags? And even in the winning warband, there were still unused war flags… Which doesn’t happen in the top 100 alliance wars.

So, did all players in W3K really opt in… I’m now thinking, perhaps not as we continue to have the same issues re participation since inception… And those, like me who use all war flags and end up on the losing side with 200+ unused flags… Again :face_exhaling:, am left wondering… Why bother :person_shrugging:

As for solutions…

  • Reduce the number of flags - lowers the impact of players who had no intention of using any flags
  • or give players all their flags from the start so they can use them all in one sitting.

Charging gem costs that are refunded at the end for using all flags, won’t deter those that will take literally a minute to score a dozen zeros… :scream:.

W3K had the potential to be a fun event … Would have, could have, Isn’t.


Hi Sarah!!

I haven’t seen you in a long time. That is because I haven’t been back posting to the forum in a very long time!! Great to see you!

I agree, SG may have automatically opted in some dormant teams.

My proposed solution will work that as well. You can opt in all the dormant teams you want, and if they don’t use any flags, they’re restricted from the next event.

Problem solved there.

The problem of people intentionally scoring zeros is a different problem altogether. Perhaps if you score all zeros which is very difficult to do, unless you start a battle and then flee right away…

Put a counter in for fleeing. If you flee all of your battles, you’re also restricted.

That will solve that problem.

The unintended consequence of this solution, is that if somebody has an emergency right after they opt in, they would be restricted from the next event.

Also, those dormant accounts would only be restricted from the next event. We would have to have an active opt-in solution after that implemented also, that says something to the effect of “Did you learn your lesson? If so, here’s your chance to opt back in and actually participate as part of the team and this team event and score some points for your team. If you choose to opt back in and do not participate as part of the team, you’ll be restricted from an increasing number of events, two, three, four…”

Hopefully people will get the message, and if they don’t they’ll be restricted forever.

The more I think about it the more I like the solution.

Because over all the problem is creating a good environment for us to work together as a team.

Half the population base doesn’t want to opt in right now. That’s the real problem.


And you were teaching others? Totally confused