Only promoted should participate in wars

In order to prevent players from participating in wars and not fighting, eventually earning chests when they only hurt their team in the war, a good solution was that only elders or superiors could participate in the wars, this is… only promoted members would have this opportunity.

That way this responsibility / authority would be on the side of the leaders.

I like your idea, but even promoted personnel may leave flags unused on the battlefield I’ve found :thinking:. RL happens.


Why not just ask them to opt out? I get RL happens but that’s why the opt out option is a thing.

or kick em out it their intention is clearly freeloading.


Hello sarah, yes it can happen to everyone for a variety of reasons.
but in the past I had people who never played at 6 simply for laziness, and since they never paid attention to the chat, was forced to expel them.
Now to avoid these hassles we have the requirements of the cups, otherwise we could give new players a chance.

1 Like

I think it’s just such a difficult thing to stop in general.

Newbies don’t pay attention to chat, it’s hard to communicate with them.
This would be one more way for them to communicate and become more participative in teams.

Not sure why you’d want someone in your alliance that doesn’t pay attention to chat. If they don’t read chat, how will they learn and be a productive part of the alliance? Seems like it would be better to get players that fit how your alliance works than to try to work around those that don’t want to be part of it.


If people in my alliance miss war flags, they get a warning. If they miss flags in 2 wars in a row, they’re gone as soon as the war timer ends.


The title should be read as ‘only the responsible alliance member should participate in war’…jk.
Seriously, even a co-leader might not used up all their war flags.
Hence, 3x warning or out is the only option.

1 Like

Yeah I agree here with Suzanne, you need members that fit the alliance and follow the rules. They don’t necessarily have to be chatty either. As long as they participate.

It’s important to set goals and expectations. Our alliance is a chill one where we only ask for titan activity, and either participating or opting out of wars. Different goals per alliance but that’s just how we roll, and we’ve had a strong group of ~25 steady players going strong for about 2 years now. :slight_smile: Some come and go but the average of players is around that.


Really don’t like the idea. While it might be right for some alliances it isn’t for others. I was co leader of my last alliance and encouraged new players. Besides there are other ways for alliances to accomplish the same thing; minimum cups, invite only or kicking members that don’t participate.

Just boot those that dont participate

Yes that means you’ll have to recruit more

Just part of the game…


It has been suggested elsewhere to default to opt out when you join so you have to consciously decide to fight in the war.


Lucas i have the same point of view. But my alliance only have 19 members, if i kickout every one that missing flags in war, after a month i’m afraid to be alone with jus a few members

So you recruit more. Make the expectations known clearly in chat and in the alliance banner and boot those who don’t meet them.

1 Like

If you want people to use their flags, be prepared to set it as a rule, and enforce it. If you don’t do anything, then flag use will continue to be unreliable and you will continue to be annoyed with it.

If you’re playing with people that, as a group, don’t care for such rules, then you can kick them all out or leave yourself and look for an alliance with more strict participation requirements.

Edit: also, update the pinned message for people that are not terribly chat active. Then there’s no way of missing the instructions :slight_smile:

1 Like

This idea basically boils down to a question that has been extensively debated, namely, who should control the opt-in/out button?

I think the general consensus there was that the negatives of giving leadership control outweighed the positives.


I suggest you post your war flag rules on the featured message board. Then start taking notes on repest offenders. Decide who you think is the greatest problem player and remove them.

Explain to your members why they were removed and how important it is that everyone should participate as we all rely on each other to achieve our personal goals.

See what kind of feedback you get from that.

Before the matchmaking of the next war, put another message regarding war flag use. If the problem persists, remove the next greatest problem player.

Eventually your members will see that you are serious and either start participating or realize they’ll be removed.

You will have a difficult time recruiting and retaining new members if they don’t see that you won’t tolerate non-team players.


I agree Kerridoc, but it is also unfair that the founder of a team does not have this autonomy.

The answer’s going to vary by alliance. I like to look whole picture; I can forgive a war miss or two if the player excells at cups, has built a roster, and hits the Titan regularly (a much better payoff day to day than war).

Though if it is clear a player is free-loading in war for the rewards, I don’t have an issue with a boot (we’ve had a few we’ve had to kick for that).

Cookie Settings