I feel like this idea might be just a little bit controlling. I mean, it can certainly be the smart decision for an alliance to stop attacking a particular Titan, but sometimes individual players might reasonably decide that they just don’t want to do that.
Do we think that alliance leaders should be able to control the members of their alliance and stop them attacking, against their will? I do not think so.
depending on the timing, one might have an extra flag or two generating before the next titan. i will hit the titan a time or two, if i know that i’ll still be fully flagged for the next one. you still get loot when the titan escapes that is based on your hit. why would you want to force a player to reduce their chances of gaining a gem or in my case…a shiny new wooden practice sword? lol
if they are wasting flags just because they didn’t read the banner, [that i am assuming the leader posts that you are letting the titan go.] —it’s a lesson and they will soon learn to read it before hitting the titan.
I prefer not to be micro-managed, and like @Dandelionwings and @JonahTheBard, want the best chances for items for myself and other members, even if we have to pass on the titan.
There are players who are going to do what they feel is best for them, regardless…as leader/co-leaders it is up to you to decide what is acceptable for your alliance.
It may just take a gentle reminder, but if it is a critical issue for you then either demotion (if they are elder) or perhaps leading to eventual kicking from group.
While I personally don’t think it is a matter so serious that a leader would kick someone, for other groups it may be. Luckily there are thousands of alliances, and ??? a gazillion??? players, there’s probably one that is a fit for everyone.
We do have a document for alliance rules for members, so they know what is expected, and also use Line to post reminders and announcements or changes to strategy.
For newer players especially, it is a good way for them to practice and try new heroes out. And, too, at that point it is still exciting as well. I don’t think I’d want to even be in an alliance where someone else told me when I could or could not do something. I would resent the h*ll out of it.
I understand what you’re saying and politely disagree. Because now everyone would have to ask someone else to turn on a feature in order to hit the titan (something we should be able to do if flags are available).
If people are just wasting flags on a regular basis and not actually helping the alliance with their flags…that may be a different issue.
I really don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t want my play to be based on “if” someone in an international alliance happens to be on to turn a switch. Needing to ask permission kinda rubs the wrong way.
Maybe find other ways to communicate and see if there’s some sort of problem as to why flags are wasted?
I would honesty say and I’m not trying to b mean here but u have the button already. If ur teammates r not listening to the advice of their leaders then have a private chat and if they keep on keeping on then they r not real teammates. Boot ‘em. We’ve had to do with a certain member that would show no regard to how he used his attacks in wars. It sucked but ya know what it always works out for the best. Trust in that.
tl;dr - no - nobody should be able to control participation of others in parts of the game.
No. Just no.
It can be frustrating when an alliance member hits a titan three times, hours after the ‘stop’ has been announced. Definitely. But everyone has RL responsibilities and sometimes a member won’t have time to get their hits in early enough. I can see no reason why an alliance leader should be able to prevent a member from attacking, so that they can also get a bit of the loot.
Because that is what it boils down to - the alliance leader would be deciding whether some people are receiving loot. Whether some people can play parts of the game.
And that should not be possible. Just no.
Sure, some people may not adhere to alliance rules. To solve this, you have to communicate. If your member does not communicate - then you have to decide if this member is a good fit for your alliance. And please don’t say: they have a strong team and do good damage to the titan or in war… for an alliance to function well, there has to be team spirit. I would think someone that isn’t a teamplayer would likely leave the alliance, if you had your button to stop them from playing as they see fit.
This may be a bit much, forcing members to stop hitting, but you can always kick them if they don’t fall in line… Anyway, leaders should be given some more tools to lead… How about a statistics page? Show us every players flag usage on titans and wars, their missed titans and wars, their medium interval between two online sessions, let leaders place pop-up messages on the home screen of players, which are impossible to miss even if they don’t bother to read the chat. And for God’s sake, please, make leadership pass to the eldest in-game active co-leader after 50 days of leader inactivity… Tons of “dead” alliances as you browse through them, because of inactive leadership…
What about no control but if leader set a Titan stop button and someone want’s to hit the Titan, there is a message like: “leadership called this Titan. Really want to use flag?”
Then every member can still attack by confirming with : YES! I want to kick this butt!
I also agree that there might be several reasons to use a flag even when Titan is called:
I think new players would not understand the idea behind this feature. They would like to attack the titan as much as they can in order to get a better loot, even if the titan escapes. In the other hand, advanced players should undestand that stop attacking the titan is a smart decision so there is no need for them to have that feature implemented. In both cases a button like that would generate trouble in my opinion.
There could be the option of implementing the button and, if someone wishes to attack the titan, a pop up message like “the leader is suggesting not to attack the titan, do you wish to attack anyway?” But I think the leader should communicate that willing in the chat to all the members and make them all undestand the reasons behind that decision. Probably some members would not understand that, but I think eventually everyone will understand.