I have been playing for years and I have been changing alliances in order to improve my way of playing and I have always seen the same problem in all alliances, the problem of the player who has the war box checked enters an alliance the pairing begins war the player goes out and creates a problem for all the allies. This is very common and fills the other players with frustration and anger since you usually lose that war.
My proposal is that when they enter the Alliance that they are members, they cannot check the war box and that the way in which war can be played is through promotion to Elder.
That way the leader can see what the commitment of each new player in the alliance is, see if he attacks the titans and the leader can decide if that player is suitable to be promoted and can participate in the warā¦I know not. It will prevent that ally from leaving in the middle of the war or giving up shots and being expelled, but the leader will have a minimum of power to decide.
I agree itās a royal pain in theā¦ but this has been brought up more times than even I can count. Itās not going to change it makes the game no money, so why should they care.
Sorry but that gets a NO from me ā¦. The issue has been raised many times but SG / Zynga etc donāt make any changes ā¦.
For me personally-
It leaves the alliance open to manipulation ā¦ and by that I mean you can restrict war participation by simply refusing to promote someone to elder ā¦ and/or demoting players to member status as a possible āpunishmentā ā¦
I think co/leaders should be able to unset a members ability to participate in war. For instance a respected member goes on vacation and forgets to uncheck war, the co/leader should be able to uncheck the player from war
And here I enter again as The Devilās Advocate. What happens when you have a co-leader that doesnāt like certain people and they decide to do their own version of punishments and take people out of War. When you start doing power and control like that youāre leaving yourself open to bullying and revenge. If people leave Flags you boot them and move on. Then you alter your war strategy and see if you can still get the win. Itās your alliance and you do whatās best for your team micromanaging is never the way.
No one is forced to be in a particular alliance. If you are prevented from participating in war due to a rogue co-leader, you need to leave that alliance in the dust and join a sane one. Thereās not much power and control when people can freely leave. Youāll soon be an alliance of 1.
Thatās my point exactly, after playing for 6 years and leading the same house I think this is occurred Maybe five times. You boot and you move on, I donāt see why there has to be the power games or the micromanaging. Everybody knows in war you use flags. Thatās it, it goes with accountability.
Having said all that, you have to understand real life happens as do emergencies. So each case is different. And should be handled accordingly. But again thatās why we have leaders not dictators.
As an accidentally promoted alliance leader Iām not so sure about Members not allowed to join war.
The simplest āsolutionā is the war participation box is left empty rather than checked when joining an alliance. As it is, anyone joining is automatically enrolled in war and they could be unaware of it.
Iād simply be happy with the addition of a ācooling offā period where a person who leaves 6 flags in a war canāt opt-in for the next one. Make it automatic so that thereās no feeling hurt. Display a message to the offender that explains why opting in but not participating hurts the allianceā¦ again a generic one so no feelings are hurt.
This is a spiteful thing to do. We just had someone join, and has now left without a word leaving us with āex-memberā on the battlefield.
There was no animosity, in fact except for the players initial greeting, which was responded to, there was no further communication between him and the rest of us.
What an a$$hat thing to do.
If anyone sees this individual asking to be let in, itās up to you. The name of this individual in Colin.
Hmā¦ similar but not identical: