Don't you think that a players attendance in wars would be really helpful? Also if you did do that I think that it shouldn't be possible to put a player in a war if their status is red.
Printable View
Don't you think that a players attendance in wars would be really helpful? Also if you did do that I think that it shouldn't be possible to put a player in a war if their status is red.
Why should it not be possible to put a player in war if their status is red? If all you need is to fill that one spot to complete a roster and you do not expect that person to attack, then clan leaders ought to be able to do that. It is better than taking out 4 people that wants to go to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
Because you could blemish the player's record. If you decide not to war your so called clan leaders shouldn't be able to make you. Most clans I know can find enough people to war.
I've also seen players being booted for not attacking by another leader.. Go figure.
How do you blemish other people's record? There are no records. This will only be an issue if your suggestion of recording war attendance is implemented and so far I see no good reason why it should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
It is also easier to add someone who is opted out of war than it is to recruit a new person into the clan for war. A person who you do not know if they will attack or not.
It isn't about having "enough" to war, it is about multiples of 5. If we have 14 marked in, I would rather add a low level marked out base with no expectation of them attacking, than put 4 people who want to war out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
Any leader who kicked sonebody for not attacking when they had been marked out is not worth being called a leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
I don't think this is really neccisarry war stars are displayed in your profile. Interesting idea though.
This is useful however way you want to look at it.
Simply asserting it does not make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
Obviously not, since several other people have suggested it isn't useful, so there must be ways of looking at it where it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
I can't actually see any real benefit to it.
Is you can't see the wood for the trees that on you. Clearly there are advantages.
No, it is not "on us" if we can't see these so-called clear advantages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
You obviously think there might be some advantages. It is your idea, it is on you to show why there are advantages.
You haven't said what those might be, or why they are enough of an advantage to be worth the effort of adding it to the profile.
It isn't even absolutely clear what you mean. It could be total number of wars in which you have been on the map. It could be only those where you have actually made at least one attack, or the total number of attacks you have made. Or it could be percentages of either of the first two. And if the second, that could be a percentage of those where you were on the map, or percentage of all the wars you have been in the clan for.
None of those are of any more real use than the current war stars statistic though, and it is unlikely SC even hold that data at an individual level, so it could only start from when the statistic first appears on the profile.
Attendance in war makes if pretty obvious to your average reader.
I am starting to think this is a troll thread. The OP is either trolling or is incapable of explaining his position. In either case, this is a waste of a thread since there is no actual discussion taking place.
Not necessary ,though supercell has added claim your target and messages.
What do you actually mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
I think Ajax said it best. If supercell does not have the appropriate information for previous wars it would create a false sense of information. It could do more harm than good. Some may be active but casual. What of a person has attacked twice and been in every war but only ever hits at the end for loot. This is a poorly thought out idea. It needs more tweeking to be considered anything but bad. What ever happened to just talking to people to find out if they want to be active in wars? Finally this feature is not even close to being usefull enough to mess with a leaders ability to create a war lineup (by stopping them from putting in players that are opted out.)
So even you can't explain what you think the advantates are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
Wouldn't it have been a good idea to have thought about that before posting the idea?
I think you're the one having trouble with the obvious.
The obvious benefit is so a clan leader has a better idea if the person will attack during war is a hopper and will exit right after you put them in war. You just didn't say it.
They are saying their are better ways to decide who to put into war. The part about not being able to put them in war at all has no benefit. That's just a negative all the way around.
Be more selective on who you let in the clan and who you take to war. Being able to easily see their history would be helpful but I don't think SC is going to be interested in storing that information in a database and retrieving it every time someone looks at a profile. You could dig out some of this information by using Clash of Stats and COCP.IT but most of us think it is unnecessary.
In two years, I've never had this issue with a single war attack. Some of it is luck but if you are having it happening over and over again, you need to change something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondjames007
You guys seem determined to rain on someone parade. I'm feel no need to state the obvious uses this information would give you so I'm not going to waste my time with people who are determined to have an argument. The more information you have allows you to make better decisions. It's not rocket science. I can understand you may not want this information available especially if your attendance in wars IS poor. That comes under the heading of ' NOT MY PROBLEM'.
The OP is completely unwilling/unable to explain the benefits, there isn't much point in continuing to respond.