Printable View
War hopping is still something some leaders gets __________off. Today i took a random th 12 . Its a 10 v 10 war and he is only th 12 out their so his role is very imp.
DID SUPERCELL EVER CONSIDER ABOUT INTRODUCING A COOL DOWN ON PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CANT LEAVE THE CLAN UNTIL THEY HAVENT ATTACKED OR ANY OTHER SOLUTIONS.? OR SOMETHING LIKE IF U DINT ATTCK , U WILL BE BANNED FROM PARTICIPATING IN CLAN WAR FOR A LIMITED DAYS AS PUNISHMENT!
This is a clan management issue, not something that SC will ‘fix’. If you don’t trust your member to stick around, don’t include him in war.
If you are taken to clan war and you leave the clan you will be not able to join another war until prep day and war day are over of that clan i.e 2 days.
I doubt it is ruled out, but SC does not interfere in clan management issues. If you accept someone into the clan and put him in war without knowing them or making sure they will attack then it is not something SC is going to get involved in. Nor should they.
I have had that problem occasionally, but I accept that it is the result of my decision to include them, even though it is really annoying. But I wouldn't want rules to enforce a certain behaviour, that can too easily backfire. Like when we "all" wanted the leadership handed down if the leader was absent too long, and now we get lots of people complaining and wanting "their" clan back.
Its considerable they should impliment this i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by rahultarafdar
You will not have war eligibility, if you leave a running war in a clan , until the war gets over in that clan
Everyone knows itQuote:
Originally Posted by JayasundarRB
They kinda already banned from waring for 2 days(including the prep day) which you asked for
And its more of a clan management issue nothing SC will do anything about it atleast not as of now
Simple solutions dont put everyone right away in war have a chat confirm if they want to be in and after that of youre convinced put em in
I usually take 1 or 2 war before putting any new members in besides i never had any one leaving clan without attacking when they are in war even if they want to leave they make their hits
If they do this then they should also ban the player who started the war with them in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rahultarafdar
It is more of your leaderships fault than the new player who may have had opted out of wars or only been in the clan for 1 minute before you started the search.
You should never put a new player in a war if you cannot cover their attacks.
That guy was there with green badge the entire cwl though he wasnt in leagueQuote:
Originally Posted by Tollboothwillie
I get this is more clan management, but wouldn’t it be nice to see on profiles
number of missed war attacks vs made
Donation ratio (not just total)
Number of clans joined
and perhaps a few other things. On the profile within the game.
Given how shaky those numbers can be, no i don't think thats a good idea. For missed attacks, I have been desperate enough to fill 30v30 cwl to put in someone I know went red. Now those missed attacks would be on their profile. Our lower players have awful donation ratios. Just the nature of the clan. We'll them to donate when they can but don't worry if a lot of requests are too high for them to fill. I don't see why they should be tagged with the scarlet letter of doom should they choose to move on for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by JD4U
SC isn't going to add negative info on a players profile. Thats one of the worst things a company can do to potential paying customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JD4U
What would help this for normal wars is to let us choose the number we want to enter. The more I recruit the more bloated the requirements. 30v30. We'd actually prefer a good rotation of 15v15.
Sometimes when you're ring fenced in you need to pump your entire squad into the war roster. Whether they play or not. There are plenty of threads about difficult recruiting is. Can't keep booting people when others arrive once in a blue moon.
A simple remedy would be, if they cannot attack and bail out then their turns get randomly allocated to a lower th. And not selective as easily abused. Something to solve this problem anyway. It's not such so simple as "clan management" when the game doesn't have 1000s queueing up to join every squad AND there are minimum requirements.
We kept ours at 24 specifically for a reason for a while as it causes more grief the more you recruit.
The person locked in the war has the same cool down time as the duration of the war so he or she can’t be included in another war until the war is done.
Any other (extra) measures or punishment is really counterproductive and pointless. A certain amount of players just wont care of these measures. Other players who would care simply would press attack drop a troop or hero and quit the attack.
You could come up with lots of punishments and some might actually motivate people to use their attack but you simply cannot force them to try their best at the attack which you need in a war. If they do a lousy drop and quit attack it’s equally useless and an attack not used.
That is a really bad idea. It would as well mean, someone is locked into that clan for at least 24 hours, regardless of the reason why said player want to leave the clan.Quote:
Originally Posted by rahultarafdar
Wether be it donating to someone else, grabbing a donation elsewhere, or just bullying in the clan.
Many reasons can lie behind the ' not participating' of the mentioned TH 12. There maybe personal issues , maybe poor internet connection etc that can significantly have effect in these type of problems. Even I myself couldn't attack a month ago due to personal problems altho I was supposed to attack obviously.
Sometimes we need to think the other way around , because the most likely scenarios sometimes doesn't keep happening . As I said and also others, it's a clan management issue, so personally banning and punishing may result differently other than how u thought to be. Literally it paves the way to get disappointed if the absence in CWL was unintended , making a negative effect upon personal freedom. So the best solution is if you aren't running a family clan nor a clan from people mostly coming from you nearby ones or friendly circle I.e the international ones or something like that then do follow some directives to not get disappointed like this in future. If a new member comes in the clan, then don't take him in war unless he seems trustworthy or regular. Take him in classic war , see how he attack , take decision seriously , for the mass people of the clan . If you took someone in any war and he or she doesn't show up, then probably don't take him in the next . Maybe in this way , the possibility of ' did not attacked ' will get reduced.
I agree. This is how the game has always been and how it should be. I've lost countless wars because of this issue and it's totally okay. This is where the management and leadership comes up. You can't build trust in a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRag
About some ban/cooldown on people who didn't attack. I wouldn't agree with this because there are many friendly clans where people are okay with clan members missing their war attacks. Or the bottom one or two missing their attacks, for example. Why would we need a ban in such cases?
Those green badges should never be trusted. Did this person ask to be in war? Did you speak to them at all? Or did you just blindly add them?Quote:
Originally Posted by rahultarafdar
It was an incredibly bad idea on your part to add a new player to your #1 spot in war. SC doesn't need to fix anything.