A feature to select your CLAN WAR LINEUP [PLEASE READ]

Thats why I am ok with it to a point. Im all for having slots for subs or being able to drop a division. The issue is if that restriction is not in place it will be abused incredibly. I enjoy this game. Obviously we all put some value on it because we are on this forum outside of the game trying to find ways to make it better. Personally, I think inactivity should be dealt with by the clan members. I also think clans that take the game a little more seriously in terms of time and resources should be given a little more attention than casual players. Thats not to be insulting I just think they should earn an advantage instead of supercell just giving them one. Being in a smaller clan it would upset me if our guys lined up against another ten guys and they had 20 or more people besides them donating troops, scouting, etc. Plus they wouldnt take near the hit resources wise. Thats why im in full support of having subs within reason and not making it open season. Clan wars is a pretty fair, competitive and fun feature. I would like to see it not become diluted. I apologize for the farmville comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foldrin

Thats why I am ok with it to a point. Im all for having slots for subs or being able to drop a division. The issue is if that restriction is not in place it will be abused incredibly. I enjoy this game. Obviously we all put some value on it because we are on this forum outside of the game trying to find ways to make it better. Personally, I think inactivity should be dealt with by the clan members. I also think clans that take the game a little more seriously in terms of time and resources should be given a little more attention than casual players. Thats not to be insulting I just think they should earn an advantage instead of supercell just giving them one. Being in a smaller clan it would upset me if our guys lined up against another ten guys and they had 20 or more people besides them donating troops, scouting, etc. Plus they wouldnt take near the hit resources wise. Thats why im in full support of having subs within reason and not making it open season. Clan wars is a pretty fair, competitive and fun feature. I would like to see it not become diluted. I apologize for the farmville comment.

---

I think we're really pretty close in our outlook. I do keep seeing the phrase inactivity thrown around. We're (I mean our clan) not talking about inactive players. We're talking about someone away for the weekend when everyone else wants to war, or an active player in another country having a temporary Internet problem. We wouldn't keep inactive players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lulug

Ok, maybe I am missing something here, but all the talk of an opt out button in conjunction with conspiracies to make war match ups uneven etc... I call complete hogwash!

All of the things mentioned that can be supposedly achieved by an opt out button are probably already being done, by people leaving the clan before war starts! I take the point that there may be fewer matchups available, but an opt out button wont make this any different, it is already happening!

Non war participants cannot feed clan war castles so there would no advantage to larger clans fielding a smaller warrior list, the only possible advantage would be feeding the non war clan castles with high level troops, but as someone pointed out earlier, this can already be achieved by going to a high level donation clan...

The opt out/in button should be at player level only... I don't believe that the leaders and co-leaders should be able to opt people in and out as they choose, as this could be open to all sorts of unfair play and abuse, and i don't mean in finding unfair matchups, more just making people ineligible because you don't like them or some such petty foolery.

The matchups themselves should only be based on the people being included in the war, and i believe that this is the case already.

I come from a strong clan where war is not particularly popular for whatever reason. It is absolutely not down to activity levels. We (correctly in my opinion) give individuals the option to opt out of a war if they are on vacation, busy with real life, have too many upgrades going on, just don't wish to play, whatever. And every single war we are having to soft kick half the clan with invites back, which a huge pain.

However we do it to give people the choice. If people want to war then we want to give them that option... and if they don't then they should have that option also... giving an opt out button would make absolutely no difference to the way we war apart from making it less of a complete pain for leaders and co-leaders who have to currently do all the administration and kicking for the pacifists... Its a game at the end of the day, why should people be made to do what they don't want to do.... and why shouldn't this process be made easier as an individual.

The fact that people have been calling for this since the launch of clan wars means that many people think the same... and the fact that it has not yet been addressed by Supercell disappoints me greatly.

---

agreed 100% man i want supercells word on this ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neo314

I don't dispute that some clan leaders may impose restrictions on players that need to improve. We do. But the restrictions are fair and understood with room to learn. They just need to know the war basics and are not required to be excellent before being able to participate.

I'm saying if people prevent players from participating merely to have a better war party, the people barred from playing would leave.

I'll have to look into the disadvantage of having weaker bases included. We have not seen that. A link reference would be appreciated. The only issue we have seen with this relates to strength distribution not being a factor in match ups, but that is a different thread.

P.S. I never said it was average strength, did I? It's total strength, but weaker bases still reduce total strength for the number of bases in the war.

---

i could agree that some leaders would use this option if it existed to take the cream of the crop and go if with a veteran war party, but in my experience i send clan mails and ask if people want to sit out of the war, and bench the ones who do, if an unskilled player wants to go to war i am more than happy to bring them in even if they 0 star it, we can help them improve, but i see both sides of the spectrum, ive benched players who want to farm, and ive also benched players who wanted to war, they didnt leave, they stayed, i only see them leaving over being barred from a clan war if its multiple times consecutively, therefore your point doesnt pose a disadvantage unless its clearly abused by greedy leaders, another reason why THIS MUST BE IMPLEMENTED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lulug

And so what if they do all do it... As i said in my earlier post (the bit that you didnt quote) we take the hard to manage bit of organising soft kicks to give our members a choice whether to participate or not... And im sorry, and yes i have read your posts but i think that this is not going to disadvantage you.. It wont affect war match ups. And clan members and leaders alike will be much happier as it will be so much easier to manage.

I emphasise that this is a game, and people should be allowed to play it how they want to. If they don't want to war then there should be a simple mechanism for them to opt out, and not have leaders jump through hoops to allow them to do this... And if as you say the introduction of an opt out button will make EVERYONE do it, then there is clearly a need for one!!

---

WELL SAID!!!!!!!!! i could not have said this better myself i agree 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foldrin

I like how people want to be able to take guys out who have heros or spell factories upgrading. Im pretty sure people farm for a bit then do a push while they are at full strength. So instead of warring all the time slow it a tad so your roster is fully capable. Just like you would treat a push. The simple thing about this is clans should not get an out for inactivity. If you are a "casual" clan. Maybe you should only casually go to war. The points have been made, a lot of people in this thread need to play farmville. A little more their speed. Asking a war style game to compensate you for not working around upgrades and inactivity is ridiculous. Heck, lets just give everybody equal loot in wars win or lose. I mean you may have inactive people so you should be compensated.

---

yeah ok so if this is a war style game then lets let my coleader be in the war with an upgrading spell factory and get 0 stars and we lose the war by 2 points, or better yet, lets say my best friend who 6 stars it every war isnt going to have wifi for 2 days, lets make him be in the war cuz this is the "style" kid you know nothing get off my thread and go give your advice to bronzes, an area more suited for u

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neo314

I'll have to look into the disadvantage of having weaker bases included. We have not seen that. A link reference would be appreciated. The only issue we have seen with this relates to strength distribution not being a factor in match ups, but that is a different thread.

P.S. I never said it was average strength, did I? It's total strength, but weaker bases still reduce total strength for the number of bases in the war.

---

The thread was entitled "the matchmaking system needs an overhaul" The quote was from SuperSteve with Supercell and is on page 1 of the thread. Here's the quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperSteve[Supercell]

Also keep in mind that clan matchmaking is based on clan composition, and not average strength of the entire clan. As such, adding lower level member to your clan will not help you find easier matches, and will backfire in the form of providing more 3 star wins for the opposing clan against the low level members...

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZionAntero

i could agree that some leaders would use this option if it existed to take the cream of the crop and go if with a veteran war party, but in my experience i send clan mails and ask if people want to sit out of the war, and bench the ones who do, if an unskilled player wants to go to war i am more than happy to bring them in even if they 0 star it, we can help them improve, but i see both sides of the spectrum, ive benched players who want to farm, and ive also benched players who wanted to war, they didnt leave, they stayed, i only see them leaving over being barred from a clan war if its multiple times consecutively, therefore your point doesnt pose a disadvantage unless its clearly abused by greedy leaders, another reason why THIS MUST BE IMPLEMENTED

---

So... you agree that people would be able to mis-use this to their advantage, and state "doesn't pose a disadvantage unless it's clearly abused by greed leaders"... yet you feel that this is another reason why this must be implemented. Can I infer from this, that your opinion is that it's possible to create an environment where one can stack the deck, and have a reasonable expectation that people would not then chose to stack the deck? I'm not sure that history would back you up on this in any game I've ever played.

Even in this one... we just had all those issues with ghosting... you know as well as I do, that a significant number of players chose to stack the deck in their favor. How about the programs to keep the game active? How about the gem ♥♥♥♥s? How about the player out of synch ♥♥♥♥ to protect from being attacked? How about all the interviews with top players over time, where they've revealed various "♥♥♥♥♥s" they've used to be a top player. Even just looking at the course of this game, clearly demonstrates, that people will make use of any mechanism to stack the deck that they can. Don't you think it's a little naive to assume that it won't be abused if it can be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trellish

So... you agree that people would be able to mis-use this to their advantage, and state "doesn't pose a disadvantage unless it's clearly abused by greed leaders"... yet you feel that this is another reason why this must be implemented. Can I infer from this, that your opinion is that it's possible to create an environment where one can stack the deck, and have a reasonable expectation that people would not then chose to stack the deck? I'm not sure that history would back you up on this in any game I've ever played.

Even in this one... we just had all those issues with ghosting... you know as well as I do, that a significant number of players chose to stack the deck in their favor. How about the programs to keep the game active? How about the gem ♥♥♥♥s? How about the player out of synch ♥♥♥♥ to protect from being attacked? How about all the interviews with top players over time, where they've revealed various "♥♥♥♥♥s" they've used to be a top player. Even just looking at the course of this game, clearly demonstrates, that people will make use of any mechanism to stack the deck that they can. Don't you think it's a little naive to assume that it won't be abused if it can be?

---

well its better than what we got goin now such as separate war clans and leaders jumping through hoops to make sure everyones at their peak for war, so might as well make it a legit feature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trellish

So... you agree that people would be able to mis-use this to their advantage, and state "doesn't pose a disadvantage unless it's clearly abused by greed leaders"... yet you feel that this is another reason why this must be implemented. Can I infer from this, that your opinion is that it's possible to create an environment where one can stack the deck, and have a reasonable expectation that people would not then chose to stack the deck? I'm not sure that history would back you up on this in any game I've ever played.

Even in this one... we just had all those issues with ghosting... you know as well as I do, that a significant number of players chose to stack the deck in their favor. How about the programs to keep the game active? How about the gem ♥♥♥♥s? How about the player out of synch ♥♥♥♥ to protect from being attacked? How about all the interviews with top players over time, where they've revealed various "♥♥♥♥♥s" they've used to be a top player. Even just looking at the course of this game, clearly demonstrates, that people will make use of any mechanism to stack the deck that they can. Don't you think it's a little naive to assume that it won't be abused if it can be?

---

This is a "non"argument against the Opt out button. There is no stacking of the deck. NONE. I am sorry, I just don't see it. I don't care if a clan of fifty uses an opt out button to pare down to 10 players, the cream of the crop and go to war. Good for them. They will get matched up 10v10 with a clan of the same defensive alignment. No advantage. No stacking of the deck.

And besides, this is already happening. Clans are splitting into small war clans from the farming clans. Same difference. And as previous posters have noted, booting/re inviting is the accepted modality for workaround and that ALSO creates the EXACT same scenario.

The opt out is needed because it is a clan management tool. Pure and simple. Nothing to do with matchmaking or abuse...at all. The pros for this FAR outweigh any cons. And I for one believe the leader should have the right to opt someone out. And the "greedy/abusive leader argument" holds no water either- If a leader is being a jerk- find a better, more supportive clan. There are many out there.