Printable View
I really don't see the problem with the leave and rejoin method. Or, boot and invite, if you're offline when war starts.
To implement this SC has to justify the dev time. I don't see the justification as there is a system that works in game.
It could cause admin headaches too. "So and so said they were in for this war, but haven't changed their status" and the like.
Your in a clan. If your clan goes to war, you go to war. If you dont like it, get out.
Dev time is a non issue. This would be a low development fix. Just adding a button and changing the selection process of participants from 'whole clan' to 'warrior mode only'. everything else stays the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirky
The leader would have access to change status too. he can put a guy in if the verbal was given. But also can hold out a guy that is going to hurt the team, even if he wants to.
Some folks are ok with the kick and invite method, some are not. We are talking about clans having their own choice. To be against this means thinking all clans should be like yours and you don't want them to have any option to not be like you. ("there is only my opinion or wrong" type thinking) It remains true that every one of the objectors in the end is just standing on the "all clans should be like mine" position.
I hope that my response didnt sound like a 'be like me' because it wasnt meant to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
Doesnt having the choice to participate or not effectively take away the teamwork though? It seems to in my mind.
I cant think of anything out there thats competetive and requires a team effort but gives members the option to 'out themselves' if its not their cup of tea.
before clanwars, clans were just about giving eachother stuff on a regular basis and having the odd chat about nothing of any importance in the clan chat, bar the odd push of course.
Now they require actual teamwork and a common way of thinking fo you to be successful. . at least above TH7 they do anyway and I like that.
I cant help but think that the opt-out button would be a massive step backwards from something that despite the odd bickering clan, adds tonnes of depth to the game.
Yes because some of my clan mates has been in my clan for over a year but not all of them have time for clan war so we have to kick few of them out.
We war constantly in our clan, that is the way it is. That is how most of the members want it. But that said, I wouldn't mind sitting out a war here and there. Yeah, I could leave and come back....but most of the time I am the one clicking the start war button.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoggybowman
Second, there are a couple of members who I don't want to kick, but I also don't want in clan wars, this would be an effective solution to this problem.
Third, we have a few inactive members. One comes on just to chat and that is it. He doesn't play anymore, but we have been together for so long that he still pops in and says hi. Kick/invite works, but it gets old trying to remember who to kick and who not to kick before each war. (Who said they didn't want to be in the next war? Ahh, it was Joe... Then Joe comes back...WHY DID YOU KICK ME! IT WAS JOHN THAT WANTED TO BE OUT, NOT ME!)
It would just make management so much easier. Sure, there are work arounds, and we use them but still... I get the teamwork aspect, but sometimes people get busy IRL, sometimes someone needs a timeout, it is a lot to manage and an opt out button would save me a lot of headaches.
All teams let players take a rest. They don't all play every minute of every game.
How can you be sure its a small dev change. It might not be. Everyone said the builder time bug should be easy to fix. SC's official response is that it would need the game to be recoded in another language.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
The devs probably have other things to be doing, so it's not just the cost to do it, it's also the delay to other things.
If it is such an obvious feature to include and so easy, why haven't they done it yet?
I suspect, and I accept without any evidence, that the vast majority of clans actually don't care that much. If the feature was in would I use it? Yes. Am I bothered enough by the work around to push for SC to spend time making a change? No. I just don't see it as important. You are of course free to disagree.
If you want the change then you need to make a convincing argument why the workaround is unacceptable, and why this should get to the top of SC's priority list. It's not "my opinion or wrong" reasoning or me saying everyone should be like me. It's a fact that if you want a change then you need to make the case for it, rather than just arguing that anyone who disagrees is somehow imposing their view on you. Your OP doesn't make any argument, it just tries to get people to vote for a change if they are not fussed either way about the change.
If anything the last para of your post is an example of "my opinion or wrong" reasoning.
I dont think an unlimited opt in/out would be a good idea. The wars are still clan vs clan and not a selected upper/ lower half/quarter against another. If the opt is restricted, e.g. the leaders can choose to include or exclude 5-10% of members, then I think it might be feasible, and that should give quite enough choices to the leaders. As a co-leader of my clan I would only change members temporarily unable to participate the war. The opt in/out here would be a more comfortable way to deal with it than requiring leaving the clan (and losing donations stats) or dropping trophies. People who just dont want to go to war will get boot, they have better to search a clan that does not go to wars.
I say you are giving 'all clans should be like mine" because it's really clans having the choice you are against. if such a button exists a leader will still have free choice to say 'no opting out or kick' if they prefer that's how their clans work. In saying they should not have that choice to be different from your way of thinking is why I say you are in a 'my opinioin or wrong' mode. You are not comfortable with running your clan your way. You want all clans forced to run that way. Admittedly mine does works that way (you do war or get lost) but I am aware that many of the folks we kicked have since left COC entirely for other games because what they liked here got crushed out of the game. And they are right, there is no reason not to offer it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirky
For some the drop/add really is a pain. it depends on the individuals involved. I am happy for those that are not bugged by it but It seems the majority don't think its a good workaround.
For dev effort, I don't want to get into a technical debate. I am comfortable with my assessment there. I just don't want to go into what I might have going on that makes me so confident.
Regarding your statement "I suspect, and I accept without any evidence, that the vast majority of clans actually don't care that much." I can help you with the evidence. The poll at the top of this post is evidence. But it says the majority does care and would use it.
Well there are two answers to this- Yes and No
Adding the feature would give leaders better control, but they could also abuse the ability by opting people out of war even if they would want to participate and would use both attacks.
But if only the player could decide whether they wanted to participate or not, innactives who were kept in the clan for some reason wouldn't be able to opt out.
I'm sure supercell will do something
Wow my first post lol
Such detail
Much big
Wow