Toggle players on/off for Clan wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coathanger

1) An opt out button does not work for players who are not there to use it.
2) A person opting out has the potential to cause 4 other people to be affected.
3) A couple unused attacks will have less of an impact on the clan than #2

---

1. Your right an opt out wouldn't always work. But how about an opt in. At the end of each war everyone automatically is opted out. A next war date is set through clan messages and players are expected to opt in. If you're so inactive that you don't opt in, then you probably wouldn't use your attacks anyway.

2. 2.1 If people can see beforehand that a player is opting out, they can try and recruit before war to find someone new to make up numbers. 2.2 Or players at the bottom of the trophy list have to raise their trophies if they don't want to miss out. 2.3 Or a leader could have the option of opting a player in, knowing that they'd loose two attacks, but at least everyone who wants to war is in.

3. Yes, your right. But I refer back to 2.3 at least in this case a leader has the power to make that decision for the clan, and everyone knows why it's been done. Don't get me wrong, I don't like leader power to opt people out, only opt them in to make up numbers.

You are just lazy. I would rather Supercell spend their time working on new troops, updates, etc that matter. Sorry bro, but the whole world don't revolve around you. To quote one of my favorite artists, "If you're mad that's too bad sounds like a personal issue." Finally, to quote someone else, please, "GoWiPe you're ♥♥♥ somewhere else."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnor

1. Your right an opt out wouldn't always work. But how about an opt in. At the end of each war everyone automatically is opted out. A next war date is set through clan messages and players are expected to opt in. If you're so inactive that you don't opt in, then you probably wouldn't use your attacks anyway.

---

No way! I am in an active clan of 35-40, and we war nonstop. Why should we have to wait for everyone to check in after a war before declaring again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood

No way! I am in an active clan of 35-40, and we war nonstop. Why should we have to wait for everyone to check in after a war before declaring again?

---

Yep, thats why the leaders pick who goes to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coathanger

1) An opt out button does not work for players who are not there to use it.
2) A person opting out has the potential to cause 4 other people to be affected.
3) A couple unused attacks will have less of an impact on the clan than #2

---

Ok I will address these.

1) I disagree. This option would work just fine. The whole point is to chose ahead of time. No one is discussing a inactive players. Vacation, work, military leave, school, there are tons of reasons to opt out of a war or two and these are all decided ahead of time. Those of us for this option simply want it automated so we don't have the ridiculous method of tracking members out of game and interupting members in game.

2) I disagree. SC has already done this with the bottom 1-4 trophy range being out of luck. And everyones favorite method on this thread who is opposed to the opt out button is to boot and reinvite. Well..no difference. Those same four will be out of luck. If you want to be in the war, then don't be in the bottom trophy range.

3) This I agree with. 2-4 attacks won't or should not break the war. It is, however, demoralizing. Members want to contribute. Other members want to see everyone else doing their part. In my experience it has not been pretty when the war is close and you lose and some people didn't attack. I know that its not becuase of one or two attacks....but when you have a clan of 50...people get riled.


The reality is there is zero down side to an opt out button. None. It simply automates booting someone. Thats it. Only now as a leader I dont have to have a spreadsheet outside the game and track them. Lots of upside, no downside. If you dont like it...don't use it. I just don't understand the kickback some people have with this.

The big question with implementing an opt out feature for clan wars:

• Who gets to opt who out? It seems there are two camps here, on one hand some want the leader/co-leaders to have that power and on the other hand people want players to decide for themselves.

The obvious issue that implementing either will be the two different camps arguing that supercell implemented this the wrong way, since it wasn't "their way".

So the issues this will cause if the leader gets to opt people out:

• They get increased responsibilities to track who wants to be in and who wants out (there is always an element of human error in these situations)
• Due to human error the wrong players may be opted out/in
• They get increased powers which can be abused and can limit some player's gaming experience because of exclusion

Issue caused if players opt themselves out:

• They may forget opt out
• Alternatively they may forget to opt in
• The people opting out may cause others to miss out (for example a clan of 50 and one opts out, it means 4 misses out clan wars)
• People may be pressured into not opting out due to the above reason
• Top people may be pressured to not opt out because doing so may mean the bottom players will be included.

Issues that implementing this will cause regardless of whichever system:

• People will be pressured into either opting someone/themselves out of clan wars if they aren't particularly good at clan wars.
• You have more "in-clan" arguments about who should and shouldn't go to war
• This will make clan wars more hardcore and less casual and therefore increase pressure for people to perform which will cause declining participation rates
• players that aren't particularly good will not be included in clan wars and this will hinder their development, enjoyment and growth in the game.
• The pool of larger scale clan wars (i.e. 50 v 50, 45 v 45.... etc etc...) will diminish and clans of those sizes will have longer match-making times and a lower pool of clans to match with, so the chances of playing against the same clan will be increased.

Benefits of having this system in place as opposed using the existing measures (making two clans, leaving and coming back in):

• Donations are intact..... (for those who even care about donations)
• Less jumping in and out of clans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JtB

Yep, thats why the leaders pick who goes to war.

---

Here are my preferences, in order:

1. Do not create the button. Clans that want to win should fight as one, or not at all.

2. Let individual players declare themselves ineligible.

3. Let leaders manipulate rosters.

I don't think leaders should get to tell a person that wants to war that he can't without kicking him out of the clan (or asking him to opt himself out willingly).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKL2207

The big question with implementing an opt out feature for clan wars:

• Who gets to opt who out? It seems there are two camps here, on one hand some want the leader/co-leaders to have that power and on the other hand people want players to decide for themselves.

The obvious issue that implementing either will be the two different camps arguing that supercell implemented this the wrong way, since it wasn't "their way".

So the issues this will cause if the leader gets to opt people out:

• They get increased responsibilities to track who wants to be in and who wants out (there is always an element of human error in these situations)
• Due to human error the wrong players may be opted out/in
• They get increased powers which can be abused and can limit some player's gaming experience because of exclusion

Issue caused if players opt themselves out:

• They may forget opt out
• Alternatively they may forget to opt in
• The people opting out may cause others to miss out (for example a clan of 50 and one opts out, it means 4 misses out clan wars)
• People may be pressured into not opting out due to the above reason
• Top people may be pressured to not opt out because doing so may mean the bottom players will be included.

Issues that implementing this will cause regardless of whichever system:

• People will be pressured into either opting someone/themselves out of clan wars if they aren't particularly good at clan wars.
• You have more "in-clan" arguments about who should and shouldn't go to war
• This will make clan wars more hardcore and less casual and therefore increase pressure for people to perform which will cause declining participation rates
• players that aren't particularly good will not be included in clan wars and this will hinder their development, enjoyment and growth in the game.
• The pool of larger scale clan wars (i.e. 50 v 50, 45 v 45.... etc etc...) will diminish and clans of those sizes will have longer match-making times and a lower pool of clans to match with, so the chances of playing against the same clan will be increased.

Benefits of having this system in place as opposed using the existing measures (making two clans, leaving and coming back in):

• Donations are intact..... (for those who even care about donations)
• Less jumping in and out of clans

---

Hey!! I have to give you some kudos. I have been arguing in favor for the opt-in/out option for months and you are the VERY first person to actually slap up some valid points against it. I had to read this a few times. I don't agree with all of it (like longer match making times and smaller clans) but the peer pressure parts and forgetting to opt back in are quite valid concerns to think about. I can really appreciate those points.

Personally I think the leader and the player should simultaneously have the options. I would let the player choose first and override if I saw an issue. From my point of view, this option would create less hassle for me than the current system of tracking who I have to boot/reinvite every time and who is out on vacations or medical leave...how many people do I ACTUALLY have in my clan....can I accept anyone new or not? That kind of stuff. Gets very tiresome tracking it all.

Yes this could be abused. But my stance has always been the good out ways the bad for that. A bad leader is a bad leader, with or with out that option.

You are correct in other things as well, people could just opt out and not participate. Maybe that would hinder their growth. But maybe not. Maybe they just don't want to war. I would hope that a good solid clan would help and encourage their members to be better and work with them. This really is up to clan management and should not have anything to do with an opt out button IMO.

Thanks for this post. Well thought out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigDarrick

Hey!! I have to give you some kudos. I have been arguing in favor for the opt-in/out option for months and you are the VERY first person to actually slap up some valid points against it. I had to read this a few times. I don't agree with all of it (like longer match making times and smaller clans) but the peer pressure parts and forgetting to opt back in are quite valid concerns to think about. I can really appreciate those points.

Personally I think the leader and the player should simultaneously have the options. I would let the player choose first and override if I saw an issue. From my point of view, this option would create less hassle for me than the current system of tracking who I have to boot/reinvite every time and who is out on vacations or medical leave...how many people do I ACTUALLY have in my clan....can I accept anyone new or not? That kind of stuff. Gets very tiresome tracking it all.

Yes this could be abused. But my stance has always been the good out ways the bad for that. A bad leader is a bad leader, with or with out that option.

You are correct in other things as well, people could just opt out and not participate. Maybe that would hinder their growth. But maybe not. Maybe they just don't want to war. I would hope that a good solid clan would help and encourage their members to be better and work with them. This really is up to clan management and should not have anything to do with an opt out button IMO.

Thanks for this post. Well thought out.

---

I'm actually not opposed to the opt in/out feature, but I thought I might as well highlight some issues that it may cause. I'm actually more interested in the "if there is an opt in/out button how would it be best implemented without it either being subject to abuse or being too loose and potentially ineffective" discussion. I think we can all agree that whatever system is implemented (if any) will have holes in it since it is up to the players at the end of day to use/abuse whatever system is provided.

Your idea of player's choice with the leader having the last say is an interesting one. At least it mitigates human error to an extent. I guess to further expand on that idea when the leader overrides a player's choice it should be somehow displayed for the sake of transparency so other's can either voice their opinions on the matter. I think that may help mitigate abuse from bad leaders.

Hi everybody,

We are also a warclan and currently we also kick some members before we go to war. This works fine for us because are farmers are used to it and they keep coming back :D.

Our clan isn't against and opt out button but if it will not be implemented it would not be a problem.

I have read lots of topics regarding this question but I never find an official response of Supercell.

Is there anybody here that have found an official answer of Supercell?

Thanks


Jesper

Co leader of Belgian Warclan Foursquare (War Record 52-0-4)