Printable View
100% Correct. I have already stated it would bring lots of problems with matchmaking because if this function is added, with a simple click of a button, any clan can exploit this option without wasting a lot of time. And I know for a fact that many clans will exploit this bug.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnor
These same people already exploit this aspect now so what would be the difference? I really don't see this is as a negative as the abuse is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcha
Not that many clans do this because it is annoying and time-consuming to switch and re-invite over 10+ members in order to exploit this matchmaking. But with a simple click of a button, it can be done in 5 min.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terraist
Plus it gives an incentive for other clans to do this as well.
Wow...annoying and time consuming to switch and re-invite members all the time... sounds like what most clans have to go through in order to set up war... if only there were an opt in/out button.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcha
One big positive about introducing opt in/out is that it would change the forum discussions. No longer would we have "Clan. Wars has killed my clan!" Instead we'd have "Opt in/out has killed my clan" lol. Still want it tho. A change is as good as a holiday.
I think it's only clans who are either not good enough or too afraid to go to war with all their players who need to do this sort of thing ... If this is becoming a constant occurrence in your clan maybe it's time to move on and look for a new gang?Quote:
Originally Posted by Terraist
My clan wars 24/7, but there are a number of guys that aren't very active in chat (they just show up to fight and that's it). With 35 adults, we don't all check in with each other every day to say we're looking forward to the next war or whatever, we just do it. If I am very busy, I may not be there to chat and donate during war, but I do find a few minutes to request and do my two battles. Your idea of having us all opt-in before each war would be a ton of unnecessary work, and our leadership would not want to assume everyone is in whether they ticked the button or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnor
I just want things to stay as they are! Clans that are all on the same page should have an advantage, and clans with dedicated farmers and dedicated warriors should consider just splitting into two groups, and letting members bounce back and forth as they wish.
Except clans are not obligated to do this. My clan tried it for a few weeks, and pretty quickly decided it wasn't going to work long term and we needed to create a "farm team" for farmers/inactives. You must not find it to be too annoying and/or time consuming, or you would stop doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terraist
I know you used to be a proponent for this but it clearly does not effect you now. I have to be honest, I am not sure why you are even in this conversation. If there is an opt out button...don't use it. Your clan is clearly engaged and trimmed down just for war. This entire thread really doesn't apply to you anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood
The last part is really the reason why you dont want this.... You want to keep a perceived advantage. I get that but completely disagree. We already boot people and reinvite them. It happens. Thats the deal. I have to track it. Outside of the clan. The opt out option gives me a clan management tool with far less stress and tracking and no work around.
Much more convenient than the alternatives. Many of my nephews don't want to war, but we want them in the clan
Just representing the other side, which does exist (whether you like it or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDarrick
It is really less about maintaining our clan's advantage, and more about not having to go through a process of reforming one clan from our current two! It was a difficult decision to divide, but after several months, I like the game more than ever, and don't relish the idea of having a clan with two tiers of members (war guys and farm guys/inactives).
I respect how hard you are working to keep your clan together, but there is an easier way, and that is to create a second clan. You shouldn't have to work so hard. Just let members drop down to your farm team when they need a break; simple!
I would like to know SC's rationale for not creating the button in the first place. It is such an obvious idea, that they must have considered it. I imagine there are far more clans in the game today than when clan wars was introduced; is that a good thing for SC and/or the game? Does the peer pressure players put on other players to participate in clan wars make for more activity overall? I really would like to know.
Most of the guys against (and even a couple that are 'for') the feature are arguing that all clans should be like their clan. But shouldn't the game allow different clans to be free to run in the manner of their choosing?
I see a lot of concern for abuses or adverse affects, but it gets pointed out that any of the workarounds already open the door for those same abuses or adverse effects. As far as making them more convenient would just increase the trends I see a lot of those same guys arguing how easy the work arounds are to do as they suggest them. So that stuff all just cancels out into a non point.
As far as wars would tend to be tougher, that could be true. But I think that would be awesome, not a problem. I like a tough fight. Makes the game rock more. (and beating up on unmotivated 10 year olds does get kind of boring)
The most key point is that if the feature is available clans that don't like it can simply not use it. To have a 'no opting out' rule is a leader's free choice. So if you put it there clans are better positioned to use it or not use it as they run their business however they themselves want things to be.
I personally also think it should not be either an opt out or opt in, but a status change. The button should toggle between warrior and spectator each time clicked. The leader (who has a right to decide who he wants to be in the war) and of course the player in question should have access. Maybe co-leads can too. (This would be good for a clan that doesn't give it out like a door prize just for showing up, bad for clans that do)
Problems with that argued in earlier emails ---
1) A player can keep opting back in against the leaders wishes --- ok, you (the leader) tried to make things work with him but he insists on working against the clan, time for the kick.
2) A leader can force a player into a war against their wishes -- That is a stupid leader. He is really risking a no show in his war. Of course he can kick that guy for that after, but it sounds to me like that guys was one way or another leaving anyway.
3) it would screw up the matchmaking --- Not really. The status info would only be read by the game at the time a war is started. The matchmaking, instead of taking in the total population of the clan, would just take in the ones in Warrior status. After that it rounds to even 5 like usual and does the same math it always does with that roster. (Tales of impact to match making routine are really not valid, it stays as is)
All in all it will increase game membership (mo' money mo' money mo' money fo' Supercell!!) because by allowing a greater number of people to play the game however they are comfortable (be it hard core war clan or a social club or anything in between) you are going to get a greater number of people playing the game. A lot did drop out when wars put that sharp edge on things. More than would quit if they did something to make the sharp edge optional.
I agree with that post that asked what Supercell had to say. There has been a lot of noise about this, but nothing from them that I can see. Post a link if I am wrong.
Please read carefully, this is slightly different from the poll I posted a few minutes ago. I am asking the question 2 ways in order to compare results. I am doing this because some of the opinions were so vehement one way or another.
Answer 'Yes' if you would like to see there be such a feature offered or have no objection if one was available to others.
Answer 'No' if you absolutely don't want to see this feature be available. Even if other clans wish for it you absolutely do not want to see it happen.
Yes I would enjoy the opt out button because leaving before a war starts then join back after war has started resets your troop donating ratio :/
Cool. then vote. Note also that I have asked the question two ways in 2 polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by CocChampion
No down side to the opt out idea in my mind. I've heard from very strong opponents and they have no argument. I think it's obscene how this feature is not yet available. How many more clans have to be torn up, jerked around, or use pain in the ♥♥♥♥ methods around it until there is one?!
Agreed, but that contingent against it is out there and I do hear from them on other threads. (and I agree with you that I have yet to see a good argument. So far just red herrings or total hogwash) So I put up these two polls so I could get a handle on what the numbers really were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terraist
I was trying to get away from the debate where guys start arguing over the right way to run a clan and instead just get hard numbers on how well received this feature would or would not be.
Yes! Being the leader of a small war clan, I want to stay with the 10-15 members range because it is easy to manage the members. But it does get very dull in the clan only haveing 10 members :/ I would love for leader to have the choice to pick which of your Clanmates participate in war (Leader included).
BTW, if you want to join, we will be kicking inactive/bad for war (loosing us stars and not making them back in their attacks) and members who are not donating. Then we will be in "Recrutment mode" for a week to take a break from war. Clan name "iFruit™" and request for "Srinklz" to get in.
They already said in the Twitch feed it won't be coming next update.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this feature ... On the one hand, it would be great to be able to "skip" wars temporarily or while on vacation without harming the clan's war efforts but at the same time it would be a bit lame if 30-50 member clans would constantly nominate their 10 best fighters for a 10 on 10 war. Moreover, newbies would likely get excluded from wars as they might be considered too much of a risk.
Maybe there could be a limit on on the number of people who can opt out of a war in any given clan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianLegend
The way I see it, if clans select their best, then the search will find an opponent that fits that criteria. If you're in a clan that continually shafts the weaker players, then leave an find a friendlier clan.
Yes
This is something that really need a to be implemented.
It is very much essential
In my suggestion the matchmaking would be based only on the selected players. So whether a clan picks their 10 best or 10 worst they will still get matched to a similar opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianLegend
As far as how this might make wars tougher.....Bring it. That to me would be a plus. I only play this game to compete. Of course I try to win, but winning is not my purpose for playing, its playing that is my purpose for playing. If things get tougher that just makes me tougher so its a good thing.
Being able to hold out newbies until they are more established in the clan would also be a plus. It allows a way to avoid getting burned by hoppers. Nothing more maddening than starting a war then having a guy take off on prep day or any time without doing their attacks first. (Even as they tell you they are all in with you they are out on global asking who will give them free co if they join)
There needs be no limit on how many opt outs, but if there are less than 10 guys in warrior status (opted in) then the clan cant war.
If someone is getting abused or dumped on by the leadership using a feature like this (or any other method) the dumped on person should just leave. The issue in such case is the leadership doing the abusing, not the features they utilize to do it.
I just had to tell a member I can't let his 9 year old little brother join because I can't use him in war. The poor kid does not totally understand the game yet and we would love to help him, but that option is not being provided. And being a naïve 9 yea old he will not really understand the constant kicks either so I can't do it that way.
My 6yo nephew understood why he was being kicked/invited all the time. I'm sure a 9yo would be OK with it if someone can explain it to him IRL and not over chat.
Just saying, but it might be more trouble than. It is worth.
Edit - I agree 100% with your post though. Not trying to take away from it at all.
You might be right. As an adult clan we are just careful when dealing with little kids. We understand they see things differently and that we are not always good at seeing through their eyes, so we err on side of caution. I would love to be able to freely bring them i9n so they can watch and learn while we support their growth as a player.Quote:
Originally Posted by herranton
Im one of the few saying no - you're meant to be part of a team, teamwork shouldnt be an optional exercise.
it is a correct statement that you are meant to be part of a team. But what type of team and how it runs should be at the discretion of the clans. Most of the objections I have heard are in the "All clans should work like mine, think like mine, be like mine" variety. What we are talking about here is clans having their own choice to operate how they want. Others that don't agree can operate differently and of course only join clans that operate the way they prefer.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoggybowman
This should definately be added, nothing to criticize about it!
Every team has players that sit on the bench now and then, maybe due to injury or poor performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoggybowman
Maybe there is a new qb, and he sits on the bench for an entire year before ever getting in a game. There are more parts to a team than the starting lineup.
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
If you have a 10 member Clan, then no opt out slots. If you have a 14 member Clan, then you get 4 opt out slots. if you have 23 members, you get 3 opt out slots. It keeps you in the proper "war league".
^^^^^ This...is exceptionally well stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
I have to wonder your age and experience in competitive adult sports. Any adult sports league I have participated in, basketball or volleyball, we have subs in the event someone is on vacation or injured. In a season of competitive sand volleyball I miss 1-2 games a summer due to family vacation.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoggybowman
I am co-leader of a clan started with a core group of friends from high school as a way to stay in touch. Most of us are 25 or older, but we have a few younger family members. Am I supposed to say to a good real life friend "sorry you have a wedding or are going on vacation, but we need to kick you. Come and join us again when you return." An opt out would just be easier.
Twice this summer I had to go to a McDonalds or coffee shop while on vacation because I am a co and our best attacker and I felt an obligation to my friends. This wasn't fair to my wife or family and could have been solved with an opt out.
Bottom line is real life situations happen, which is clearly why those opposed are the minority and lack any real argument.
Actually, the leaving and coming back thing works fine. We have a member who is involved in Alaskan tourisim. Had to leave for the Summer because he couldn't get any attacks in. He'll be back when things slow down. There's no good reason to burden your clan with an inactive base and there is always someone coming and going from a full clan.Quote:
Originally Posted by WiBlugold
You're not offering any arguments in support of the change other than some clans don't want to use the workaround and somehow they should have the right to do things differently. Anybody who disagrees is somehow portrayed as the bad guy for imposing their view on others. To make a change you need to convince SC it's worth the change and I don't see a convincing argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
I'll have to bow down to your superior credentials on the dev time. The timer bug and the gem box fail threads are full of people claiming to know how easy the coding is. I'm happy to say I don't know, but I still come back to the point if its so easy and obvious why is it not here yet?
Your poll offers no evidence on the popularity of this change for at least two reasons. Firstly, it's a biased sample. People that are in favour of this change will be drawn to this thread and vote. This is true of any internet poll. Secondly, the questions are phrased in a manner that someone who is not bothered either will vote for a change. That's not the way that decision making should work.
I've probably been in 10-15 clans since CW started and I could probably count on one hand the number of times someone has asked for this change. In that time, I have heard loads of complaints about ♥♥♥♥ troops in WCC and hogs. Both of these have been acted upon.
Yes. I'm co-lead in a starter clan where the good players get promoted to the top tier clans. By definition my clan is going to have noobs and rookies because we're always recruiting. Result? Most of our clan wars losses we've had a higher star/attack ratio than the other side throughout the whole war. We only lose because of bailers and people who don't understand clan rules yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
After reading all the no votes in this thread I think it's pretty clear that this is EXACTLY why people are against the opt out button: why face real competition when you can just beat a clan because they have bailers and no-shows? I state this categorically because as the OP keeps reminding everyone, THE OPT OUT BUTTON DOESN'T CHANGE HOW YOU RUN YOUR CLAN. If the guy above me doesn't want an inactive base, THAT'S HIS CHOICE, with our with our without the opt out. I think he just doesn't want a real fight
"You're not offering any arguments in support of the change other than some clans don't want to use the workaround" - That's right, they don't. I get that you are comfortable with it but there is a large group of people that are not. Its why the poll votes are so heavily in favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirky
"To make a change you need to convince SC it's worth the change and I don't see a convincing argument." - They have all the people that want it to all be about war (like myself) sewn up. But there is a contingent (that is not me) that prefers a different feel to it. Keeping those folks as customers is good for COC. (I know several of the people I kicked for not wanting to war all the time have tried a few other clans and are now drifting away from COC)
"Your poll offers no evidence on the popularity of this change for at least two reasons. Firstly, it's a biased sample. People that are in favour of this change will be drawn to this thread and vote." - I put up two polls, the other was worded the other way to only get who would use it. I did this because I wanted to get away from all the verbal debate and get hard numbers. That one has not gotten nearly the votes this one has, but it still shows the majority would use it. In both of them its not like the number got skewed a little. A heavy majority say they are in favor of the feature.
I am happy to put up one that asks if you think its better to kick guys that don't want war than opt out. (or however you want to word it. Put it up with wording that is to your liking, I encourage as much research as possible and will pay fair attention to any result)
I still say its about allowing clans choice. A leader that never wanted this feature (I assume you are one of those) does not have to use it. it is their prerogative to say that opting out is not allowed and continue to kick anyone not into war. But a leader that does want to run his clan that way would be able to. I don't see the objection to allowing them that choice.
One difference that may turn some guys off - It will knock down the free wins that can be gotten from clans that did not have everyone participate. (and for whatever reason values them to not kick them) I cant argue that wont happen because it will. Wars will tend to be more competitive. There are some that really want those extra points so they can show off their score. I myself find those to be boring and unrewarding is why I don't care about being able to up our score that way.
One other point I would like to raise - Although I am totally into war myself, I would not mind being able to bring in younger players and be able to coach and develop them to be part of the wars in the future. Especially little kids that need this help to get going. And no (before it is suggested) I don't want to kick them every time we start one (which is pretty much every other day) so that leaves this as something we cannot do at this time.
This would be good for SuperCell since it drums up business if their members are recruiting and helping others get into the game.
It's not going to happen, Supercell ruled it out.
I would love for you to show us where exactly Supercell has ruled this out. Please post a link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hascerflef
It was mentioned yesterday in the Seattle meet up that they had no intentions of adding opt in. Sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDarrick
Really? That blows. I would love to know the reasoning behind that. And why they haven't even put it on the ruled in/out list in the features and ideas section. I thought they just said it wasn't going to be on the next update, not actually ruled out. But my knowledge is all third hand at best. SC hasn't written a word on this since day one that I know of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terraist
We've utterly destroyed so many clans with 6 feeders. I really don't see the point of them unless SC would implement some clan controls and communication tools for the master clan, but I'm sure that's not very high on the list of priorities. So you choose to be in a feeder full of a lot of undependable players. Why should the well-run clans you face not have an advantage over you because they have loyal, dependable attackers? They should have an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedrosmurf
I lead a clan with 31 war wins. I'd like to say we're well managed. I manage all of my members and always war at 45 or 50. We have a huge advantage over clans like yours and we rightly should. Manage your members or lose the war. It's that simple.Quote:
After reading all the no votes in this thread I think it's pretty clear that this is EXACTLY why people are against the opt out button: why face real competition when you can just beat a clan because they have bailers and no-shows? I state this categorically because as the OP keeps reminding everyone, THE OPT OUT BUTTON DOESN'T CHANGE HOW YOU RUN YOUR CLAN. If the guy above me doesn't want an inactive base, THAT'S HIS CHOICE, with our with our without the opt out. I think he just doesn't want a real fight
Your number of war wins isn't relevant and adds nothing to your credibility. An opt out button would just make it easier for clans to be more diverse with respect to casual/pro players. We have some pro players that want constant wars, we also have some college students that would rather do one a week. We all get along well and no one wants to leave because it is a wall managed clan and a lot of us are friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
I'm so glad one of you at least admitted it. You consider your advantage fair, of course it's not UNFAIR, but it does mean that anyone who doesn't play like you SHOULD lose, regardless at how good they play, just because they play differently? You say my clan should be well-run, again trying to justify in objective terms something that is utterly subjective. I like running a feeder clan, it's great fun meeting people new to the game, teaching them the ropes, I really don't see why I should be ashamed of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
So if I want to play the game my way I should lose so you can keep your advantage of not having to face a real challenge? Stop being so chicken and face a real fight why don't you?
You realize elite war clans with 40+ members face "real fights" more often than you think right? One of the biggest misconceptions from casual war clan members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedrosmurf
Not really. We are almost always at 40v40 but don't get too many real fights. Usually we are either op for the other clan, we out participate the other clan or we are out matched. (But still sometimes win anyway) it is usually never close. We are almost always up by 15+ or we get our butts kicked. Maybe 10 of our wars have been good fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by lijero13ss
I would like to see win percentage or total wins or win streak implemented into clan war matching. Maybe it would help a bit... Not that it will ever happen, I doubt most people would want it because it would make them fight harder opponents if they were successful. I would welcome it though. I would rather lose a good fight than win one where we were op. That is just boring.
Those against it aren't asking for everyone to be the same, we're asking for them to be organized. If you can't do that, then you deserve the problems you receive.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
Your second paragraph is a non-argument.
Wars would not inherently become tougher. A clan that isn't organized enough to figure out who they want to war won't be able to any better with this feature.
Non-argument. I'm against SC wasting their time on this, not it becoming a thing.
1-3 you didn't answer any tough questions, like a player single handedly being able to control 4 others fate etc etc...
How does having people not participate increase activity..? That doesn't really make sense. They won't make more money off of people saying no to war, people already say no to war.
SC has been quiet on this.
For reference every paragraph I made is in response to one of your particular paragraphs, however paragraph 5 is in response to all your numbered answers.
I am the leader of a war clan 50 members 20,000+ cups. The day before war all members announce in clan chat their war status. 10 minutes before war as the leader I close the clan, Kick members, declare war and invite members back. Job Done with 100% involvement in the war and we win. We do this twice a week. Everyone loves it. Only change I would like is a tougher challenge. Would the opt in/out button do this? I don't know.
The time consuming component here is the keeping of a list and the clan communication that goes on before the war is declared. Let's just call this good team work in a good clan with members that are like-minded. Incidentally, we are also a farming clan who also like to war and as such we have a few members who don't war and don't mind being "kick/vited" (I wish there was a better term for that). The opt in/out function will not change the amount of communication required in our clan
Ultimately, I would still like the opt/in out function and here are the sole reasons for it.
- It would speed time involved during my breakfast where I kick/vite everyone. It would just be a simple - close the clan, run through the clan list and confirm the communicated opt in/outs, make any necessary changes to make the numbers right and declare war.
- It would stop messing up a clan seasonal donation history as for the kick/vited members this gets reset 4 times a season at 2 wars per week
I am yet to see a valid argument for this not being implemented. The argument that it would mess up the match up formula is bogus as the clan match ups would simply be based on the number of members IN the war at the time that the "Start War" button is pushed.
I have also seen a few people mention they are not willing to let the clan leader have overriding power on this opt/in out function. How is this different from how we currently do things. If I don't want a member in the war I kick them, simple. Furthermore if you are in a clan where you do not want the leader having overriding power, then I suggest you may be in the wrong clan with a bad leader that you do not trust.
That's my two cents worth and I am positive that if implemented correctly an Opt in/out button with the leader having overriding power will benefit everyone and improve the clash community.
If anything I would simple make it an opt OUT button. That would just save me kick/viting people...
Flame/troll away.. or not.. I would rather people add valid discussion to the topic instead of troll away with inconsistent droll and ill thought out arguments for the sake of being argumentative.
Best regards,
Uber...
Well I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point as it's not really getting anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
So far as I can see, the only argument in support of this change is essentially "I want it because I want it". I hear this everyday and it's not persuasive.
Anyway good luck in getting the change made. I will use it if it comes in, but until then, the work around is fine for me.
The vast majority want this. The game absolutly NEEDs this. The same exact thing is being done now with kicking. But kicking is a crude pain in the butt way to do it. It is unacceptable for this feature to not be in the game and in its current form is very exclusionary to many players that simply are not into war.
This feature is needed IMO more than anything else right now. Clan Wars are broken without it.
No,no,no...all for one, one for all...
It's objectively fair. We play by the same rules you do, and yes, you should lose because you play differently. You shouldn't feel ashamed to run a feeder, but perhaps you lose a few more wars and get to screen out a lot of non-attackers and hoppers for your main clan. Sounds like in the end, that policy will make your main clan stronger. In the mean time, I run a non-feeder, so if I am to run into you, yeah, I probably should have the advantage since your best people are always being sent up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedrosmurf
Yes , it is a very good idea
Dude! Pompous much. Next your going to describe your clan as Olympic material. It's a freakin free game! Well to those of us not stupid enough to spend actual real money on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
By your description I would think there should be two separate clan war classes. The professionals and the players.
I personally would love love an opt out feature. Gotta have surgery and will be out of contact during a hiking trip. Those are just two upcoming events that my team can't count on my generally 5/6 stars in the coffers. Instead they will just watch my village get attacked wishing I were there to fight back. Not all of us live, breath, and die for clash of clans wars. A few passes on war would be nice. I would much rather see my team mates opt out of war than have to kick them and re invite them back. I really don't think a leader should have to manage the team to the point of it becoming an accounting nightmare. Plus I'm not a control freak and neither is our leader. It's a bloody game. I'm surely not pathetic enough to schedule my life around an online game. My life comes first. Playtime second.
then Let's make some noise, let's make sure Supercell sees this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
They already ruled this out btw.
As we know,many troops have collapsed due to the clan war.Some look forward to a war,while others not.
How can we balance it and make it fun for all the friends in one troop?We could create a conscription system!
First,the leader or co-leader start a war.
If u wanna be in a war this time,you could just accept the war notice.
If not,you could just tick the "no" button.When everybody had make a choice,the leader could tick the"search" button again to start a war.
The idea has been suggested sooo many times. Those in favor of it, refuse to accept any argument that there might be some downsides, and triumphantly proclaim that there is "NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS IDEA". Fortunately, supercell has ruled this idea out. Yay!
They only said it would not be in the next update..
Yeah,affiliated camps system is necessary for this systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Trellish
Friends in either the central camp or the affiliated camp can talk together,as well as share the same troop donation system.
Well hopefully they rule it out.
Personally im against it, but if make it an On/Off feature then im all for it. It benefits certain clans.
To be honest I cannot see what is the problem with doing something like adding a button on the war shield that the leader can click to exclude someone from going to war. It is no different to what we currently do with kicking and inviting members, however it saves members donations stats from being messed with.
It makes no major change to the game at all and only makes leading a clan to war a little easier and with any luck will make it more competitive.
What kind of fool hit no?
Seriously? I'd like to hear the counterarguments to allowing people to opt in/opt out of wars. And ruled out? No it isnt, I checked the sticky again, and it isnt ruled out in there. Stop lying blatently/talking out of your ***Quote:
Originally Posted by Trellish
Wow, how many handicaps do poorly run clans need? Can't recruit your own new members? Conscription system. Can't deal with the clans you're matched with? Fix matchmaking! We have 31 war wins, and we are not a war 24/7 clan. I've never seen an unmanigable matchup. I have seen clans who had better participation and skill on occasion. The system is fine.
That's because you are a troll and like getting a rise out of people. The last line in your statement is the biggest troll line on forums at this moment. Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
I agree that the system is fine. BUT, I still would like an opt in/out thingiemajigger. It would make clan management easier. Honestly, I don't really care that much, we will continue to kick/invite blah blah blah....
And my clan isn't poorly run. Don't assume just because we would like a feature means that it is poorly run. It isn't a handicap, we have friends in the clan that only use doc for chat and no longer play the game....or people need a time out from wars cause their being temporarily dumb...
I believe they ruled it out at the sanfrancisco meetup and numerous posts by mods have also confirmed that it has been ruled outQuote:
Originally Posted by Benson822175
I think it was ruled out at the get together they had in Seattle a few days ago or something.
Instead of a request being sent to members I think just an ongoing status button on a players profile would be best. it can toggle between warrior and spectator. It would only be read at the moment the Start War button is clicked, if it changes after that it makes no difference until next war. Leader and player in question should have right to click button. Aside from the war participants being selected from the list of 'warriors' instead of total population all else would work the same.
To the guy above asking what the objections are, here are the ones I have heard
- "Clans should be for war only, guys that don't want to should get out." (This assumes that all clans should run like the commenters clan, these commenters feel that others should not have the option of running a clan any other way than how their own is run)
- "Clan wars would be harder because opponents would be more focused and without no shows"- (Is that bad? Isn't competition the point of the game? Does anyone really need those free wins when they wind up facing a bunch of disorganized 10 year olds?)
- "Its not a good use of development time" - (Putting aside the differing opinions as to whether this would be hard to implement. Polls on this site show that about 80% of users would like to see this feature, so easy or hard its a good investment of development time that will help keep up membership.)
- "A good workaround exists that you can just kick and invite back and that's just as easy to do as having the button" - (That may be a true statement for some that are not bothered or inconvenienced by it, but that is not true of everyone, or even the majority as the poll numbers suggest. This argument could almost be rolled into the 'all clans should run like mine' argument above as the commenter is really just passing judgment on others that don't feel the same way they do. Same applies to the dual clan (one war one farm) approach. The mechanics are by most (80%) felt to be too cumbersome.
- "The poll numbers mean nothing, just because 80% voted that they would like to see it does not mean the majority really wants it" - (To this I say "Huh?". I cant really write a good rebuttal to this one its so out there. But that hasn't stopped several guys from saying it to me) I am sure we will get a rebuttal to this comment by some guy in the 20% group ticked off at having that hard number to argue against. Those that doubt it just look elsewhere on this forum, the polls have been there for a bit but are still on the first 2-3 pages. There are two of them worded different ways to try and get an accurate result, they support each other. Anyone that thinks the wording was biased is welcome to put up a third worded how they want.
This whole thing is not about making clans work a certain way, its just about offering them choice to run the way they want. if the feature was implemented a clan that wants no non warriors around them is free to still kick. Any leader can declare a no opting out rule, that's their prerogative. But for the clans that feel otherwise (80% according to the poll) they would have the option of having a different flavor.
Please see this thread for poll and commentary from both sides.
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...-for-Clan-wars
Even though it goes against my own opinion this was a well done answer. the person is stating their own opinion and sounds like someone that likely would not use it. But they are also saying that if others would be happier choosing differently then they are fine with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by lijero13ss
I've kicked out long-time, many month members for failure to participate in war. It's a tough decision, but it has to be done. Why should my clan which makes those tough decisions to remove non-contributing members not have an advantage over your clan which has members who no longer play the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by herranton
In my book, by definition, if you have non-active members and allow them to remain in your otherwise decent clan, that is a poorly managed clan.
I'm assuming that you're not the leader of your clan, so these kind of decisions aren't left up to you. If you were the leader of an active, successful warring clan, you would understand where I'm coming from.
communicate and kick / invite before war is declared! Whats the bid deal about having an option for the leader to "DE-SELECT" a member for war instead of kicking and inviting them?
It does not change the game at all. Poorly run clans will still be run poorly due to poor communication beforehand and we "well run clans" get a streamlined method of dealing with and ensuring 100% participation (like we already do with kick/invite). Plus we get the added benefit of not having clan donations history for the season messed up.
More to the point and I have seen it said earlier, this will help make it more competitive, which is what we all want. Further to this point, more competition would increase pressure to improve/upgrade... and we all know that supercell would like what that ultimately leads to for the majority of well heeled players..
As far as I can see this type of idea that helps leaders better manage their clans, increases completion and adds to supercells bottom line benefits everyone!
Just do it, its a no brainer!
The point is it makes things easier for the leader of a clan full of inactive players to be competitive in war and that is not fair to the leaders who have groomed their entire clan to be active or know to be kicked or leave before the war search starts. I have a clan that gets near 100% participation in every war. Life events do happen and sometimes members miss an attack, sometimes two. I don't care how long they've been with us, if that sort of thing becomes a habit, I can replace them.Quote:
Originally Posted by UberJray
It usually doesn't matter because we decimate most of our opponents. We've worked very hard to build a winning culture. If someone else's clan can't ♥♥♥♥ it under the current rules, that should rightly be an advantage for us. This feature is just a potential tool to help handicap poor leadership.
That you would rather have a easy win than one where your guys actually have to fight it out? You would rather go up against a clan that has some absentee members than a clan than can fully participate? My clan actually enjoys the hard fought battles where our opponents use all attacks. Only advantage we have is we aren't trophy droppers, so we know how to battle at our level. Do we win every war? No. But we don't enjoy the fight when our opponents lay down and die on us. I just don't think that's much of a challange and certainly not game enhancing, but I guess there are those out there that really don't want a challange.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
This is one of those things only leaders of successful clans really understand. Putting together a clan which attacks every war or members know how to leave before the matchmaking starts is a challenge in itself. If you can't build that kind of culture, you really are a weaker clan and that will show up in war. War is not just about whether your guys can beat the other guys. It's about strategy, coordination and teamwork. If you have players who can't even be bothered to show up, that is a lack of teamwork and coordination and why shouldn't the other clan benefit from that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobad
I 100% agree to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
As a member of a 24/7 war clan with 62 wins, we are very organized. All our members attack twice (sometimes once, depending on circumstances), they only use war based attacks (no farming armies or your kicked), and we have a base calling system. The key to winning wars is organization and strategy, not matchups. Yes, sometimes we do face a strong mismatch where we lose b/c we don't have enough fire power to gain more stars than them, but that has been well documented in other forums. Whenever a member is either going to be on vacation, have a spell factory upgrading, etc., they know to leave and come back after war has been declared. Its as simple as that.
An opt in/ opt out feature would only benefit either non organized clans, casual war clans, or clans with many inactives.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by lijero13ss
You are so sure youre better than everyone else. It just cracks me up. You put the me in team! You do realize it's a game right? And not real? Game enhancements encourage people to continue to play. Without those people you will rapidly run out of sparring partners. Look at it as a whole and not all about me and my wonderful perfectly run clan that nobody can do better at.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
There is nothing wrong with teamwork, structure, or strategy. But it is after all a pastime. Something that should be for enjoyment and if it's taking over your whole life so that it's all consuming I would suggest you get off that chair and go for a walk in the real world where real things are happening to real people that preclude them getting online and warring.
Clans wars are supposed to be an enhancement to the game not a profession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benson822175
Wow... toxic much? I too have now read the mod posting that said that it's not ruled out... just that the forum was over-reacting to the statements that they had no plans to work on the ideas. I am among those who had believed all the postings saying it had been ruled out. You need to learn to discern between someone who has read erroneous information and someone who is "lying blatently" Truly a typical internet hysterical response of the type that makes me sad.
The counter arguments are many, but unfortunately some of the effects are subtle and thus are being overlooked. To provide the simplest and most obvious few, just think through what happens if opt out is enabled... don't just focus on the immediate convenience factor, but think through the next steps.
1. Opt out will reduce the number of people participating in wars. This will then impact the availability of targets at high membership levels. Remember, to get a fair matchup between clans, there need to be a large sampling of targets available to meet different clan requirements. Opt out, will inevitably reduce the number of available targets for 50v50, 45v45, and possibly even 40v40 matchups. The reduction in people will inevitably skew the distribution of available search targets to smaller membership levels, thus impacting the odds for a fair matchup for those clans who do manage to actually keep a large number of active members. Thus - negative impact for high membership clans. Example: if 100 50 member clans are searching, and even only half of them have a single member marked as inactive, now there are only 50 50 member clans available to be paired with, and another 50 45 member clans to be paired with. The distribution of available clans has been skewed downwards, resulting in a lowered chance of a fair matchup for the 50 member clans. There's no way to predict how bad this affect would be without more information on how many people on average are having to be inactive due to life plus inactive due to not wanting to war.
2. Some clans are also on the low end of membership. Opt out will also inevitably cause some clans that want to war, to suddenly not have enough members opting in to be allowed to participate. Thus - negative impact for low membership clans and a potential actual reduction in the number of total clan war participating clans.
3. Also envision implementation. If opt out were controlled at the leadership level, then we will inevitably have control and troll complaints. We already see that even with just the ability to boot people. We'll also see clans where the leader decides to stop people from participating even though they want to war, because in the leaders opinion, that person hasn't been earning enough stars. I don't see that going over very well with lots of people. I predict many hurt feelings in this situation.
If instead opt out were controlled at the membership level, there are obvious leadership problems.... inactive members who leaders are unable to get to change their availability status preventing the entire clan from warring. The ability for a few friends to get together and troll clans by preventing a low/med member clan that wants to war from being able to do so. Leaders will still have to make the same decisions they always did about booting people who don't want to participate in war.
We need to think through not only how a function like this would be used, but also how it would be potentially abused... this is the internet after all. There's more ways this idea can be abused... I'm just listing a few.
Many of these problems would still be solved by leaving to joint a like minded clan, booting people who aren't like minded, or by dividing into warring clans and non-warring clans, however people are frequently thinking that adding an opt out option would prevent us from having to take those kinds of steps. Instead, it would just change the reasons why we have to take those actions.... i.e. it's not the solution that would prevent us from having to do those things that many claim it would be. It just creates entirely new sets of problems that have to then be dealt with. Leaders will still have many of the same membership problems that they already do, just for different reasons... and the distribution of available clans to be paired with will skew to lower numbers, increasing the chances of mis-matched fights for clans on the high end of membership. Both Low and High members clans would have negative impacts, though the middle sizing would probably benefit.
Will the game immediately die? Of course not. Would there be a convenience factor for those trying to manage clans. Of course. Will leaders still have to do various types of management including booting managing multiple clans, etc. Of course. (despite the frequent claims that opt out will solve all these issues) Will the game be impacted by a significant change in the distribution of available Fair matchups? Definitely.
Clan wars are a huge enhancement to the game. It really brought our clan together. I put in two war attacks last night. GoWiPe. Took me about 10 minutes of actual screen time for both. It took me another maybe 3 minutes to study the other clan a little and send out our strategy in clan mail. When the war is over, it'll take me another 3 minutes to adjust my roster. The rest pretty much takes care of itself because everyone knows what the expectations are, everyone knows pretty much what they need to do to get 3* attacks. It has taken us months to get to this point, but we're here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobad
And after the work of putting together a solid warring clan, yes, I expect we will absolutely steamroll casual clans such as yours and we deserve to.
Now note, that is not a value judgement, I am not suggesting I'm a better person than you in any way. However, if your clan is as you say it is and you're not getting near 100% participation in war, remember that when you point fingers at others, four are pointing back at you.
Yeah, a successful hardcore war clan. However that destroys the social aspect of the game and it's hard to build a clan from scratch because you're losing members all the time and replace them with strangers. This makes many wars easy for you, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it makes match making more lopsidedQuote:
Originally Posted by LegionOK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trellish
I wouldn't call us "hardcore war." We've only got 31 wins (32 in a couple hours). We war with 24-hour breaks. And yes, it is hard to build a clan. Thanks for acknowledging that. Only around 1:50 or so are leader and there are a lot more who want to be leader, but lack the skill set to put anything together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirix
My clan is something that myself and my other long-term members cultivated over a period of many months. I didn't go off to Global and start spamming "join" with any expectation that I was getting anything good. There is turnover, and every once in a blue moon, you find someone who really fits.
One of the key ideas with my clan was that it was named after my home state. This has attracted many people from my home state and we are actually going to start having social meetups here and there. We also have valued members in Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Dubai, China and Indonesia. We have 14-year-old high school students, homemakers, oilfield workers, aircraft mechanics, a member of the U.S. Air Force currently deployed, college kids, teachers, salesmen, med students and professionals such as myself. We work together, we do our part and everyone benefits. At any rate, our social aspect is just fine.
After doing this awhile, you get pretty good at screening candidates. I look at war *s, loot totals (I'll take a gemmer, but they'd better be teachable), donations and most importantly, whether they have a war timer. When they join, they are given a clear explanation of what is expected of them. When we war, they are given a strategy and a specific role in winning the war. We get hoppers just like you do. Our new #5 hopped during the prep day of our current 45 v 45 war. Of course warring at a higher number gives you more of a margin of error, so that was no big deal.
But yes, it's hard to build a clan from scratch. You have to sell the idea that belonging to your group, which doesn't have any inherent advantages from any other group vs. starting your own clan and having more control is in a member's best interest. You have to keep them loyal and get them to do their part. Yes that's hard. If you can't do it, maybe you should join a better run clan or get better at running your own.
So you look at it as an unfair advantage that I have. I look at it as something I and the rest of my clan busted their humps for months to achieve and now we're there and reaping the rewards.
*and we presently have two openings, so anyone lvl 80+ who is a decent human being is welcome to fill those.
I think this idea is horrible. It would tear clans apart even more. And make those jurk leaders even worse..."hey i dont like u, u cant be in war or u get kick". And if u thought wars were hard, imagine how hard they would be if they put your idea into use. Everyone only wants to make the game easier, but you also make it easier for the other team.. if u stink at wars, then u would suck here. As long as both teams get the same rule nothing would change. The good clans would still kill the bad one.
I am the leader of a clan. I have one member that is waiting for supercell to recover a lost account. If he leaves, it is harder to come back. I have a member out of the country for a month. I have a member who is available weekdays and gone weekends. I have a member that has a single lvl 1 cannon and will not build a wall or defense until he gets an infurno tower (messing around base). At a 40 member clan, this is a lot of attacking to lose in war. These members would all opt out of war if we could. They are friends we made through CoC and I do not want to lose them, but war makes that hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by cjm1991
Didn't you mean that you would want to hit yes? (Yes, is for being in favor of this feature)Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeRandomName
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirix
That's true enough. I agree the mid sized clans would benefit. From supercells perspective they need to be thinking about everyone though. New players, mid game clans, end game clans, small clans, large clans, family clans, war focused clans, farming clans, etc. Nearly all but the farmer focused clans will participate in war to a greater or lesser degree, so my thinking is that a change that benefits mid sized clans at the cost of others, is probably not the best approach from the big picture perspective. That's my own opinion though.
As others have said, clans that have really focused to make themselves good at war, so that they do all the work to have 50 active members every war... that's really hard to do, and it takes both dedicated leaders and members. I'd hate to create a scenario where they are the ones who end up facing a higher percentage of outmatched wars than most people.
My clanmates and I have discussed this idea on many occasions. It would help us out so much. Our clan consists of only real friends (no randoms) and of course a couple people have to sit out every war because we don't have an exact multiple of 5. Leaving/kicking then rejoining is the only solution, but that's a pain. A simple "toggle switch" for each member on the clan info page would be perfect.
The button is just about giving choice. That actually does benefit all the groups you mention. The only ones it hurts are the folks that want to be able to pick up easy wins here and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trellish
I did put up a poll asking if folks would like it or not want to see it. It is just over 80% of people say they would like it which lends itself to your point about how Supercell should seek to please the majority.