Would you like to see opt in/out in CW?

It has been suggested that any well organized and committed clan will never need this because its members will always make time in their lives to do war. If they don't they don't belong in a clan.

It has also been suggested that opt in/out is not needed because you can just kick members that don't want to be in a given war and let them come back later. That this is a good enough solution so nothing better is needed.

Do folks really feel that way or are there people that would be happier with an option like the below....

How it should work...

There should be a button (it can be a new one or the war shield can be modified) that toggles a player as in or out.

Access to hit the button to toggle should go to the leader and the player in question.
---- individual players cannot opt each other in or out
---- its an argument either way to give it to co as well - Good for clans where co is a management job, bad for clans that give it out like candy. (I consider the latter to be a sign of a bad leader)
---- A leader who abuses authority to opt guys in against their wishes are really just hurting their own selves for how they are adding a risk to their war participation. (the guy might then just not attack anyhow, if not seeing eye to eye with leader he wont care)
---- A leader opting a guy out against his wishes has that prerogative to decide who he wants in his war. And its still nicer than just kicking the guy like happens now.

The status of a player is only a factor right at the time a war starts. Instead of just selecting all eligible players from the total population it will just be all eligible players from the opted in group.
---- Can even implement by leveraging the existing eligibility functionality that currently is only driven by a timer.

After that everything works the same. The list of warriors from the clan is rounded to an even 5 via the existing logic and then the matchmaking calculation takes place also using the existing logic.

A player joins a clan with his eligibility set the same way it is today. (He is in unless there is a timer)


Things that would not happen -
...A player cannot add themselves to a war after the fact. If they change their status during a war it makes no difference until the next war when that status is read at startup.
...This would not serve as a way to replace members that take off during war. if they do that then there is the same affect on the war as there is today. Unused attacks stay unused. (it will never change that this just stinks when guys pull that stunt)

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...61#post2791461

SuperSteve responded on the subject by the way, in case anyone hasn't read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlightPurple

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...61#post2791461

SuperSteve responded on the subject by the way, in case anyone hasn't read it.

---

i agree dude before posting a thread plz do a research ;)

I voted yes. Please implement this idea so people stop making these threads every day. Not sure why your clans are that dysfunctional that you require such a feature but either way good luck with your plea

....it aint gunna happen :/ unfortunate but that's life.

Yes why not;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlightPurple

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...61#post2791461

SuperSteve responded on the subject by the way, in case anyone hasn't read it.

---

Yes indeed. But if you read that it was just a bunch of mumbo jumbo that imparted nothing. He basically said "it won't be now" with no real reasoning behind why they would not. If anything that post means that the matter should be pushed as hard as possible in the forums. COC needs this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by utkarh

i agree dude before posting a thread plz do a research ;)

---

See my above statement. And yes, please do your own research too sir since you do not seem aware of what Steve said really. Nothing but the standard boilerplate any software company uses when they have nothing they can really say at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaineCH

I voted yes. Please implement this idea so people stop making these threads every day. Not sure why your clans are that dysfunctional that you require such a feature but either way good luck with your plea

---

Don't be so judgmental. A clan having different preferences from yours is not dysfunctional.

We are in fact one of the more stable and organized clans you will ever see. its why we seek to have good management tools to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

Don't be so judgmental. A clan having different preferences from yours is not dysfunctional.

We are in fact one of the more stable and organized clans you will ever see. its why we seek to have good management tools to work with.

---

I completely agree. We have 100% participation every war and are very organized. I maintain a website with internal training videos for our clans. It is extremely tiring and insulting to see the same argument over and over that because my clans want this option it somehow means we are dysfunctional or disorganized.

Edit- unfortunately I do not think this will ever be implemented however. And not because of all of the anti-opt in/out arguments or because of Steves statements from SC. Because frankly, those make very little sense from a clan cohesiveness or management viewpoint. The arguments put forth against this hold little water against what can already be done in work arounds.

Like anything else in life, unfortunately, you have to follow the money. Clan wars is a huge money maker. People gem heroes, buildings, troops etc...to be a part of and prepare for Clan Wars. Super Cell simply is not going to make it easy to opt out of this. It has zero to do with "design philosophy". I just don't buy that, it doesn't make any logical sense. Money...makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigDarrick

I completely agree. We have 100% participation every war and are very organized. I maintain a website with internal training videos for our clans. It is extremely tiring and insulting to see the same argument over and over that because my clans want this option it somehow means we are dysfunctional or disorganized.

---

If your clan is doing successful in wars you should not need this button. I think you want it because it makes things easy for the clan organizing players who war and the players that can't war. Looking at Steve's comment I don't think they will add this to the game soon because Supercell does not support players picking and choosing what they take part in the clan. In a clan everyone should be in it together. The opt out button is currently not on the radar but its not ruled out so there is still hope it can be added to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

If your clan is doing successful in wars you should not need this button. I think you want it because it makes things easy for the clan organizing players who war and the players that can't war.

---

What's wrong with making things more convenient?

Quote:

---

Looking at Steve's comment I don't think they will add this to the game soon because Supercell does not support players picking and choosing what they take part in the clan.

---

I remember seeing you talk about kicking and reinviting as a solution which makes opt out unneeded, or at least that's one of the most common argument used by people against opt out. Based on what that post said, SC doesn't support kicking and reinviting either because that is picking and choosing

Quote:

---

In a clan everyone should be in it together. The opt out button is currently not on the radar but its not ruled out so there is still hope it can be added to the game.

---

Doesn't that 'not on the radar' applied to nearly every idea? or at least as far as the general player knows because SC generally doesn't say what's on their radar and will be coming in the next update or two. Plus that same post says that SC is fine with giving clans more control in clan wars so that post isn't a good reason to say that opt out is bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirix

What's wrong with making things more convenient?

I remember seeing you talk about kicking and reinviting as a solution which makes opt out unneeded, or at least that's the most common argument used by people against opt out. Based on what that post said, SC doesn't support kicking and reinviting either because that is picking and choosing

Doesn't that not on the radar applied to nearly every idea? or at least as far as the general player knows because SC doesn't say what's on their radar. Plus that same post says that SC is fine with giving clans more control in clan wars so that post isn't a good reason to say that opt out is bad

---

Nothing wrong with that.

I found some better, strong points on why it has not been implemented.

They are still thinking of a way to make that system fit into the game.

this would allow my clan to organize small mid-week wars (10v10 or 15v15) without booting/re-inviting all other members

No reason at all not to have opt-in/opt-out. There are work arounds now, sure, but no one likes to constantly have to kick and reinvite their clan mates on every search. If they can make rows of walls upgrade at once, which virtually no one asked for, they can do this simple quality of life improvement as well.

Even if an opt in or out button is too complicated or against team cohesiveness i am still in favor of leader choosing who sits for uneven wars. Right now if you have 49 members SC will not let you go to war together as a full clan and arbitrarily drops the lowest trophy members, why not at least let the clan decide who will not be going to war if SC is going to force 4 people to sit out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlightPurple

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...61#post2791461

SuperSteve responded on the subject by the way, in case anyone hasn't read it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by utkarh

i agree dude before posting a thread plz do a research ;)

---

And as we all know much has happened in those months. Just because they responded once to the request doesn't mean that their customers can't continue to demand better service/product. I for one will continue to demand loudly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

Nothing wrong with that.

I found some better, strong points on why it has not be implemented. When Steve said the pick and choose he meant players picking and choosing what they take part in the clan this is in no way related to kicking and inviting.

They are still thinking of a way to make that system fit into the game.

---

Kicking and inviting is essentially the same thing as players picking and choosing what they take part in the clan. They picked not to go to war and some people might always get kicked/invited so that they never have to be in wars.

"When you're in a clan, you should all be in it together!" -Steve
If the main reason SC doesn't have opt out is because they want all clan members to go to war as a team, they shouldn't want people to leave/rejoin too because they aren't acting as a team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

And as we all know much has happened in those months. Just because they responded once to the request doesn't mean that their customers can't continue to demand better service/product. I for one will continue to demand loudly.

---

Even if it wasn't months ago, Steve's post did not say that people should stop talking about/demanding opt out. That post supports OP's desire to start a thread about this topic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirix

Even if it wasn't months ago, Steve's post did not say that people should stop talking about/demanding opt out. That post supports OP's desire to start a thread about this topic

---

And all the others that start similar threads. Post those requests as many and as often as they like. I'm for an opt feature 100%. No reason that people shouldn't have a simple option and I detest having to kick reinvite. Course I'm also likely to "forget" to reinvite someones brother, best friend, or kid. Oh well lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

If your clan is doing successful in wars you should not need this button. I think you want it because it makes things easy for the clan organizing players who war and the players that can't war. Looking at Steve's comment I don't think they will add this to the game soon because Supercell does not support players picking and choosing what they take part in the clan. In a clan everyone should be in it together. The opt out button is currently not on the radar but its not ruled out so there is still hope it can be added to the game.

---

Regarding - If your clan is doing successful in wars you should not need this button. I think you want it because it makes things easy for the clan organizing players who war and the players that can't war.

My clan does very well in wars. We leave no one behind that wants to fight and everyone always does desire to do war. But across a large group of people there are always those that, however much they desire to do war, can't. Reasons we have dealt with have included Exams, vacations, hospitalization, death in family, extra demands at work, and many other things. I don't think a member should be considered a non team player because they need to put real life things ahead of a video game, nor should a clan be considered dysfunctional or badly managed because the leader is willing to accommodate members when these things happen. For all of the above situations a person was kicked until they could participate again which smacked of them being punished for having an issue in their lives. There should have been a better way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

And as we all know much has happened in those months. Just because they responded once to the request doesn't mean that their customers can't continue to demand better service/product. I for one will continue to demand loudly.

---

Actually, these demands (e.g., I want an opt in/out feature because half the members are always on vacation) are not needed because Steve said they will be reconsidering it, but sure, some customers will continue to beg for it anyhow. Feedback and ideas on how to implement it however, are more constructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirix

"When you're in a clan, you should all be in it together!" -Steve
If the main reason SC doesn't have opt out is because they want all clan members to go to war as a team, they shouldn't want people to leave/rejoin too because they aren't acting as a team.

---

I don't see any post from any staff encouraging this method either, it is just a "workaround" used by many players.

People are too afraid to lose. So what your clan can't have 100% participation every war? Each member has 1 extra attack that is able to compensate, and defending bases do not require any interaction from players who need to be away for a few wars. If your clan need an absolute full participation to be able to win every single war, that is probably because many members suck at attacking and/or unwilling to spend their resources. If not enough members are present to fight a war, then don't start one. If half the members do not want to participate in any war, they can leave and form a new clan. Use a chat room for the friends and family clan in that case. If few members just want to stay in clan to donate/request troops and have no interest in war, then so be it.

The hardcore warring clans will certainly have no problem winning wars with or without this feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

Regarding - If your clan is doing successful in wars you should not need this button. I think you want it because it makes things easy for the clan organizing players who war and the players that can't war.

My clan does very well in wars. We leave no one behind that wants to fight and everyone always does desire to do war. But across a large group of people there are always those that, however much they desire to do war, can't. Reasons we have dealt with have included Exams, vacations, hospitalization, death in family, extra demands at work, and many other things. I don't think a member should be considered a non team player because they need to put real life things ahead of a video game, nor should a clan be considered dysfunctional or badly managed because the leader is willing to accommodate members when these things happen. For all of the above situations a person was kicked until they could participate again which smacked of them being punished for having an issue in their lives. There should have been a better way.

---

Yeah just because some players want this button does not mean they are in a badly organized clan. Maybe Supercell is thinking of a way of implementing this feature effectively so it brings more good than harm. One way mentioned how the opt out button can be abused is that the leader can bring only his elite players to war and exclude everyone else in the clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlightPurple

Actually, these demands (e.g., I want an opt in/out feature because half the members are always on vacation) are not needed because Steve said they will be reconsidering it, but sure, some customers will continue to beg for it anyhow. Feedback and ideas on how to implement it however, are more constructive.

---

Yes a way to implement the feature to the game would be much more constructive since Supercell has already considered the feature. An in-detail way on how this feature would work and how to combat the ways it can be abused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

Yeah just because some players want this button does not mean they are in a badly organized clan. Maybe Supercell is thinking of a way of implementing this feature effectively so it brings more good than harm. One way mentioned how the opt out button can be abused is that the leader can bring only his elite players to war and exclude everyone else in the clan. Maybe a limit on how many players can opt out so most of the clan goes to war.

---

If that's who the leader choses how would that be different than kicking and reinviting those he doesn't want in war? Next war im kicking 6 players that pretended to be unavailable during war. We don't need inactive players in war period. In the past these guys have generally participated, but we were up against an Asian clan, so they chose to sit it out rather than fight it out. So next war im opting them out. Same thing, but really a pain in the rear. I might just forget to reinvite someone too. The limit you suggest would be subverted by the kick reinvite. I think it's the leaders prerogative on who he takes to war. Kind of like its up to the coach to decide who is first string or who sits the bench.

if the lower players that don't get to go to war really want to it's so very easy for them to go join another clan. Not like the have to stay there.

Oh god no not this again. Personally, I have always been against this idea and still hope it never gets implemented. Brings more harm than good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lijero13ss

Oh god no not this again. Personally, I have always been against this idea and still hope it never gets implemented. Brings more harm than good.

---

Such as?

For quite some time my clan and I have been for the opt feature, we very soon after the addition of wars realised that we had an issue regarding member inactivity in war which we thought resulted in losses.
We tried to sort out this issue then by dividing our clan for those what wanted war and those that cannot so using a sister clan for our members sitting out war. This has not worked at all in either gaining us war wins or even keeping team synergy, it has resulted in the opposite, the once whole clan is now divided where it once was one large and happy family clan before clan wars.

It is more difficult to keep members happy with clan war, many members do want war but some can't for whatever reason and that is justified, it then leads to issues because people are divided over a matter that did not exist before. People are becoming tired of wars because their clans are forcing them to attack and it becomes a chore instead of a voluntary act for enjoyment. I realise that one can only keep most of the members happy for most of the time but never all of the members happy for all of the time - this is impossible, but that being said, maybe war just makes keeping more people happy harder - for clans of this type.

As for a solution to this, the opt feature might in my opinion allow members to avoid feeling hurt or under pressure to attack when real life issues stop them from going to war for threat of being kicked. Not all clans have a full roster of 24/7 active clashers (nothing wrong with that). Some clans have members that are on less but still care about the clan and being part of the clan. This feature could help those clans that do not want to be as harsh on members for not being able to make war, it will help the clan satisfy most of its members needs without losing members because they can't attack in war for some periods of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

Yeah just because some players want this button does not mean they are in a badly organized clan.

---

False.

If you are a well-organized clan, you get a huge advantage, especially at 50 v 50 when opponents' members don't even attack. This is a competitive game. People who are at a disadvantage because of their inability to get two attacks in (which takes what.. 15 minutes out of a 24 hour period?) deserve to lose. Stop asking for a more level playing field when it's already level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

FNot all clans have a full roster of 24/7 active clashers (nothing wrong with that). Some clans have members that are on less but still care about the clan and being part of the clan. This feature could help those clans that do not want to be as harsh on members for not being able to make war, it will help the clan satisfy most of its members needs without losing members because they can't attack in war for some periods of time.

---

Why shouldn't clans which have gone out of their way to boot some people who maybe weren't active enough in favor of more active players derive a benefit from that? It's a team game and if your team members are terrible, why shouldn't you be penalized? If you've recruited solid attackers who use both attacks, why shouldn't that be a benefit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Why shouldn't clans which have gone out of their way to boot some people who maybe weren't active enough in favor of more active players derive a benefit from that? It's a team game and if your team members are terrible, why shouldn't you be penalized? If you've recruited solid attackers who use both attacks, why shouldn't that be a benefit?

---

Not all clans are the same, some are not try hard clans that kick at will, i assume they prefer a clan that acts as a sort of family where people can join and build up a chilled clan. Constantly kicking people isn't what some clans like to do.

Not everyone can be online all of the time so people just want this as an option for their members that can't make wars and have an option to wars as well as not being forced into them.

Sure it might be weird to some of you but some clans would prefer this as a feature, is there any great harm in trying??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

Not all clans are the same, some are not try hard clans that kick at will, i assume they prefer a clan that acts as a sort of family where people can join and build up a chilled clan. Constantly kicking people isn't what some clans like to do.

---

Then they deserve to lose. I kick early and often and we win the vast majority of wars because of that. I'll even kick players for using stupid troop configurations for attacks.

Quote:

---

Not everyone can be online all of the time so people just want this as an option for their members that can't make wars and have an option to wars as well as not being forced into them.

---

That is the most ♥♥ excuse I hear. I'd boot you from my clan if that was why you didn't attack in war. It takes 2 minutes to choose the stuff you want to build for your attack, maybe another 2-3 minutes to plan and deploy your attack. Do it twice, we're talking about a whopping 10-15 minute commitment. If your members can't swing that, you don't need them.

I've had members drive out to the hill where they could get cell reception and stand on top of their cars to get signal to get their attacks in. I've had other members where the only moment they'd be able to get their attack in was while waiting for their convoy at a military base.

Quote:

---

Sure it might be weird to some of you but some clans would prefer this as a feature, is there any great harm in trying??

---

Yes. We deserve to destroy "family fun" clans because we have put in the work to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Then they deserve to lose. I kick early and often and we win the vast majority of wars because of that. I'll even kick players for using stupid troop configurations for attacks.



That is the most ♥♥ excuse I hear. I'd boot you from my clan if that was why you didn't attack in war. It takes 2 minutes to choose the stuff you want to build for your attack, maybe another 2-3 minutes to plan and deploy your attack. Do it twice, we're talking about a whopping 10-15 minute commitment. If your members can't swing that, you don't need them.

I've had members drive out to the hill where they could get cell reception and stand on top of their cars to get signal to get their attacks in. I've had other members where the only moment they'd be able to get their attack in was while waiting for their convoy at a military base.



Yes. We deserve to destroy "family fun" clans because we have put in the work to do so.

---

Thats all very cool man, I am glad you win wars and thats all you care about. Just think about other people right, people have different values and ideals.

So if winning is all you care about, clash on, kick on and so forth. I will run my clan as i do and those clans like mine will rather lose occasional wars to clans like yours - but...have a good time and a laugh with some good members in our clans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

Thats all very cool man, I am glad you win wars and thats all you care about. Just think about other people right, people have different values and ideals.

---

And if those values and ideals make them weaker, they deserve to lose.

Quote:

---

So if winning is all you care about, clash on, kick on and so forth. I will run my clan as i do and those clans like mine will rather lose occasional wars to clans like yours - but...have a good time and a laugh with some good members in our clans.

---

We have a fine time. Having good chemistry and everyone knowing and doing their part are not mutually exclusive things. If people don't know how to attack, take a moment and teach them. Tell them what troops they need to be upgrading. Help them improve. And if you're leader, you have a responsibility to the rest of your clan to make the best decisions for the team. Often, that means booting someone.

I'd like to see this because it would be useful when people know they can't participate in a war. Going on vacation for 2 weeks - opt out until you get back.

People should be able to opt themselves out as long as they want - if the leader doesn't like it, they can kick them out. Leaders should have a limit on how many they can opt out (4 or 5) and only be able to opt people out for one war at a time - that way you can juggle things to get a low trophy farmer with a great base into the war or opt out someone who can's participate and can't get access to opt themselves out.

To simplify clan wars only elders and leaders should go to war. The leader simply promotes people to elder who want to war then as soon as the war search starts they can demote them to member again. Very simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JtB

To simplify clan wars only elders and leaders should go to war. The leader simply promotes people to elder who want to war then as soon as the war search starts they can demote them to member again. Very simple.

---

So you think it's smart to promote a complete stranger who could kick all of your members for the sole purpose of trying him out for war??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mummyiator

I'd like to see this because it would be useful when people know they can't participate in a war. Going on vacation for 2 weeks - opt out until you get back.

People should be able to opt themselves out as long as they want - if the leader doesn't like it, they can kick them out. Leaders should have a limit on how many they can opt out (4 or 5) and only be able to opt people out for one war at a time - that way you can juggle things to get a low trophy farmer with a great base into the war or opt out someone who can's participate and can't get access to opt themselves out.

---

I recently had a member go on a week-long hiking trip. When the week was over, he joined the feeder and as soon as a spot opened up, he slid back into the main clan. How does what he did not work? We had the added benefit of using his spot to try out new players and with all of the churn, that has benefited us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

So you think it's smart to promote a complete stranger who could kick all of your members for the sole purpose of trying him out for war??

---

They would be elder for about 20 seconds. I guess you didn't read my post before posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JtB

To simplify clan wars only elders and leaders should go to war. The leader simply promotes people to elder who want to war then as soon as the war search starts they can demote them to member again. Very simple.

---

How is this any different or better than kicking people, then as soon as the war search as started inviting them back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentO

Right now if you have 49 members SC will not let you go to war together as a full clan and arbitrarily drops the lowest trophy members, why not at least let the clan decide who will not be going to war if SC is going to force 4 people to sit out?

---

It's astonishing that you don't understand why SC has to round clans to the nearest five members in matchmaking. There is nothing "arbitrary" about leaving out the members with the fewest trophies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

And if those values and ideals make them weaker, they deserve to lose.

Thats fine, again, if winning clan war is the fundamental need in your clan, good for you.

We have a fine time. Having good chemistry and everyone knowing and doing their part are not mutually exclusive things. If people don't know how to attack, take a moment and teach them. Tell them what troops they need to be upgrading. Help them improve. And if you're leader, you have a responsibility to the rest of your clan to make the best decisions for the team. Often, that means booting someone.

---

My clan in Jan 2015 will be 2 years old and i have many loyal members that enjoy the chilled way we run, we may not win every clan war but we enjoy our time clashing. As i said on the previous page we tried a sister clan and another system as well as kicking people that didn't attack, it didn't work. Mismatch wars result in losses sometimes and theres no point in going on a witch hunt every war to clear members that miss one attack or whatever. I regret even trying this method, it only resulted in the near destruction of my clan, hence, i warn you that winning is not the only thing a clan needs. An over competitive drive can kill teams easily.

We also help our new members to improve attacks and defences just as you stated. To conclude i agree to disagree with you, i think the opt system is worth a try and clearly many people want it from the results in the above poll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

My clan in Jan 2015 will be 2 years old and i have many loyal members that enjoy the chilled way we run, we may not win every clan war but we enjoy our time clashing.

---

Great. Competitive clans deserve to crush you if your management style is too lax. You shouldn't be given a tool to make life easier for yourself while taking away from competitive clans.

Quote:

---

As i said on the previous page we tried a sister clan and another system as well as kicking people that didn't attack, it didn't work.

---

Sounds like a failure in management.

Quote:

---

Mismatch wars result in losses sometimes and theres no point in going on a witch hunt every war to clear members that miss one attack or whatever.

---

I've never seen a war I didn't think I had a chance to win. In our current war, we're up 114-71 on a clan with 3x more TH10 than us. We won't have 100% participation either... but close to it.

Quote:

---

We also help our new members to improve attacks and defences just as you stated. To conclude i agree to disagree with you, i think the opt system is worth a try and clearly many people want it from the results in the above poll.

---

Just because people want it doesn't make it right or fair. Those who work hard deserve to prosper. Those who want to make excuses for crappy clanmates don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Great. Competitive clans deserve to crush you if your management style is too lax. You shouldn't be given a tool to make life easier for yourself while taking away from competitive clans.



Sounds like a failure in management.



I've never seen a war I didn't think I had a chance to win. In our current war, we're up 114-71 on a clan with 3x more TH10 than us. We won't have 100% participation either... but close to it.



Just because people want it doesn't make it right or fair. Those who work hard deserve to prosper. Those who want to make excuses for crappy clanmates don't.

---

Interesting, i don't know if you haven't noticed yet but many states around the world use a democratic system. So if you don't like the poll, tough luck bro.
And really man i don't care what you think of how i run my clan but i don't think you should be telling people how to run their clans here especially the way you are doing so.

So clash on and crush on....patriot, even though i do not agree with you, i respect your democratic right to freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

Interesting, i don't know if you haven't noticed yet but many states around the world use a democratic system. So if you don't like the poll, tough luck bro.

---

What are you talking about? Nobody objected to the OP posting this poll. You think SC is going to make a major change to the game based off of this poll? Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

And really man i don't care what you think of how i run my clan but i don't think you should be telling people how to run their clans here especially the way you are doing so.

---

Actually, it sounds like you care quite a bit. I don't think Legion is trying to tell people how to run their clans, so much as how he runs his own (successfully, despite the lack of an "opt out" button).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

So clash on and crush on....patriot, even though i do not agree with you, i respect your democratic right to freedom of speech.

---

:rolleyes:

Hi everyone :)
Please remember to respect others opinions and to post constructively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

False.

If you are a well-organized clan, you get a huge advantage, especially at 50 v 50 when opponents' members don't even attack. This is a competitive game. People who are at a disadvantage because of their inability to get two attacks in (which takes what.. 15 minutes out of a 24 hour period?) deserve to lose. Stop asking for a more level playing field when it's already level.

---

I am not for the opt out button. But you are saying every person that wants it are in a badly organized clan? How come some of the players who say this button is absolutely needed like OP claim they have a well organized clan? Apparently they don't think the field is level enough because they are requesting for this button. I think the field is already level......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood

What are you talking about? Nobody objected to the OP posting this poll. You think SC is going to make a major change to the game based off of this poll? Please.



Actually, it sounds like you care quite a bit. I don't think Legion is trying to tell people how to run their clans, so much as how he runs his own (successfully, despite the lack of an "opt out" button).



:rolleyes:

---

Ok, what i implied was that the poll is like a democratic process, its a vote - I do understand that this will likely result in them not making any changes, fine but it would be nice if they would listen to the majority.
I understand Legion's point, you don't have to spell it out for me, I just think his comments come across as quite brash..thats all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

Ok, what i implied was that the poll is like a democratic process, its a vote - I do understand that this will likely result in them not making any changes, fine but it would be nice if they would listen to the majority.
I understand Legion's point, you don't have to spell it out for me, I just think his comments come across as quite brash..thats all.

---

The majority is not always correct.... The idea has flaws. Its unnecessary to have this button to make management easy for you. If you want to keep your clan chill don't expect to win a lot of wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

The majority is not always correct.... The idea has flaws. Its unnecessary to have this button to make management easy for you. If you want to keep your clan chill don't expect to win a lot of wars.

---

I understand, I've accepted that because the clan seemed happier before we took measures that made it less chilled. I just thought that this would be an option to consider. As long as my clan is happy then I am happy, war or no war.

I'd say no to that feature as a clan leader. It will probably bring more headaches to me in making the choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Great. Competitive clans deserve to crush you if your management style is too lax. You shouldn't be given a tool to make life easier for yourself while taking away from competitive clans.



Sounds like a failure in management.



I've never seen a war I didn't think I had a chance to win. In our current war, we're up 114-71 on a clan with 3x more TH10 than us. We won't have 100% participation either... but close to it.



Just because people want it doesn't make it right or fair. Those who work hard deserve to prosper. Those who want to make excuses for crappy clanmates don't.

---

I have a question for you. If your clan is so "badass" and so war thirsty and you always have such high participation, as well as such good leadership why are you concerned about this feature?

I mean for all we know it may not stop a clan as a whole from going to war, but may be as simple as removing each member who opts out from the war map.

Even if this feature did stop the clan as a whole, if your clan is as good as you say and all members want to attack why are you worried about it? Surely if your players already like to attack they wouldn't opt out. If the participation is as good as you say no one will opt out which means you would be unaffected. As for the handful of players that don't attack for you, I'm sure this feature will favor the majority, which in your case is in favor of war.

So please, explain to me if I'm misunderstanding this, but your logic makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Hi everyone :)
Please remember to respect others opinions and to post constructively.

---

We have one person who always comes into these threads and drags them down into the toilet with him by insulting everyone who disagrees with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

I understand, I've accepted that because the clan seemed happier before we took measures that made it less chilled. I just thought that this would be an option to consider. As long as my clan is happy then I am happy, war or no war.

---

I'm glad you understand. Games are meant for players to have fun and that makes them happy. I'm guessing Legion has fun and becomes happy when his clan wins wars. Do whatever it takes to make your clan happy so your happy. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JtB

To simplify clan wars only elders and leaders should go to war. The leader simply promotes people to elder who want to war then as soon as the war search starts they can demote them to member again. Very simple.

---

You should not have to be a certain rank to war. War is a clan activity. War should be entitled to all players in the clan unless a player is currently in another war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaestroD

I have a question for you. If your clan is so "badass" and so war thirsty and you always have such high participation, as well as such good leadership why are you concerned about this feature?

I mean for all we know it may not stop a clan as a whole from going to war, but may be as simple as removing each member who opts out from the war map.

Even if this feature did stop the clan as a whole, if your clan is as good as you say and all members want to attack why are you worried about it? Surely if your players already like to attack they wouldn't opt out. If the participation is as good as you say no one will opt out which means you would be unaffected. As for the handful of players that don't attack for you, I'm sure this feature will favor the majority, which in your case is in favor of war.

So please, explain to me if I'm misunderstanding this, but your logic makes no sense to me.

---

As usual, I TRY and stay out of this argument but so often fail. The only reason I'm jumping in now is Maestro seems to be asking a legitimate question rather than just spouting the usual rhetoric.

Here's the problem with the opt out button... It will change the way clan wars are waged. Clans will no longer go to war with the whole clan, it will become a thing that only the top players participate in and the rest of the clan who are less skilled will be benched. 50v50 war will be a thing of the past as 50 person clans will opt out a portion of their membership more often than not. Even those clans who wish to war with their whole 50 person clan will be unable to because search times will be prohibitive and match making will deteriorate as fewer and fewer clans participate at that level.

What the majority of the people who have voted for here is a minor convenience which can and will be abused to the point where clan wars as we currently know them will become a thing of the past.

The problem is that the vast majority of the player base cannot look past their current situation and see the repercussions of what they as asking for. Elixir for walls is a great example. When this was first shown in the sneak peek very few of us predicted that this would have a huge negative effect on the economy and most hailed it as an awesome game upgrade. When we tried to point out our predictions of doom we were largely shouted down by the majority of short sighted individuals who had excess elixir reserves.

Someone's going to come on here in a couple minutes and point out that we can already do this (with the kick and invite option) and it's not being abused so why would the opt out button suddenly become abused. The reason is that everyone now knows you go to war with your whole clan and the only way to not, is to kick those you don't want to war and invite them later which is kind of extreme for a clan that is trying to abuse it. The opt out button will encourage the practice of not going to war with the whole clan. It will be as if SC now condones and approves the practice of only using your most skilled players.

You guys can continue to debate this and say that SC is not listening to their player base. I say thank god they have more wisdom than that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

As usual, I TRY and stay out of this argument but so often fail. The only reason I'm jumping in now is Maestro seems to be asking a legitimate question rather than just spouting the usual rhetoric.

Here's the problem with the opt out button... It will change the way clan wars are waged. Clans will no longer go to war with the whole clan, it will become a thing that only the top players participate in and the rest of the clan who are less skilled will be benched. 50v50 war will be a thing of the past as 50 person clans will opt out a portion of their membership more often than not. Even those clans who wish to war with their whole 50 person clan will be unable to because search times will be prohibitive and match making will deteriorate as fewer and fewer clans participate at that level.

What the majority of the people who have voted for here is a minor convenience which can and will be abused to the point where clan wars as we currently know them will become a thing of the past.

The problem is that the vast majority of the player base cannot look past their current situation and see the repercussions of what they as asking for. Elixir for walls is a great example. When this was first shown in the sneak peek very few of us predicted that this would have a huge negative effect on the economy and most hailed it as an awesome game upgrade. When we tried to point out our predictions of doom we were largely shouted down by the majority of short sighted individuals who had excess elixir reserves.

Someone's going to come on here in a couple minutes and point out that we can already do this (with the kick and invite option) and it's not being abused so why would the opt out button suddenly become abused. The reason is that everyone now knows you go to war with your whole clan and the only way to not, is to kick those you don't want to war and invite them later which is kind of extreme for a clan that is trying to abuse it. The opt out button will encourage the practice of not going to war with the whole clan. It will be as if SC now condones and approves the practice of only using your most skilled players.

You guys can continue to debate this and say that SC is not listening to their player base. I say thank god they have more wisdom than that...

---

Thank you for an intelligent, structured response. You have actually helped me see the potential problem with this.

It's nice to see there are some people in the community who can get their point across in a mature way, without the whole "my d**k is much bigger than yours!" attitude.

Appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

As usual, I TRY and stay out of this argument but so often fail. The only reason I'm jumping in now is Maestro seems to be asking a legitimate question rather than just spouting the usual rhetoric.

Here's the problem with the opt out button... It will change the way clan wars are waged. Clans will no longer go to war with the whole clan, it will become a thing that only the top players participate in and the rest of the clan who are less skilled will be benched. 50v50 war will be a thing of the past as 50 person clans will opt out a portion of their membership more often than not. Even those clans who wish to war with their whole 50 person clan will be unable to because search times will be prohibitive and match making will deteriorate as fewer and fewer clans participate at that level.

---

I've never support a free for all opt out... I think. Some fixes to avoid that issue could be limiting the number of people (maybe 5) who can opt out or making it so that opt out people skip war instead of the lowest 1-4 trophy players. It could go by seniority so if the number of people who wants to opt out exceeds the limit/1-4 players, the newest optters stay in. It's not like clans aren't already trying to get rid of unskilled players already with a harsher alternative: kicking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

What the majority of the people who have voted for here is a minor convenience which can and will be abused to the point where clan wars as we currently know them will become a thing of the past.

The problem is that the vast majority of the player base cannot look past their current situation and see the repercussions of what they as asking for. Elixir for walls is a great example. When this was first shown in the sneak peek very few of us predicted that this would have a huge negative effect on the economy and most hailed it as an awesome game upgrade. When we tried to point out our predictions of doom we were largely shouted down by the majority of short sighted individuals who had excess elixir reserves.

---

I disagree with the very few part. I saw a lot of people complaining about elixir walls in the thread. Plus there were lots of threads that said it'd only make loot worse. I remember seeing a lot of "wait for the update before you complain." Not a lot of good those post did though seeing as how elixir did drop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

Someone's going to come on here in a couple minutes and point out that we can already do this (with the kick and invite option) and it's not being abused so why would the opt out button suddenly become abused. The reason is that everyone now knows you go to war with your whole clan and the only way to not, is to kick those you don't want to war and invite them later which is kind of extreme for a clan that is trying to abuse it. The opt out button will encourage the practice of not going to war with the whole clan. It will be as if SC now condones and approves the practice of only using your most skilled players.

---

Yay, I get to be that guy though I'm here to post a couple of hours later instead of a couple of minutes. Limiting the number of optters or slightly more bonus for bigger clans would help and some clans are already utilizing kicks to their fullest extent to get rid of people they don't want in war, such as LegionOK's clan. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but if you agree that it's extreme to kick/reinvite everyone who aren't good in war, then that suggest that kicking/reinviting has problems too. People are already trying to war with their most skilled players anyways with kicks.

Also, Steve's comment on opt out suggests that SC doesn't like the idea of people kicking/reinviting either since those clans are picking/choosing their attackers. The idea of allowing clans to choose who sits out of war when the clan isn't a multiple of 5 doesn't seem to have too much problems since people will have to sit out anyways. The main difference is who sits out and that 1 person might get kicked instead of 5 when clans are 40/45/etc and some people wants to sit out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

You guys can continue to debate this and say that SC is not listening to their player base. I say thank god they have more wisdom than that...

---

I wish SC did listen about the no elixir to wall thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Then they deserve to lose. I kick early and often and we win the vast majority of wars because of that. I'll even kick players for using stupid troop configurations for attacks.

---

OK, but your approach is not really managing. Just throwing out demands while being totally inflexible is not being a good manager. There are many that have the ability to adjust to situations and build a team by building players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

That is the most ♥♥ excuse I hear. I'd boot you from my clan if that was why you didn't attack in war. It takes 2 minutes to choose the stuff you want to build for your attack, maybe another 2-3 minutes to plan and deploy your attack. Do it twice, we're talking about a whopping 10-15 minute commitment. If your members can't swing that, you don't need them.

---

We just had a guy was in a car accident and needed a chance to heal enough to pick up his cell phone. is that a kickable offense? A kid in out clan lost his mother to cancer a few months ago. Toward the end he was a bit preoccupied and needed some space. I suppose we should have told him to man up and do his share in the war? We had another guy that wanted to take his family on a trip. Shall I tell him he can't and he is out of the clan if he does. We have a guy right now that is upgrading his heroes. he is willing to fight in war but without his heroes to fight with he is more a liability. I suppose I should toss that loser out too? How dare he upgrade his heroes on MY time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

I've had members drive out to the hill where they could get cell reception and stand on top of their cars to get signal to get their attacks in. I've had other members where the only moment they'd be able to get their attack in was while waiting for their convoy at a military base.

---

Most clans have had things like that. I myself have had to do it even. But to think that there are not situations is naïve. You are a very judgmental sort. You feel that everyone should think exactly like you or they are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Yes. We deserve to destroy "family fun" clans because we have put in the work to do so.

---

And I think you fear, yes fear, tougher competition. You like your easy wins. You triumph in them to compensate for your other baggage. Acting superior in a video game is all you got going I think. Hey, I'm just guessing, but after reading some of your other posts putting guys down for all kinds of stuff I think I know what I see.

Sorry for the last post folks. Its just that it gets tiring to listen to all these 'think and be like me or your are wrong' types. The opt in/out feature will only offer choice to folks as to what kind of clan they want to be. The fact is that whatever the right way for a clan to be should be decided by no one but the members of that clan. The point of the game is have fun, so let folks decide for themselves what fun means to them. These guys that preach like there is some code clans should live by and those that do not subscribe to it don't belong here aren't thinking it through. They should consider the effect on the game if everyone in it that did not see things their way actually did leave. The poll results indicate that would be about a 3/4 drop in membership, which in turn would not be good for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

OK, but your approach is not really managing. Just throwing out demands while being totally inflexible is not being a good manager. There are many that have the ability to adjust to situations and build a team by building players.



We just had a guy was in a car accident and needed a chance to heal enough to pick up his cell phone. is that a kickable offense? A kid in out clan lost his mother to cancer a few months ago. Toward the end he was a bit preoccupied and needed some space. I suppose we should have told him to man up and do his share in the war? We had another guy that wanted to take his family on a trip. Shall I tell him he can't and he is out of the clan if he does. We have a guy right now that is upgrading his heroes. he is willing to fight in war but without his heroes to fight with he is more a liability. I suppose I should toss that loser out too? How dare he upgrade his heroes on MY time?



Most clans have had things like that. I myself have had to do it even. But to think that there are not situations is naïve. You are a very judgmental sort. You feel that everyone should think exactly like you or they are wrong.





And I think you fear, yes fear, tougher competition. You like your easy wins. You triumph in them to compensate for your other baggage. Acting superior in a video game is all you got going I think. Hey, I'm just guessing, but after reading some of your other posts putting guys down for all kinds of stuff I think I know what I see.

---

This ^^ read my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

Interesting, i don't know if you haven't noticed yet but many states around the world use a democratic system. So if you don't like the poll, tough luck bro.
And really man i don't care what you think of how i run my clan but i don't think you should be telling people how to run their clans here especially the way you are doing so.

So clash on and crush on....patriot, even though i do not agree with you, i respect your democratic right to freedom of speech.

---

2 things

1) This game ain't a democracy, so your little poll counts for bupkis.
2) Your 1st Amendment constitutional rights are not something you have on a privately owned internet forum. They apply to state interference with your speech. The mods are in charge here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astute

I am not for the opt out button. But you are saying every person that wants it are in a badly organized clan? How come some of the players who say this button is absolutely needed like OP claim they have a well organized clan? Apparently they don't think the field is level enough because they are requesting for this button. I think the field is already level......

---

If their clan was well run, they'd see this feature as a crutch for poorly run clans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaestroD

I have a question for you. If your clan is so "badass" and so war thirsty and you always have such high participation, as well as such good leadership why are you concerned about this feature?

I mean for all we know it may not stop a clan as a whole from going to war, but may be as simple as removing each member who opts out from the war map.

Even if this feature did stop the clan as a whole, if your clan is as good as you say and all members want to attack why are you worried about it? Surely if your players already like to attack they wouldn't opt out. If the participation is as good as you say no one will opt out which means you would be unaffected. As for the handful of players that don't attack for you, I'm sure this feature will favor the majority, which in your case is in favor of war.

So please, explain to me if I'm misunderstanding this, but your logic makes no sense to me.

---

I'm not really worried per se because I don't believe SC is going to implement this. I really like wars at 50 v 50 and this would probably be the end of 50 v 50 war. I'm not really worried about my clan, I'm worried about everyone else. It'll make wars smaller and it will give an unfair advantage to clans who choose to have inactive members who choose to do nothing about them.

The vast majority of the clans we face don't need this feature. At the end of every war, their clans are smaller because they've booted non-attackers. And if you refuse to do that, you're keeping around non-contributing members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

OK, but your approach is not really managing. Just throwing out demands while being totally inflexible is not being a good manager. There are many that have the ability to adjust to situations and build a team by building players.

---

When you run a clan, you do so for the benefit of everyone, not just the individuals. If people aren't contributing and cannot be fixed, why keep them? They are dragging the other 49 down.

Quote:

---

We just had a guy was in a car accident and needed a chance to heal enough to pick up his cell phone. is that a kickable offense? A kid in out clan lost his mother to cancer a few months ago. Toward the end he was a bit preoccupied and needed some space.

---

If someone cannot physically play, you should boot him and have him rejoin when he can. It shouldn't be seen as a major affront and your members should be loyal enough to understand that if they cannot participate, you should be letting someone else have a shot at it. The cancer kid? If he chooses to be inactive, boot until he can come back. Really, these are not hard things. I had a member leave for a week recently to go hiking. Not a big deal.

Re booting people with upgrading heroes, everyone in my clan knows when war starts and if they want to participate without heroes, they are more than welcome to. If not, they leave and are reinvited and everything is fine.

Quote:

---

Most clans have had things like that. I myself have had to do it even. But to think that there are not situations is naïve. You are a very judgmental sort. You feel that everyone should think exactly like you or they are wrong.

---

I doubt you know anything about leading a clan or any organization. If members do not understand the rules and their role, then you don't have an organized group, you have a free for all, and in in the case of war, that will more often than not, cause a loss.

Quote:

---

And I think you fear, yes fear, tougher competition. You like your easy wins. You triumph in them to compensate for your other baggage. Acting superior in a video game is all you got going I think. Hey, I'm just guessing, but after reading some of your other posts putting guys down for all kinds of stuff I think I know what I see.

---

My other baggage? Let's avoid the personal attacks, bub. I'm not really afraid of anything. I'm just in favor of basic fairness and a level playing field and having being a more organized clan actually count for something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

2 things

1) This game ain't a democracy, so your little poll counts for bupkis.
2) Your 1st Amendment constitutional rights are not something you have on a privately owned internet forum. They apply to state interference with your speech. The mods are in charge here.

---

Awesome man, I see. I don't think I put my point across as I wanted to. Basically I don't agree with you, you see, when you go off on people about how they run their clans and how they should be "crushed", they tend to not want to listen or agree with you. Even if your point is correct in your view, rather don't go bashing other peoples opinions, even if they are wrong, I'm sure it will make for a better forum discussion for everyone.
So, as Voltaire put it - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirix

I've never support a free for all opt out... I think. Some fixes to avoid that issue could be limiting the number of people (maybe 5) who can opt out or making it so that opt out people skip war instead of the lowest 1-4 trophy players. It could go by seniority so if the number of people who wants to opt out exceeds the limit/1-4 players, the newest optters stay in. It's not like clans aren't already trying to get rid of unskilled players already with a harsher alternative: kicking.

---

I think if it were limited as you propose then I and most of the people who are opposed to the opt out button, wouldn't have a problem with it. This, however isn't what is normally asked for. Most people who come on here and make this suggestion are asking for an unlimited opt out button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

Awesome man, I see. I don't think I put my point across as I wanted to. Basically I don't agree with you, you see, when you go off on people about how they run their clans and how they should be "crushed", they tend to not want to listen or agree with you. Even if your point is correct in your view, rather don't go bashing other peoples opinions, even if they are wrong, I'm sure it will make for a better forum discussion for everyone.
So, as Voltaire put it - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

---

How is your right to disagree with me superior from my right to disagree with you? It is accurate that I think poorly run clans deserve to lose and that a symptom of a poorly-run clan is leadership who thinks they need an administrative crutch to run a proper clan.

Look.. the bottom line is that if you are not a good enough leader to use kick/invite or to select players who will attack in war with the best possible troops/strategy, then that is already a problem you are fully capable (well maybe not, but in theory) of addressing on your own without SC giving you extra tools to do it. A lot of other clans have no problem under the current system. Why should we not be rewarded for simply being better at this thing than you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

How is your right to disagree with me superior from my right to disagree with you? It is accurate that I think poorly run clans deserve to lose and that a symptom of a poorly-run clan is leadership who thinks they need an administrative crutch to run a proper clan.

Look.. the bottom line is that if you are not a good enough leader to use kick/invite or to select players who will attack in war with the best possible troops/strategy, then that is already a problem you are fully capable (well maybe not, but in theory) of addressing on your own without SC giving you extra tools to do it. A lot of other clans have no problem under the current system. Why should we not be rewarded for simply being better at this thing than you are?

---

I am not implying that I have a superior right to disagree with you over you disagreeing with me. All I am trying to say is that you are disagreeing with people in a way that is antagonising them. Myself and a few others feel that the way you were conducting your opinion was antagonising because you were making other leadership styles inferior to yours based mainly on war success. Some people prefer other means of leading (and thats fine - we must respect that) and its antagonising if you term their styles as "failures" or you will "crush them" just based on how you like to run a clan.
We ultimately are debating a suggestion here, not comparing or slamming each others leadership styles. Im not saying don't post your argument here or don't raise any concerns because thats what this is here for, we are brainstorming solutions to make the game better. All I'm saying is don't put your argument out there in an aggressive way because chances are 9 times out of 10 people will not like it and you will create hostility.

If you have any more concerns please PM me, LegionOK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M3AP

I am not implying that I have a superior right to disagree with you over you disagreeing with me. All I am trying to say is that you are disagreeing with people in a way that is antagonising them. Myself and a few others feel that the way you were conducting your opinion was antagonising because you were making other leadership styles inferior to yours based mainly on war success.

---

How else would you quantify successful leadership? Members who have been with us for many months? Got that. Members who we've helped transition to better war attacks by encouraging the upgrading of proper troops? Check. Having opposing clans accuse us of using 3rd party applications because they can't understand that they lost a match because they were just that terrible? Got that too. War wins vs. losses is a quantifiable way to gauge leadership quality. There may be others, but that's what I value.

Quote:

---

Some people prefer other means of leading (and thats fine - we must respect that) and its antagonising if you term their styles as "failures" or you will "crush them" just based on how you like to run a clan.

---

I'm not sure I used the word "failure" and may have used the word "crushed," and the intent there was to convey that if you feel things are futile when facing well organized clans... well maybe you should since you have elected not to be well-organized or at least aggressive in selecting war-ready personnel.

Quote:

---

We ultimately are debating a suggestion here, not comparing or slamming each others leadership styles.

---

Actually, I'm doing exactly that. I'm suggesting that your failures in leadership do not justify leveling a playing field which is already level. I use that language because I want to convey that in my opinion, clans who feel this is a needed feature simply aren't availing themselves of many ways of organizing and being better and for better or worse, that's party of the game.

Quote:

---

Im not saying don't post your argument here or don't raise any concerns because thats what this is here for, we are brainstorming solutions to make the game better. All I'm saying is don't put your argument out there in an aggressive way because chances are 9 times out of 10 people will not like it and you will create hostility.

If you have any more concerns please PM me, LegionOK.

---

You're brainstorming "solutions" to make the game better for you. Not everyone is of a single mind about this issue and the forums are going to be a highly unrepresentative sample of people who have just come here to complain. I would suggest the vast majority of players do just fine with the current setup, and if not, as expressed many times before, there are rather simple ways to solving the issues they may think they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

You're brainstorming "solutions" to make the game better for you. Not everyone is of a single mind about this issue and the forums are going to be a highly unrepresentative sample of people who have just come here to complain. I would suggest the vast majority of players do just fine with the current setup, and if not, as expressed many times before, there are rather simple ways to solving the issues they may think they have.

---

Makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

I think if it were limited as you propose then I and most of the people who are opposed to the opt out button, wouldn't have a problem with it. This, however isn't what is normally asked for. Most people who come on here and make this suggestion are asking for an unlimited opt out button.

---

Then they should also limit the kick/invite to say two total per week. Shouldnt allow one unlimited but not the other. Either way it's not the whole clan going to war now is it? Just because they weren't there for 5 minutes doesn't mean they aren't still part of the clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

Then they should also limit the kick/invite to say two total per week. Shouldnt allow one unlimited but not the other. Either way it's not the whole clan going to war now is it? Just because they weren't there for 5 minutes doesn't mean they aren't still part of the clan.

---

Uh no.. limiting leader's ability to kick means he is no longer leader. Not a good idea.

There are several types of leadership styles. One is not right for all and anyone that claims others aren't good leaders because they don't share the same views is plainly ignorant. As someone that has lived a few years I've seen many leaders excel and just as many fail. Part of what makes a leader great is the people. If your leadership style works for them then they will stick around. Even Hitler had his loyal followers. If someone is more democratic than another's utilitarian style then they are just different. One is not better than the other and those that claim it is are just short sighted. I'm in a well run clan because how it's run suits my needs. Yours may be run totally different but that doesn't make it any less well run and rudely running another down just shows to a persons character or lack therein. There is nothing wrong with liking your style, but trying to force your style upon others is. That in the end is where you will always fail because it is a war you cannot win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

Uh no.. limiting leader's ability to kick means he is no longer leader. Not a good idea.

---

Not allowing the leader to calmly pick and choose whom he takes to war doesn't limit his ability to be leader?

I was was refering to the reinvite. They can kick all they want but can only reinvite two per week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

Not allowing the leader to calmly pick and choose whom he takes to war doesn't limit his ability to be leader?

---

It limits his clan's requirement for actual performance and probably in an opt-out situation will cause more problems than it solves. Many players will have a hard time finding clans who will take them to war. 50 v. 50 won't happen anymore (and that and at 45 are where we thrive).

Quote:

---

I was was refering to the reinvite. They can kick all they want but can only reinvite two per week.

---

That just seems bizarre. Only 2 per week? So now you are penalizing clans which war back to back disproportionately by giving them fewer kick and reinvites per war. You don't seem to have thought much of this through and have wholly failed to demonstrate there is anything wrong with the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

It limits his clan's requirement for actual performance and probably in an opt-out situation will cause more problems than it solves. Many players will have a hard time finding clans who will take them to war. 50 v. 50 won't happen anymore (and that and at 45 are where we thrive).



That just seems bizarre. Only 2 per week? So now you are penalizing clans which war back to back disproportionately by giving them fewer kick and reinvites per war. You don't seem to have thought much of this through and have wholly failed to demonstrate there is anything wrong with the status quo.

---

So you couldn't get enough of your players to stick around for a 45/45 or 50/50? They would just opt out? You don't know how to war with less people? We are responsible for maintaining where you thrive? So really it's all about what you want and not everyone else.

Probably would cause more problems? Seriously? yes there will always be those that look for ways to skew the system. Um like. Kicking and reinviting isn't a way to skew the system? Clans do it so they can only "take their best players to war." An opt out would give members some say in whether they want to war or not. Right now it seems it's more the leader determining who can and cannot war. And yes two per week. If they are that bad or that unavailable why should they be in your perfect clan in the first place? Personally if im kicking people more than once a week i make them come back on their own. Rarely do they not. Let them request to come back if they really want to be in your clan.

There are still ways to subvert the system and some people will always look for them. Guess they are just that type to always look for the loophole but expect others to follow the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

So you couldn't get enough of your players to stick around for a 45/45 or 50/50? They would just opt out? You don't know how to war with less people? We are responsible for maintaining where you thrive? So really it's all about what you want and not everyone else.

---

Not at all. We'll probably always be at 45 or 50. It's other clans I'm worried about. It already takes a very long time to find opponents and when you start allowing opt-outs, there will be much fewer to choose from.

Quote:

---

Probably would cause more problems? Seriously? yes there will always be those that look for ways to skew the system. Um like. Kicking and reinviting isn't a way to skew the system? Clans do it so they can only "take their best players to war." An opt out would give members some say in whether they want to war or not. Right now it seems it's more the leader determining who can and cannot war. And yes two per week. If they are that bad or that unavailable why should they be in your perfect clan in the first place? Personally if im kicking people more than once a week i make them come back on their own. Rarely do they not. Let them request to come back if they really want to be in your clan.

---

First, you admit that kicking and reinviting works. I agree.
Then, you suggest members opting out gives them a choice as to whether to war as if they didn't already have that choice.

The choice already exists. They know when war begins because we let them know well in advance. They can leave and come back. Boom. Opted out.

Again, you've failed to articulate a problem which doesn't already have an easily workable solution.

I could really do without all of the snark from you. It is not constructive.

Quote:

---

There are still ways to subvert the system and some people will always look for them. Guess they are just that type to always look for the loophole but expect others to follow the rules.

---

There's no subversion or loopholes or any of that. We already play on a perfectly level playing field. You're in favor of a tool which helps people do something you already admitted they could do anyhow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

2 things

1) This game ain't a democracy, so your little poll counts for bupkis.
2) Your 1st Amendment constitutional rights are not something you have on a privately owned internet forum. They apply to state interference with your speech. The mods are in charge here.

---

Lolololol. When guys got nothing to stand on the result can get hilarious.


And for someone that thinks the poll counts for bupkis I think we can all agree this little guy is very emotionally charged over how badly it goes against his point of view. Very worked up over it in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

Lolololol. When guys got nothing to stand on the result can get hilarious.


And for someone that thinks the poll counts for bupkis I think we can all agree this little guy is very emotionally charged over how badly it goes against his point of view. Very worked up over it in fact.

---

He always appears to have been sampling the rage spells to me.

Kicking and reinviting people before war is a way to ♥♥♥♥♥. The clan doesn't go to war only those chosen go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Hi everyone :)
Please remember to respect others opinions and to post constructively.

---

You are right, and I am probably guilty. But we have one guy in here who's opinion is that no opinion but his are to be respected. And he expresses that very derisively to others putting them down for not being like him. He is mad because its a 75% majority that does not agree with him so he is compensating by being harshly judgmental toward others for not agreeing with him.

But what the heck, lets explore the possibility that ALL clans in COC should be like his and the 75% of players (as the poll would indicate) that do not like that should get lost. So we all quit the game? Would that help the game? Is Supercell better off without our business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

He always appears to have been sampling the rage spells to me.

---

Then to you sir I would offer a healing spell.

I think it is a great idea. Kicking and re-inviting works but it isn't as smooth or as efficient. This woulda make it cleaner and wouldn't reset a players donations. Wars tend to back up your ability to upgrade your heroes on a regular basis, that is why most people tend to opt out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

Then to you sir I would offer a healing spell.

---

Heal and rage go very well together. However if things continue down this path I offer a freeze. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

It limits his clan's requirement for actual performance and probably in an opt-out situation will cause more problems than it solves. Many players will have a hard time finding clans who will take them to war. 50 v. 50 won't happen anymore (and that and at 45 are where we thrive).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

First, you admit that kicking and reinviting works. I agree.
Then, you suggest members opting out gives them a choice as to whether to war as if they didn't already have that choice.

The choice already exists. They know when war begins because we let them know well in advance. They can leave and come back. Boom. Opted out.

---

An opt-out feature will cause problem;
Leaving and coming back is essentially the same as opting out and this method exists;
Players leaving and coming back is causing problem.

Do I understand you correctly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegionOK

The cancer kid? If he chooses to be inactive, boot until he can come back. Really, these are not hard things.

---

"The cancer kid" huh? I guess that sums it all up. Not a hard thing, got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheeserman

Heal and rage go very well together. However if things continue down this path I offer a freeze. :D

---

Hold that thought. Maybe a jump will be needed too.

I did start this thread with a suggested approach that I spent a lot of time thinking through. I think that has become lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

Hold that thought. Maybe a jump will be needed too.

I did start this thread with a suggested approach that I spent a lot of time thinking through. I think that has become lost.

---

I agreed it was needed, as I do in the portion of the "million" threads I've seen. I disagreed with some of the implementation ideas, but over all it's so needed I would be happy to see any attempt at it. But because I'm not a game developer I'll leave that aspect to others that actually know what they are doing.

No idea that succeeds is ever submitted just once. Sometimes it takes the millionth attempt to make things happen.

These was an exchange between Legion and myself that has vanished from the end of this thread. It wasn't bad, he asked why I would start this thread since he disagrees, and I said I disagreed with him. It was even tamer than some of what has gone by. But the fact that it disappeared can be taken as notice that the moderators are watching this one and wanting us to keep it toned down. So lets. It has indeed been a bit edgy at times, I am part of that even I'll admit. So lets all get back to just discussing the feature constructively and take the emotion out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

As usual, I TRY and stay out of this argument but so often fail. The only reason I'm jumping in now is Maestro seems to be asking a legitimate question rather than just spouting the usual rhetoric.

Here's the problem with the opt out button... It will change the way clan wars are waged. Clans will no longer go to war with the whole clan, it will become a thing that only the top players participate in and the rest of the clan who are less skilled will be benched. 50v50 war will be a thing of the past as 50 person clans will opt out a portion of their membership more often than not. Even those clans who wish to war with their whole 50 person clan will be unable to because search times will be prohibitive and match making will deteriorate as fewer and fewer clans participate at that level.

What the majority of the people who have voted for here is a minor convenience which can and will be abused to the point where clan wars as we currently know them will become a thing of the past.

The problem is that the vast majority of the player base cannot look past their current situation and see the repercussions of what they as asking for. Elixir for walls is a great example. When this was first shown in the sneak peek very few of us predicted that this would have a huge negative effect on the economy and most hailed it as an awesome game upgrade. When we tried to point out our predictions of doom we were largely shouted down by the majority of short sighted individuals who had excess elixir reserves.

Someone's going to come on here in a couple minutes and point out that we can already do this (with the kick and invite option) and it's not being abused so why would the opt out button suddenly become abused. The reason is that everyone now knows you go to war with your whole clan and the only way to not, is to kick those you don't want to war and invite them later which is kind of extreme for a clan that is trying to abuse it. The opt out button will encourage the practice of not going to war with the whole clan. It will be as if SC now condones and approves the practice of only using your most skilled players.

You guys can continue to debate this and say that SC is not listening to their player base. I say thank god they have more wisdom than that...

---

Sounds like a slippery slope kind of logic to me. If a clan of 50 starts only bringing 30 to war, and the 20 who get left out still want to war, they leave and make their own clan. You will have less mismatches as clans overtime naturally align themselves how they want to war.

Here is the thing most against this I believe are scared of, the option would make wars more competitive. Like somehow being skilled at kicking and re inviting is a skill that entitles you to having a better war clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twixted

Sounds like a slippery slope kind of logic to me. If a clan of 50 starts only bringing 30 to war, and the 20 who get left out still want to war, they leave and make their own clan. You will have less mismatches as clans overtime naturally align themselves how they want to war.

Here is the thing most against this I believe are scared of, the option would make wars more competitive. Like somehow being skilled at kicking and re inviting is a skill that entitles you to having a better war clan.

---

I agree with you that a lot of the detractors are fearful of losing their easy wins against clans that don't fight. Several have even said as much.

But I actually don't think that is going to happen much. The clans that care enough to pick and choose are already doing that today via the kick/re-invlte method. Its just that while that method does get that particular job done, its still bad for clan dynamics and culture in most cases. (3/4 according to the poll) So it would be nice to have a smoother way of doing it.

Having opt in/out would also encourage experienced clans to take in inexperienced players and get them more into it. (which will advance the game and sell gems) If there is an easy way to keep the person from being a liability until they learn war then there is no problem having them in there to learn via observing.

As far as easy wins, there is a market for that which will not go away if opt in/out was added. There are many (not all by any means) clans that only get their wins that way. They declare war then don't invest in it until they see if there is an easy win to be had. They just keep throwing the dart at the wall by declaring immediately each time one ends whether it was one they bothered fighting or not. I'm not gonna say they are wrong because those guys do ring up some decent win totals that way and if they are enjoying themselves that's the point of the game. But also I will point out that they are also a source of easy wins that will still be there regardless of features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twixted

Sounds like a slippery slope kind of logic to me. If a clan of 50 starts only bringing 30 to war, and the 20 who get left out still want to war, they leave and make their own clan. You will have less mismatches as clans overtime naturally align themselves how they want to war.

Here is the thing most against this I believe are scared of, the option would make wars more competitive. Like somehow being skilled at kicking and re inviting is a skill that entitles you to having a better war clan.

---

It's not slippery slope logic. Every game has a meta and once it becomes know, most players follow the meta. Allowing clans unlimited opt out will change the meta as clans will figure out what the optimum war configuration is and only go to war with those players. You guys who argue for this so vehemently are refusing to consider the long term implications of what you are asking for. You are closing your eyes to the possible and probable outcome because, for some reason, some people get butt hurt when they get kicked even if the kick is immediately followed by an invite.

In my clan, a player who loses his phone or whatever expects to be kicked. He also expects to be accepted back once the situation is resolved. No harm no foul.

When players are accepted into the clan they are told 1) war attacks are mandatory. 2) if you can't attack for whatever reason, just let us know so we can kick before war and then invite you back once the match has been found. There's no fuzz on this topic.

If someone gets offended by a simple kick for war reasons, and doesn't accept the invite back, well, that's probably someone I don't want in my clan anyway. I don't need any drama queens.

The only way an opt out feature works with out changing the fundamental premiss of clan wars is for it to be limited to the number of non participating players.

Here's my proposed idea. Let me know if this satisfies your needs:

If you have 39 members, the lowest 4 members have the shield next to their name toggled off by default. Members who have their shield toggled on can toggle their own shield off. When this happens, the highest trophy member who's toggled off will automatically be toggled on. Leader and co (but not elder) can also toggle players off so if the leaders know someone is gone for whatever reason they can flip the toggle for the player. You cannot toggle your shield on, that happens automatically when someone else toggles their shield off. This way, a clan of 39 will still go to war with the 35, clans of 50 will still go to war with everyone and the only change is that players don't have to drop trophies to opt out of clan wars they can do it with the toggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

I agree with you that a lot of the detractors are fearful of losing their easy wins against clans that don't fight. Several have even said as much.

---

NOBODY has said as much. Nobody...

What has been said is that clans who have improved their play by making ALL of their members competent at war will lose the advantage that they have gained because clans who have crappy players will be able to bench them.

A clan who doesn't have the ability or the patience to coach up their lesser players suddenly gets equal footing with a clan who has taken the time and effort to coach up all their players, simply by pushing that lesser player aside.

That's what Legion is saying. You guys who can't read that are just being stubborn because he comes off as abrasive.

There is no doubt this would be good for the vast majority of clans and players. It would allow clans to stay together longer. Players who do not want to join the next war or are unable to would not hurt the clan. It would result in more fair matches. It would avoid the hassle of kicking people and inviting them back in, which also ruins their seasonal donation count. The easiest set up is to require each member to activate "war on" after each war, with "war off" being the default. This avoids an inactive player from being left "war on." Then also giving the leader the ability to override someone's "war on" would be helpful. I know there have been several threads on this topic and I have yet to see a valid reason to not add this option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

NOBODY has said as much. Nobody...

What has been said is that clans who have improved their play by making ALL of their members competent at war will lose the advantage that they have gained because clans who have crappy players will be able to bench them.

A clan who doesn't have the ability or the patience to coach up their lesser players suddenly gets equal footing with a clan who has taken the time and effort to coach up all their players, simply by pushing that lesser player aside.

That's what Legion is saying. You guys who can't read that are just being stubborn because he comes off as abrasive.

---

Wouldn't you rather go to war against a similar clan? I know I would and generally dislike going up against clans with inactive players. Just doesn't look like an honest win to me and im sure I'm not the only person out there that sees that as an issue. Actually I've seen a few threads in that reguards. So if a clan didn't want to war against like kind then it could be read as they don't want to and prefer easy wins. To me those aren't wins they are forfeitures and I wouldn't even include them in my brag tag. A good honest well matched fight is what I think many desire, or so I've seen in multiple threads. But I guess some feel as though it is "their right" to continue to have bragging rights where none is earned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

It's not slippery slope logic. Every game has a meta and once it becomes know, most players follow the meta. Allowing clans unlimited opt out will change the meta as clans will figure out what the optimum war configuration is and only go to war with those players.

---

This "meta" ( I hate that word) is simply only have the best players in your clan for wars??? hmm seems clans ALREADY DO THAT. Don't tell me you wouldn't kick a #12 member who constantly one starred #25-30 and wouldn't listen to advice... I believe 99% of clans would. In comes the drama llama as that was the wife of one of your top 5 players and he has to leave or his wife gets mad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

You guys who argue for this so vehemently are refusing to consider the long term implications of what you are asking for. You are closing your eyes to the possible and probable outcome because, for some reason, some people get butt hurt when they get kicked even if the kick is immediately followed by an invite.

In my clan, a player who loses his phone or whatever expects to be kicked. He also expects to be accepted back once the situation is resolved. No harm no foul.

---

You are refusing to consider that your proposed long term ramifications might not be correct. I disagree because clans that would do what you describe are the same clans that already use the kick invite feature. All this would change is allow more casual clans to become stronger at war without the headache of kick / invite.

As it stands now clan wars have i would say have 2-3 basic types of clans. The hardcore clan that screens members on war participation AND war attacks, the casual clan that jsut screens members on war participation, and the social / farming clan that rarely ever wars and only even tries if easy match or jsut goes for loot.

The option to opt out has no effect on hardcore clans that already screen for participation AND attacks, Also has no effect on the social / farming clans. It will allow the casual clans to choose their focus as the clan schedule allows. Either focused on war clan or social / farming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

When players are accepted into the clan they are told 1) war attacks are mandatory. 2) if you can't attack for whatever reason, just let us know so we can kick before war and then invite you back once the match has been found. There's no fuzz on this topic.

If someone gets offended by a simple kick for war reasons, and doesn't accept the invite back, well, that's probably someone I don't want in my clan anyway. I don't need any drama queens.

---

glad you have been conditioned to like the system as it currently is. I am sorry you cant see how the option might be more of a benefit to wars, and are so pessimistic you only see potential problems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

The only way an opt out feature works with out changing the fundamental premiss of clan wars is for it to be limited to the number of non participating players.

---

Change the fundamental premiss of clan wars?? the premiss that have to have more mismatches, or carry dudes , brothers wife's son? The premiss that you cant clash with your family if they have different schedules, unless you constantly kick and invite them every two days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

Here's my proposed idea. Let me know if this satisfies your needs:

If you have 39 members, the lowest 4 members have the shield next to their name toggled off by default. Members who have their shield toggled on can toggle their own shield off. When this happens, the highest trophy member who's toggled off will automatically be toggled on. Leader and co (but not elder) can also toggle players off so if the leaders know someone is gone for whatever reason they can flip the toggle for the player. You cannot toggle your shield on, that happens automatically when someone else toggles their shield off. This way, a clan of 39 will still go to war with the 35, clans of 50 will still go to war with everyone and the only change is that players don't have to drop trophies to opt out of clan wars they can do it with the toggle.

---

Could we stop arguing and get to the point please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

It has been suggested that any well organized and committed clan will never need this because its members will always make time in their lives to do war. If they don't they don't belong in a clan.

It has also been suggested that opt in/out is not needed because you can just kick members that don't want to be in a given war and let them come back later. That this is a good enough solution so nothing better is needed.

Do folks really feel that way or are there people that would be happier with an option like the below....

How it should work...

There should be a button (it can be a new one or the war shield can be modified) that toggles a player as in or out.

Access to hit the button to toggle should go to the leader and the player in question.
---- individual players cannot opt each other in or out
---- its an argument either way to give it to co as well - Good for clans where co is a management job, bad for clans that give it out like candy. (I consider the latter to be a sign of a bad leader)
---- A leader who abuses authority to opt guys in against their wishes are really just hurting their own selves for how they are adding a risk to their war participation. (the guy might then just not attack anyhow, if not seeing eye to eye with leader he wont care)
---- A leader opting a guy out against his wishes has that prerogative to decide who he wants in his war. And its still nicer than just kicking the guy like happens now.

The status of a player is only a factor right at the time a war starts. Instead of just selecting all eligible players from the total population it will just be all eligible players from the opted in group.
---- Can even implement by leveraging the existing eligibility functionality that currently is only driven by a timer.

After that everything works the same. The list of warriors from the clan is rounded to an even 5 via the existing logic and then the matchmaking calculation takes place also using the existing logic.

A player joins a clan with his eligibility set the same way it is today. (He is in unless there is a timer)


Things that would not happen -
...A player cannot add themselves to a war after the fact. If they change their status during a war it makes no difference until the next war when that status is read at startup.
...This would not serve as a way to replace members that take off during war. if they do that then there is the same affect on the war as there is today. Unused attacks stay unused. (it will never change that this just stinks when guys pull that stunt)

---

kicking members before starting war then inviting is frustrating for everyone. Those who get kicked have to deal with "new" always being next to their name and donations resetting. Having a "vacation" or "opt out" setting would be much more peaceful than constantly kicking members and inviting them back. Many long time members from before Clan Wars ended up leaving our clan completely because they just wanted to farm and get troops but didn't want to be in wars, and getting kicked before every war just ♥♥♥♥♥♥ them off and caused them to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

There is no doubt this would be good for the vast majority of clans and players. It would allow clans to stay together longer. Players who do not want to join the next war or are unable to would not hurt the clan. It would result in more fair matches. It would avoid the hassle of kicking people and inviting them back in, which also ruins their seasonal donation count. The easiest set up is to require each member to activate "war on" after each war, with "war off" being the default. This avoids an inactive player from being left "war on." Then also giving the leader the ability to override someone's "war on" would be helpful. I know there have been several threads on this topic and I have yet to see a valid reason to not add this option.

---

kicking members before starting war then inviting is frustrating for everyone. Those who get kicked have to deal with "new" always being next to their name and donations resetting. Having a "vacation" or "opt out" setting would be much more peaceful than constantly kicking members and inviting them back. Many long time members from before Clan Wars ended up leaving our clan completely because they just wanted to farm and get troops but didn't want to be in wars, and getting kicked before every war just ♥♥♥♥♥♥ them off and caused them to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueKnight12

Could we stop arguing and get to the point please?

---

Isn't the point of this thread to argue? What point are you looking for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jietoh

NOBODY has said as much. Nobody...

What has been said is that clans who have improved their play by making ALL of their members competent at war will lose the advantage that they have gained because clans who have crappy players will be able to bench them.

A clan who doesn't have the ability or the patience to coach up their lesser players suddenly gets equal footing with a clan who has taken the time and effort to coach up all their players, simply by pushing that lesser player aside.

That's what Legion is saying. You guys who can't read that are just being stubborn because he comes off as abrasive.

---

In other words you don't want to lose the easy wins against those type clans. its ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobad

Wouldn't you rather go to war against a similar clan? I know I would and generally dislike going up against clans with inactive players. Just doesn't look like an honest win to me and im sure I'm not the only person out there that sees that as an issue. Actually I've seen a few threads in that reguards. So if a clan didn't want to war against like kind then it could be read as they don't want to and prefer easy wins. To me those aren't wins they are forfeitures and I wouldn't even include them in my brag tag. A good honest well matched fight is what I think many desire, or so I've seen in multiple threads. But I guess some feel as though it is "their right" to continue to have bragging rights where none is earned.

---

Although it was not the basis for me putting forth that I wanted opt in/out (I wanted it to ease clan management headaches) I agree with you that if it meant that our matchups were against only the best fighters in other clans so wars got tougher that would be an added benefit.

I am currently waiting out a ho-hum against a clan where 80% of them did both attacks and all remaining guys did not attack at all. We killed them for the want of those extra attacks. I would like to think we would have beaten them anyhow but we are denied ever knowing. I would much rather have fought a clan where everyone was coming hard.