Opting in and out of war

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

December 30th, 2014
rwelshjr

Quote:

Originally Posted by fladeva

Many thread have been suggest this, and i keep thinking this many times. This is my detail idea for opt in/out request :
1. Make 2 check box, one is "keep me on next war" other one like this "don't keep me on next war" in this case both box can appear uncheck on both option, as this can sign they don't know how to check/forget to check/not online to check
2. Make sure the system always uncheck the box when the war start, so they can consciously check in or check out on again on the next war
3. This check box should not let every member deciding will they opt in/out, as they will delay the war or war can't be start because some member forget to check the box. This only become a sign for leader to pick the member
4. At the end the war still go with 10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50 size after the leader or co leader give the badge (read confirmation) to the member who can participate. After the badge given, leader/co can hit the "lock button" to lock which player is opt in/out and the size of war, once they lock if we hit the search button we go by our own risk if the match found. however we can change the size and member opt in/out by "unlock button" then the search can't be hit if we don't lock

Interesting idea. I think 2 checkboxes are a little bit of screen clutter but I see your point about the leader then knowing if a choice has been made. TBH I would wind up just opting in automatically all the non choosers. My guys all like to fight so that is the likely thing if no one has said otherwise. But I can see that some other clans that might be of use to the leader where it is less clear. Perhaps to save screen clutter they could stick to one button but have it rotate through in/out and unselected.

Because of the above way my clan works I would rather just have the 2 in/out choices and guys last answer stands until they give a new one. (so unless they are changing they need not do anything) I would also rather the button reflected their last choice because then I don't have to remember what they were. But I could live with this too. Not my first choice but still a big improvement over today.
December 30th, 2014
QueenBeeq

Keep it simple. The war icon on the roster is grayed out for those who opt out. Color it for those who opt in. Thats exactly how it is now if they are eligible for war. A quick scan down the roster tells you who is in or out. Leaders or player can click right there and change it with a single button. Once war search has started your status is set, no opting in or out.

Simple.
December 30th, 2014
rwelshjr

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenBeeq

Keep it simple. The war icon on the roster is grayed out for those who opt out. Color it for those who opt in. Thats exactly how it is now if they are eligible for war. A quick scan down the roster tells you who is in or out. Leaders or player can click right there and change it with a single button. Once war search has started your status is set, no opting in or out.

Simple.

Yeah, I think so too.
December 30th, 2014
porky1122

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenBeeq

Keep it simple. The war icon on the roster is grayed out for those who opt out. Color it for those who opt in. Thats exactly how it is now if they are eligible for war. A quick scan down the roster tells you who is in or out. Leaders or player can click right there and change it with a single button. Once war search has started your status is set, no opting in or out.

Simple.

Very simple indeed. This would greatly help a lot of clans out there.

i am yet to see a valid argument for why this feature would "destroy" clan wars...
December 30th, 2014
rwelshjr

Quote:

Originally Posted by porky1122

Very simple indeed. This would greatly help a lot of clans out there.

i am yet to see a valid argument for why this feature would "destroy" clan wars...

LOL. Fasten your seatbelt bro. Saying that tends to bring forth all the invalid ones that get repeated over and over.
December 30th, 2014
Mobad

So true

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

LOL. Fasten your seatbelt bro. Saying that tends to bring forth all the invalid ones that get repeated over and over.

Im thinking I should invest in placards to hand out to the few doomsayers.
December 30th, 2014
Kruzkal

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

LOL. Fasten your seatbelt bro. Saying that tends to bring forth all the invalid ones that get repeated over and over.

You claim they are invalid yet fail to offer any counter arguments to refute them; all you do is flood threads with posts to hide them. You continue to state how the system "should work" yet offers nothing to address legitimate concerns of its impact.

Here, address these issues:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruzkal

CW participation seen as optional, leading to decline in participation in currently high participation clans.

2 tier clans where a large number of permanently non-warring players are mixed in with warring players will rise. This will lead to average war size to decline as well as being stunned. The theoretical maximum of 50v will be impossible in a large number of clans. Preexisting large war clans will become harder to find matchups, leading to increased probability of mismatches.

Ease of roster manipulation will lead to increased matchup exploitations and undue player exclusions.

Whilst I understand why players would like to an opt out feature as it is more convenient than kick-reinvite. The fundamental difference between the two is that the kick-reinvite by the nature of it's methodology is temporary, and an opt out feature is permanent. To opt a player out occasionally due to Heroes upgrades or unavailability does not bring the same negative impact in the game dynamics as a permanent opt-out system would. And for that reason I am against the implementation of an opt-out feature; the mild convenience does not justify its broader impact to the the game dynamics.
December 30th, 2014
Mobad

Or

They can just copy paste their arguments that don't hold water while putting their fingers in their ears singing lala lalala I can't hear you.
December 30th, 2014
Kruzkal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobad

They can just copy paste their arguments that don't hold water while putting their fingers in their ears singing lala lalala I can't hear you.

Apt autobiography.
December 30th, 2014
rwelshjr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruzkal

You claim they are invalid yet fail to offer any counter arguments to refute them; all you do is flood threads with posts to hide them. You continue to state how the system "should work" yet offers nothing to address legitimate concerns of its impact.

Here, address these issues:

We go in this circle. That's all been addressed and debunked in the past. Then you pass some time trading barbs with people, then start waving the same tired old already debunked arguments again. So we debunk again. And so forth. That's why the threads get so full is this circle you go through. You know this too, your intention is to spin things in a circle. You know exactly why all that is either red herring (because it either already happens or is not something that will happen, cant have it both ways) or simply incorrect how the game works. And despite knowing all this you are to emotionally vested in not getting your way that you g ahead. I think you know you got nothing or you wouldn't be playing this game.

So here we are again you are looking to do another circle. Lets not huh?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page