Printable View
Simple solution to an ongoing issue with clash and wars.
It can be switched by the user with a reason for inactivity so they do not participate in wars until set to active and the clan can see the reason.
It automatically will be switched to inactive if they do not attack in a war.
The leader of the clan also has access to the button and can instantly switch inactive/active
Also add a 30 minute timer before it can be switched back for the user so it doesn't get abused.
Although not worded the same way (so a search probably didn't work) this has been suggested many times and many of us do wait in hope for SC to implement something.
If you do a search on the string 'opt in/out' you can find many threads and review the comments for and against the idea.
I myself am one of those that want to see this. Below is my own suggested approach to how I think they should do it. (This is also on many other threads)
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)
This idea has been suggested numerous times- I for one think this should be added also for I'm not always available for war.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDan221
Remember to use the search function at the top right of the page^ If you find a thread on the same idea simply add to that!
Simples right?! ;) Helps people see whats popular- the amount of views, ratings and posts all concentrated in that area!
Sweet!
Anyway, cya around the forums!:cool:
I'm soooo tired of duplicte threads, but this is the feature I most want added right now. Please use the search bar before making new threads, but good idea and I'm 100% behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireThief
He would not have gotten hits on 'Active/Inactive button. This is a flaw in the idea of using search first that is not the fault of the posters. They need to be given benefit of the doubt in these cases. If not sure then try searching on the term they were using first yourself. If you do get hits then by all means tell them.Quote:
Originally Posted by W4RD3N
When using the search function you're meant to search all possible titles for your idea- if you don't then its your own fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
Its not a flaw with the system at all.
EDIT: Also we weren't having a go at him- we were simply reminding him. There is a difference my friend. :rolleyes:
Heres another crazy idea then. Spend 30 seconds scanning the first page or so of the section. He would have counted more than one similar thread posted today alone. Lazy is lazy. I managed to be nice about. Some would call that a win and just go home .Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
Fine, I suppose if the goal is to 'teach a lesson more than it is too just inform then you certainly showed him.Quote:
Originally Posted by W4RD3N
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwelshjr
You may need to explain that. I'm not quite sure how I "showed" him anything. Please, enlighten me.
"Heres another crazy idea then. Spend 30 seconds scanning the first page or so of the section. He would have counted more than one similar thread posted today alone. Lazy is lazy. I managed to be nice about. Some would call that a win and just go home ."Quote:
Originally Posted by W4RD3N
Your sarcasm and labeling of the OP as lazy is noted. And if it took effort to be nice then...
It had already been said in the first following post so you felt the need to restate it less gently.