penalise the deserters during war

Supercell apologies if its already be spoken about...
Please can you set up the game to penalise the member who leaves during war as it then ends up being an unfair match, it is also very frustrating.

Maybe penalise them 100,000 gold/elixer or 50 gems, to deter them from leaving , a simple cooldown is not enough. ?

Would you rather they stay and throw their attacks? If people want to leave there is only two reasons generally:

1) They're pricks you didn't want there anyways, sucks they left during war but your better off without them.
2) Your clan isn't as good as you think it is, if this happens often review your clan culture/policies to determine why

I had a guy leave this morning during war, we were probably going to kick him after the war, he was annoying and whined if he didn't get troops within like 10 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enforcer7482

Supercell apologies if its already be spoken about...

---

How about an apology to the rest of us ? This has been discussed to death.

The issue is clan management. Learn how to recruit people to your clan, don‘t war with them until you trust them. Don’t recruit just to get an extra person for war. Tell them your war rules. If they like your clan, like your rules, they will stay for wars.

You can‘t apply an automatic penalty because people leave clans for sorts of reasons even during CW. Sometimes it’s because they feel duped when they get to know the clan. Sometimes it‘s to join a Req and Go clan for war troops. Whatever the reason, they are all valid to the other person.

Ok, maybe the ability to replace the leaver with another member that is wanting war in the first 12 hrs or so. Of equal strength. ?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceAwesome

Would you rather they stay and throw their attacks?

---

i would be ok with that, id rather they use the attacks and lose rather than us be one star behind and have those attacks just sitting there, if they wanna leave anyway im sure they could do that and the exit would be pretty swift afterwards when they get kicked,

the not attacking thing is the biggest problem in war, and i see people get kicked for aiming down, at least they attack why kick an active player dummy?

i think there should be some kind of lockout for war, we have the opt in and out option why cant that be utilised, if you opt in war you can't leave during war, if you are opt out then it's the leaders own fault if he includes you

Disagree,

At least with unused attacks you can imagine how close you are to winning the war. Watching an unhappy clan member send a single goblin to attack a base would be infuriating.

No. This is a bad idea every time it is suggested because it will cause more, worse problems than "hoppers" already represent. Here is pretty much everything you need to know about dealing with hoppers. Both what will happen if you get your way and how everybody else has learned to deal with 99% of them quickly and easily.

First, SC has a long standing policy of not putting a negative statistic/badge/mark/rank/etc. of any kind on any players profile. They have a fairly strict no name-n-shame policy, as they should. You can accept those ideas as ruled out at face value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceageg

You need to remember who you are complaining about here. Either the player leaving is leaving because you have a poor clan and/or poor leadership, or they are leaving because they have questionable moral integrity. For the sake of argument lets assume you are a wise and effective leader, so this must be one of those d-bags that hangs you out to dry. If you get your way and players are forced to stay or penalized for leaving . . . <fade to foreshadowed scene>

1) D-bag joins
2) You start war
3) D-bag wants to leave but can't (SUCCESS!!! He is stuck with you now!!!)
4) D-bag is a d-bag and wants out, so he decides to get kicked out
5) So he fills war castles with goblins and wallbreakers
6) And fills donations with goblins and wall breakers
7) And turns your clan chat into something that makes global look like bible study
8) And defames your clan on global
9) Then wastes both attacks in the war anyway
9a) Set their base up so it is super easy to 3*
10) And continues to fill war requests with ♥♥♥♥ troops
11) Maybe even comes to the forums to badmouth you and your clan
12) You kick them out
or
12) Your other clan members leave because you won't kick out the D-bag

Remember, this is already a person who doesn't care if they hurt your clan. Long story short, you are requesting a way to force people who don't want to be in your clan, who you don't even want in your clan, to be stuck in your clan. NOTHING good can come of this. Bad idea every time it is suggested.

---

Also, in an effort to not only help the OP understand the horrible repercussions of their idea, here is a list of many of the most common things successful clans do to prevent "D-bag hoppers" from being a nuisance (a nuisance, not a problem). Quoting myself from a recent thread again . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceageg

Most people who switch between clans do it for very good, fruitful reasons. Since the game can't tell these players from your much maligned "hoppers" the majority of us would end up penalized because a few players who didn't want to be in your clan but you let in anyway. The truly nefarious hoppers are usually very easy to spot and deal with. Players who are genuinely searching for a clan are simply part of the game, just like people searching for the right job are a part of real life. What you have hear is a clan management problem. One all of us have experienced and learned from. It has been discussed on the forum many times. Here's how most of us have solved this.

1) Set the clan to invite only.
2) Don't give elder to anybody who can't conduct themselves as an adult
3) Don't give Co-leader to anybody you don't trust
4) Make sure both elders and Co's understand that it is ok to accept new members
5) Make sure they understand they are expected to BOOT new members if
5a) They introduce themselves by asking for troops
5b) Introduce themselves with profanity
5c) Introduce themselves with some form of "rate my base!!!!"
5d) Don't respond when welcomed
5e) Ask for elder/Co in the first conversation
5f) Start filling castles with ♥♥♥♥
6) Clan rule that new members don't participate in the first war (Opted out by leader/co)
7) Only recruit 1-2 new players between each war, none during

Others may chime in with additional ideas but those are the basic ones. Follow those and hoppers will end 99% instantly. Not to mention you will crack a smile when you apply your boots to their crack.

---

All of us clan leader types have experienced this and learned to preventing through our own leadership skills and clan rules. There is no need to institute a system that will punish the most social and giving players while making the lowest quality players more destructive.

In my time on the forum here I still have yet to see the answer to these simple questions. Why do you want to force somebody that you don't want in your clan, to be stuck in your clan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaneHed13

Disagree,

At least with unused attacks you can imagine how close you are to winning the war. Watching an unhappy clan member send a single goblin to attack a base would be infuriating.

---

yeah i can imagine it right till the end when we lose, 24 hours hoping some tool will make an attack, that's not annoying at all. NOT!!!!!

Select the members of the clan that you can trust, problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enforcer7482

Ok, maybe the ability to replace the leaver with another member that is wanting war in the first 12 hrs or so. Of equal strength. ?.

---

Who is going to define equal strength?

No. This is a bad idea. This is a clan management problem, not a supercell problem.

The best solution is that if they leave in a war, let a lower lvl guy use the their unused attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kowalski711

The best solution is that if they leave in a war, let a lower lvl guy use the their unused attacks.

---

a lower level guy? define lower level? a th5 could beat a higher th level easy with the right troops