* Rebalancing required when players leave during war *

I've seen this many times, where one or more players leave during the war preparation stage or the war stage itself.
For each player that leaves, that team loses 3 battle stars. Just imagine what the remaining players think if this is before the war has even started i.e. during the preparation stage!!

When this happened the game becomes crippled. I've also seen many players uninstalling the game due to this.
The developers need to find some way of rebalancing things.

Possible solutions include redistributing the total attack and defence strengths amongst the remaining players, lowering the winning target by 3 stars for each player leaving the affected team, penalising the leaver in some way...and on this note...

PLEASE, provide more player stats that include things such as clan jump frequency so that clans have a better idea of players before accepting them.

Great game! room for improvement though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

I've seen this many times, where one or more players leave during the war preparation stage or the war stage itself.
For each player that leaves, that team loses 3 battle stars. Just imagine what the remaining players think if this is before the war has even started i.e. during the preparation stage!!

When this happened the game becomes crippled. I've also seen many players uninstalling the game due to this.
The developers need to find some way of rebalancing things.

Possible solutions include redistributing the total attack and defence strengths amongst the remaining players, lowering the winning target by 3 stars for each player leaving the affected team, penalising the leaver in some way...and on this note...

PLEASE, provide more player stats that include things such as clan jump frequency so that clans have a better idea of players before accepting them.

Great game! room for improvement though!

---

Technically, since everyone has 2 attacks, you lose up to 6 stars. However, my group found a way to counter these people. We put our loyal people in wars. We don't put brand new people into wars no matter how many trophies they have. That way, we know they have no intentions of leaving us. And if they do, most of them will have the curtasy to not do it during a war period. Naturally, this doesn't always work, but it helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theking8133

Technically, since everyone has 2 attacks, you lose up to 6 stars. However, my group found a way to counter these people. We put our loyal people in wars. We don't put brand new people into wars no matter how many trophies they have. That way, we know they have no intentions of leaving us. And if they do, most of them will have the curtasy to not do it during a war period. Naturally, this doesn't always work, but it helps.

---

Ah yes...6 stars for each person leaving (ouch! worse than I thought!)
That's a good idea - using a wait period before allowing people into a war.
I still think frequent jumpers should be flagged up to a clan before letting them in.

Hi,

I think there should be a counter that increaes every time one has not made his two attacks but there would have been stars available at the players own or a weaker posisiton and the clan war was not won by that clan or if he has left the clan without having made both attacks (and did not come back to do his attacks).

No problem with unused attacks if the clan wins anyways or if the player would not have a chance to get a star.

I usually follow those players to inform their new clans about the "loyalty" of the player and they kick him most of the time and I do so for weeks. But even ones who are told this before behave like ♥♥♥♥ and just leave.

Supercell should really do something about this!

Regards,
Rothaut

Absolutely! that's at the very top of my list as a major and critical problem with this whole game. Clash of Clans! The concept is irreparably damaged by players like this. Add this to the top of new player stats that must always be visible.

shouldn't be allowed to leave during prep day, if this opt in and out option was a serious thing we could do this, but players can be dumped into war without wanting to be in war.

if opt out stopped players being selected for war then opt in could lock a player into a war, so he could not leave, i think we need this

Cant force them to attack or be cordial while imprisoned in your clan.

There is one sole reason why SC enjoys the extreme lucrative returns on this one game: purchasing gems.

In order to maximise this you need to reduce player frustration, frustration that can very easily be eased by employing a few simple additions; the game needs more player stats so that a better judgement can be made on who to allow into a clan.

Of course, down the line, you may well be considering an API / management utility of sorts to help.
Then again...

Rule No1:
SC WANT people to reconsider the 'purchase option' as often as they think they can get away with it. And, considering the current and expanding profits on this one game alone, they WILL NEVER address this effectively any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theking8133

Technically, since everyone has 2 attacks, you lose up to 6 stars. However, my group found a way to counter these people. We put our loyal people in wars. We don't put brand new people into wars no matter how many trophies they have. That way, we know they have no intentions of leaving us. And if they do, most of them will have the curtasy to not do it during a war period. Naturally, this doesn't always work, but it helps.

---

This logic is flawed. You dont automatically lose any stars when a player leaves. Technically, since everyone has two attacks you only need half your players to get full stars on an opponent.

This thread is essentially a repeat of a complaint that comes up daily, and my response may prove to be unpopular. But really, i view this as a clan problem, not something that supercell needs to fix. In the past 5 months in my current clan we have had only 2 members leave during war prep and we easily won both wars. They did not even register a blip on my problem radar.

Consider this. One of the jobs of the clan leaders is to recruit members and maintain a good roster. How are you recruiting? Are you just spamming in global? Have you gotten to know your new recruits before you allow them in war? Do you accept numerous new players before each war? Are you just trying to get to 50 members as quickly as possible?

If you raise the standard for what you expect from players and maybe require new recruits to opt out of the first 2 wars they are eligible for then you will weed out the bad players. Also, do not be in a race to get to 50. After 5 months of recruiting we now have 39. If you consider we started with 10 that means weve added less than 6 per month. Thats just over one player a week. This means we are typically only warring with one player we dont know. We can easily handle the absence of one player.

Another job of clan leaders is to make sure your clan is worth staying in. Is your clan fun? Do you attempt to connect with members in more ways than just requesting troops? Are you offering something to your members that they cant get in another clan?

Supercell cannot save you from bad players anymore than it can save individual players from bad clans. As the system works now, both clans and players have the freedom to be in complete control of enjoying their CoC experience. If you are having trouble with yours i recommend you find a better clan.

You raise fair points, and suggest a workable way around the issue of 'bad players'.

However, what about a much faster way of recognising the player who is set out to disrupt a clan - by providing more player stats so that Leaders, etc can spot desirable/undesirable traits - before they accept them into the clan?

Bad players can be easily defined e.g. frequency of clan jumping, clan-disruptive attacking during wars (i.e. wasting time at the start / deliberately keeping their strongest attack units out of the battle / etc).
SC already have all the tools they need to display this.

Rule2: like everything else, it's going to be the minority who upset the great majority, a majority who are your prime gem purchasers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

You raise fair points, and suggest a workable way around the issue of 'bad players'.

However, what about a much faster way of recognising the player who is set out to disrupt a clan - by providing more player stats so that Leaders, etc can spot desirable/undesirable traits - before they accept them into the clan?

Bad players can be easily defined e.g. frequency of clan jumping, clan-disruptive attacking during wars (i.e. wasting time at the start / deliberately keeping their strongest attack units out of the battle / etc).
SC already have all the tools they need to display this.

Rule2: like everything else, it's going to be the minority who upset the great majority, a majority who are your prime gem purchasers!

---

I am not opposed to Supercell displaying more stats. I do think many stats can be misleading. For example, is someone with 300 war stars a good attacker or someone who attacks well below their weight? With that said, it would be left to each clan to determine how they would incorporate those statistics into their recruiting process. So I would be fine with that.

You last point is simply untrue. The minority of bad players do not affect my enjoyment of the game in the least because supercell has given me the tools and freedom to distance myself from them.

Supercell cannot save you from bad players. No statistic in the world is going to tell you if somone is a callous jerk. Its just not possible. You give me a statistic you want Supercell to display and I'll give you the scenario on how a bad player will actively seek to negate it and how good players will be negatively impacted by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

...You give me a statistic you want Supercell to display and I'll give you the scenario on how a bad player will actively seek to negate it and how good players will be negatively impacted by it.

---

Ah yes.....but surely we can't reduce the entire argument in this way; we certainly won't break out by the use of this very standard circular response tool.

Yes, absolutely and of course, most things can be negated. However, the critical message I'm trying to get across is that:-

- the implementation of additional, properly constructed stat/s (cross-logic/connected stats checked, etc) will greatly reduce player frustration.

- Accepting a new player into the 'casual Clasher's' clan is risky since there is limited information available into the new player's clan history.

- What, for example, is the problem with a ClanJumpFreq history log? - someone who frequently jumps is not going to be of help. Yes, this can be negated (e.g. someone initially trying to search out a good clan). To 'help' counteract this, a visual history will help both new player and Leaders.

- What is the problem with a WarAttack history log - that measures each players usage or non-usage of their available attacks? - a VERY useful stat!

Remember, all these logs/stats are off-device; the device merely reads the data.

Please also bear in mind that the vast majority (/significant gem buyers) of Clashers will be casual by nature. The minority will be in pro/strictly organised/stable clans (/also significant gem buyers), thus, will have little need for these new stats - unless they are recruiting in which case these stats will be of significant use.

Great, 'addictive' game! can be improved to reduce player frustration. And, of course, we're not looking to overcomplicate Clash...a few simple additions will not do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

You raise fair points, and suggest a workable way around the issue of 'bad players'.

However, what about a much faster way of recognising the player who is set out to disrupt a clan - by providing more player stats so that Leaders, etc can spot desirable/undesirable traits - before they accept them into the clan?

Bad players can be easily defined e.g. frequency of clan jumping, clan-disruptive attacking during wars (i.e. wasting time at the start / deliberately keeping their strongest attack units out of the battle / etc).
SC already have all the tools they need to display this.

Rule2: like everything else, it's going to be the minority who upset the great majority, a majority who are your prime gem purchasers!

---

Supercell has, from the beginning, had a holistic policy against negative statistics. Notice how they won't tell you how many times you've LOST a raid? They won't even give up that statistic, do you think they'll give others?

The best tactic for not losing players in war is to not let new players fight in the first war they're in. If you rely on new players to start war, that is your problem and Supercell shouldn't have to change the game because you can't manage a clan enough.

A war can be won by just half of the players. Losing one player shouldn't cause you to lose if you are know how to attack. If you are losing 3 players, you can still win. If you are losing more then 3, you can still win but that's more of sign of your clan then it is anything else.....

Look within for corrections rather then wait for external powers to correct them for you...

"Supercell has, from the beginning, had a holistic policy against negative statistics....
A war can be won by just half of the players. Losing one player shouldn't cause you to lose if you are know how to attack. If you are losing 3 players, you can still win. If you are losing more then 3, you can still win but that's more of sign of your clan then it is anything else "

Remember, we're talking about the vast majority of Clashers - the casual player...not the minority who have stable clans.

You're first point lies at the heart of this issue...SC shouldn't assume that because a stat can have a negative implication then it shouldn't be included. Surely they can, by now, afford to try out new Leader aids? They will certainly be doing this with any future management tool, but I guess the rate at which their gold reserves are filling up, they can equally afford to wait.

"A war can be won by just half of the players" (+1 star) - yes, but while statistically correct, that's absurd in the context of real life.
"If you are losing 3 players, you can still win." - again, yes, but really??...18 stars down straight away!

Finally, these issues don't just apply to me personally - the average (majority) clasher is equally disadvantaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

Ah yes.....but surely we can't reduce the entire argument in this way; we certainly won't break out by the use of this very standard circular response tool.

---

My response was not circular. As I stated, I'm not opposed to additional statistics being provided. All I am saying is there are no statistics that are going to 'protect' you from bad, selfish players.

For example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

What is the problem with a WarAttack history log - that measures each players usage or non-usage of their available attacks? - a VERY useful stat!

---

A player can use all of their attacks. A 100% rate is great. But if they are a TH10 and attacking the oppositions TH6s because they want to get the War Hero achievement then this statistic does nothing to indicate if they are a good clan mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

"A war can be won by just half of the players" (+1 star) - yes, but while statistically correct, that's absurd in the context of real life.
"If you are losing 3 players, you can still win." - again, yes, but really??...18 stars down straight away

---

This logic is flawed on so many levels it's hard to cover it all here. Being down 3 players does not mean you have lost 18 stars straight away. First, your assumption is every player will 3 star all their attacks. If that is true your other players should be able to cover the attacks of the missing players. Second, if those players stay in your clan and record 0 star attacks are you any better off?

All I am saying is there is no way Supercell can provide you with data that would prevent you from running into bad players. They can give you all the statistics in the world, but those only give you a partial picture of the player. Until you meet the player and get to know them you have absolutely no way to know for sure if they are worthy of being labeled a good clan mate.

Remember, we're only talking about trying to reducing player frustration - for the majority of clashers - frustration which will become significant relatively shortly, once these 'issues' become visible to the player. SC merely needs to look at player gem purchase (SC's sole income generator for CoC) history to see this...a simple projection will tell you that it will fall off sharply. On the other hand, SC know this but obviously feel that 'market saturation' is some way off from being reached....they can assuredly build more gold storage and continue as planned..."Clash of Clans mobile game was most popular Super Bowl ad in 2015"!

SC will have to tackle such issues at some point. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that quite clearly, with their own ever expanding gold reserves, this is not high on their to-do list.

A few additional correctly implemented player stats will go a long way in helping this.

Quote:

---

A player can use all of their attacks. A 100% rate is great. But if they are a TH10 and attacking the oppositions TH6s because they want to get the War Hero achievement then this statistic does nothing to indicate if they are a good clan mate.

---

-->It's easy to implement a stat that reflects how much a player attacks their own TH level e.g. by using a scale of -1 to +1 where 0 shows a player attacking only their own TH. Tag this to a history and that's pretty much all we need to know.

With regards to players leaving in-battle. Are you really suggesting that a team of 35 (for example) should not 'feel' frustration when up against a team of 40 (due to 5 players leaving in-battle)! Seriously? This does amount to 5 x 2 'free' battles, or am I/everyone else not reading this correctly?

I have posted quite a few times in recent days with only observations and suggestions of where to make the game experience better. Some responses are, shall we say, 'interesting'. A pattern showing a clear trend to dampen down undertones of discontent in the forums appears to be visible.

This whole issue should be rather easy to fix, and in my opinion should likely be dealt with this way anyhow.

When you first start in a new clan you should be automatically set to opt out of war unless you switch. Then you are linked to that clan for any upcoming wars.

Then if you get taken into a war, you are stuck within that 2 day war sequence. If you leave that clan while the war is on you get a DESERTER flag and are thus banned from wars for 7 days. As well as are given the flag so that other clans can see that you have left an on going war. If you in fact make your 2 attacks then leave, it should be 3 days ban and forfeit of any loot that you should have gotten.

With this in place the fellow that joins a war, stays the 25 max hours it will take to start the war and make two attacks then leave, will be penalized properly for DESERTING the war efforts. As well as have no loot gained for such an action.
It will in effect stop anyone for doing that in the wars.

My clan fixes this problem by making it so that no new members are able to be in the first war that we have after joining. We have had no one leave the war during our war efforts at all.

There is ways to make sure that your members remain loyal, just have to find them !

It's interesting how people think its just easy to "toss a stat in their profile". While all of what you are saying may be possible, it is definitely not worth it. I am in a clan who never has issue with clan jumpers. Its a management issue, not a SuperCell issue. If we get someone new who doesnt attack, we boot that person. End of story. If they are lower, it generally doesn't matter. If they are a higher level, we would not let them war immediately until we got a feel for who they were. How many people are you inviting into your clan on a regular basis that 5 would leave during a war?!? SuperCell has bigger issues to deal with than managing everyones clan for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

Remember, we're only talking about trying to reducing player frustration - for the majority of clashers - frustration which will become significant relatively shortly, once these 'issues' become visible to the player. SC merely needs to look at player gem purchase (SC's sole income generator for CoC) history to see this...a simple projection will tell you that it will fall off sharply. On the other hand, SC know this but obviously feel that 'market saturation' is some way off from being reached....they can assuredly build more gold storage and continue as planned..."Clash of Clans mobile game was most popular Super Bowl ad in 2015"!

SC will have to tackle such issues at some point. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that quite clearly, with their own ever expanding gold reserves, this is not high on their to-do list.

---

Where are you dredging these 'facts' up from? Or is this actually merely your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahle

This whole issue should be rather easy to fix, and in my opinion should likely be dealt with this way anyhow.

When you first start in a new clan you should be automatically set to opt out of war unless you switch. Then you are linked to that clan for any upcoming wars.

Then if you get taken into a war, you are stuck within that 2 day war sequence. If you leave that clan while the war is on you get a DESERTER flag and are thus banned from wars for 7 days. As well as are given the flag so that other clans can see that you have left an on going war. If you in fact make your 2 attacks then leave, it should be 3 days ban and forfeit of any loot that you should have gotten.

With this in place the fellow that joins a war, stays the 25 max hours it will take to start the war and make two attacks then leave, will be penalized properly for DESERTING the war efforts. As well as have no loot gained for such an action.
It will in effect stop anyone for doing that in the wars.

My clan fixes this problem by making it so that no new members are able to be in the first war that we have after joining. We have had no one leave the war during our war efforts at all.

There is ways to make sure that your members remain loyal, just have to find them !

---

This would just force people to stay in your clan and tank their 2 war attacks. In the meantime they may try to behave like a turd so you will kick them out and then they won't serve the 7 day ban. Is that really what you want?

And what about this scenario...say you do poorly in your first attack. And, unbeknownst to you, you are in a clan full of turds. And they begin to verbally abuse you. Is it fair to be stuck in that clan for the remainder of the war?

If you manage your clan well then two things happen. One, you will have FAR fewer deserters (I've had two in the past 5 months). And two, when you do have the occasional deserter it is a complete non-issue. This is a clan management problem. It is not anything that Supercell needs to fix.

it is not Supercell's responsibility to help stabilize unstable clans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

Remember, we're only talking about trying to reducing player frustration - for the majority of clashers - frustration which will become significant relatively shortly, once these 'issues' become visible to the player.

---

You have all the tools you need to reduce your own frustration. I haven't been frustrated in months. Mainly because I have taken the time to surround myself with great clan mates. You have the very same ability to do the same thing for yourself. Its to the point now where we welcome the occasional turd (who we quickly rid ourselves of) because it reminds us what we aren't dealing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

SC merely needs to look at player gem purchase (SC's sole income generator for CoC) history to see this...a simple projection will tell you that it will fall off sharply.

---

Turds buy gems too. My guess is they may buy them even more than the mature, patient players who make good clan mates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

-->It's easy to implement a stat that reflects how much a player attacks their own TH level e.g. by using a scale of -1 to +1 where 0 shows a player attacking only their own TH. Tag this to a history and that's pretty much all we need to know.

---

And what happens to my plus/minus ration when I, as a TH8, pick up stars on the opponents TH5 because those are the stars we need to win the war? Now am I being punished for being a good clan mate? What if a clan takes in a new player to teach them the ropes and specifically instructs them to attack below their weight until they are more competent (this is something our clan does and we've turn some of those players into top-notch attackers, but I imagine their plus/minus ratio is -25 or even worse).

Again, I don't mind having the stat. And clearly having a plus/minus of -100 as opposed to -10 may help expose the players who are making a habit of attacking lower bases instead of someone who does it occasionally. But my point remains - there is no statistic that gives you a clear understanding of a player until you meet them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

With regards to players leaving in-battle. Are you really suggesting that a team of 35 (for example) should not 'feel' frustration when up against a team of 40 (due to 5 players leaving in-battle)! Seriously? This does amount to 5 x 2 'free' battles, or am I/everyone else not reading this correctly?

---

Clearly the more that leave the more impactful it is. I'm not foolish enough to say, 'let them all leave, we'll be fine'. But that still comes back to a clan management issue. We only add two players in between wars. So out of 25 or 30 players I know I can rely on 23 or 28 of them. With those numbers it is easy to deal with the absence of two members. I would suggest changing the way you recruit players. I'm going on 5 months of having absolutely ZERO issues with deserters.

Also consider this. We have an excellent clan mate who always attacks in war. He is spending a month traveling abroad and opted out of war. However, I, as leader, have brought him to our last 6 wars. I did this because not bringing him would mean dropping to 20 man wars and I felt we could easily cover his attacks. So now he is 0 of his last 12 war attacks. I know this is a very common practice in clans as I have other accounts in other clans who do the same thing. Again....there is just simply no statistic that give you the full picture of a player. It simply does not exists.

You say bring on more statistics. I say, 'go for it'. But it is NOT the lack of statistics that are frustrating you with this game. Without properly vetting new recruits you are still going to run into the same frustrations because the statistics do not filter out selfish players.

Instead, you need to focus on establishing (or joining) one of the myriad of clans who manage their clans properly. There are tons out there. There are some for players of every TH level. I know of many and I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface (if you are looking shoot me a PM and I can help). And all of them use sound recruiting and management techniques which establish loyalty, friendliness, and, most importantly, fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

I've seen this many times, where one or more players leave during the war preparation stage or the war stage itself.
For each player that leaves, that team loses 3 battle stars. Just imagine what the remaining players think if this is before the war has even started i.e. during the preparation stage!!

When this happened the game becomes crippled. I've also seen many players uninstalling the game due to this.
The developers need to find some way of rebalancing things.

Possible solutions include redistributing the total attack and defence strengths amongst the remaining players, lowering the winning target by 3 stars for each player leaving the affected team, penalising the leaver in some way...and on this note...

PLEASE, provide more player stats that include things such as clan jump frequency so that clans have a better idea of players before accepting them.

Great game! room for improvement though!

---

No, you can easily lose a few players if at the bottom, and still three-star every opponent.

Having non-loyal members in your clan of course hurts your war effort. But this is a central feature of the game, an organised loyal clan has the advantage in clan wars.

Mesa and Rahe are right. That "it's a clan management problem" line doesn't fix anything in the real world. Especially for a small clan like mine. I see how a clan of 50 with a feeder clan that they use to screen for war deserters works well, almost automatically. But with about ten players I have to either put untried members in a war or there will be no next war. Then we lose more members. Repeating the mantra "clan management problem" is useless unrealistic and annoying, second only to the deserters themselves.
I believe a possible solution is a blacklist site maintained outside Supercell control, because their policy not only doesn't help but actually makes the war deserter problem worse. Just a thought.

If you are unhappy with your less-than-10 players, maybe it's time for you (and the good apples) to abandon your clan and join a good, established clan that has already addressed those issues.

Simple rule for new members:

1. Until you hit X donations or 1 week, you will not be opted-in for war.

If a new recruit isn't okay with this rule, they aren't a good fit for you anyway. If they invest the donations/week, then they are a safer bet to include in your war.

Back on topic ... every statistic listed in this thread has an easy work-around and can be mis-interpreted. SC will not provide "negative" statistics on any player. Period.

I repeat . . . again. To the OP I ask for an answer to the question at the bottom in BOLD.

Again . . . 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? What does that say about you?

Before we start war in our clan, I (as general in my clan) make a request to all members to check their button. Green is yes and Red is No. I give 24 hours so everybody can toggle on/off themselves.

Those who toggled on but dont attack get kicked from clan.
Those players who leave at any time wont come back in clan unless they had a valid reason to leave and informed the clan before leaving.
Since we started using this we never had this problem again
Ofcourse sometimes someone cant attack because reallife prevents it but we also keep it in mind that something can happen and we make sure that those attacks can be done by another member.
For every clanwar problem is a solution that can be done by the clan. SC doesnt need to change it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bockerijder

Before we start war in our clan, I (as general in my clan) make a request to all members to check their button. Green is yes and Red is No. I give 24 hours so everybody can toggle on/off themselves.

Those who toggled on but dont attack get kicked from clan.
Those players who leave at any time wont come back in clan unless they had a valid reason to leave and informed the clan before leaving.

---

We do the same ... except if a reliable member (been in clan at least 2 weeks) misses an attack, they get a warning and a suspension from the next war for the first offense. Second offense ... yeah, they get kicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by istraus

Mesa and Rahe are right. That "it's a clan management problem" line doesn't fix anything in the real world. Especially for a small clan like mine. I see how a clan of 50 with a feeder clan that they use to screen for war deserters works well, almost automatically. But with about ten players I have to either put untried members in a war or there will be no next war. Then we lose more members. Repeating the mantra "clan management problem" is useless unrealistic and annoying, second only to the deserters themselves.
I believe a possible solution is a blacklist site maintained outside Supercell control, because their policy not only doesn't help but actually makes the war deserter problem worse. Just a thought.

---

Do you think we all started off as 50 member clans with feeders automatically? I am a mid TH8, nothing to write home about. I started my clan when i was a TH6, even less to write home about. We are a small clan (have yet to do a 30 man war) with no feeder or website or youtube videos. Our first 10-15 wars were 10 man wars just like yours. And we've been at this for 6 months.

Even if you find it annoying, the reality is this is a clan management issue. Sorry if you dont like the answer, but it is a reality, in the real world. In the real world your clan is not offering what real people in the real world want out of their gaming experience. Even if supercell did change something your clan would still lose players because they simply dont want to be in your clan.

Your job as a clan leader is to figure out why people are choosing to leave your clan. Why is it that i (and many others) was able to grow my clan without the wartime deserter problem that you claim is hindering your clans growth? I started just like you and still have a long way to go, but i dont need supercell to change anything. Ive already got all the tools i need to protect myself from bad players. You have the same tools too, you just have to figure out how to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesab

I've seen this many times, where one or more players leave during the war preparation stage or the war stage itself.
For each player that leaves, that team loses 3 battle stars. Just imagine what the remaining players think if this is before the war has even started i.e. during the preparation stage!!

When this happened the game becomes crippled. I've also seen many players uninstalling the game due to this.
The developers need to find some way of rebalancing things.

Possible solutions include redistributing the total attack and defence strengths amongst the remaining players, lowering the winning target by 3 stars for each player leaving the affected team, penalising the leaver in some way...and on this note...

PLEASE, provide more player stats that include things such as clan jump frequency so that clans have a better idea of players before accepting them.

Great game! room for improvement though!

---

Lame suggestion. Most jumpers are noobs and they aren't worth three stars.
This problem exists with every clan. How about you try coming up with a solution rather than cry about it and hope supercell fixes it for you.