A good way is to not put no one in derby less that player pick the first task let it put them in then? Thats my suggestion that way people that ant active are just dont wont to help wont be in derby.
Printable View
A good way is to not put no one in derby less that player pick the first task let it put them in then? Thats my suggestion that way people that ant active are just dont wont to help wont be in derby.
I think this is a great idea. It would be good if a message could be sent to them letting them know they have been opted out of derby. Please opt in when you are ready to join the next derby.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMan
I think leaders should be able to opt players out, but still let the player opt back in (if they are actually playing, or when they come back) under their own settings menu.
Agree, posted similar thread
im tired of players only doing one task then sitting on a task that goes till end of Derby and not completing
would love to opt these out so they need to repot in, therefore missing at least 1 Derby.
they may get the message after being opted out a few times
We work very hard in my nh to communicate well. I am the leader. When I have fb communication for a non-playing hood member, I use it. We have chat. I use that. I also ask other nh members to explain the derby setting to players who are in a different part of the world and who play at different times than I do.
But what if the player can't get the message, or if their primary language isn't English (our hood language setting)?
Upshot of of all this is that we have several players still opted into the derby who have never taken a derby task. Youth, illness, device malfunction, living in a war zone (in real life) all impact a player's ability to use the opt out setting. I don't want to kick these people out of our neighborhood. But that is the power the game gives me. I believe that is a more destructive power.
if I were to opt a player out of the derby, let's say, a player who has never taken a derby task, and who I have chatted with several times to explain how to opt out, yes, it could make the player mad. He or she could then voluntarily leave our nh. I would prefer that, as for me, right now it is not clear if several of our members understand what I am asking. If I opted them out they would see it clearly. If they became angry with me, then I would understand the situation, and know that removing them from the NH might be a legitimate choice. It does not feel legitimate now.
For us, kicking someone out of the NH is a big deal. Opting a non-derby participant out would give us all more information, information I currently can't get.
Blackbrit, a point very well made. I completely agree with all you write but believe the problem arises from those Neighbourhoods who have power crazy leaders. Unfortunately some people take the competition element of the GAME way too seriously so I understand why supercell may be hesitant to give that power. The reality is that people can choose the type of Neighbourhood they wish to belong to, yes it may take some searching, but eventually most people can find a place to settle. If the power is abused by some then, in time, they will only be left with players who are happy to remain in that environment. I am a leader too and, like yourself, would prefer to have the option to change a players status for all the right reasons and stop other team members becoming frustrated.
After every new derby all opt in/out setting should be set to opt out.. if really someone is willing to play he can opt in. We dont want to miss our wonderful members supercell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbrit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryHD
BB. Many of us are going hoarse saying exactly the same thing. We have finally, pretty much, got our NH sorted, but it's been a hassle and I feel for others with even bigger issues. It's affecting lots and lots of NHs with children, ill people, language barriers etc. I really, really, can't work out why SC will not change it. It's FAR worse to have yo kick someone out if the NH than it is to stop they playing the Derby, do their 'control' excuse holds no water.
Terry, but Leaders already have the greater control of being able to kick people out, no NH AND no Derby. So just 'no Derby for one week' is a far better option and gives everyone the chsnce for a resolution, simply kicking them out does not.
We have had a major problem in my NHood with 8 farms not playing the Derby. We were happy to wait for them to return until the Derby came along. With the matching we were never competetive and many members of our NH stopped playing the Derby. I was waiting, hoping opting out would come but in the end I had no option to evict them.
The new Derby leagues should be better as long as non participating farms opt out. The problem being if they do not play they will not know about opting out and our NHood is penalised again.
I have have no way of contacting them. Please change the rules to overcome this problem and make Hayday fair again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
Nick,
Your reasoning that some people are sleeping is irrelevant considering there is a 24 hour window between derbies. Not to mention what is the worst that can happen? Someone may be out of the derby for a week? Without changing it, the derby isn't fair and many neighbourhoods are not being able to excel to the best of their abilities. Not all of us want to kick people out who may return to the game.
Default needs to be opt out or leaders and co-leaders need to have the ability to change ones status.