Bigger punishment for early war quitter

Printable View

October 13th, 2015
felipebsr

Bigger punishment for early war quitter

As a clan leader and talking with anothers, we have a common problem: early war quitters. Some people that apparently are doind fine in your clan, confirm presence on war, you open it and they leave your clan before the war even starts. Only solution for this is a heavy punishment, in respect to the dozens of other people that want to play the war and will do it with a disadvantage. Make them not being able to receive donations or enter/create another clan for one whole week. Make them not bee elegible for future wars for one week. Or both...
October 13th, 2015
awesomness2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

As a clan leader and talking with anothers, we have a common problem: early war quitters. Some people that apparently are doind fine in your clan, confirm presence on war, you open it and they leave your clan before the war even starts. Only solution for this is a heavy punishment, in respect to the dozens of other people that want to play the war and will do it with a disadvantage. Make them not being able to receive donations or enter/create another clan for one whole week. Make them not bee elegible for future wars for one week. Or both...

Clan leaders should be punished for letting people into war that leave without doing their attacks, as it shows poor judgement as a clan leader for letting that person into war in the first place. Maybe they shouldn't be able to start a war for one week.
October 13th, 2015
Temur

thread taken
October 13th, 2015
Andymajor

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

Clan leaders should be punished for letting people into war that leave without doing their attacks, as it shows poor judgement as a clan leader for letting that person into war in the first place. Maybe they shouldn't be able to start a war for one week.

Duh how are we supposed to know if they will. Don't just post to move up this is the dumbest reply I have read. Not helpful and just plain silly
October 13th, 2015
Manyolo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andymajor

Duh how are we supposed to know if they will. Don't just post to move up this is the dumbest reply I have read. Not helpful and just plain silly

He is actually right you know. Letting a stranger in and allowing him participate in war without testing his loyalty before is not the smartest thing to do as a clan leader.
October 13th, 2015
Andymajor

Would b nice to c something

Not really sure what they could do anymore then they have. But yes I agree it would b nice to c them pay for thier actions beside 48 hr cool down. If anyone try's to join my clan they get rejected or kicked if they have cool down from screwing a clan over in wars. No matter what supercell did it would still happen. Good luck in finding loyal members they are there but you will hit a few bad apples while finding good members
October 13th, 2015
Andymajor

Have you lead a clan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manyolo

He is actually right you know. Letting a stranger in and allowing him participate in war without testing his loyalty before is not the smartest thing to do as a clan leader.

The reason for letting new people in is to grow your clan you will always run in to bad apples in the mix. Someone could join you take your troops while u decide and then you put them in war because they seem legit and they leave u hang in war how would that fall on to leader skills come on so you are actually wrong
October 13th, 2015
Manyolo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andymajor

The reason for letting new people in is to grow your clan you will always run in to bad apples in the mix. Someone could join you take your troops while u decide and then you put them in war because they seem legit and they leave u hang in war how would that fall on to leader skills come on so you are actually wrong

Thats why you should "test" new members, wait a few days before letting them participate in war, see how they act in the clan environment, how active they are in raids, donations and chat. There will always be people like them i agree, just try to eliminate the chances from letting this happen to you.
October 13th, 2015
Lee1886

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manyolo

Thats why you should "test" new members, wait a few days before letting them participate in war, see how they act in the clan environment, how active they are in raids, donations and chat. There will always be people like them i agree, just try to eliminate the chances from letting this happen to you.

Agreed. Now you can choose war members you can take the trusted ones into the war, once they leave if they're punished it doesn't help the clan in any event.
October 13th, 2015
Andymajor

He prob did

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manyolo

Thats why you should "test" new members, wait a few days before letting them participate in war, see how they act in the clan environment, how active they are in raids, donations and chat. There will always be people like them i agree, just try to eliminate the chances from letting this happen to you.

He prob did think about it we all do and I have been leading a clan for over 2 yrs and do I screen my members and have been raked over when 3 co agree to let them in he had a serious thought and there has been nothing but say he is in the wrong when if you read the comments it is clear that he is just venting or looking for advice not to b run down and say he is a bad leader. Bud I could give you a million points on this and you will still blame the leader when jumping is a huge thing in the game
October 13th, 2015
awesomness2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andymajor

Duh how are we supposed to know if they will. Don't just post to move up this is the dumbest reply I have read. Not helpful and just plain silly

Jumping is a huge thing in the game, but it doesn't have to be in your clan, and you don't have to let it ruin your wars.

If you don't know if they will attack or not, then you should be thinking twice about letting them into war...I'd rather have players ask why they're not in war or even leave then risk losing because I put in someone that I wasn't sure would show. As a leader, your priority should always be towards your proven, loyal members.

So make people sit out a war or two or a week when they first join. Make them post replays of practice war attacks. Make them donate at least a couple hundred troops before you put them in war. Talk to them in chat and explain your policies; tell them you do this stuff because you want long term reliable members that you can be confident will show up for war when they're in because it's not fair to the rest of the players in the war to have people that don't really care if you win or lose and can't be counted on to show up and do a good job.

Our clan doesn't even do half the stuff I listed, and I have about 20 members that I know are going to show up for war every time...they very rarely miss attacks and if they do there's a reason, and they come on and apologize and explain when they have a chance. Other than these members, we're very selective about who gets let in...I know we can afford one or two players I'm not sure about if they're near the bottom of the map, but I won't risk any more than that, and if it's a player that would be on the top half of the board, I really want to make sure they're going to show before including them.

Besides, what's to stop me from "using" both my attacks by dropping a troop on the map then surrendering? And then if I really want to be an ♥♥♥, I'll fill your requests with goblins and wallbreakers until I get kicked. Punishing no shows would just encourage this sort of behavior...be a ♥♥♥♥ and get kicked out so you don't get penalized for leaving...
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

Clan leaders should be punished for letting people into war that leave without doing their attacks, as it shows poor judgement as a clan leader for letting that person into war in the first place. Maybe they shouldn't be able to start a war for one week.

Except that in my clan only confirmed people go to war. We require text confirmation from chat and some people that enter, donate troops and even interact with other in chat leave war early. So? Only allow best friends thatjoined the clan after a year to be safe?
October 17th, 2015
andrewchang

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

Except that in my clan only confirmed people go to war. We require text confirmation from chat and some people that enter, donate troops and even interact with other in chat leave war early. So? Only allow best friends thatjoined the clan after a year to be safe?

This is a clan management issue, not Supercell's problem. What if they are spies, or really need to visit a clan and has the clan's consent? There is no way to go around that.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

Clan leaders should be punished for letting people into war that leave without doing their attacks, as it shows poor judgement as a clan leader for letting that person into war in the first place. Maybe they shouldn't be able to start a war for one week.

That's about as moronic an it gets. I'm not calling you a moron. I'm calling an idea moronic.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

Besides, what's to stop me from "using" both my attacks by dropping a troop on the map then surrendering? And then if I really want to be an ♥♥♥, I'll fill your requests with goblins and wallbreakers until I get kicked. Punishing no shows would just encourage this sort of behavior...be a ♥♥♥♥ and get kicked out so you don't get penalized for leaving...

A basic algorith can measure attack lengh and deployed troops and % of destruction. The could be a delay anyway, not really a punishment that would made clan jumpers think twice before leaving and joining new clans.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manyolo

He is actually right you know. Letting a stranger in and allowing him participate in war without testing his loyalty before is not the smartest thing to do as a clan leader.

Second most moronic reply, but a close second.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewchang

This is a clan management issue, not Supercell's problem. What if they are spies, or really need to visit a clan and has the clan's consent? There is no way to go around that.

It is Supercell problem in the moment that it allows a person leave a clan and join other in mid of a war. Other solution could be not allowing a player leave a clan ultil war is finished. And if that player did not attack in the war, he/she would have to wait some days as punishment before being able to join the clan. Plus the algoryth to detect a troll attack that is easy do be done.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

Second most moronic reply, but a close second.

Imagine...
Loalty test
[ ] are you loyal ?
[ ] are you lying ?
[ ] should i trust you even though we may never meet each other because it is a online game where people play anonymously?
[ ] Is your name Brutus?
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Screening and testing barely scratches the surface. The most annoying deserters are the ones who have been in a clan for a significant period of time and rage quit for some petty reason. Saying that you can predict and filter out flakes is foolish. This is a game whereby people chat a few dozen characters at a time. People can say all the right things, then quit after their first war attack due to embarrassment for poor results. People can quit because someone has a few adult beverages and starts talking politics or religion and offends someone else.

Blaming anyone one but the deserter is idiotic. My opinion is that using both war attacks to the best of ones ability and in accordance with the clans rules is the number one implied moral obligation in the game, and people who fail to do so should face serious consequences. Don't apologize for the douche-nozzels, and don't blame the people who choose to open their clan to new members.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

Imagine...l
Loalty test
[ ] are you loyal ?
[ ] are you lying ?
[ ] should i trust you even though we may never meet each other because it is a online game where people play anonymously?
[ ] Is your name Brutus?

Exactly. I've hired people before who have been through extensive screenings, in person interviews with five or more trusted people, reference checks and the whole nine yards, and even then every once in a while you find a bad apple. The thought that screening or testing is effective in clash is naive. You probably lose more good people than bad by playing screening games with them anyway.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewchang

This is a clan management issue, not Supercell's problem. What if they are spies, or really need to visit a clan and has the clan's consent? There is no way to go around that.

Spies wouldn't be in war. The idea is only to punish war participants, not war spectators.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

This topic keeps coming up and no one ever replies when I post the following scenario. Maybe I am a thread killer. But before I get to the scenario...does everyone who pushes for this realize it wont solve the problem? Hoppers will just drop a single barb for their attack and then leave. They arent going to help you win the war regardless....

But now consider this....and if you have a good retort to this scenario I will gladly reconsider my stance (and by the way, I witnessed this scenario several times in several different clans before i found my permanent clan)....

Say I am new to clash and I don't exactly know what I am doing. I join a clan who doesnt exactly offer me much help. And with my first war attack I don't know I'm supposed to lure CC troops and I get a whopping 7%.

I return to my clan chat to see the clan leader is making all sorts of fun of me. He is repeatedly belittling me and is actively encouraging all the other members of the clan to make fun of me. He commands that everyone refers to me by a four letter word that rhymes with truck.

So now if I choose to leave this clan who is verbally abusing me before using my second attack I am the one who is punished? Makes no sense.

Seek out good quality people and give them a reason to stay. It works. You don't need Supercell to change anything.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

Screening and testing barely scratches the surface. The most annoying deserters are the ones who have been in a clan for a significant period of time and rage quit for some petty reason. Saying that you can predict and filter out flakes is foolish. This is a game whereby people chat a few dozen characters at a time. People can say all the right things, then quit after their first war attack due to embarrassment for poor results. People can quit because someone has a few adult beverages and starts talking politics or religion and offends someone else.

Blaming anyone one but the deserter is idiotic. My opinion is that using both war attacks to the best of ones ability and in accordance with the clans rules is the number one implied moral obligation in the game, and people who fail to do so should face serious consequences. Don't apologize for the douche-nozzels, and don't blame the people who choose to open their clan to new members.

Hear hear. Same happened with me not once, not twice. rage-quitters and shame-quitters with months of clan leaving in mid of a war. We're clan leaders not clan babysitters, that's why i've created this topic. Just making a BIG delay for people that leave the clan in mid of a war, no matter how many attacks would make them think twice.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

This topic keeps coming up and no one ever replies when I post the following scenario. Maybe I am a thread killer. But before I get to the scenario...does everyone who pushes for this realize it wont solve the problem? Hoppers will just drop a single barb for their attack and then leave. They arent going to help you win the war regardless....

But now consider this....and if you have a good retort to this scenario I will gladly reconsider my stance (and by the way, I witnessed this scenario several times in several different clans before i found my permanent clan)....

Say I am new to clash and I don't exactly know what I am doing. I join a clan who doesnt exactly offer me much help. And with my first war attack I don't know I'm supposed to lure CC troops and I get a whopping 7%.

I return to my clan chat to see the clan leader is making all sorts of fun of me. He is repeatedly belittling me and is actively encouraging all the other members of the clan to make fun of me. He commands that everyone refers to me by a four letter word that rhymes with truck.

So now if I choose to leave this clan who is verbally abusing me before using my second attack I am the one who is punished? Makes no sense.

Seek out good quality people and give them a reason to stay. It works. You don't need Supercell to change anything.

The newbie would be punished wrongly in the given example. However, in the example we gave(people leaving in mid of war due to rage/shame/moron-quit, the entire clan is punished. Which happens mostly? Newbies' bullying or moron qutters? Only Supercell can tell for sure. But i would bet on the later.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

The newbie would be punished wrongly in the given example. However, in the example we gave(people leaving in mid of war due to rage/shame/moron-quit, the entire clan is punished. Which happens mostly? Newbies' bullying or moron qutters? Only Supercell can tell for sure. But i would bet on the later.

If we are comparing frequncies let me ask you this. Which happens more? Players leaving mid-war in bad clans that dont test player loyalty? Or players leaving good clans that only take trusted players to war?

I can tell you in the past 10 months we have had 3 people leave mid war. And we won all of those wars. So maybe this is not a Supercell problem. Maybe it is a problem with the way some people run their clan.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

This topic keeps coming up and no one ever replies when I post the following scenario. Maybe I am a thread killer. But before I get to the scenario...does everyone who pushes for this realize it wont solve the problem? Hoppers will just drop a single barb for their attack and then leave. They arent going to help you win the war regardless....

But now consider this....and if you have a good retort to this scenario I will gladly reconsider my stance (and by the way, I witnessed this scenario several times in several different clans before i found my permanent clan)....

Say I am new to clash and I don't exactly know what I am doing. I join a clan who doesnt exactly offer me much help. And with my first war attack I don't know I'm supposed to lure CC troops and I get a whopping 7%.

I return to my clan chat to see the clan leader is making all sorts of fun of me. He is repeatedly belittling me and is actively encouraging all the other members of the clan to make fun of me. He commands that everyone refers to me by a four letter word that rhymes with truck.

So now if I choose to leave this clan who is verbally abusing me before using my second attack I am the one who is punished? Makes no sense.

Seek out good quality people and give them a reason to stay. It works. You don't need Supercell to change anything.

This has been answered many times before. It is fairly easy to come up with an algorithm to determine if an attack attempt was legitimate or not. Total housing space deployed, total hitpoints deployed, attack duration, damage done, etc. You wouldn't publish the details just like they don't publish the war match algorithm specifics either. This would only even need to be accounted for if the person quit during the war even after using both attacks. You can't detect a halfhearted attack, but you can detect a sham. You can also put a "report" button in the attack replay that becomes active if the player quits. We have report in chat, why not report in war? Shouldn't be needed, but it could be done.

The second scenario you describe is an outlier scenario and accounts for a tiny fraction of desertion, and would only apply to relatively inexperienced players. Having a new player learn that they can't desert during war on top of having joined a clan full of jerks would be a double whammy, but it would be a teachable moment as well. I think the greater clash community can decide to take the risk of that unfair scenario if the result was punishing the average run of the mill everyday deserter.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

If we are comparing frequncies let me ask you this. Which happens more? Players leaving mid-war in bad clans that dont test player loyalty? Or players leaving good clans that only take trusted players to war?

I can tell you in the past 10 months we have had 3 people leave mid war. And we won all of those wars. So maybe this is not a Supercell problem. Maybe it is a problem with the way some people run their clan.

That's a false dichotomy based on the premise that testing player loyalty defines whether or not a clan is good.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

If we are comparing frequncies let me ask you this. Which happens more? Players leaving mid-war in bad clans that dont test player loyalty? Or players leaving good clans that only take trusted players to war?

I can tell you in the past 10 months we have had 3 people leave mid war. And we won all of those wars. So maybe this is not a Supercell problem. Maybe it is a problem with the way some people run their clan.

So, how about the shame-quit we told? Loyal people that decided not to be once. I'm interested in your loyalty test. How do you do it? What's your criteria?
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

That's a false dichotomy based on the premise that testing player loyalty defines whether or not a clan is good.

Granted, it is an over simplification. But the fact remains, clan management is a big factor seperating good clans from bad ones. Good clans (and everyone may have slightly different definitions of what makes a clan good) put in the time to provide players with a reason to stay. That includes not allowing a bunch of knuckleheads in your clan that may....

1. Leave midwar
2. Behave so poorly the make well behaved members want to leave
3. Act in selfish ways that hurt the clan

Many clans don't face the problem with midwar deserters. You have to ask yourself why. They are playing the same game with the same rules. Yet they aren't running into problems with war deserters.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

This has been answered many times before. It is fairly easy to come up with an algorithm to determine if an attack attempt was legitimate or not. Total housing space deployed, total hitpoints deployed, attack duration, damage done, etc. You wouldn't publish the details just like they don't publish the war match algorithm specifics either. This would only even need to be accounted for if the person quit during the war even after using both attacks. You can't detect a halfhearted attack, but you can detect a sham. You can also put a "report" button in the attack replay that becomes active if the player quits. We have report in chat, why not report in war? Shouldn't be needed, but it could be done.

The second scenario you describe is an outlier scenario and accounts for a tiny fraction of desertion, and would only apply to relatively inexperienced players. Having a new player learn that they can't desert during war on top of having joined a clan full of jerks would be a double whammy, but it would be a teachable moment as well. I think the greater clash community can decide to take the risk of that unfair scenario if the result was punishing the average run of the mill everyday deserter.

The scenario I provided is not an outlier....not by a long shot. I witnessed it countless times. However, I agree, its not as common as turds who just quit mid war.

And I question your stateme t about an easy algorithm. If you consider multiple scenarios it quickly spiral into incomprehensible spaghetti code. Yes, you can track hit points, housing space, etc etc. But heres a real scenario we just experienced tonight. Our top player, a TH10, used both his attacks and then left before war ended to go help donate troops in our sister clan. His second attack was a clean up on a low town hall. He barched it and only used about half his troops. Fit that in your algorithm please.

But the bottom line is, why is what other players want (to leave your clan) any less valid than what you want (for them to stay in your clan)?
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

Granted, it is an over simplification. But the fact remains, clan management is a big factor seperating good clans from bad ones. Good clans (and everyone may have slightly different definitions of what makes a clan good) put in the time to provide players with a reason to stay. That includes not allowing a bunch of knuckleheads in your clan that may....

1. Leave midwar
2. Behave so poorly the make well behaved members want to leave
3. Act in selfish ways that hurt the clan

Many clans don't face the problem with midwar deserters. You have to ask yourself why. They are playing the same game with the same rules. Yet they aren't running into problems with war deserters.

I'm sorry, but I disagree that there is any way to accurately predict someone's character the way you believe there is. Hindsight is 20/20 and you should feel fortunate that you don't come across more bad members.

I simply think that individuals should be accountable for their own actions. You are seemingly an apologist for the lowest form of scum the game has and instead blaming the actions of aforementioned scum on the presumptive failure of others to employ the good judgment that you seem to feel only you have access to.

Do you think people should use both attacks in war or not?
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

Exactly. I've hired people before who have been through extensive screenings, in person interviews with five or more trusted people, reference checks and the whole nine yards, and even then every once in a while you find a bad apple. The thought that screening or testing is effective in clash is naive. You probably lose more good people than bad by playing screening games with them anyway.

I dont think anyone is saying you can eliminate it completely. But you absolutely have all the tools you need to manage your clan and minimize the impact of having accidentally allowed a turd into your clan.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I'm sorry, but I disagree that there is any way to accurately predict someone's character the way you believe there is. Hindsight is 20/20 and you should feel fortunate that you don't come across more bad members.

I simply think that individuals should be accountable for their own actions. You are seemingly an apologist for the lowest form of scum the game has and instead blaming the actions of aforementioned scum on the presumptive failure of others to employ the good judgment that you seem to feel only you have access to.

Do you think people should use both attacks in war or not?

Don't misunderstand me. I run into crazy amounts of bad members. Id say 80% of people playing clash are bad members.

But two things....

1. I can usually identify them before I allow them in my clan
2. If they do slip through the cracks I have another layer. I don't take any new member to war initiay. Bad members usually leave before the war search ends.

Let me ask you...how do you recruit players? And what kind of criteria do you have for new members?
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

So, how about the shame-quit we told? Loyal people that decided not to be once. I'm interested in your loyalty test. How do you do it? What's your criteria?

I'm not exactly clear what you mean by shame-quit. I believe you mean someone quits because they are embarassed by a bad attack. I will answer with that assumption.

Shame-quitters are not easy to manage. But i think some of that can be managed by expectations and clan atmosphere. Is the person e couraged before their attack to just do the best they can? Are they congratulated for a good try after they kess up? Those things help. Rage quitters are a bit different. Usually, in my experience, if you invite them back after a little while when theyve cooled down they will return. However, our policy is not to take them back. We dont want to set ourselves up for that to happen again in the future.

Heres a few things to consider for recruiting....

1. I talk a good deal to players before taking them in the clan. On the forums, in global, on kik...wherever. If a player cannot be bothered to get to know me a bit then I cant be bothered to allow them in my clan.
2. Clan atmoshpere is important. When someone leaves midwar do you litter chat with complaints? Or do you, as clan leader, tell everyone that the player in question is not welcome back and will miss out on the privelege of being a part of your clan? It may seem trivial. But its a big deal. I think understanding this is key to clan managment.
3. And this is big too....I dont accept anyone who is a higher TH level than me. That puts me in position to cover their attacks should they leave midwar.
4. I am not in a rush to get to 50 players. I never add more than 2 new players between wars. If I add one player and he leaves...no problem. If i add 10 and 5 leave....problem.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I'm sorry, but I disagree that there is any way to accurately predict someone's character the way you believe there is. Hindsight is 20/20 and you should feel fortunate that you don't come across more bad members.

I simply think that individuals should be accountable for their own actions. You are seemingly an apologist for the lowest form of scum the game has and instead blaming the actions of aforementioned scum on the presumptive failure of others to employ the good judgment that you seem to feel only you have access to.

Do you think people should use both attacks in war or not?

I am not apologizing for them. I think they are turds. Period. Selfish turds. I just don't need Supercell to protect me from them. I can do that myself. Also, I don't think there is anything Supercell can do which will 'fix the problem'. Turds play the game. And if you arent looking out for them they will get in your clan. And if they do get into my clan I want them out as quickly as possible. I don't want them hanging around to attack in war.

But yes, in general I think everyone should use both attacks in war. Those who do not are bad members.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

Don't misunderstand me. I run into crazy amounts of bad members. Id say 80% of people playing clash are bad members.

But two things....

1. I can usually identify them before I allow them in my clan
2. If they do slip through the cracks I have another layer. I don't take any new member to war initiay. Bad members usually leave before the war search ends.

Let me ask you...how do you recruit players? And what kind of criteria do you have for new members?

First, let me say that the most common thing people say when they do join our clan is "wow, you guys really have your act together." And they are right. We are a well run clan and a great place for people to grow in the game.

We have data based criteria for each TH level we recruit. Most applicants are rejected based on profile data alone. There is enough data in a profile to figure out if someone's been around the block or not. We don't keep people long enough for war if they don't present themselves in chat in a positive light. Players earn trust by being positive and showing they know how to fit into a clan, follow basic clan etiquette, and contribute in a helpful way.

But the biggest factor that contradicts your premise is that it's not a players first few wars where players desert. It is far more common for a player to get past the honeymoon stage, settle in and get comfortable with the clan before their true colors come out. These are players who would have passed any screening you might has put in place. But somewhere along the way ego, politics, religion, or some other factor becomes an issue. Personally I really like having a drama-free zone.

In any case, my view is that someone who is level 95+ and has 500+ war stars (for example) has been in the game long enough to know that you simply don't abandon a clan during war, and furthermore you should always, always give your best two attacks in accordance with clan procedures even if you decide you can't stand the clan and can't quit soon enough. If your clan turns out to be a bag full of weiners you can simply leave chat closed, take care of business, and then leave.

I am am not saying these players are running rampant through our clan all the time. I'm saying the few we've come across deserve a penalty commensurate with taking an endeavor that 25 or more people have invested the past 48 hours in and subverting it.
October 17th, 2015
Stephenwolf

At the end of the war add 1 day to each person's war cool down timer for each unused attack.

If the player was kicked, no penalty

Also along these lines, I was hopping around on my mini yesterday and dumping some troops. In the meantime some dude threw me in a war. I'd gladly go attack, but I can't find what clan I'm warring for. Nothing I can do, right?
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephenwolf

At the end of the war add 1 day to each person's war cool down timer for each unused attack.

No way. We often have cases where we have already mathemarically won a war and as a result some members choose not to use their second attack for one reason or another. Reasons include running out of time to cook troops and they dont want to use gems for an inconsequential war attack, something has come up with work or home and they want to make that their priority instead of a war we have already won, and sometimes people just want a break from an intense war.

We allow that in our clan. And I dont want to have valuable members unable to war for doing something we allow. If you choose to run your clan differently, I completely respect that. But I don't think Supercell should force other clans to abide by it. Just like I don't think they should implement a rule requiring members to sit out a first war or two. That is our policy but shouldn't be forced on other clans who choose not to follow it.

Not everyone plays the game with the same clan policies. I dont want anyone else's 'rules' forced on me.
October 17th, 2015
KimbaMel

Hello

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

No way. We often have cases where we have already mathemarically won a war and as a result some members choose not to use their second attack for one reason or another. Reasons include running out of time to cook troops and they dont want to use gems for an inconsequential war attack, something has come up with work or home and they want to make that their priority instead of a war we have already won, and sometimes people just want a break from an intense war.

We allow that in our clan. And I dont want to have valuable members unable to war for doing something we allow. If you choose to run your clan differently, I completely respect that. But I don't think Supercell should force other clans to abide by it. Just like I don't think they should implement a rule requiring members to sit out a first war or two. That is our policy but shouldn't be forced on other clans who choose not to follow it.

Not everyone plays the game with the same clan policies. I dont want anyone else's 'rules' forced on me.

Acredito que todos que postam nesse tópico querem de alguma maneira, ajudar com idéias construtivas a melhorar um jogo que gostamos. Não acredito ser totalmente culpa dos líderes, existem vários casos e em cada caso uma situação diferente. Percebo aqui e sem ofender a nenhum dos participantes, que querem fazer da exceção a regra! Casos citados de humilhação dentro do chat do clã, casos de guerras vencidas aonde não se fazia questão dos dois ataques pois matematicamente estaria ganha...etc..etc. Acredito que o tópico é uma sugestão para punir ou nos alertar como lideres, contra jogadores tóxicos. Não há necessidade de explicar o que é um jogador tóxico para vcs que possuem vasto conhecimento. Jogos sérios previnem e combatem esses jogadores, pois os mesmos retiram o direito de todos de uma guerra justa e de um jogo limpo. A supercell deve sim resolver isso como criadora e arrecaradora de nosso dinheiro e de nosso tempo. Sou a favor de que o lider marque o jogador que não efetuar seus ataques na guerra sem motivo. Sou a favor que o lider marque o jogador toxico que abandona seu time na guerra assim como a supercell o deixa de escudo escuro. SE VC como lider permitiu que seu jogador não fizesse seus 2 ataques basta não marcar. SE VC como lider entendeu que seu membro tinha algo mais instrutivo a fazer e liberou ele de seus ataques, não o marque também. SE VC abandonou seu time por ser humilhado por 49 membros do clã que estava tire prints e denuncie ao suporte. Em minha humilde opinião é UTOPIA dizer que se sabe a integridade de alguem que esta no jogo pois lidamos com fator humano. Jogar a culpa da falta de espirito de equipe e de jogabilidade em conjunto em cima do lider é o mesmo que dar um tiro no pé. Infelizmente nunca saberemos com certeza sobre a outra pessoa que está do outro lado da tela. Nem olhando nos olhos sabemos. Sou muito a favor de permitir aos lideres adicionar um sinal de menos no perfil dos jogadores tóxicos e os mesmos colham as provas, de ambos os lados. Se o jogador fizer seus 2 ataques, fica desabilitado a tecla negativar por parte do lider.
Caso o jogador tenha em seu perfil um negativo, deverá fazer 4 guerras com seus 8 ataques normais, para seu perfil voltar a ficar normal. Peco desculpa por escrever no meu idioma mas caso alguem se ofenda tenho certeza que algum cavalheiro irá me ajudar. ATT Kimba
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

A couple things stood out to me in your response. Maybe you will find some of this helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

First, let me say that the most common thing people say when they do join our clan is "wow, you guys really have your act together." And they are right. We are a well run clan and a great place for people to grow in the game.

This is a little off topic, but in my experience the more a person 'gushes' about our clan after just joining, the less likely they are to be long term members. The phrase that is the biggest indicator of this is those members who say, "I'm never leaving this clan." That is the biggest kiss of death. Those members typically last less than a week (but usually attack in war before they go).

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

We have data based criteria for each TH level we recruit. Most applicants are rejected based on profile data alone. There is enough data in a profile to figure out if someone's been around the block or not. We don't keep people long enough for war if they don't present themselves in chat in a positive light. Players earn trust by being positive and showing they know how to fit into a clan, follow basic clan etiquette, and contribute in a helpful way.

Let me start by asking you what you do to foster loyalty? It strikes me that you automatically reject people based on profile data alone. Based on your comments it would appear that you value loyalty above all else (or most everything else). And yet you may very well be rejecting very loyal players just because they don't meet your criteria.

I agree, by looking at someones base and profile you can tell an awful lot about them. But you cannot measure the type of person they are or, and this is the important part, the type of player they will become.

So picture two players. One is a solid TH8 with a lot of war stars and very nice profile stats. The second is a TH6 that looks a bit rushed and their base is a bit of a mess. Which do you recruit? On the surface we would all want the TH8. But what if we dig deeper? If we had a tool (which doesn't exists and could never exist) that let us look deeper we find that the TH8 is a teenager who has gathered his impressive tally of war stars by constantly attacking well below his weight in war, causing his clan grief in the process. And then we find the TH6 is a middle aged woman who is intrigued by Clash but can't quite figure it out and she is looking for someone to show her the ropes. This paints a different picture. I know which one I want. And my bet is she wouldn't meet your criteria. And this is something big that you are over-looking.

If you take in a TH6 who is a friendly adult and you can provide them an atmosphere to learn the game in a supportive environment you are not only growing your clan, but you are establishing a lot of loyalty. Under the right guidance that player will blossom into a really good player AND they will help teach future members. I'm not saying they will never leave, but I will say they are a lot less likely. They will feel valued and respected. And they will pass that on to future members. It's a healthy cycle that pays huge dividends.

Also, someone who rage-quits (and I'm not sure that's what you are saying is happening) often does so because they are frustrated and can't figure out the game. Are you providing a friendly and informative atmosphere? Do you have the tools to help your members continue growing? If they feel they aren't getting the help they need or if they feel they have accomplished all they can accomplish, they are very likely to leave (but hopefully not in the middle of war).

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

In any case, my view is that someone who is level 95+ and has 500+ war stars (for example) has been in the game long enough to know that you simply don't abandon a clan during war, and furthermore you should always, always give your best two attacks in accordance with clan procedures even if you decide you can't stand the clan and can't quit soon enough. If your clan turns out to be a bag full of weiners you can simply leave chat closed, take care of business, and then leave.

I 100% agree with this statement. However, there is nothing Supercell can do to force players to do this. Nothing. If a player is going to be a turd, they are going to be a turd. If they don't care about your clan to the point that they leave midwar, why do you think they will care enough to put enough thought and planning into their attack? I'd rather have them out the door so I know I need to make arrangements for someone to cover their attack then to hold out hope they are going to pull in 3 stars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I am am not saying these players are running rampant through our clan all the time. I'm saying the few we've come across deserve a penalty commensurate with taking an endeavor that 25 or more people have invested the past 48 hours in and subverting it.

If you cannot overcome the loss of one player in a 25 man war you are doing something wrong. As a clan leader your job is to plan for as many eventualities as you can. This includes having a war plan that provides members with backup so if a player cannot attack someone can cover their attack. This includes missed attacks from power outages, family emergencies, turd players who leave midwar, and just plain bad attacks that accumulate 0 stars.

Clearly, you can't do this every time. If you could everyone would be undefeated. However, 1 person should not be able to ruin a war for 25 or more people. If that is the case you are doing something very wrong.
October 17th, 2015
Darksol

What should happen is something on their profile shows that they're a war deserter, so the leader/co will know not to put them in the war
October 17th, 2015
MLgLegitB

You shouldn't put someone in a clan war if he still has the red "new" tag under his name that goes away after 4 days
October 17th, 2015
TheDragonClasher

What happens if this really loyal player is in war, says his friend can go on his base or something and his friend leaves the clan mid-war?
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDragonClasher

What happens if this really loyal player is in war, says his friend can go on his base or something and his friend leaves the clan mid-war?

As much as I disagree with most of the opinions on this thread...even I believe that a loyal player who is knucklehead enough to let his untrustworthy friend on his account is...
1. An extreme rarity and not what we are talking about
2. Not exactly the definition of a quality clan member

Also, most of the suggestions include that a player returning before war ends is exempt from punishment. If he is loyal he would return.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

I won't go point for point as the goal still seems to be looking for a defect in the clan rather than the deserter. Clan management philosophy is a vast and largely unrelated topic. You believe it's relevant. I believe that it doesn't stop people from deserting. I'm confident that we have a very well run clan, but also have been around the block and seen this behavior at clans across the spectrum.

Pointing at the clan as the source of the problem comes across like saying "sorry miss, but you really shouldn't have worn that sexy dress to a place like that."

I'm also not saying that the results of war hinge upon the act of a single deserter, but I don't believe that outcome is relevant for punishing bad actors.

As as I mentioned, we have different data driven criteria for every TH level, so I would not look at a TH6 and a TH8 with the same filter. Also, it's patently obvious that there is a social component to clan recruiting and membership.

But in the same way I feel that a 100-question purportedly scientific personality screening test is largely ♥♥, I also think that a far less scientific screening via clan chat is naive if you believe it is anything more than a best effort and ymmv.

But the icing on the cake is that you clearly feel you have better clan management skills based upon your premise. It's circular logic. I bet you lose an equal number of potentially great members by putting them through the gauntlet of nonsense.
October 17th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

I'm not exactly clear what you mean by shame-quit. I believe you mean someone quits because they are embarassed by a bad attack. I will answer with that assumption.

Shame-quitters are not easy to manage. But i think some of that can be managed by expectations and clan atmosphere. Is the person e couraged before their attack to just do the best they can? Are they congratulated for a good try after they kess up? Those things help. Rage quitters are a bit different. Usually, in my experience, if you invite them back after a little while when theyve cooled down they will return. However, our policy is not to take them back. We dont want to set ourselves up for that to happen again in the future.

Heres a few things to consider for recruiting....

1. I talk a good deal to players before taking them in the clan. On the forums, in global, on kik...wherever. If a player cannot be bothered to get to know me a bit then I cant be bothered to allow them in my clan.
2. Clan atmoshpere is important. When someone leaves midwar do you litter chat with complaints? Or do you, as clan leader, tell everyone that the player in question is not welcome back and will miss out on the privelege of being a part of your clan? It may seem trivial. But its a big deal. I think understanding this is key to clan managment.
3. And this is big too....I dont accept anyone who is a higher TH level than me. That puts me in position to cover their attacks should they leave midwar.
4. I am not in a rush to get to 50 players. I never add more than 2 new players between wars. If I add one player and he leaves...no problem. If i add 10 and 5 leave....problem.

Reddigulous, i do the 4 things you and plus the 5: "only confirmed players go to war". I can assure you our atmosphere is fair and even tough, players leave early. Some people thar are too cheap to contribute to war forget that they said they wanted to go to war. Even if this helps on selection, as even you said, it does not eliminates the chance of early what quitters. So, why not create a tool to help wars going smoother?
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I won't go point for point as the goal still seems to be looking for a defect in the clan rather than the deserter. Clan management philosophy is a vast and largely unrelated topic. You believe it's relevant. I believe that it doesn't stop people from deserting. I'm confident that we have a very well run clan, but also have been around the block and seen this behavior at clans across the spectrum.

Pointing at the clan as the source of the problem comes across like saying "sorry miss, but you really shouldn't have worn that sexy dress to a place like that."

I'm also not saying that the results of war hinge upon the act of a single deserter, but I don't believe that outcome is relevant for punishing bad actors.

As as I mentioned, we have different data driven criteria for every TH level, so I would not look at a TH6 and a TH8 with the same filter. Also, it's patently obvious that there is a social component to clan recruiting and membership.

But in the same way I feel that a 100-question purportedly scientific personality screening test is largely ♥♥, I also think that a far less scientific screening via clan chat is naive if you believe it is anything more than a best effort and ymmv.

But the icing on the cake is that you clearly feel you have better clan management skills based upon your premise. It's circular logic. I bet you lose an equal number of potentially great members by putting them through the gauntlet of nonsense.

A few things....

First, I 100% agree with you. There is no 100% method for predicting defectors and no 100% effective strategy for preventing them. My premise is that there is NO magic bullet out there to stop them. There is no punishment Supercell can impose that will stop them. If they are turds, they are turds.

I'm not pointing at the clan as the source of the problem. I'm saying that by participating in a socially driven game you have to be able to account for social factors that effect the game. In my opinion, there is no excuse for leaving a clan high and dry. I make no excuse for their behavior. But as the game is socially driven you have to be aware that not every player shares your (and my) values.

As to my recruitment methods...I don't use a 100 question personality test. That would be absurd. But getting to know someone in some kind of chat is not ♥♥. But agreed, it is only a best effort.

I disagree with your premise that my logic is circular. Draw me the circle? I merely state bad players exist and you can minimize their impact on your clan by following some guidelines. I don't know if I have better clan management skills than you. I don't know of a way to measure that. What I do know is I am not nearly as impacted by war deserters as you appear to be.

I also disagree with your premise that I miss out on an equal number of potentially great players. If they can't be bothered with my recruiting methods then they are not the kind of player I am after. Are they great attackers? Maybe. But I value communication and friendliness above all others. If they can't communicate then they don't meet my minimum requirements.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

Reddigulous, i do the 4 things you and plus the 5: "only confirmed players go to war". I can assure you our atmosphere is fair and even tough, players leave early. Some people thar are too cheap to contribute to war forget that they said they wanted to go to war. Even if this helps on selection, as even you said, it does not eliminates the chance of early what quitters. So, why not create a tool to help wars going smoother?

What is the tool you propose? To give a stiffer punishment to players who leave mid war?
October 17th, 2015
LemoneyFresh937

What if you kick someone out before the war begins? Would that count as them leaving? Either way, a player who leaves during a clan war is already not eligible for another war until the current one ends, which makes it a bit harder to get into other clans. No larger penalty should be incurred.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by LemoneyFresh937

What if you kick someone out before the war begins? Would that count as them leaving? Either way, a player who leaves during a clan war is already not eligible for another war until the current one ends, which makes it a bit harder to get into other clans. No larger penalty should be incurred.

Being kicked and deserting are two different things. The point of this thread is that the eligibility restriction already in place is insufficient penalty for a deserter.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

What is the tool you propose? To give a stiffer punishment to players who leave mid war?

I think the best answer is to have a players war history follow them, or at least the pertinent data from their last 10 wars. I'd like to be able to see:
- overall war results
- what number they were on the depth chart
- what were the numbers of opponents they attacked
- results of the attack in stars and percentage of damage including new versus redundant stars
- attack summary screen that shows what army was used
- when did the attacks occur during the war
- replays of attacks of last two wars if available

This would be enough information to paint a picture. If the war was a hopeless loss then who cares? If the player used both attacks during the last hour and got six redundant stars against the lowest two enemy bases even though they were near the top of the list that would paint a different picture. This would allow players to punish themselves. And since it's just factual data there would be no need to have SC intervene and pass judgment.
October 17th, 2015
xMav

early quitters really aren't a problem in stable clans, as several people said above, having leaders test loyalty and trust is important before putting someone in a clan war.
October 17th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by xMav

early quitters really aren't a problem in stable clans, as several people said above, having leaders test loyalty and trust is important before putting someone in a clan war.

Cancer really isn't a big problem in families with healthful habits. Let's not bother curing it.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

Cancer really isn't a big problem in families with healthful habits. Let's not bother curing it.

This comparison is absurd. No one can choose to be part of a family that does or does not have cancer. But everyone has the choice to play clash of clans or not.

We all play clash of clans by the same rules. Some of us have problems with war deserters. Others do not. This is not a case of random chance.
October 17th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

Being kicked and deserting are two different things. The point of this thread is that the eligibility restriction already in place is insufficient penalty for a deserter.

How do you think a stiffer penalty would fix the problem? Do you think it will make people with low regard for their clanmates suddenly become caring, wonderful people?
October 18th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

How do you think a stiffer penalty would fix the problem? Do you think it will make people with low regard for their clanmates suddenly become caring, wonderful people?

Review post #51 for my proposed resolution. Data speaks for itself, and there is no good reason not to make important data available.
October 18th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

This comparison is absurd. No one can choose to be part of a family that does or does not have cancer. But everyone has the choice to play clash of clans or not.

We all play clash of clans by the same rules. Some of us have problems with war deserters. Others do not. This is not a case of random chance.

I was using the absurd to highlight the absurd. Clearly this was rhetorical. Experiences in one or several well managed clans that do not experience desertion is not data supporting the premise that war deserters are fundamentally a clan management problem. I think people are patting themselves on the back a little too much for how successful they've been in avoiding the issue.
October 18th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

What is the tool you propose? To give a stiffer punishment to players who leave mid war?

I do have a problem with war deserters. I dont find it's fair with the other people who donated troops and spent lots of resources building 2 armies to attack. Specially if the deserter asked to be in the war. If your clan is stable with only real friends in it, nice, but it's not a reality for all clans. We try to avail players before recruting, we dont put anyone in the clan and/or war, but still we're having problems. Our last try to avoid it bureocratly not letting new members in the war, only after 2 war's in the clan. While it is the way some of people appointed to solve the problem, this penalizes good players and the clan itself. Stiffer punishment and/or data about other player's in war would penalize the deserters and if your clan does not have problems with it, you won't be affected. There are severall solutions we gave during the discussion, i hope they reach Supercell's attention. I'll give one more, deserters could have a "penalty brand" that could be accessed in player's profile. You could see how many wars a player left without giving 2 attacks, making no need to punishments and encouraging players to attack twice. Moron quitters would find hard time when they'd try to join a serious clan this way. What do you think about it, Reddigulous?Seems a win-win for me. Not only would help solving the early quitting problem as it would stimulate people to attack twice in wars, without requiring the leader's continuous effort like it is right now, at least to me.
October 18th, 2015
Barcher007

Branding!!!

Love it! That is some funny $#!+
October 18th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

I know SC would never go for a scarlet letter approach. But why not let someone's war record speak for itself?
October 18th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I was using the absurd to highlight the absurd. Clearly this was rhetorical. Experiences in one or several well managed clans that do not experience desertion is not data supporting the premise that war deserters are fundamentally a clan management problem. I think people are patting themselves on the back a little too much for how successful they've been in avoiding the issue.

So you look at well managed clans who dont have problems with clan deserters and assume its blind luck? If that is your belief i have no answer for you.

Keep in mind I'm not saying we never have them. I am saying they are extremely rare and never register on our richter scale.
October 18th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

I'll give one more, deserters could have a "penalty brand" that could be accessed in player's profile. You could see how many wars a player left without giving 2 attacks, making no need to punishments and encouraging players to attack twice. Moron quitters would find hard time when they'd try to join a serious clan this way. What do you think about it, Reddigulous?Seems a win-win for me. Not only would help solving the early quitting problem as it would stimulate people to attack twice in wars, without requiring the leader's continuous effort like it is right now, at least to me.

I actually think this is a solid idea. A couple caveats. Whatever the statistic is...it should not accumulate if a player doesnt attack in a war they were opted out for.

Also, does your proposal include who only attack once in war with permission of their clan? There are times where a second attack is not used for various legit reasons (war is already won, attacker cannot improve on any bases, etc). I dont feel that should count either. But i assume you are only keeping track if they leave clans during war.

However I also think you underestimate the impulsivity of most war deserters. I don't think this will curb deserters. But it may help you become aware of them.

And when it all comes down to it, you cannot force people to make quality attacks. Is it better for them to stay and make two crummy attacks or would you rather just have them leave and get on with winning the war?
October 18th, 2015
felipebsr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

I actually think this is a solid idea. A couple caveats. Whatever the statistic is...it should not accumulate if a player doesnt attack in a war they were opted out for.

Also, does your proposal include who only attack once in war with permission of their clan? There are times where a second attack is not used for various legit reasons (war is already won, attacker cannot improve on any bases, etc). I dont feel that should count either. But i assume you are only keeping track if they leave clans during war.

However I also think you underestimate the impulsivity of most war deserters. I don't think this will curb deserters. But it may help you become aware of them.

And when it all comes down to it, you cannot force people to make quality attacks. Is it better for them to stay and make two crummy attacks or would you rather just have them leave and get on with winning the war?

There's a point i had not considered. The legit reasons for not making 2 attacks. War deserters could receive a "black star" and a player with lots of black stars would find harder to join another clan. A player would receive the black star only if he left clan during war and did not make a legit attack. What would determine what is a legit attack is a algorythm. I know it may not solve the problem. People may even try to simulate a legit attack, but i think this "black star" would be a help on the issue.
October 18th, 2015
herranton

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

There's a point i had not considered. The legit reasons for not making 2 attacks. War deserters could receive a "black star" and a player with lots of black stars would find harder to join another clan. A player would receive the black star only if he left clan during war and did not make a legit attack. What would determine what is a legit attack is a algorythm. I know it may not solve the problem. People may even try to simulate a legit attack, but i think this "black star" would be a help on the issue.

Supercell has a history of not adding negative stats to a player, or even not adding stats that could be used by others in a negative way. They aren't going to add a stat so you can choose not to have a player in your clan. If you are having issues with war, maybe you should go join a clan that doesn't, and figure out why they aren't, then emulate that. It is a clan management issue. I know you don't like to hear that, but it is. Clans with war deserters and people missing attacks are poorly managed. They don't need more stats, they need better management. More stats won't fix your problem.
October 18th, 2015
Erebos29

members have the right to leave any time. u need to make a better clan or join a better one
October 18th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

So you look at well managed clans who dont have problems with clan deserters and assume its blind luck? If that is your belief i have no answer for you.

Keep in mind I'm not saying we never have them. I am saying they are extremely rare and never register on our richter scale.

I see well run clans with no deserter problems and I see well run clans with deserter problems. Therefore I think the causal relationships is non-conclusive. You see a well run clan with no deserter problems, form a conclusion, then use that conclusion to form the premise that a clan with deserter problems must not be well run.

We may in fact be seeing the same number of deserters based on your above statement. The difference may simply be that I find the act of a deserter intolerable whereas you shrug it off.

If the information about a persons war history were available to you, would you use it as part of your screening process? Of course you would. To ignore significant data would be rejecting the idea of properly screening someone. Yet, while on the one hand you argue up in favor of making good informed decisions about clan personnel, you on the other hand reject the point of view that suggests this information should be available. I don't understand someone who argues in favor of sound judgment and yet against providing access to pertinent facts.
October 18th, 2015
Seesure

I'm with those who need to see more data on newer clan members, we've allowed in a new batch of members, and despite using chat and getting them to donate etc and checked their volume of previous clan stars find ourselves in the postion of 5 leaving during preparation day in a 35 v35 war.

We can probably cover their absence but I feel players who lack trust should not be able to jump straight in to another clan, okay they will not be able to participate in another war for 24 hours, but they get away with this behaviour without any penalty, whereas I believe they should either be penalised or their new clan leader can see how many clans/wars they have been in during the last month to make a more informed decision....
October 18th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I see well run clans with no deserter problems and I see well run clans with deserter problems. Therefore I think the causal relationships is non-conclusive. You see a well run clan with no deserter problems, form a conclusion, then use that conclusion to form the premise that a clan with deserter problems must not be well run.

We may in fact be seeing the same number of deserters based on your above statement. The difference may simply be that I find the act of a deserter intolerable whereas you shrug it off.

If the information about a persons war history were available to you, would you use it as part of your screening process? Of course you would. To ignore significant data would be rejecting the idea of properly screening someone. Yet, while on the one hand you argue up in favor of making good informed decisions about clan personnel, you on the other hand reject the point of view that suggests this information should be available. I don't understand someone who argues in favor of sound judgment and yet against providing access to pertinent facts.

When have I ever said I was against providing access to pertinent facts? I've never once said that. In fact, a few posts prior to yours I clearly state having some statistics is a solid idea. Don't put words in my mouth.

I support the use of any statistics Supercell is willing to provide us. It is then up to every clan individually to decide how they will interpret that data and use it. I have no problem with that and have never said otherwise.

What I oppose is further punishment of war deserters. And not because I think their actions are ok. But, as I have stated previously, punishment will not fix the problem. Punishment will not miraculously turn selfish people into wonderful clanmates and there is no magic algorithm that can force a bad clanmate to put in an honest, thoughtful attack regardless of what troops they use. Increased punishments and magic algorithms would only serve to accidentally punish players who leave verbally abusive clans or good teammates who attack below their weight when it is good for the clan.

You state that the conclusion you draw to the causal relationship is based in sound data gathering from seeing well run clans, some with deserter problems, some without. And then you make assumptions about my past experience, of which you know nothing, and conclude that my conclusions are ill founded. Oh the irony of that statement. But have you ever stopped to consider that the clans with no deserter problems may, in fact, be doing some things differently than clans with deserter problems?
October 18th, 2015
N1NJ4W4RR10R

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipebsr

As a clan leader and talking with anothers, we have a common problem: early war quitters. Some people that apparently are doind fine in your clan, confirm presence on war, you open it and they leave your clan before the war even starts. Only solution for this is a heavy punishment, in respect to the dozens of other people that want to play the war and will do it with a disadvantage. Make them not being able to receive donations or enter/create another clan for one whole week. Make them not bee elegible for future wars for one week. Or both...

This idea will not work, mainly because of clans with feeders, our clan for example has a lvl 7 main, then a lvl 4 feeder. We go to the main for troops during war. We would not be able to do this.
October 18th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

When have I ever said I was against providing access to pertinent facts? I've never once said that. In fact, a few posts prior to yours I clearly state having some statistics is a solid idea. Don't put words in my mouth.

I support the use of any statistics Supercell is willing to provide us. It is then up to every clan individually to decide how they will interpret that data and use it. I have no problem with that and have never said otherwise.

What I oppose is further punishment of war deserters. And not because I think their actions are ok. But, as I have stated previously, punishment will not fix the problem. Punishment will not miraculously turn selfish people into wonderful clanmates and there is no magic algorithm that can force a bad clanmate to put in an honest, thoughtful attack regardless of what troops they use. Increased punishments and magic algorithms would only serve to accidentally punish players who leave verbally abusive clans or good teammates who attack below their weight when it is good for the clan.

You state that the conclusion you draw to the causal relationship is based in sound data gathering from seeing well run clans, some with deserter problems, some without. And then you make assumptions about my past experience, of which you know nothing, and conclude that my conclusions are ill founded. Oh the irony of that statement. But have you ever stopped to consider that the clans with no deserter problems may, in fact, be doing some things differently than clans with deserter problems?

So while this is a problem that you are not experiencing, you do acknowledge that it exists. And yet you resist any mechanism in game to resolve it and will continue to argue with me even though you agree with the proposal I put forth. It seems the only thing you are here to do is brag about how well you run your clan. What I am telling you is that you are trying to tell firemen how to climb up a ladder. Don't be so sure that your superior clan management skills are soley to credit for seldom encountering this issue. We all encounter it occasionally as you have admitted. Blaming an organization for the fault of an individual is folly. I suppose you wrote a letter to Subway and told them how they could have avoided Jered too.
October 18th, 2015
Theking8133

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

Clan leaders should be punished for letting people into war that leave without doing their attacks, as it shows poor judgement as a clan leader for letting that person into war in the first place. Maybe they shouldn't be able to start a war for one week.

I totally agree. Leaders of a war should stop putting in new memebers into wars. I always make them wait a week, to discourage hoppers. Anyone with this problem should try this first before complaining on a forum.
October 18th, 2015
herranton

Unfortunately, supercell doesn't have a history of punishin/shaming people. Sorry all you people who let too many new people in a war at once, that is your fault, and supercell isn't going to run kids through a wood chipper cause you messed up. Deal with it.
October 18th, 2015
Manyolo

Quote:

Originally Posted by herranton

Unfortunately, supercell doesn't have a history of punishin/shaming people. Sorry all you people who let too many new people in a war at once, that is your fault, and supercell isn't going to run kids through a wood chipper cause you messed up. Deal with it.

Well said. Its the leaders/cos fault for letting new members participate in war without testing their loyalty first.
October 18th, 2015
Reddigulous

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

So while this is a problem that you are not experiencing, you do acknowledge that it exists. And yet you resist any mechanism in game to resolve it and will continue to argue with me even though you agree with the proposal I put forth. It seems the only thing you are here to do is brag about how well you run your clan. What I am telling you is that you are trying to tell firemen how to climb up a ladder. Don't be so sure that your superior clan management skills are soley to credit for seldom encountering this issue. We all encounter it occasionally as you have admitted. Blaming an organization for the fault of an individual is folly. I suppose you wrote a letter to Subway and told them how they could have avoided Jered too.

Ha! So that's it? That's your whole argument? Anyone who isn't experiencing a problem with war deserters is just lucky and anyone who disagrees with you is only here to brag? Wow. Strong argument. Pretty hard to offer a retort.

I find it extra ironic coming from the very same person who accused me of circular logic...

You: The only way to deal with war deserters is for Supercell to hand out harsh punishments.
Me: I've been in numerous clans that have no problem handling war deserters.
You: You must have just been lucky
Me: Why do you say that?
You: Because, the only way to deal with war deserters is for Supercell to hand out harsh punishments.

I wonder if you are actually reading any of my posts or if you just enjoy trying, repeatedly, to put words in my mouth. I never said I would resist any mechanism to help combat war deserters. I've even agreed with a couple suggestions on this very thread. I just happen to disagree with the effectiveness of what you are proposing and I think it has negative consequences for stand-up players in a variety of scenarios.

I've also never denied the existence of war deserters. I even stated I think about 80% of accounts on CoC are handled by less than desirable players. But you continue to imply that I have my head buried in the sand and just don't see what's in front of me.

I have always conceded that every clan will have at least an occasional war deserter. My statement remains, if you are managing your clan correctly you will have no problem dealing with the turds that slip through your screening process (assuming you have a screening process).

You also continue to make casual assumptions about me. You have no idea how many accounts I play, how long I've played this game, or what clans I've been in. You know nothing of my experience (both in game and out), you have no idea what I do for a living and you refuse to believe any part of social engineering can have an impact on a game that is socially driven (spoiler alert on what I do for a living!)

And you do this all because you can't believe there is anything you could do to improve the way your clan is run. I haven't been in your clan so I can't say for sure. But I know about the clans I am in (not all of which are run by me) and I know how to identify clans that are doing it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

What I am telling you is that you are trying to tell firemen how to climb up a ladder.

Firemen have all the tools they need to climb the ladder and put out the fire. They don't need Supercell to do anything for them.

But alas, we will get no where. You don't want to debate me on the issue. You've made that clear. You just repeatedly put words in my mouth and assume I'm lucky. Fair enough. I'll just enjoy my ongoing lucky streak I guess. I'll go do that and give you the last word. I've done all I can on this thread and I imagine I didn't change too many minds. I'm okay with that.

I do sincerely wish you, and everyone on this thread, the best of luck (unless we meet in war at which point I hope you suffer infinite disconnections after you hit the attack button).

Peace.

Oh, and one last thing. Jared didn't bankrupt Subway. In fact, they are currently the fastest growing food chain in the country. Looks like Subway knows how to manage its clan too.
October 19th, 2015
LemoneyFresh937

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

How do you think a stiffer penalty would fix the problem? Do you think it will make people with low regard for their clanmates suddenly become caring, wonderful people?

Nuff said.
October 19th, 2015
Zackasaurio

jerks everywhere

Suddenly we got 2 guys that were promoted and they just have mess up everything in the clan they kicked out everyone, and leave us in bad conditions for war... how can I report this guys???
October 19th, 2015
Jackdopp

This is supercell!

Guys, We are gonna add this! From now on you will lose 1gold and 1 elixir if you leave the clan during war! You have just mad edge game ALOT better!
October 19th, 2015
DoubleBoomStick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zackasaurio

Suddenly we got 2 guys that were promoted and they just have mess up everything in the clan they kicked out everyone, and leave us in bad conditions for war... how can I report this guys???

And what exactly are you going to report them for? Using the privileges you gave them when you promoted them?
October 19th, 2015
Beastzilla

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

Blaming an organization for the fault of an individual is folly.

Yeah, because we all know Enron wasn't to blame. How could they have possibly put rules in place and installed oversight to make sure their employees were following the law?
October 19th, 2015
PvtLeeOwned

I have stated several things previously, but will restate them for clarity. First, our experiences with this isn't rampant like a wildfire running through the clan. When it does happen in my experience it has happened more with players who have been in the clan for a substantial amount of time. A week of holding someone out would not filter these people out. Second, my "punishment" is simply to make war history visible for every player. Data doesn't lie and it's hard to make an argument against making facts available.

Deserting is is the act of an individual. That is a fact, not an opinion. My opinion is that it is deserving of consequence to the individual. Or perhaps accountability and accomplishment are not all that important to you. That's fine. Enjoy your life full of participation trophies.

Saying the the root cause of the actions of a douche-nozzle are the people who allow the douche-nozzle to participate in war is an interesting point of view. I get it. But no one lets douche-nozzles in the war on purpose and most people do more or less the same thing to filter them out. I wish the world were simple enough that a one week waiting period and twenty questions were enough to filter out all the bad people. But the reality is that is insufficient.
October 19th, 2015
herranton

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I have stated several things previously, but will restate them for clarity. First, our experiences with this isn't rampant like a wildfire running through the clan. When it does happen in my experience it has happened more with players who have been in the clan for a substantial amount of time. A week of holding someone out would not filter these people out. Second, my "punishment" is simply to make war history visible for every player. Data doesn't lie and it's hard to make an argument against making facts available.

Deserting is is the act of an individual. That is a fact, not an opinion. My opinion is that it is deserving of consequence to the individual. Or perhaps accountability and accomplishment are not all that important to you. That's fine. Enjoy your life full of participation trophies.

Saying the the root cause of the actions of a douche-nozzle are the people who allow the douche-nozzle to participate in war is an interesting point of view. I get it. But no one lets douche-nozzles in the war on purpose and most people do more or less the same thing to filter them out. I wish the world were simple enough that a one week waiting period and twenty questions were enough to filter out all the bad people. But the reality is that is insufficient.

Are you are talking about punishing active and loyal members who have a history of good attacks and always being a good team player but then leave unexpectedly mid war? Yeah, that seems fair. Maybe some shtuff came up irl. Maybe they quit playing entirely. Maybe they just realized you are a deuche-nozzle and decided to leave before punishing themselves further. You got tens, if not hundreds of good loyal attacks from them... Just leave em alone. They don't need to be labeled a deserter for missing 2 attacks. And how often does this happen anyways? You can make up for the once in awhile guy that decides to leave your deuche-nozzle clan to get away from overbearing leaders that wanna spank everyone and not hand out participation trophies.

Or you are talking about the new kids who shouldn't have been in the war to begin with, then its your own fault, as you stated anyways...
October 19th, 2015
newupdateblowsdoublyhard

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I have stated several things previously, but will restate them for clarity. First, our experiences with this isn't rampant like a wildfire running through the clan. When it does happen in my experience it has happened more with players who have been in the clan for a substantial amount of time. A week of holding someone out would not filter these people out. Second, my "punishment" is simply to make war history visible for every player. Data doesn't lie and it's hard to make an argument against making facts available.

Deserting is is the act of an individual. That is a fact, not an opinion. My opinion is that it is deserving of consequence to the individual. Or perhaps accountability and accomplishment are not all that important to you. That's fine. Enjoy your life full of participation trophies.

Saying the the root cause of the actions of a douche-nozzle are the people who allow the douche-nozzle to participate in war is an interesting point of view. I get it. But no one lets douche-nozzles in the war on purpose and most people do more or less the same thing to filter them out. I wish the world were simple enough that a one week waiting period and twenty questions were enough to filter out all the bad people. But the reality is that is insufficient.

Just to add even if it is possible for the leader to filter out these people with week waiting periods sharing attacks playing 20 questions. Why make it so difficult? Why not allow them to see the history of a perspective clanmate? If there is a situation where he left his clan with good reason he can put it in his request to join. I'm not really sure why Supercell seems intent on protecting these bad players who hop and cause havoc everywhere they join.
October 19th, 2015
herranton

Quote:

Originally Posted by newupdateblowsdoublyhard

Just to add even if it is possible for the leader to filter out these people with week waiting periods sharing attacks playing 20 questions. Why make it so difficult? Why not allow them to see the history of a perspective clanmate? If there is a situation where he left his clan with good reason he can put it in his request to join. I'm not really sure why Supercell seems intent on protecting these bad players who hop and cause havoc everywhere they join.

Bad players for causing havoc? Even if they were, you can filter people without knowing that they left 1 war 6 months ago because their kid was in the hospital for trying to skydive off the roof with a sheet in their school backpack. Let's be realistic here, this isn't exactly a common occurrence. And if it is, IT IS A CLAN MANAGEMENT ISSUE.
October 19th, 2015
newupdateblowsdoublyhard

Quote:

Originally Posted by herranton

Bad players for causing havoc? Even if they were, you can filter people without knowing that they left 1 war 6 months ago because their kid was in the hospital for trying to skydive off the roof with a sheet in their school backpack. Let's be realistic here, this isn't exactly a common occurrence. And if it is, IT IS A CLAN MANAGEMENT ISSUE.

I'm willing to best the scenario of someone war hopping is infinitesimal more likely then the one you laid out. If the guy doesn't want to give his reasoning he can always join another clan.

No one is requiring he volunteer the information. Nor do I think many would ask seeing him leave war once in a six month period. It would be the war hoppers who would have to change their behavior or join a crappy clan. Which would be just desserts imo.
October 19th, 2015
herranton

Quote:

Originally Posted by newupdateblowsdoublyhard

I'm willing to best the scenario of someone war hopping is infinitesimal more likely then the one you laid out. If the guy doesn't want to give his reasoning he can always join another clan.

No one is requiring he volunteer the information. Nor do I think many would ask seeing him leave war once in a six month period. It would be the war hoppers who would have to change their behavior or join a crappy clan. Which would be just desserts imo.

We're going to go with infinitely, not infinitesimal(ly) because that makes more sense. And no it isn't infinitely more likely, it is actually infinitesimally more likely because there is no such thing as a war hopper. No one goes around and joins clans, waits for a war to start and then leaves. At best, you could do it 7 times every 2 weeks. It just doesn't make sense...

People are just leaving because they don't like the clan or their kid is in the hospital cause they dug a hole to china, jumped in, and got stuck in the middle. It happens rarely in well managed clans and we don't need the feature because it would hurt some players. It happens all the time in bad clans, because people leave cause the clan is run by deuche-nozzles.
October 19th, 2015
Beastzilla

Quote:

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I have stated several things previously, but will restate them for clarity. First, our experiences with this isn't rampant like a wildfire running through the clan. When it does happen in my experience it has happened more with players who have been in the clan for a substantial amount of time. A week of holding someone out would not filter these people out. Second, my "punishment" is simply to make war history visible for every player. Data doesn't lie and it's hard to make an argument against making facts available.

Deserting is is the act of an individual. That is a fact, not an opinion. My opinion is that it is deserving of consequence to the individual. Or perhaps accountability and accomplishment are not all that important to you. That's fine. Enjoy your life full of participation trophies.

Saying the the root cause of the actions of a douche-nozzle are the people who allow the douche-nozzle to participate in war is an interesting point of view. I get it. But no one lets douche-nozzles in the war on purpose and most people do more or less the same thing to filter them out. I wish the world were simple enough that a one week waiting period and twenty questions were enough to filter out all the bad people. But the reality is that is insufficient.

Um, the title of the thread is 'bigger punishment'. So are you proposing that more published statistics is a bigger punishment?

I got confused and went back and read the entire thread. In several of your posts you make references to punishment ("serious consequences" & "punish war participants" for example). But here you put the word in quotes and try to imply you never wanted to punish anyone, just make their history available.

Which is it? You can't make a series of statements calling for blanket punishment and then try to imply the rest of us are taking your words out of context.

I disagree with having a blanket rule or in-game feature which truly punishes someone who leaves war without attacking. There are too many valid reasons for doing that. I, for instance, just recently found myself in war (even as I was opted out) in a clan full of racists (this is a statement, not an opinion. they conceded as much). If you think I'm shedding 1 elixir for those clowns you are crazy. Call me whatever you like, but I'm not helping those guys win a war.

If you are just proposing Supercell publish some player statistics then I say...meh. I guess.
October 19th, 2015
Pabl097

Sanción a desertores en guerras de clanes

Hola, soy co líder de mi clan y soy encargado de organizar las guerras pero al hacerlo se me plantea el problema de que hay muchísima gente troll que una vez que se encuentra guerra se va del clan y sus ataques quedan sin realizar. También hay gente que sigue en el clan pero no ataca. Mi idea para intentar reducir esa cantidad es que aumenten las sanciones:

-Desertores en la preparación de guerra.- 1 o 2 días sin unirse a un clan
-Desertores en el día de guerra.- 2-3 días sin unirse a un clan.
-Si no ataca en guerra.- sanción de 1 semana sin guerra

Esperó que lean la propuesta y que la valoren. Gracias
October 19th, 2015
sportsjavo

Good idea

i have played many online team games and i think this is a good idea even for just regular hoppers also i have played team type games that penalize people that just quit in the middle of lets say a war or anything that could affect the outcome in a negative manner because they leave.
October 20th, 2015
Jackdopp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackdopp

Guys, We are gonna add this! From now on you will lose 1gold and 1 elixir if you leave the clan during war! You have just mad edge game ALOT better!

Guys we said we were gonna add this

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 AM.