Clan War I’m In/Out Green/Red flag editable by Leader

[PhilISuppose]

Of all the ways suggested in the past, way I would like it as suggested by someone was for the flag to have three possible states:

1) Green: Same as today, can only be set to green by player.
2) Red: Same as today, can only be set to red by player
3) [New state] Grey: Can only be set to grey by Leader or Coleader. They can hit a button which changes everyone's flag to grey.

That would allow the leader to clear the ballot so to speak for a new "vote". That way they can easily tell whom "voted", and what they "voted", or if they were simply a "no show".

Oooh I like the grey idea. I have kicked people before who I know were less active and we were happy to have them as part of the clan, but they wouldn’t turn themselves to red. It is not the responsibility of the leader to remember everyone who can/can’t be in war, and the only way to prevent them accidentally being included was to kick them.

I like this grey idea.
I'd like all new people who join the clan to be set to grey as default as well. (Or an option for this maybe)

[PaluEF]

Of all the ways suggested in the past, way I would like it as suggested by someone was for the flag to have three possible states:

1) Green: Same as today, can only be set to green by player.
2) Red: Same as today, can only be set to red by player
3) [New state] Grey: Can only be set to grey by Leader or Coleader. They can hit a button which changes everyone's flag to grey.

That would allow the leader to clear the ballot so to speak for a new "vote". That way they can easily tell whom "voted", and what they "voted", or if they were simply a "no show".

As much as I like the idea, grey already exists for players locked in ‘other’ wars. Just a matter of a different color I guess... White? (or like clouds 2.0, less white )

About the voting: already currently, too many players ‘forget’ to adjust their war option when they’d need to. Not sure if erasing their latest ‘vote’ would improve overall. And, I don’t really care in my clan as I’m too chill, but have seen it in many clans over the last 4 years... At least before that option existed, you’d know for sure who was going to be in war (not to be reversed lol).

I proposed sometime ago, a different idea, which is to give leadership (co & lead) the option to have their own ‘choices’ for war, saved on the ‘war selection’ window. The leadership could turn green or red depending on their assessment of the players, only visible to them, and decide who to keep or not for a specific cw or cwl roster, within the game (one can already build a spreadsheet outside...).

[2222]

Having it unidirectional and only to red, solves the problem of someone who shouldnt be in war and forgot to change their status. Allowing the reverse (was red and leader changes to green) gives room for an unscrupulous leader to set someone to green and then claiming innocence when they are included in war and leader expects attacks. It will happen, so not allowing it removes drama.

They can already put someone in war who was red but at least it shows the member was red to begin with.

Couldn’t that same leader just say the person was green when they declared war? It would be the same lie either way. The only slight difference I see is co-leaders could be watching right before war declare and see it was green/red. Anyway, I would be fine with it only being to red, I can’t think of any time I’d want to actually be able to change it to green other than if someone contacted me out of the game to say they wanted in.

Regarding the gray idea discussed above, as a leader I don’t think I’d like that as much as the option to just turn one player to red. In my clan, for example, we have players that pretty much always do regular war and league war. We have others that only do one. I’d rather not change players I suspect want in war to gray just to change one I suspect doesn’t want in war to gray. I just want to be able to change the ones I want to force to come online and actually select the option to be in war. Also, for league wars, I’d like to turn red those players not high enough to make it into our league wars without turning gray/red all of the players.

[rowman]

....
Regarding the gray idea discussed above, as a leader I don’t think I’d like that as much as the option to just turn one player to red. In my clan, for example, we have players that pretty much always do regular war and league war. We have others that only do one. I’d rather not change players I suspect want in war to gray just to change one I suspect doesn’t want in war to gray. I just want to be able to change the ones I want to force to come online and actually select the option to be in war. Also, for league wars, I’d like to turn red those players not high enough to make it into our league wars without turning gray/red all of the players.

Fair point, indeed. Always an issue when we look for a "one size fits all" solution, every clan has their own needs and processes. I am more in favor of ability to reset the flags by any means, as opposed to how.

In my own clan, the ideal scenario would be (1) Once a war match is made, immediately [clear? reset? neutralize?] all flags to give people 48 hours to "volunteer" for the next war. Currently, since the flags cannot be trusted, we ignore them and ask people to callout within chat, if in for next war. A real pain since that means keeping a manual list of whom reponded affirmatively.

[SharkyFinn]

Having it unidirectional and only to red, solves the problem of someone who shouldnt be in war and forgot to change their status. Allowing the reverse (was red and leader changes to green) gives room for an unscrupulous leader to set someone to green and then claiming innocence when they are included in war and leader expects attacks. It will happen, so not allowing it removes drama.

They can already put someone in war who was red but at least it shows the member was red to begin with.

I wouldn't like it unidirectional at all and I don't really accept the reasoning behind it. It doesn't solve a problem. It just introduces two new ones.

Let's say I have a player in my clan who is inactive but they left themselves opted in. According to the idea, I'd set them to red and not have to worry they were accidentally include in war. But if it worked as you suggested and I can't change it back to green, that means that I can't use that account as filler whenever we're one player short for war. That'd be terrible and it'd create a much bigger problem.

As for the second problem, I don't really get the "unscrupulous leader" argument. As a leader, I can boot anybody out of my clan any time I want for any reason I want. That's the power of leadership. Leaders don't need to frame their players with some convoluted plan to include them into a war where they won't attack just to justify booting them. The fact that the player is inactive and not participating should be enough for any leader. That's where the second problem comes in. If a clan has a player that that can't ever be used for war, it doesn't serve much of a purpose, and there's no reason for the leader to keep it any more. The end result will be the same (the player is kicked from the clan), since the incentive to keep them has been removed.

In short, you've turned the idea of giving the leader a bew tool to better manage the clan into a limitation on the leader's powers (if I'm opted out, go pound sand - you can't put me into war). I'd much rather see a new feature, not an unnecessary restriction.

[Tosti111]

I wouldn't like it unidirectional at all and I don't really accept the reasoning behind it. It doesn't solve a problem. It just introduces two new ones.

Let's say I have a player in my clan who is inactive but they left themselves opted in. According to the idea, I'd set them to red and not have to worry they were accidentally include in war. But if it worked as you suggested and I can't change it back to green, that means that I can't use that account as filler whenever we're one player short for war. That'd be terrible and it'd create a much bigger problem.

As for the second problem, I don't really get the "unscrupulous leader" argument. As a leader, I can boot anybody out of my clan any time I want for any reason I want. That's the power of leadership. Leaders don't need to frame their players with some convoluted plan to include them into a war where they won't attack just to justify booting them. The fact that the player is inactive and not participating should be enough for any leader. That's where the second problem comes in. If a clan has a player that that can't ever be used for war, it doesn't serve much of a purpose, and there's no reason for the leader to keep it any more. The end result will be the same (the player is kicked from the clan), since the incentive to keep them has been removed.

In short, you've turned the idea of giving the leader a bew tool to better manage the clan into a limitation on the leader's powers (if I'm opted out, go pound sand - you can't put me into war). I'd much rather see a new feature, not an unnecessary restriction.

I didnt suggest taking away the ability to put someone who is red into war. We can do it today. My status stays red but I am opted into war and when war is over, it still shows red despite you choosing to opt me in.
essentially my status (red or green) doesnt change just because you choose to put me in war. ( I checked and this is how it works today, the ‘IN/OUT” on the right side of selecting who will be in war changes but my status (on the left of the same screen still shows me as opted out).

What I am suggesting is that you can only change my permanent status from green to red and it will stay red forever unless I myself change it and that way there is no confusion about whether I want to war or not.

As a leader, there is never a reason to change my permanent status from red to green, so why should you need that ability? Hopefully this now makes more sense to you.

[George1971]

Couldn’t that same leader just say the person was green when they declared war? It would be the same lie either way. The only slight difference I see is co-leaders could be watching right before war declare and see it was green/red. Anyway, I would be fine with it only being to red, I can’t think of any time I’d want to actually be able to change it to green other than if someone contacted me out of the game to say they wanted in.

Regarding the gray idea discussed above, as a leader I don’t think I’d like that as much as the option to just turn one player to red. In my clan, for example, we have players that pretty much always do regular war and league war. We have others that only do one. I’d rather not change players I suspect want in war to gray just to change one I suspect doesn’t want in war to gray. I just want to be able to change the ones I want to force to come online and actually select the option to be in war. Also, for league wars, I’d like to turn red those players not high enough to make it into our league wars without turning gray/red all of the players.

As leader I don’t need lies to make an excuse to kick.

[George1971]

I ask for YELLOW for unset. The player can set it to unset, and unset should be the default. Unset means the player has no preference, they can be included, or not. This is quite a common situation, especially for people’s second account.

[George1971]

The ability for the leader to change a player from green to red is really wanted by me for sure. It is wanted for old friends and family, people I don’t want to kick, who are away and forgot to opt out.

I can’t imagine ever wanting wanting to change a player from red to green. Even if it was me who accidentally set them to red by mistake, if they should be green they must be active and I can just ask them to fix it.

[PaluEF]

...Or add a similar tool to make building the war roster easier.

To me this whole discussion revolves around the 3 war status:
a- what a player thinks, adequately or not, to be able or not to do in war,
b- what a co/leader (generically a clan mate) thinks a player is able or not to do in war,
c- who is actually in war (at the time the search is started).
Currently : any player can decide upon *a* above, the leadership can supersede that choice and generate *c* irrelevant of *a*.

The problem, I’m assuming also faced by OP is:
- players forget to turn red, when they can’t be efficient in attacks (hero, or sf/dsf), or unavailable,
- players forget to turn back to green when above is resolved for war day (counting a day ahead ),
- players do not have adequate skills to perform adequately, by themselves or in a specific roster,
- leaders need players to round the amount of warriors to 5,
> the leadership MUST select players to start a war (or there’s no war )
...
- the whole clan wants to win wars,
- the whole clan wants more perks (if not L10),
- players are eyeing the war streaks,
- rotation of players, rest time or targeted war stars in cwl,
- recruiting, etc...

With this in mind, there is no option to track and ensure *b* (and consequently *c*) is handled adequately within the game.
As I noted in my previous reply, ‘serious’ leaders will keep a separate file (can be handled with a notepad, spreadsheet, band, discord or other apps) with players, their war effect (aka ‘weight’) and performance.
If not for cw, at least for cwl in higher cwl leagues.

All in all, despite the first (snipped) proposal, OP is asking for a method/feature allowing the leadership to establish their own, persistent, choice of players to include in wars. I am for this too, and have proposed ideas before in this forum.

We had to rely on other tools in past to ‘call’ targets in wars, that got ‘in-housed’...

Edit: to the very least, that list a co/lead has to select from needs improving : no TH, no profile, no status (other than the one selected by the player), ranked by trophies (smh, by XP would have same ‘value’, random would actually be better sometimes), etc...