'Opting out' should costs gems and has a duration if it is ever implemented similarly to buying shield, its only fair.
'Opting out' should costs gems and has a duration if it is ever implemented similarly to buying shield, its only fair.
Last edited by SlightPurple; August 31st, 2014 at 09:56 AM.
lol! Really? How is an opt out button in any way not fair?! Why would there need to be a duration on it? Have you even put any thought into these ideas as both of them make very little sense.Originally Posted by SlightPurple
I disagree with your assertion that creating a second clan (for farmers, people on vacation, or whatever) is a "Band-Aid" for dealing with the lack of an opt-out button. Creating a second clan completely solved the problem for my clan, and now the war group is closer than ever, and farmers pop in and out at will to either a) war, or b) just say hello. If your clan is really divided over war, then you need two clans; simple. In time, I'm guessing you'll change your mind about the "opt-out" button (just as I have). I don't think any clan should be filled with spectators during war, as I do think that will lessen the war experience (they will clearly not be as invested in the outcome as everyone else).
You are absolutely right. Because my clan does it. Sometimes I put my level 130 account out after passing leader to my sub account. Then I start the war with my sub account and invite my big account back in after. Now we have a lower level war (because my big account did not get counted in the average) and I feed all my max level troops to my guys. Not too sporting I know, but it produces wins so we do it.
I agreed with all the comments above about weak leadership and bad clan karma. It is certainly possible to deal with the way things work today.
But I also agree with the idea of a toggle button between warrior and spectator. It allows the doing of this without the mechanical overhead. When we start a war I have to kick every member that wants to stay out (we always have some, even our best guys get busy with work or school sometimes or go away on vacation or whatever and need to take one off now and again), start the war, then re-invite them.
The leader, Co leads and player in question should be the only ones with access to that button too. The clan leadership should have that prerogative to decide who should be in the war (instead of by trophy level we favor our guys that have been with us over new members for who gets dropped off when it rounds to an even 5) and leadership should not be forced to include a guy if its against their judgment (sometimes for whatever reason you don't want to kick a guy, but he will hurt you if you have him in the war). As far as concerns over abuse forcing guys into wars they did not want, not likely a problem since leadership is really only hurting their own selves doing that since they are risking a no show in the war.
So such a toggle button would really change nothing. Just be an easier way to function than the workarounds we all do currently.
For clans that have already divided (and there are many of us), it would change things. Some of our semi-active guys and really weak attackers would want to come back to the "A" team, and just "opt-out" much of the time. Since I am a nice person, I would have a hard time saying "no" to this, though I wouldn't like it. It's been really fun having a tight war group that is all on the same page. I like that when we go to war, every single member is "all in." I'm afraid that having a sizable group of spectators along for the ride each time will make war less intense. I'm not overly concerned about large clans manipulating matchmaking and war donations by having TH10s opt-out, but that's another reason not to create the button. Can they do it now? Yes, but as noted everywhere, it's too tedious to be done on a widespread basis.
I see the ability of letting a poor performer who is still good guy we like to have in our feed be there in a more harmless form as a plus. And also, as far as not letting guys into a war that wanted, putting them to spectator mode is still nicer than just outright kicking them.
I am not saying that you can't still get some tough choices (IE telling a guy he can't be in the A team clan). But that just goes with the territory of being the leader. I do all I can to handle guys with kindness and dignity. But still my role as leader requires me to sometimes take a firm handle on tough issues and absorb any negative fallout (I.E. cussing, defecting) if it does happen.
Since that will always be true I don't see that as changing anything.
So you are stating that a clan of 50 people who have clashed together for more than a year being dividing is somehow a positive thing? Really? How does this solve any problems? Not only is the clan split and now friends are not in the same clan any more to socially interact and play together... but now instead of having an active clan of 50 people, there are now two clans of 25 which GREATLY reduces activity and donates.
It's simply math, too bad some people don't stop to think about the basic things like this. Just because "it worked" for your clan doesn't mean that it is works for others. In fact,by the sounds of it it doesn't sound like it really worked for you either, it only benefited those who wanted a war clan.
Believe it or not many people play CoC for the social aspect of the game. Having to divide clans like this is a massive hurt and some people just end up giving up and leaving all together. I miss most of the people that I split from as they were part of my daily interactions while playing CoC. There is nothing good about not having an opt in button, and there are certainly NO down sides to it.
Last edited by Terraist; August 31st, 2014 at 05:12 PM.
Wow... you sound like a real class act. Hilarious that you state the opt out button will encourage this type of cheap antics... yet you do it now. Hypocracy is a bugger eh?
And opt out option would be much better
Opt out would have to mean full opt out, I.e. cant donate to cw cc or donate to members in a cw.
Posting Permissions
