So if you get three stars, it would give you the normal amount you would normally get! So if its worth
45000= 3stars
20000= 2stars
10000= 1star
Yes
No
Maybe, I'll post a modified idea below
So if you get three stars, it would give you the normal amount you would normally get! So if its worth
45000= 3stars
20000= 2stars
10000= 1star
Actually, since war loot is too low, I was thinking one star would give you the normal amount, while 2 stars and 3 stars would give an increased amount.Originally Posted by Derpaholic
Leave the amount given now to a 2 star. Then more for 3 and a little less for 1. War is as expensive as heck and the risk of losing all together is bad enough but if this was taken too far many people would opt out.
Leader of clan Ironclads. We are always looking for new members. We value camaraderie, teamwork, and maturity. We war once a week thanks to the Opt In/Out feature that gives players choice! Chat is kept clean and respectful. Come by and say hi!
Exactly, which is why I think the amount given now should be for a 1 star, since current war loot doesn't even come close to covering the cost of building a strong army.
bumpppppppp
Not really, sure they can get the three stars for a better chunk attacking lower, but they are going to get a better chunk of a lesser amount. (Lower war bonus on the weaker base)
It should be that you get 75% of a base's posted war bonus for one star, 100% for two, and 1125% for three. Or that idea. Numbers I state can be adjustable.
And if that doesn't police it that's fine. I kick guys from my clan that play for themselves and not for the team. I really don't care what their excuse is if they do that. This really just makes my own policing job easier.
Bump. I really think improved war loot would help make up for the troubling economy in game right now, so I'd like this topic to continue to reach more people
I also think war loot needs some help, but this idea would only complicate an already complicated situation. This idea is horrible currently, however if they added and opt in opt out feature regulated by clan leaders then it gets upgraded to a
decent idea.
I can only see this leading to even more clan issues between members.
Natesmiles a valued member NIGHTBREED !!!
SuckerPunch an epic war base.
Temptation a trophy base that will intice people to hit you and fail.
The Offering V9.2 a farming base for maxed out towhall 9's who dont need to protect elixir.
I agree with you that the opt in/out feature would do a lot more to help with war management than what they are proposing in this thread. I can my own self police bad behavior by my members so I can take or leave this request that is really just asking SC to provide some automated policing via incentives..
I also think the loot shortage (indeed a MAJOR problem) needs a different solution, this might help a little, but in no way should be seen as a solution to that.
Opt in/Out feature is different from what is being asked here. Adding that feature leaves the responsibility of motivating/policing my members entirely my own responsibility. Instead it is giving me a very useful tool for doing that.
Below is my blurb on how that should go. It is pasted here, I have put this in many other posts so forgive me if you have seen it. My goal in being so repetitive is that I think the more noise for this the better. It needs to get noticed as being what we need.
How it should work...
There should be a button (it can be a new one or the war shield can be modified) that toggles a player as in or out.
Access to hit the button to toggle should go to the leader and the player in question.
---- individual players cannot opt each other in or out
---- its an argument either way to give it to co as well - Good for clans where co is a management job, bad for clans that give it out like candy. (I consider the latter to be a sign of a bad leader)
---- A leader who abuses authority to opt guys in against their wishes are really just hurting their own selves for how they are adding a risk to their war participation. (the guy might then just not attack anyhow, if not seeing eye to eye with leader he wont care)
---- A leader opting a guy out against his wishes has that prerogative to decide who he wants in his war. And its still nicer than just kicking the guy like happens now.
The status of a player is only a factor right at the time a war starts. Instead of just selecting all eligible players from the total population it will just be all eligible players from the opted in group.
---- Can even implement by leveraging the existing eligibility functionality that currently is only driven by a timer.
After that everything works the same. The list of warriors from the clan is rounded to an even 5 via the existing logic and then the matchmaking calculation takes place also using the existing logic.
A player joins a clan with his eligibility set the same way it is today. (He is in unless there is a timer)
Things that would not happen -
...A player cannot add themselves to a war after the fact. If they change their status during a war it makes no difference until the next war when that status is read at startup.
...This would not serve as a way to replace members that take off during war. if they do that then there is the same affect on the war as there is today. Unused attacks stay unused. (it will never change that this just stinks when guys pull that stunt)
Cw loot is not incentive. Cw is clan reputation, if u want loot. Go for farming, if u want clan reputation as a leader u shall spend all ur resources just to win thevwar. At the end, CW is lose/lose situation. Both clans involved in the war lose thier resources and the idea which clan loses less resources than the other as the real war.
The winning clan wins a number in cw records, that's it & that is the leaders incentive.
Posting Permissions
