Why we NEED an opt in/out feature ASAP

[Kruzkal]

You do think it? You are indeed a funny guy. Being one of those high level all maxed guys I can speak from the experience, it will NOT be a problem. You have gotten a bit paranoid there son.

How long have you been on this Earth? One does not need to be a history scholar to know every possible exploitation will be exploited. You are letting your personal desire cloud your judgement, or you have the naivety of a child...

[Kruzkal]

You think that COC is currently a good design that doesn't allow exploits? That's just too funny! Seriously? Wait you can't be serious. If you are pull that head out of the sand and look around. People are trying to do whatever they can to skew the system in their favor. Kick reinvite is also used for that purpose as I have read in a multitude of threads along with many other ways to exploit the system.

So your argument boils down to: because exploitations exist, further exploitations are justified.

[JohnnyBGood]

If SC did want to encourage the whole clan to participate, they should incentivize that which doesn't sound too hard with a multiplier for each clan size or some other reward system

Supercell does want whole clans to participate, which is why they haven't put an opt-out button in place. The incentive for many players (aside from the fun of competition, helping their clan succeed, and the loot bonus) is to avoid getting kicked out of their clan for failing to show up and get both attacks in!

How many clan descriptions have you seen where the clan states up front that players will be kicked for not attacking twice in war? Isn't this evidence of the peer pressure that exists in clans to help the clan out when the clan is at war?

[Sirix]

Supercell does want whole clans to participate, which is why they haven't put an opt-out button in place. The incentive for many players (aside from the fun of competition, helping their clan succeed, and the loot bonus) is to avoid getting kicked out of their clan for failing to show up and get both attacks in!

A lack of opt out is not an incentive to attack. If the lack of a feature is considered an incentive, then the lack of a feature that allows leaders to ban non attackers is an incentive too.

Avoiding a kick is not SC incentivizing people too. That is players doing what they want to incentivize players

How many clan descriptions have you seen where the clan states up front that players will be kicked for not attacking twice in war? Isn't this evidence of the peer pressure that exists in clans to help the clan out when the clan is at war?

Again, not SC's incentive

[JohnnyBGood]

As leader of your clan I imagine you have some systems in place that other clans may not and that other clans use systems that you do not.

Here is an example of a system "rwelshjr" has in place that many of us do not: determining his own war roster based not only on those that want in, but on seasonal donations! Kicking and re-inviting members is such a hassle, that he does twice as much of it as the rest of us by tracking donations on a spreadsheet and making the spectators in a war be those that have a few less donations than others. Such a joke to complain that kicking and re-inviting the few members that request it is a hassle, when you are kicking and re-inviting just to get around Supercell's policy of using trophy counts to determine which members have to be spectators.

[rwelshjr]

While i like the idea of giving the kids a chance to hone their skills against evenly matched opponents you can already accomplish this by establishing a feeder clan system, this would keep your members segregated by strength without a wholesale redesign of clan wars. The only way I can see an opt out system working is if there were safeguards built in that limited a clans ability to drop lower lvl players even if they wanted to participate. There are ways to accomplish this such as requiring both the leader and player to agree, limiting the number of times a player can be dropped from consecutive wars etc. all this still required a reworking of the present system that is unessessary to accomplish the goal. Having feeder clans, a farming clan, or a seperate war clan that members who wanted to war could join for the duration of the war can be done within the current framework. While I know many would love to see this feature it seems like taking the responsibility to form a good clan system out of the equation and substituting a one size fits all system instead. As leader of your clan I imagine you have some systems in place that other clans may not and that other clans use systems that you do not. That is the beauty of the system as it stands today, it challenges each of us in leadership positions to take an active role in designing a system that works for us and our members.

dam, you are tougher to debate with because you take the time to think about what you are saying. Now I have to think hard too. The other guys are like fish in a barrel so I get spoiled.

As far as opting out lower, that gets us tougher opponents and reduces the chance of us winning war. I know the theory is dropping them increases chances but because of how the averaging works leaving them in gets us an overall easier clan. Sure our lower guys get destroyed but we have an easy time covering that. Since I am the big gun at the top my job has gotten way too easy because I don't want to drop all the kids. Its not because I want the easier war that I leave them in but rather because they don't understand (youth) it and also the rest of their donation numbers is a problem. Part of developing them is we make sure they are all actively donating to each other and learning by doing loot raids using cc troops of their level. (Guys giving them max troops might sound fun but teaches nothing.)

Now gimme a cat picture. I have never seen you go this many posts without a cat picture. I am worried about you.

[Kruzkal]

A lack of opt out is not an incentive to attack. If the lack of a feature is considered an incentive, then the lack of a feature that allows leaders to ban non attackers is an incentive too.

Avoiding a kick is not SC incentivizing people too. That is players doing what they want to incentivize players


Again, not SC's incentive

You are looking at it the wrong way. The lack of opt-out is indeed not an incentive to attack per se. However, the implementation of opt-out reduces the incentive to attack as participation is no longer mandatory. As a whole the incentive for player participation is reduced, meaning clans which previously had high participation is likely to see it drop unless rigorous measures are imposed by their leaders.

[JohnnyBGood]

A lack of opt out is not an incentive to attack. If the lack of a feature is considered an incentive, then the lack of a feature that allows leaders to ban non attackers is an incentive too.

Avoiding a kick is not SC incentivizing people too. That is players doing what they want to incentivize players

Again, not SC's incentive

Are you saying that Supercell is not doing enough to make participating in clan wars something that players want to do?

Supercell's refusal to create an opt-out button fosters an environment where clans put pressure on members to participate. Why should they add any additional incentives? The incentive for most players is that clan wars is a break from the monotony of farming. I would still participate in clan wars 24/7 if they eliminated loot bonuses entirely, and so would many others.

[THNSUM]

dam, you are tougher to debate with because you take the time to think about what you are saying. Now I have to think hard too. The other guys are like fish in a barrel so I get spoiled.

As far as opting out lower, that gets us tougher opponents and reduces the chance of us winning war. I know the theory is dropping them increases chances but because of how the averaging works leaving them in gets us an overall easier clan. Sure our lower guys get destroyed but we have an easy time covering that. Since I am the big gun at the top my job has gotten way too easy because I don't want to drop all the kids. Its not because I want the easier war that I leave them in but rather because they don't understand (youth) it and also the rest of their donation numbers is a problem. Part of developing them is we make sure they are all actively donating to each other and learning by doing loot raids using cc troops of their level. (Guys giving them max troops might sound fun but teaches nothing.)

Now gimme a cat picture. I have never seen you go this many posts without a cat picture. I am worried about you.

Funny, I was about to send you a PM saying I'm not sure there is room for a serious debate here becuase of the poorly thought out posts that dominate this thread.

I appreciate that you try to teach these younger players in your clan but I'm afraid you are solidifying my argument by doing so. Giving clans the option to opt out players will lead to many clans doing the oposite of what you do. That is why I advocate a feeder clan system to allow everyone who want to participate in CW to do so in wars where they are better matched. We use a three tiered feeder system and have a non warring clan for those member who either farm all the time or want to join it temporarily ( Either to farm for an upgrade or as an in house opt out system).

While I have no doubt you, myself and many other responsible players in leadership positions would never use a system wide opt out option to the detriment of our younger players I daresay there are too many that would. Without some kind of safeguards to protect lower level players from predatory practices such a system is unworkable in my view.

[rwelshjr]

Funny, I was about to send you a PM saying I'm not sure there is room for a serious debate here becuase of the poorly thought out posts that dominate this thread.

I appreciate that you try to teach these younger players in your clan but I'm afraid you are solidifying my argument by doing so. Giving clans the option to opt out players will lead to many clans doing the oposite of what you do. That is why I advocate a feeder clan system to allow everyone who want to participate in CW to do so in wars where they are better matched. We use a three tiered feeder system and have a non warring clan for those member who either farm all the time or want to join it temporarily ( Either to farm for an upgrade or as an in house opt out system).

While I have no doubt you, myself and many other responsible players in leadership positions would never use a system wide opt out option to the detriment of our younger players I daresay there are too many that would. Without some kind of safeguards to protect lower level players from predatory practices such a system is unworkable in my view.

Like I said, if they opt out their lower players, they get a harder war, not an easier one. So yes, I would do that. Harder war = more fun war in my eyes.