Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World War Opt In

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grits
    started a topic World War Opt In

    World War Opt In

    Please remove the World War Opt-In option. This is unnecessary. Being in an alliance should be option enough. If you don’t want to go to war, don’t join an alliance! Most of the perks only benefit war anyway.

    It’s kind of annoying having 41+ members and only 29 are opted in. We were doing 30v30 wars but lost a member and now we have to bench 9 members! That’s 9 people that have to wait it out for the next rotation, and that kinda sucks.

    Maybe give leaders Emergency Draft Powers where they can opt in other players in order to fill in the war lineup. But I still think opting in is obsolete.

    Also, fix the chat. We can get on there and ask people to opt in for war, but if they haven’t been online for 3 or 4 days they aren’t going to see us ask when the chat scrolled down days ago. Alliance messages help but they’re too short. Need a few more lines of text. Maybe even a way to text other players.

  • Grits
    replied
    Maybe limit it to Medieval Age and above? After all, the newer players are still tapping all the buttons trying to figure out what does what. Dragging them into a war before they’re ready might trigger their stress levels. 🤪

    Leave a comment:


  • Berend_War
    replied
    See lot's of players opting out because a war critical building is upgrading.
    I assign the targets and know who opted in or opted out.
    In my assignment I would let everybody know when someone opted out.
    If I'm lucky he might help out below. If not it's all on me because I included him or her.
    Just a calculated risk, if someone opted out and I still include them in war it's all on me if the attacks aren't used.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uhuru
    replied
    I believe the button on readiness for war should be, but it should not block the possibility of appointing a fighter to war, as it works now. Thus, the responsibility for participation is not ready for war fighter will be on the leader. We take bots (as plugs) to the war, it will be the same case.
    Last edited by Uhuru; 05-26-2019, 08:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grits
    replied
    Tsamu my suggestion for a limit was to prevent over overriding. Like say if an alliance has 40 players and only 5 were opted in. With a limit of 5 you could run a 10v10 war and keep everyone else opted out. Instead of taking 5 that are opted in and creating a 30v30. Same thing with 15 and 25...

    But I have come to the conclusion that the opt in/out in general is a good thing for leadership. Deciding who to put in if everyone was opted in would be a huge headache since communication in this game is hard enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • No Angel
    replied
    While I like the idea of ''being in an alliance means you're ready to war'', which should be an ideal thought for everyone; I don't want to include bad attackers really, either those who can't follow war plan 😆
    My allies understood this and there were a few who joined particularly to donate troops, not to war.

    But ok, I don't like to see the ''unavailable'' message next to my allies names. Also I want to see which ones are unavailable cause they opt out, or cause they're war-locked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsamu
    replied
    Don't abandon the thread, just adapt it to the suggestion by Berend_War. Leaders should be able to override opt outs. I don't see a reason to have a limit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grits
    replied
    Actually I’ve given up on this idea and just don’t know how to delete the thread. 😆

    Leave a comment:


  • Stormicus
    replied
    Sorry, but this is a really bad idea. People have to be allowed to tick off from war when they want to, you can’t have leaders overruling that. If you can’t persuade enough of your ticked off players that they want to war, maybe you need to look at your leadership methods.

    I miss 15v15 too, but this is not the answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • NateTheGreat
    replied
    An override option for leaders/coleaders would indeed be useful, but not removing the opt in /opt out altogether.
    Another suggestion would be to allow multiple wars (2-3 max) going on within alliances and have 100 members allowed in an alliance. That way if you missed the big war you might be able to run a 10v10 war.

    A big message box that pops up and can be sent by the leader to any member could allow much clearer in your face alert that your alliance needs your help.

    Lastly, there are more benefits to an alliance than just war. Mainly, donated troops, sharing strategies, base design, and just overall friendships with people who enjoy the game too.

    Leave a comment:


  • NateTheGreat
    commented on 's reply
    So you raid for 7-1/2 hours per day? Interesting... Wish I didn't have anything important to do and could raid all day.

  • Grits
    replied
    albynos I never said it was 7.5 hours straight, it’s more like 12-15 hours cuz I take lots of breaks in between. Gotta eat, sleep, and keep up with my tv shows and movies! 😆

    I’m EA 120, started October 2018, I only face stronger opponents during war, raids are not the place to test yourself, and this is not the forum thread to teach you how to play since you haven’t figured it out after 4 years.

    Moving on...

    I’ve seen some very lean days where we had well over 40 members but could only muster enough to run 10v10 wars. And that was back when they still had the 15v15 and 25v25. I’m just looking for a way to alleviate that so players don’t have to go through that.

    Perhaps another solution besides, or in conjunction with, the leadership override option would be making the Opt In/Out button visible at all times. Not just when searching for wars. That way we can start asking people to opt in for the next war while we’re still in the middle of one. Might only need 1 or 2 people to fill in. Maybe just put it on the alliance window. I’d much rather know who’s opted in/out than how many troops they’ve donated. Hell the window is big enough, put them both in there and add a live running tally of how many are available (opted-in) for war.


    And we need a way to communicate with alliance members. Since no one’s on at the same time, the only way to do that is with alliance mail messages, so we’re going to need access to more than 3 messages and more lines of text per message.

    Leave a comment:


  • albynos
    replied
    Grits now I get it. With all the needed respect I think you have a partial picture of the game itself due to the fact you are still Enlight.
    First of all i was expecting you to complete your scenario. BEST CASE : 300k epr attack, 3 min per attack, 15 min 1 mln, to get 30 mln it takes 450 minutes that actually are 7.5hrs a day straight. Lucky you you can spend this time playing.
    Secondly I'm CWA 225 and I can tell you that the more far you go the more oil you will need. "it’s just silly to use oil for raiding." you will realize you need to build HT when you will face stronger account.

    So in my opinion I would expect a bit more to say that the game is already over....

    Leave a comment:


  • Grits
    replied
    albynos actually I average about 200k-300k per attack. And it doesn’t take all that long either. When you don’t lose troops you can attack roughly every 3 minutes. Which is about 15 minutes per million. Sure beats waiting on troops to train. As far as oil goes, it’s just silly to use oil for raiding. I only use it for wars and upgrades. That would be kinda like using mercs, tactics, and donated troops for raids.

    Saruman the White I’ve come to the conclusion that leaving the opt in option in there is for the best. However, I think having a leadership override option would be good too. Even if it’s for a limited amount, like maybe 5, since they took away the 15v & 25v queues.

    Some have pointed out that having an override would result in missed attacks. I agree that it would, but I suggest that missing a few attacks is better than a bunch of allies missing an entire war. I’m just trying to find an option where players can actually play the game instead of waiting their turn to play the game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saruman the White
    replied
    I'm totally against this idea. It's much easier to set the rules of your alliance as to every member opts IN or be kicked. But leave other alliances untouched. The IN/OUT option is a very useful tool for Leaders and co-Leaders

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X