How Are We Supposed to Coach Alliance Members?

[shukra]

great topic not discussed enough; how should we advise others; is there "stock" advice?

i wonder if the best skill a player can have is to be good at accurately understanding his/her own ability, and so can pick a reasonable 5* target.
even with less skill, *knowing* where you are leads to improvement.

mariaimmanuela:
in our alliance we have people shooting too high (from desire to perform well) rather than too low.
i most often tell people to be more conservative, to have confidence in our stronger players to take stronger targets.

 

[No Angel]

Sometimes it depends on our own confidence and commitment. We go lower when we're not confident or lazy. Sometimes I tell people who should hit who in wars because I know these guys ability very well. But that often leads an argument between me and our leader lol.

 

[bugalho]

HAHAHA. Just sharing my experiences. I saw myself a few months back when I saw you OP, so decided to share my experience. Hope that helps you to raise your alliance again.

 

[bugalho]

That would be the ideal case, but people, mostly when they are in the beginning of the game, are not able to accurately measure their own strength or others. In my opinion, we as experienced players should give advise to them, and explain why they should go for a specific target. I have saw people saying that their mirror is very easy, I think they could take if the play the right way, and as such I assign the target to them and give the guidelines and the warning they should pay attention at. For example I tell them to watch out for the donated troops in city center, to take out a specific building, etc... In the end most of the time they rush to city center to get the quick victory, don't apply sabotage a howitzer comes from the city center and boooooommmmm... Attack, lost and people say " I don't know what happened", and I say " I told you to watch the city center and apply sabotage,but you let the howitzer come out and boooommmm! Go watch the replay.". And they go and they tell, "You were right, I should have done better.".

The problem with inexperienced player taking a target from their choice, is because they aren't yet familiarized with all the game elements and mechanics. In my opinion, you only get the real grasp and feel of the game when you enter the industrial age - which is the age I am at. There you start to deal with a lot of different thing, like planes, a loot of more troops, taking out sniper towers, bunkers, anti-air guns, etc... Everything changes from the simple combinations of troops from the lower ages, because you have limited choices. In the industrial you have to take a lot into consideration - and even more in the global upwards with the silo, which I am about to experience. But because of all of this, you become better, so I think the industrial age is an age where you should spend your time in, and to learn the game mechanics. I stayed in there for the last 6 months, I don't regret a single day there - I am almost maxed out. Until there you should have patience and coach the new members, and hope they stick with the game long enough to be valuable members. From what I have seen most people that reach late industrial or early/rush global are those that didn't take the time to learn the game mechanics, and that point they take a hard time trying to learn and getting rid of old bad habits.

Another topic that would interesting to discuss would be, "Is it worth the effort to coach newly arrived members to the game? Or just those that have already some month in game?" I ask this myself everyday, because we have members that join after a week of game playing, have rushed to medieval age gunpowder, we advise them to take their time and mature at their current age, or it will be worst with every age rush, and when they understand the commitment they have to do, they leave the game... With that you sent a almost a month of coaching someone that really didn't have will to play the game. Then a new member comes in and you start all over. This sometimes makes you frustrated, but I think it makes part of the coaching. Sometimes you to coach 10 to take out 2 good players... I tend to think "Ok, it is like a team of football kids. Not all of them will be professional players, but 1 or 2 can be. Despite that you have to training all of them. Inhale... Exhale... Inhale... Exhale... Ok, let's do it!"

 

[TLucas]

Have you considered using friendly challenges to help coach? I'm not sure how effective this will be, but if you could mirror some of the war bases, and give some of the weaker guys more confidence in how to approach a base it might be beneficial. Of course, this depends on your player actually completing the friendly challenge.

 

[yemen]

There are a few basic things we will coach lower level players on, including good advice on what to upgrade. Then lots of friendly challenges for them to try, and replays for them to watch in our war attacks. Most don't really listen or last long, but it doesn't take too long to go over the basics. And lower level players can't do much harm in war if you have a solid core.

High level players who can't attack get a few suggestions and then a boot. If you have gotten to cold war and can't run a competent line or 4 corner with silo decoys, that isn't going to change with a few pointers.

If the player has somehow gotten to a decent level (industrial or global) and yet has never had anyone explain how to attack / seen good examples, friendly challenges, replays and a few pointers can really help a player who wants to improve. The challenges can also help a player evaluate their own strength, with and without troop cards.

But most who aren't good when they get to you won't really be interested in rapid improvements. Liberal use of the boot is key to keeping a strong team, you have to go through a number of players to find a promising one.

 

[hawkeye2701]

Your best bet would be to become the leader, so you can put some good rule in your alliance. But I don't think it will be easy as your leader still want the pride and glory as 'leader'.

Then as pain as it will be, if you can't be the leader, you're better to leave, IMHO. Whatever choice you pick, good luck to you

 

[tollboothwillie]

Sounds like your trying your best, except some just don't care and will play like they want. They know you don't have any power too do anything about it either. That in itself is a problem. If you were able too kick some it would show how serious you are. Right now your just that parent who tells their kid too stop doing something over and over with out any consequences. So they just ignore you.

I was in an alliance where the leader didn't care if or how players attacked in wars. The biggest problem were the other Co's not attacking. I finally left and took a few days off too decide if I was going to continue to play or stop for a couple months. Thankfully I found a good alliance who have some very simple rules and if you dont/can't follow them you are out.

I don't believe the frustration you have from your current alliance is worth staying for. Your current alliance is too casual for your play style.
You have too remember that not all alliances are a good fit for everyone.

 

[SharkyFinn]

I think you might have put yourself into an impossible situation. You clearly have a vision for where you'd like to lead the alliance and I think you have excellent ideas; however, from your description, you are powerless to execute them. I think you're going to find that you're not going to make any progress as long as you can't enforce the rules when you need to. I understand your leader's position, but I also understand that he's taking advantage of you a little bit. He doesn't have the time to commit to running the alliance, so he's happy to let you deal with the problems in his absence. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to trust you enough to give you the authority to lend weight to your rules. It also sounds like the only person in the alliance who has the threat of demotion or boot hanging over their head is you.

I think you should talk to your leader and explain the situation. Let him know that his thoughts and opinions are always valued, but you feel there are some rules that need to be mandatory and you need the ability to enforce them. If he trusts you enough to be the sole coleader, he should be able to back you on this. What you're trying to do with your alliance are all normal, healthy parts of running a team. You don't sound like a mini-despot looking to punish other players with your visions of conquering the world, so there should be no reason he shouldn't back you. If he still refuses to give you any authority whatsoever, IMO you should look for a different alliance where your contributions are recognized.

Good luck.

 

[No Angel]

Yemen had some great points over there! Question is, we don't want it to look like a boot camp there, how should we set some rules, run some coaching for new players, without making it like North Korean army camp?
​​​​

 

[BeerMan]

The first thing we ask new players is what kind of shape their uni is in. If they are IA+ and haven't at least completed howie and rifle research in Uni, they are a liability in war. It's an easy way to weed people out...

 

[SharkyFinn]

Question is, we don't want it to look like a boot camp there, how should we set some rules, run some coaching for new players, without making it like North Korean army camp?
​​​​

That should be pretty easy. It's all in the delivery.

The one thing I always try to remember when it comes to encorcing rules is that you do it for all your other players who are doing what's expected of them. If a player can carve out a little time from their busy schedule to participate in a team mobile game, they deserve not to have that time squandered.

 

[No Angel]

bugalho, thanks for sharing, we're slowly rebuilding. Especially that they've announced for new alliance perks, would be nice to beef up our members spirit again!
I hope you'll be a great leader for your alliance, and hope we won't meet in World Wars

 

[No Angel]

We have old members that have been spoiled to be lazy, not as active as they're supposed to be. It's probably easy to determine if they were new comers. But it's pretty hard to enlighten members that have been there more than 6 months

 

[MartoBeatz]

Alas, some alliances cannot be saved

 

[No Angel]

Ah, yeah that is one good standard. But mostly we're dealing with old members that have been there for quite a long time. I personally want some mild rules and standards to be applied, but I'm also dealing with our leader who never wants it more than be a little active and active in alliance; lol. We're also not strictly recruiting, not forming an alliance that will be a boot camp or something, I just want everyone to participate as a solid team and enjoy the game.

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Seems like this topic is just going around in circles then. You won't just leave due to some real world friendship. Yet you won't demand more accountability out of your leader or allies for the same reason. You're a coleader in name only if you aren't allowed to take basic disciplinary measures and set what would be the barest of expectations in most other alliances, particularly with an absentee leader.

My advice is to travel. Let your alliance see what they're missing and give yourself the opportunity to see how others manage. Since your leader can't/won't take the job seriously I don't see why he would have issue with you leaving either.

I've led a few alliances and you cannot make people any better if they're not willing to do it. You can have all the patience and good advice in the world, you still can't build people's bases and fight for them. That's why I've always valued communication and activity level far more than actual skills. Plenty of tools to teach the willing with, no tools to make them use those tools though So rather than be frustrated by other's foibles just look out for yourself.

Maybe the grass is greener. Maybe it's not. You'll never know if you keep spinning your wheels in a ditch with people who seemingly have no interest in getting out of it, will you?

 

[No Angel]

Bootney Lee Fonsworth , let's say I'm now acting as a leader with full authority ; can you suggest us how to manage alliance rules so we can coach members, both old and new ones?
Anyways we have new members and why is it easier to reach them than our old ones?! SMH.

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Oh that's easy. New members are still trying to fit in and show their worth. Old ones have gotten away with their bad habits for so long that they feel like they're untouchable. Personally I would boot several of them just to show that they're not. They can come crawling back after 24 hours with a new appreciation of the way things are. If not, no great loss.

Ultimately though it's much easier to manage one person's behavior and expectations (yours) than to deal with others'. I started having much more fun with the game when I became a free agent rather than endlessly and fruitlessly nagging at people about the same things over and over. It was ok when I was one voice of many coaching the new folks but being the only person in group to do war planning, coaching, welcoming, kicking, discipline, talking in general was a quick road to burnout. Every war loss was magnified way more than it should've been, every newbie mistake too.

Yeah, it's rewarding to see the rare newbie blossom into a solid player but to me it's not worth mucking around in the manure to find that seedling anymore.

Also, if any players new or old alike are communicative and show any ability promote them as soon as you find them trustworthy. Active, helpful, talkative, knowledgeable and trustworthy allies are worth their weight in gold these days. Being able to delegate some responsibility will lead to less frustration.

 

[Manifesto]

You'll never know if you keep spinning your wheels in a ditch with people who seemingly have no interest in getting out of it
It's not worth mucking around in the manure to find that seedling anymore

Some excellent quotes there! Do you have any more?