World War Opt In

[Grits]

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 But I still think opting in is obsolete.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.

 

[~Kratos~]

Opting out is your way of letting the leaders know that you are unavailable for the next war. This can be either because of game related reasons (upgrading war academy = no tactics, upgrade mercs camp = no mercs, and so on), or because of life (this one I probably don't have to explain).

Removing this option would result in an exodus of missed attacks and thus failed wars, which would lead to many frustrated leaders and alliance members. Totally against this idea.

If you would like to war consistently and too many of your members keep opting out, maybe there is 'something' to be done either with those members, or with your alliance leadership...

On the chat I agree, 100 messages is way too few. Many times not logging in for a couple hours means missing half of a conversation. They should raise it at least to 500 but rather more.

 

[Grits]

I agree with what you’re saying about opting out, but it also takes options away from other players. They got rid of 25v25 so in our current case we lost a player and we now have to bench 9 instead of 4 because 12 don’t want to opt in. So now 9 players get to twiddle their thumbs for 2 days.

These people have been opted out for a very long time and it’s something we’re currently working on by adjusting our alliance policies. Unfortunately the only solution is kicking those players, but losing 12 doesn’t gain us 1.

I’d rather keep the 12 and just bring one of them with us to the war.

 

[Grits]

Maybe keep the opt out option so people can build and do other things like you said, but a leadership draft option of up to 5 players would help a lot. I’m more comfortable with benching 4 than I am with benching 9.

 

[~Kratos~]

You're right, it sucks having so many players sitting wars out. I was so much against the idea of removing the queues of 15v15/25v25//40v40... their argument was that less but larger queues will create better war matching possibilities. It does seem to hold true somewhat, ever since the matchmaking overhaul we''ve been getting opponents much closer to our strength. But still, sucks sitting so many players out, we can relate.

The solution of leaders forcing those opted out players in, would perhaps solve the problem of sitting many players out, but it would create others, along the lines of missed war attacks. The solution is really just enforcing more of your players to opt in, if back to back warring is your goal. If they don't like it, find other alliances.

 

[Grits]

Without war, there’s not really a good reason to even log on. My citizens are all busy building, food is full, gold is full, oil is full, trade goods full. Without war I could just log off for 4 days. Sure I could go for medals, but medals are worthless. And I’m only Enlightenment, I imagine it gets worse at higher ages since building goes up exponentially.

So benching 9 people really takes a lot of the game away from them. The best part anyway.

 

[albynos]

Grits ts I understand your point, but I've got to atomic without playing ww, so honestly I really don't get how can you have full resources and Enlightment...

 

[Berend_War]

In clash of clans the leader can override the opt out. The leaders know he's unavailable but still can include them.

The same option in Dominations would solve some issues in my alliance aswell. I still want to know who opted out however so removing it completely is not the way to go.

 

[Grits]

albynos Getting resources is easy, you take them. Waiting on farms and camels would take forever. My mills and markets only hold 6 million but I keep spending on wall upgrades while I’m out attacking and manage to take in about 30 million or more per day. That is, until my walls are fully upgraded. After that it’s hard to spend the resources in order to keep taking more in. At that point, if all the citizens are busy, you have no choice but to just wait, or go to war. Otherwise, there isn’t anything left to do until some citizens are freed up. 5 star wins give you a chance at 3 NTGs so those fill up pretty quick too. So yeah, I like war because without it there isn’t anything left to do. It at least gives me the opportunity to spend NTGs on coalition troops and then I can turn around and go collect more NTGs.

 

[albynos]

Grits if thats the way it is I understand, but honestly there still something I don't get..do you get 30 mln per day attacking? how many attacks do you do per day?? 30? 40? maybe 50.
In 4 years of playing the biggest attack I did I've got something 1.5mln 1.5mln and 15k oil...but it was one out of thousand...so unless I'm missing something, how can you get 30 mln per day?

 

[Saruman the White]

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

 

[Grits]

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.

 

[albynos]

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....

 

[Grits]

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.

 

[NateTheGreat]

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.

 

[NateTheGreat]

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.

 

[Stormicus]

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.

 

[Grits]

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

 

[Tsamu]

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.

 

[No Angel]

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.