I don’t know for you all but I really tired of all players who abuse of elite boost or join just 1 min and leave. Ok during war they have a penalty of 60 hours but why not during off War put a system to stop Jumper. My suggestion is if someone leave a Alliance he must wait 3 days to join a new one and if he leave again next time is 4 day cooldown, leave again 5 day cooldown. For reset cooldown at 3 day he must stay in a alliance during 1 week. Cooldown don’t count if the player is kicked out of a alliance. What you think?
I support the idea of the game penalizing jumpers automatically. The alliance history feature has been suggested many times already. These devs just seem not to want to do something as useful as that.
We should distinguish between contributing jumpers - who donate and fight in wars during their stay, and “boost free riders” - who join, use boosts and do nothing for alliance.
I’ve already posted in another thread how to eliminate “boost free riders”; let me re-post it here:
Alliance Boosts (both Elite and War) for non-alliance-war battles should be EARNED, i.e.:
- If a player fights in Alliance War - (s)he can enjoy active boosts without restrictions (same as now);
- In other battles - only is (s)he “fought good enough” (see details below) in the same Alliance in the last finished War Season, i.e:
When war season ends - all players who are at this moment in the Alliance and " fought good enough" - can use this Alliance’s (active) boosts until the end of the next war season as long as they are within the alliance (if player quits - (s)he loses these rights; if comes back - gets them again)
“fought good enough” - may be determined by the number of Alliance War battles (for example - at least 10 battles) or by number of skulls (for example - at least 10,000 skulls) or by more complex criteria.
This improvement would eliminate BOOST FREE RIDERS (players who join alliance to get boosts and don’t do anything for Alliance).
And players who fight “good enough” in all war seasons would have boosts without any restrictions.
BTW, “60 hours penalty” was eliminated long ago; now newcomer can fight in all wars which start after (s)he joined alliance.
Exactly reward only players who fight very well in battle and the new who come after cannot use them and must wait Next War to use new one.
+1 great ideal
Please remember that soldiers jump because they have not found the right home yet (among the other reasons). It is very difficult to know from the current setup if a alliance will be a good fit.
See these suggestions on the same topic :
Not all jumpers do that for a good reason, there are boost seekers who only care about having activated the most boosts as possible.
I think it is better to paste the link of your suggestion into the conversation. Then everyone can also easily read the comments given to your suggestion.
Karman, when exactly will you define a player as a boost seeker?
Or in other words if a soldier move between alliances, what is the minimum he has to do, to not be a boost seeker?
I suggested the option for war boosts a long time ago already. fight enough (80% of possible war raids for at least 3 raids per war) and only then you get war boosts. do you leave the team and join another, no boosts, since you violate the constraint.
Profit from boosts I would also add a constraint to. You must have donated at least two times to the alliance during the last week. This would prevent a jumper to profit from boosts when joining a team. He at least has to donate twice before actually getting a boost. It also prevents that players who don’t help their team and only parasite will profit from boosts. I think most players will be careful and will not risk to lose boosts by not donating at all.
With these additional rules, boost jumpers don’t stand a chance. Actually, jumping will give them a huge disadvantage.
I know that visitors will also suffer from this or switching between 2 teams, but that’s all in the game.
Dena4, I would add one thing then I am 100% with you. Give the leader and generals an option to reset the default rules. In other words, when a new player join, and you are sure of his commitment, then you have the option not to penalise him. (You do not have to use it, if you do not want to) I have to agree that at some point it is just too much effort to take an alliance forward without better structures and rules
Dena4, this feature is going to have a huge impact on the psychology of the game. Many players like chaos and “no rules” etc. Thousands of quick and fly by night players and jumpers will hate this.
Boost seekers ask for boosts and notably leave when generals/leaders refuse to turn on more, also when some of them die and they say they won’t activate them again. Some jumpers even add a general to their friendlist, saying they’re interested on joining, but they do that just to know better which boosts that alliance has and if they offer the possibility to turn on more. Some of them even qualify and alliance as “bad” if they don’t like to have many boosts… In summary, boost seekers are jumpers that really don’t care about finding a good and suitable team to work together, they only want to be in the team that offers the most and strongest boosts possible.
at maybe 90% of time the funny thing its when you look the cap donation of the guy who leave because you said no or don’t use some Boost. they have only 20k or 50k lol for me if you want to demand for Boost you must have at least 100K to be credible and prove you want to help the alliance. Below that please don’t try
The alliance is not a democracy. The leader make the rules. As a leader you can decide to never use this option - as I would suspect you will do Dena4.
Reasons to use this option:
I hate it when we are limited and blocked. Some leaders may not mind jumpers as long as they are good fighters (high trophy range and level king). The point is that there are many leaders who do not care us much as you (Dena4) about the alliance members - and when you do not care, you need other means of attracting members.
The other thing is, I have found a few alliances that work together for different reasons. These alliances like to move members around. So why penalize a king if you as leader wanted him to move to the sister alliance?
Well spoken Karman.
Let me suggest something else. The current suggestion is going to penalize everyone (unless we add the unpenalize option I suggested). That is the thing I hate about rules - one person abuse the system and now everyone need to suffer. Lets not be so hard on everyone. Lets give everyone a change to learn from their mistakes. Lets just add a “ban” feature that the leader can set. It will work like this:
If a king misbehaves like Karman has pointed out - Let the alliance leader “ban” him (with a reason). While he is in the “ban” state he can not join your alliance again (until the leader remove it)
As an optional extra, when a king ask to join, list all the alliances that banned him, with the reason for banning.
As an optional extra, give the king a way to redeem himself - he can rejoin a banned alliance again but without any boost until he has fight 80% battles (of the 3 per attack) in the next war. Before he can rejoin, the leader needs to accept him first.
(I think this is simple and clean)
This is true Warriornator but there is also another side to this - and I am now speaking about the 10% times.
There are soldiers that are very loyal and can donate 1mil gold and do so 80-90% of the time - that is they will donate more that 10mil per week. Now because they are soldiers, they have no say in what is boosted.
I think a gold penalty would be cool.
If you’re kicked that was their choice, but if you decide to leave I think you should pay between $1M and $15M according to the size of the alliance. And then get a time penalty so people can’t use it as a workaround for tribute.