60 person teams - Suggestion to Improve War, eliminate account sharing, and generally make the game more enjoyable

We all know how hard it is to get 50 people, often located all over the globe, to be able to coordinate and do wars together. We’ve lost wars due to work assignments, deaths in the family, etc and I know you all have too. Its part of the game (just to throw that out there for the inevitable person who is going to say “its part of the game, quit whining”) but its not a GOOD part of the game.

My suggestion is to add 10 “bench” player spots to the teams. Total team size would be maximum of 60 players, but only 50 would be eligible to participate in wars and events.

Players “on the bench” would still receive daily eggs, still be able to play for individual prizes in events, and would still receive whatever team prize that their teammates earn in events. But their contributions would not count for event team prizes and they would not be in the team roster for war (could still fly BU in war though).

Team leader/officers would be able to set who is on the bench through the team management screen (add a button similar to the remind button for wars/events, except this button would toggle active/bench status).

Changing the status of a player would NOT affect any wars already declared - the war roster is locked in based on the active players at the moment the war is declared. The active players can still be adjusted with wars ongoing, but the changes would only affect future wars. Same thing with events - roster is locked in at event start.

Having this feature should eliminate account sharing by eliminating the NEED for account sharing. No one wants to do other people’s war hits. They only do it because they have to.

Ok, there it is. Go ahead and roast me. Its what you do best :slight_smile:


Ok, except NOBODY is going to want to be the “on the bench”. The only thing this would accomplish is pissing off 10 people.


In my mind most teams would have empty or nearly empty bench slots. You dont HAVE to fill them. Because they dont count for anything, they can sit empty.

I see teams using them as follows;
Put inactive players on the bench until they return from inactivity.
Put alts on the bench to accumulate eggs/sigils without effort
Put new players on the bench at first, to make sure they are reliable.


Or you could just get your players to do their damn war hits… Sure things happen, but if you are loosing alot of wars due to catastrophic occurrences on a regular basis im guessing those players are lying as to why they missed their wars… and work assignments can be predicted.


Might be true at higher leagues, in gold/plat I think it would be nice to be able to be benched for a bit during holidays and such, without leaving the team. And I really don’t care much if my mini gets benched, but it’s handy to have it on the same team for things like event points.

Also you could park some mini accounts on the bench just to make sure there are always 50 people ready to run wars (benched people would have to be auto-promoted off the bench if someone leaves).

I have no experience in the high leagues, but for my level I think this idea would work out pretty well.


Thank you for being the person who put up “Its part of the game, quit whining”. Glad we got that out of the way.

hahahhahaha :+1::+1:

Hey i understand the issue. I even suggested making it so officers could force their ‘missing’ members to attack at one point (with a ryuu lead) (im too lazy to find the link, but this problem has been discussed multiple times). I am not unsympathetic to the issue.

But at the end of the day, yes it is part of the game and yes you need to cope with it.

adding 10 random members i dont think is the solution though.

Edit: i found the link

1 Like

I can sort of see your point but this is why a lot of teams have a feeder team a few leagues down. So if a teammate can’t be on for whatever reason they can move to the feeder team and an alt or other player put in.

1 Like

I kind of like it to be honest. Don’t see any real downsides to it.
Upvote :grin::+1:

A lot of times when a new spot is filled, its a gamble if the new player will actually do their war attack. Of course they say they will, but … This would remove the frustration of defending your ass off during wars but then losing because that one player doesn’t get online and ending 245-250 while you have defended better.
And why would anyone be pissed off for being on the bench? There’s not really a downside to it?.. :slight_smile:

Eiter way, I’d probably vote for the “leave it as it is” but here’s a possible change to your proposal.

What if teams were expanded to 60 members as you suggest, but instead of the “sitting on the bench” bit you suggested, they are treated as equal members (participate in events etc.)

The wars remain at 250 flames and everything plays out as first to finish (just like most wars usually are - except more players contribute toward the goal).


Id buy into that. Not sure about others though. Good suggestion!

but teams wouldn’t have to kill the enemies “bigs” that way… or is this intentional?

Also wouldn’t making it so you only needed say 240 flames have the same affect?


Ooh, good point. Yeah thats a major flaw.

That’s true - not intentional, so definitely worth mentioning! Thank you.

Maybe that’s a good thing. It removes the benefit of having a whale on your team. (or the con of having a whale on the opposing team).

ya thats why i suggested that Ryuu idea way back when… (link above)

Also it helps to be very clear in your team rules. When I was running a team rule # 1 was Miss a war, out the door. No exceptions.

Lower tiers can’t always be so strict though… but i agree

That works (and is expected) in Diamond and Sapphire. Platinum and Gold it generally doesnt work.

I agree with this. It’s frustrating losing a war due to the same player and your officers/leader won’t kick them for whatever reason.

I’d like to think that my proposal removes this issue.