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



The goal in my original suggestion was to keep all existing war strategy in tact, just give more flexibility to the team leaders to keep 50 active players on the war roster. Eliminating the need to hit the whale would radically alter war strategy.

Also the suggestion has to be so simple that even PG can code it. Adding one button and increasing a limit to 60 is probably within their ability.


I agree. However, I feel that too many teams wih lower level players hide behind 1 whale.

It means that a team is not neccessarily as good as it’s players but that a team is as good as it’s whale.



I’ve seen it on other games when you have less than a full team able to participate in a war (i.e. only 50 participate out of 60 members). It can be useful for holidays etc but some people do moan about being “benched”. I can’t see it being that detrimental to them directly in this game though because you don’t get anything individually for participating. However, it would be frustrating if someone was benched/ locked out of the war but came online, and someone you thought would attack, didn’t.


From alliance will be a good idea :bulb:


I see a bunch of positives, and no real down side.


So how will this help your team if you have had 49/50 members attack and the last guy has a family emergency.

You specifically stated

And this

Both of which have no correlation to each other. Having this feature would in no way shape or form allow the team to complete someone else’s war run in the current war, so how is this different then swapping out a teammate who didn’t do his war run immediately after the war (or slightly before so that the roster changes for potential incoming wars)?


The guy who has the family emergency gets immediately put on the bench, and someone off the bench (probably an alt that’s been sitting there waiting for this exact situation) comes in to take his place.

This wont help you for the war that’s already in progress - hopefully he did his run already on that one - but it will help for all future wars until the guy’s situation is resolved.

Yes, its not a complete fix, but a limit of the damage. Generally the guy with the family emergency is going to be gone a week or two, and you feel like a jerk if you kick the guy whose mom just died or something.


Then it is the exact same as putting him on a feeder team for a few weeks to recover. You can leave him in your chat rooms and stuff, just move him when he finds out. That is what people do in this game right?


Another situation that comes up often is “Im going to be gone next week for work and I wont be able to get on the whole time”

This idea is PERFECT for that situation, because it is anticipated in advance. Just put the guy on the bench until he gets back.


It would not help an active war, but it COULD help prepare for upcoming wars. If players know they will be unavailable for a time (vacation, health, etc) they could let the officers know, and they could be swapped out for a benched player rather than having to actually be removed/replaced.


It is true that you can achieve the same result by using a feeder team.
It is my understanding that the very top teams do exactly that.

What this does it makes it smoother, and makes it so that the benched players dont have to be completely separated from their team.


And not every team has a feeder team.


Yup that’s true.
I’ll give you that :+1:

How do you think this would affect team morale if someone was to voluntarily want to sit on the bench?
What about for a person who gets benched and doesn’t want to be?
Would people think that others were abusing the opportunity?
Would there be any ill will towards people not contributing but still getting event prizes? Either way…


I feel like most people would not take kindly to someone sitting on the bench earning eggs and sigils without contributing to the team for long periods of time absent a really good reason.

Any such leeches would get kicked by their teams pretty quickly.


I do…it sounds like a dream job.


Unless only the 50 highest level players count for defense. So all 60 members in you team can attack, but only the top 50 bases get attacked.


Again the goal of my original suggestion was to not impact war strategy at all, just facilitate team membership more smoothly.


Better 40 + 10 on a spare bench. 60 is too much for a team.


We have a bench. It’s called not being on our team. There are quite a lot of people on it.

If someone is going away and can’t play he goes to the bench. What does it matter if he’s teamless if he can’t even play? We bring an alt account in temporarily.

Why not get 10 players on your team to create alts? There’s your bench.

Also if you get all those alts to apply for your team you have the applications just sitting there. Someone says oh I’m going away. Bye bye. Accept one of the waiting applicants. Problem solved.


I actually sorts of agree with this idea, though it can be done a tad differently;)
Has anyone played CoC? In Clash of Clans each player can select whether they want to be on of off for the next war. The thing is this, lets say out of the 50 players a war will only include 40. So this way the leader can decide who he want on this war, and leave off the ones who are on vacation or broke their phone or have a family situation or got arrested :roll_eyes: … you name it lol Also in CoC each attack can only be ran once… which I think is a cool way of doing it. It trains skill into the players. If you don’t get it right the first time … well you Fd up then;) No reruns.