War eligibility toggle for each player

War is a big endeavor in the game. It’s unique from other events in that it requires good communication, strategy, and commitment to using all BP each day. In effect, it is an entirely different game, and it makes sense that some players just aren’t into it. For this reason, Commanders or XOs (maybe officers?) should have more control of which alliance members will participate.

This could be easily accomplished by adding a toggle button next to each player in the war eligibility screen (before rosters are locked). Alliance leadership could then select which players they believe are ready. In addition:

  • All non-participating members would be able to spectate only and would not receive war rewards.
  • The combined total power of all participating players would be used to determine league and matchmaking, not the total power of the entire alliance.

I’ve lost count of how many times a new player has joined my alliance, then failed to follow our strategy (or any strategy), broken truces, or just didn’t participate. We’ve had high-power players who bumped us into the next bracket, only to not participate at all. As it stands, we kick at least one player every war for failing to follow basic instructions. This could change that…

1 Like

This would be nice if it was implemented. Especially the thing about people who don’t pull their weight not getting rewards.

I hate to be the one to say it but if you are recruiting members and they are not following the leader then either you are a bad leader or you need better players. If they have pushed you so far as to make this post it tells me you have let them ignore orders multiple times. By stopping people participating you are essentially handicapping your entire team and you have 4-8 less attacks daily by being only 1 player down. If you feel like players are not listening to you then make it clear, they follow instructions or they are kicked. this is how every top alliance does things, alliances are a team effort and war requires effort from all team members, that message should be understood by all your members and if they can’t understand it, there are many players who happily will.


Yeah… that approach is exhausting. I know because we do it. This feature just makes it easier to ensure those who want to participate in war, can, and also to prevent those who are indifferent from handicapping the rest of their team.

I don’t understand how it would make a difference? If people choose to not participate then they just don’t spend BP? What would be the point in adding in a whole extra option for the same result? If players choose to spectate as you suggest then how is it different from them spectating and not spending BP as it is currently

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback, G. I appreciate all of the time and energy you’ve put into this game (your extreme guides are HH scripture), but if you can’t see the benefit in a feature like this, it’s not meant for you. When you are in a private, top-tier war alliance, the members you recruit know exactly what the expectation is when they join you.

The overwhelming majority of alliances don’t even recruit, so for them, getting quality players is a crapshoot. This feature would help mitigate that.

Right now, we get complaints about users being kicked from Alliances during events and forfeiting their rewards as a result. I’m reluctant to give players the power to decide who gets rewards in their Alliance, as the potential for abuse is astronomical. That said, I’ll pass the feedback along, but can’t promise it’ll be implemented. Thanks.


I appreciate that. Thank you. I suppose such a feature should be limited to COs and XOs only in order to avoid abuse.*

The need for a feature like this really speaks to a bigger issue: Is Hero Hunters an FPS or an RTS? The core gameplay is FPS, but Alliance War is RTS, and expecting an FPS fan to also be an RTS fan is unrealistic. Certainly, there are plenty of players who are fans of both (like me), but I understand why so many want nothing to do with AW. They just want their FPS. So, why not let the players who actually enjoy the RTS side of HH play against others who enjoy it, and let the fans of the core HH experience stick to what they love? A simple eligibility toggle would allow that.

The game’s war matchmaking is flawed as a result of this as well. It determines matches based on total alliance power (and some other things, I’m sure), but it can’t consider how many players in the alliance will actually participate. We’ve all encountered the alliance who can barely make it out of their territory before other teams have taken over the middle of the map. Should that alliance really be competing against the others? Wouldn’t it be more enjoyable for them if they were matched with other alliances based on the total power of those participating?

*P.S. Players who are kicked during a war should still get any rewards their former alliance qualified for since there’s no way for the game to determine if their kicking was justified. I think that’s where the real potential for abuse lies. I hate freeloaders as much as the next person, but there are too many situations where this could be used unfairly.

Once again, being the bearer of bad news but there is a toggle to join war or not. There are many alliances who thrive on not being in war, my friends over in 1134 are a good example, they don’t play war and only do top 5 bounty, they have never been happier. People who only want to play specific events clump together into their own alliances, trying to split your alliance up like that to those who want to play and those who don’t want to play is simply a strange concept. If they want to play then they can use their BP, if they don’t want to play then they won’t use their BP. However your last point there I suspect is what the post is really about, you don’t want to kick your players who are not playing in war but you are struggling to compete against other alliances who have all their members playing. I will repeat my last point that if you want to compete in ALLIANCE WARS then you have to build an alliance of players who want to compete.

The potential for abuse of having a 50m alliance full of level 100 2m+ players choosing to only play with only 15 members and being matched with alliances at 30m who have no level 100s is astronomical. So this idea of yours I am afraid would only amplify the problem you are trying to solve.

Also regarding members who are kicked getting rewards, if a player is kicked then they are kicked for a reason, being kicked is not a pleasant or nice thing, they don’t deserve rewards. If a player voluntarily leaves an alliance and joins another then they can collect their war rewards from the alliance tab at the end of the week, as they normally would.

But then that doesn’t make it any fun for those who wanted to play but got sidelined for one reason or another and now they won’t even get to collect rewards. Also there are plenty of alliances that already use other exploits, I see no reason why they wouldn’t select a few players that have a few plat or ruby and only use those guys to get further down in the brackets and have easier competition? They might have lower bp in total then the other alliance but if you can steamroll entire sectors with one hero that makes up for it. It just seems a little too exploitable

1 Like

You guys are really over thinking this subject. If people don’t participate kick them if they do let them stay simple as that, back in the day when I ran my own alliance if I let people slack off others would too. So I started to kick the people who didn’t hit minimums and recruited all the time. It’s just part of the game


War has run it’s course and has remained stagnant for 2 years now with no major renovations or changes. It’s been the same rewards for the last 2 years with Serial as the main prize. Whatever recommendations we as a community has made to the developers has fallen on death’s ear.

For example, changing the rewards to include ruby gear with platinum gears or including FF tokens instead of serial frags for the seasonal winner would entice people a little more.


The simple reality is that players are people who have real life responsibilities and can’t always meet minimums, especially extreme minimums which require perfect communication and reset diligence.

If you, as a leader, aim to be the best, you need a completely dedicated team who will be on when you need them. You also have to continually evaluate your team and kick players who underperform. That’s the price of running a top-performing war alliance.

With Fiber being the new war hero, you should expect to see a revival in war dedication, and as a result, heavier competition. So don’t get too hard on your team or yourself at the moment.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.