A question on wars and "5 flame races" - long time players


#1

This is probably aimed at some of the older/longer playing players, definitely at the ones that have been around a lot longer than I have, and that recall the previous iterations of wars.

I was wondering why the game was setup/balanced to be a 5-flame race to 250?

Let me rephrase.

I’m wondering why the game is balanced in such a way that its binary
If defender joins, no 5 flame
If defenders do not join, 5 flame

So the whole point of a war is simply to “luck out” so that your fliers sneak through on big bases without defenders.

Small bases will fall regardless of defenders.

Doesn’t this significantly cheapen the value of said big bases? Why would anyone spend the $12000 or so required to go from 300-360, if the outcome is purely determined on whether someone can sneak through without a defender? Heaven knows what it costs to go to 500?

I’m not saying “change this or change that” I am sure there were lots of discussions on this mechanism before I even heard of the game.

Wouldn’t it be better if dragons vs bases, bases were a lot stronger? Eg. you would require 3-4-5 dragons to drop a base, and not 1? or Not?

Would it be better if you say only had 3 attempts in a war per player? Thus instead of hoping to “catch” the other team offline, the emphasis would shift to strategy.

More of a shift from “lets hope no defenders join” on say D87’s base , to a scenario where it goes "well, we have to drop d87. With 2 defenders. So lets do the following - player 1 necryx, sand all blue mages, player 2 hauheset, vine reds and weaken all towers with 1 cast of crumble, attacker 3 - mafic.

Etc etc?

Now this isn’t a call for wars to change, more of a discussion on why it is good or bad as is?

Seems very binary, and with every tom dick and harry having noctua now (myself included), bases seem fairly pointless? Not that mine would ever stand anyways, I’m only low 300s, but the motivation to say become 400 or 450 seems VERY lacking?


#2

I am low 300 as well and the key between winning a war and losing is not only having some big bases but DEFENDING them well. Noct can kill a 300 with defenders, but yesterday I had to attack a 424 with more than 600 M and there is no way we could have done it with defenders. NO way. Even 300s with 2 or 3 good defenders are very hard to beat. So yes it makes sense to improve your base and make it especially hard to kill with somebody defending it.


#3

Sorry, I am only a lowly level 70, but I was under the impression that defending was a legitimate part of the war. Aren’t a lot of higher level wars won be defense points? If so, then the more times an attacker tries a base, it will not matter in the end whether he manages to sneak in without defenders or not. The defense points he gives the other team will allow them to win.


#4

In general I think the war format, as originally conceived, exceeded its limit a long time ago. I think war in general needs to be updated now that the game is mature.

War should be updated such that;

  1. Small bases matter
  2. Teams that have 49 players dont automatically lose the war
  3. The outcome does not depend strongly on luck

In short, I am calling for the entire format to be redesigned.


#5

Hmm no you misunderstand my point

Noctua cannot defeat a well defended lvl 330 base, just as they cant defeat a well defended 400 or 550.

They can easily defeat a non defended or poorly defended base.

Hence binary - defended no go, undefended easy win.

Deranged - yep defending is very important. Since its a race to 250, defense points are all that matters. Eventually someone will sneak through undefended.

What im getting at is I’d like to know or have some opinions on what if wars went 126/84

Or such. Aka if itsm wasnt a given that 250 would happen, and defense points would tie break.

If bases were designed to not be solos, perhaps airplane mode would become detrimental. Lets say that excellent flying would make you 3 dragon a lvl 600 base. Would make sense not to airplane then…


#6

Well thats fine in theory but how would you change it? I have thought about it a bit but i honestly can’t think of a good system. I find the effectiveness of defenders to be too strong personally, and i find the effectiveness of non-defended bases to be too weak… Everything i think of causes other problems.

Best thing i could think of was still using the current system but with some changes to current defense and base system: but as i said it still has issues.

  1. make all towers 20% stronger (health and damage) (there are some balance issues between different tower types that should be addressed but ill leave that to a different thread.
  2. Reduce amount healed by hammers when defending (hammer spamming is simply annoying).
  3. Adjust how SS work. reward SS over time defended instead of all at once… IE, everyone starts with 2 and they get 1 additional per X time in defense +1 per dragon used.

My whole thinking here was to boost bases in general, making them harder for a dragon to solo (without simply adding tower levels). Then changes to SS and hammers will help make it having a defender is not a instant win. Both proper planning and skill will be key to both attacker and defender. Ie, it could become strategy to save SS until further into a base (sacrificing the front towers). This will stop people from only leveling their front 5 towers trying to come up with a hail Mary defense strategy, as is currently fairly common. Additionally it gives defenders something to do throughout the battle other than drop hammers because they will consistently be given more SS to place (again i see issues with this but i am just spit balling ideas here)

But i do think doing this would make it harder to solo, and easier (or at least possible) to beat a base with only 1 defender (which is the goal here right?).


Dragon Nerfing w/ Update?
#7

Love the idea of improving defense strat.

Agreed that hammer spamming is boring, the idea of recharging ss is nice.

Bases would need a lot of tweaking though - but I reckon you are on a good tract.

I’ve also thought but couldnt come up with something that isnt as bad as what we have now😂


#8

Ya base design strategy would change quite a bit. I still think long term it could help


#9

Personally, I would love seeing flying ability and more strategy used than what it has become. People grab noc, create as many banners as possible and simply pray they dont get defended. I think harder bases would absolutely be better and for a while that was how it was. However, from everything I have seen over the last year that is exactly NOT the direction PG wants to go. They have been a fairly toxic cycle of charging a fuck ton of money for towers and then releasing dragons that are way too strong by comparison (especially against solo runs). This creates a higher revenue and honestly, I would guess that being able to beat bases undefended and not having to put in the work needed to improve actually makes a lot of people happy. So, as much as I would love to see this you are kind of fighting an uphill battle but one that I hope could happen, but experience has taught me to hardly hold my breath on this one.

Im not sure how exactly you would do it but you would have to increase strength of the base WITHOUT a defender and maybe decrease the strength or limit(?) the number of boosts you could use when there was. Being able to kill a base used to actually be some work even with 2 dragons and not since maybe the early days of Hau? was there a way to beat a fully defended base? The biggest thing though is making bases harder to solo or realistically it would be harder in the absence of defenders. A max base undefended is basically a joke that only the worst fliers would brag about beating because it is so simple to do with 2 dragons and no defenders regardless of the base level.


#10

Ya that’s why my first part of my suggestion was to give all towers a 20% boost (without adding levels) :blush:


#11

PG will want to know…but how can I monetize this? :expressionless::expressionless::expressionless:


#12

I told them you and the rest of dread would max your bases if they adopt my suggestion. No worries i already thought of that! :slight_smile:


#13

Clearly they haven’t missed out on the gems that are Ay and Harv :sweat_smile:


#14

Attacking a base without defenders all comes to how often that base charges towers without defenders. If u attack the same base 5 times u get maybe 2 out of 5 times hit by mages. I think a good solution would be having the base charge 1 tower randomly on each island that has towers on each time it gets attacked. That way at least one tower will be charged on each island everytime Nomatter if there is a defender or not.This will prevent the chance of solo attacks. When’s the base is defended the auto charge can be disabled.


#15

I second the limitations on the amount of hammers used (don’t think anyone spams shields or swords). It drives me crazy both as an attacker and defender, don’t understand how some of yall can throw that shit so fast. :unamused: I also don’t understand why a defense point is given just for showing up. “Everyone gets a trophy” type thing I guess. I think you should have to prevent the attacker from getting 5 flames to be considered “successful” defense. As far as in the absence of a defender, maybe being able to customize the auto-defend. Allow the owner to select which towers are charged in the absence of defenders.


#16

I think the system of a team getting free flames just because the other team doesn’t have a full roster is a bit ridiculous. A lot of teams will just keep declaring on teams like that to move up even though they arent ready and puts a lot of higher level players in leagues where they don’t need to be.

It would be nice if people did pay attention to their base layout and understand where a dragons weakness is and use it against them.Wars are almost a joke anymore.


#17

That won’t stop solo’s.


#18

Then fill your team :joy:

If they didn’t do that other problems arise.


#19

The system works as it is with a full team. Don’t like it, fill your team up.

Or, would you rather them institute something like Clash? You designate increments of 5-10 for war and it has to be a match? How is that fair for teams that have 50 players? Being forced to bench 5 or more players for a war just to appease someone who can’t be bothered to recruit a few additional players, or alts, for their team? What about those additional players that are benched? Could they actively defend or assist their teammates? If so, you are still fighting 50 players, so get over it and fill your team.


#20

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.