Banner/War System

@PGJared Admittedly the way my teammate went about it may have been wrong by your standards but I would like to use this as time to open up a discussion with both PG and the community as a whole. Wars are supposed to be between the teams involved. I would like to know if is intentional for PG to allow other teams to essentially “war” others by setting larger groups outside the scope of war in an attempt to aid the other with no fear of consequence because no war was declared by either side. It is easy to just assume intent but is that the system working properly?

Also, I would like to address the use of hackers by teams in order to further things. At what point is there going to be something done to limit the damage for those on the other side. I totally get sometimes it is unintended and we have even had mistakes in the past but…at what point does this become intentional or a an actual consequence is imposed? If any?

Another topic that seems to be more and more circulated is the use of the “Airplane Mode” feature. If you read LC you will see multiple times per day teams being accused of using this. I have no idea how much is actual errors or how much is intentional but its use does seem to be growing. Is the use of this something that PG actively condones and will take measure to prevent or is it simply on the player’s side to live with the issues/consequences?

1 Like

I’m not sure what you mean in your first paragraph. Can you go a bit more in-depth?

For your second paragraph, by “other side” do you mean the opposing team in a war or do you mean members of the team a cheater was in? We get a fair amount of pushback when we ban a cheater in a war because it negatively impacts the entire team, so I’m just wanting to make sure we’re discussing the same thing. (Personally I err on the side of "you gained a lot of benefit by having a cheater on your team so you can take it on the chin for one war.)

As for exploiting attacks, exploits are exploits and we are actively working to resolve them.


I mean multiple things. If you watch the video from the closed topic. There are two teams (Monsters Desert and Royal Road) who are actively engaged in a war. Another team, No Mercy Order, is likely using a third pary app (likely Line) to participate by creating banners but because they did not declare, they have nothing at stake. I am asking, is this the intended use of the war/banner system from PG’s side? If being about to war together without having to declare is working fine, I simply wanted confirmation.

Yes, by other side I mean those competing/playing against those who hack or alter the game to attempt to gain an advantage. One very common occurrence is during breed or built events, but in general, if you have to constantly play against hacked accounts or things like Airplane Mode (assuming PG wants to address this), how are those NOT using these going to affected? If one team uses Airplane Mode to consistently win wars, can PG take a greater interest in the how wars actually function given the fact your game is called “War Dragons”.

If someone was hacking for months or using exploits, winning one war hardly offsets that by the way…not sure if that is what you were trying to say.

1 Like

You mean creating “defend” banners that aren’t war banners?

As far as players cheating in wars goes, our primary efforts are around closing exploits / cheats and punishing players who choose to cheat or exploit. Finding ways to reward teams impacted by cheaters is a much more complicated situation, and we’re rather just make cheating so difficult / undesirable that it becomes a moot point.

No, that’s not what I was trying to say. I was saying that players who complain about losing a war because a member of their team that was cheating got banned don’t really have much of a leg to stand on in my opinion. Their teammate was cheating and they reaped the rewards of that, so they can take a hit by losing a war. I don’t think the teammates of cheaters should be heavily punished unless they knew their teammate was cheating, but they still gained a benefit from having that cheater on their team for however long it was.


Yes, mass defend banners or using bases that are already hit and creating banners that do not count as defense point. I wanted an official PG response if this is working as intended as as wars were meant to be? Please see video for reference if uncertain.

I agree, but Airplane Mode has been a topic of discussion for some time and there has yet to be any real action taken? If there, I am sure we would like to know!

In regards to your last statement though…generally speaking, they don’t lose the war because their teammate did if they pull someone in fast enough and often the gain far outweighs the loss of one war. With this line of thinking, it almost encourages teams to look for these kinds of things because there is little to no consequence, so the only thing keeping teams from doing things like that would be morality and integrity and that would be asking a lot from the player base from what I have seen.

Just to be clear, I’m not begging the question here. I sincerely want to make sure I completely understand what you’re saying and it’s not colored by my experiences with the game but by the point you’re trying to get across. I also suffer a bit because I’m not at a high level, and I see the terminology we use officially as opposed to the terminology use colloquially by players so I’m going to ask for clarification from time to time.

1 Like

I’m guessing since event banners and War banners are virtually indistinguishable from each other, that could be causing a huge issue. Not trying to butt in, but the banner colors should be an urgent fix…

1 Like

But if one team is getting several players banned in a short time period, is that not evidence that a widespread intent to cheat can be inferred? There are hackers offering services to unlock every dragon for a fee, etc, and if multiple members of a team (3+ maybe) are getting banned, it’s likely the hacking sources and methods are being widely distributed in team.

In cases like this, shouldn’t the offending team face harsh consequences, including forced liquidation in more extreme cases? As Panda notes, the externalities of cheating are pushed off on innocent teams while the cheating team prospers in many ways until caught, and the worst that happens is they may lose a few wars. Not enough of a deterrent for the hardcore recidivist cheating teams.

After watching the video, all banners stack to the point they are impossible to discern. There was another instance, and I am was simply told this so it is a bit unverified. Team A attacked Team C in war and then Team B attacked Team C in beta. If you were to say add in a hypothetical Team D or E attacking using regular attacks, this would be impossible to follow. As the game expands in fairly massive ways, perhaps there needs to be adjustments to the older systems and mechanics to account for this. Being able to filter banners would be highly helpful to address the addition of new game content.

1 Like

I think that’s one of those things that falls under “clever use of mechanics” and isn’t explicitly an exploit or anything. It does sound like a really negative experience (no one gives enough of a care about the team I play in to try that kind of thing…) though so it’s something I’d like to see adjusted. How would you like to see different defense banners interact with each other?

As for the Airplane Mode thing, it’s something the team is still working on. It’s a very difficult problem that we’re trying to address.


I need to run into meetings for the next 3 hours or so, but I’ll come back to this discussion later today.

1 Like

Thanks, what I am simply saying is with almost no consequence, the expectation is simply people will do it because of a higher moral standard? Already proven to not happen. Just look at the pack buying, as soon as gifting was shut off, Cody suddenly admitted he had to log into your account in order to facilitate this purchase despite his practice being “legit”. He was even a member of a diamond team while this practice was ongoing. My point is, if people are willing to hack the game for an advantage, likely an “I’m sorry” is not going to offset the damage.

3 hours means our war will be over.:angry:

Please do, I just wanted to make sure that the official PG statement was this was working as intended moving forward. I have seen other things that are “clever use of mechanics” that were later deemed to be an issue. By your logic, wouldn’t pack loading using an alt to avoid a ban from PG also be a “clever use of mechanics”? The buyer never technically exploited anything right? They simply were gifted from a low level alt. The account holder making the purchase never did anything “wrong” but simply used the gifting system mechanic in a “clever” manner, no?

Last reply before I bounce for a bit:

Nope, because we’ve specifically said that it’s a violation of our rules, assuming I’m correctly understanding your definition of “pack loading”.

But the person wasn’t pack loading…they were simply receiving a gift. The small level alt was likely the one pack loading and you banned that but not the buyer. You had to remove the entire system in order to stop them. Hence why it seemed to fall under “clever use of mechanics” I think. There was almost no bans for the end user because how could you possibly determine if the gift was simply just that or an externally solicited purchase.

I already gave one possible solution: Make banners toggle able. When the game started wars were the focus. This system was made almost what, 3 years ago? In that time you have added events and the Atlas now?

So you have 4 parts of the game: Regular Attacks, War Attacks, Event Attacks and Atlas Attacks.

Simply make it selectable as to which you would like to see. Essentially this is like increasing your network traffic by 200% and not upgrading your servers or being able to throttle bandwidth in order to accommodate this. That would be a fairly easily solution. If you/your team wants to focus on one portion they can?


That is a great idea and builds off their foundation they already have of vibrate when invited to attack/defend.

1 Like

I thought it made sense for all…if 8 teams declare on you that makes sense, everyone was willing to risk something. But, if you can do regular attacks that have no value…you are basically warring without warring. Not to mention, you can get Atlas banners now, event ones as well. Sensory overload.

This seems like an easy fix with little backlash. Or else then “clever use of mechanics” turns into clever using of gifting system, clever use of forge, clever use of adjusting time…



Seems like they were pack loading. Trying to circumvent rules isn’t a good idea, and if we find players doing this we punish them. We’d rather not remove whole systems just because some players are trying to use them maliciously. That’s like saying we should remove all roads because some people jaywalk.

As for being able to toggle banners, that’s something I can suggest to the team.