Beta Multi Wars

#1

I would love to see a Beta update that allowed multiple types of wars. A team could declare a 50 vs 50 war, a 25 v 25 war, or a 12 v 12 war. Each war would be worth fewer points.

A team with less than 50 players could ONLY have 25 v or 12 v wars declared ON them, but would have to fight more wars to earn the same amount of rank.

And regarding the wager system, this would be determined by the team DECLARING. If you declared a war against another team, you could wager the amount of rank/wood/gold/whatever that you were willing to risk. The team getting declare ON could choose to accept the terms and risk the same amount, or decline/forfeit and give up a much smaller amount of rank/etc.

These TWO minor tweaks (50v. 25v, 12v, and wagering) would give teams with fewer than 50 players a fighting chance to stay alive while recruiting. It would also allow for fully formed, solid-50 teams to progress much faster and leap ahead into higher leagues.

3 Likes
Something to consider with suggestions
#2

I like this idea. Say you declare a 12v12 war. I’m assuming it costs less medals to declare, correct? With that being said, would there be a limit to how many times you could declare a 12v12? Theoretically you could declare 12v12’s on multiple teams and if you win them all, shoot up the rankings.

Also, would the leader be able to pick which 12 fought or would it be the first 12 to attack? In which case, is the whole opposing team available to be attacked? You could just hit the 12 weakest bases and call it a win

1 Like
#3

You would probably need to scale the points so a 50:50 gives 100% while a 25:25 gives 15% and a 12:12 gives 2%.

1 Like
#4

This sounds like a lot but you could develop a system for lower player count wars where it groups players in a sort of tier system base on their level if for ex. (If defending team has x players between level 100-125 then attacking team must choose the same amount of players between level 100-125 or lower. For each level group an attacking team has to match those of the same number of players as the defending team) just a thought

2 Likes
#5

Wars could be adapted into the way Clash of clans does it;
each player decide if they want to be available for war or not. Then the officer/leader can choose if they want a 10v10, 15v15, 25v25 etc. If there’s 26 players marked as available, then the top 25 will be included.

Next step is to search for an opponent that has the same amount of players for a war, and have some sort of balance to make sure it’s not 25 level 100’s against 25 level 300’s.

The war will start 24h after an opponent has been found, and when war starts, you only have 2 attacks per player. And never against the same base twice, so someone else has to “cleanup” if the first attempt fails.

Could make wars more interesting.

1 Like
#6

I was asked in a PM if I thought the leader would choose who participates. No, I would say that (in the event of a 12v12) the first 12 to attack would get to participated. Just like now…if I have 50 players and declare on a team with 49 players, then the first 49 to show up get to play. I wouldn’t make THAT aspect more complicated.

So, not really all that much changes.

I think the wars ought to cost the same. If you can grind out the medals, then you can fight as many 12v12 wars as you want…but they still count for less rank then 50v50 wars.

I don’t know if 15% and 2% is the appropriate scaling…I was thinking more like 50% and 25%, but whatever makes sense to PG.

I don’t think that the point is to give any advantage to a team made up of 15 600’s. The point is simply to eliminate any explicit disadvantage to not having a complete team. This gives leaders more time to recruit, without having to settle for alt accounts and wild card/rookie players.

#7

Another interesting idea that could be added to this is having the team leaders decide on how long the war lasts. If both teams decide to do a war that only last 12 hours then it wouldn’t be as much of a grind.

#8
  • Have 5 - 10 players active in one time.
  • declare 10 minute wars (50/50)
#9

I don’t think that I made it clear that I was adding onto their idea about both leaders accepting the terms of a “special war”. Otherwise that option would be easily abused.

#10

What happened if one of them doesn’t decide?

#11

What I think that they are trying to say is that this option would be outside of the existing war structure. The two leaders would be able to come together to set bet(wood,medals,food,gold), time, and flames for a competition like the war. Both leaders would have to accept the conditions for the “wager war” to happen. For example two leaders could create a “wager war” that bets 1m gold as the wager. The war will take place over 6 hours and the first team to 50 flames with the most defenses would win.

I don’t know if this is what the OP meant but this is kind of what it made me think of.

#12

Then, if we keep rejecting wars, we’ll be safe maintaining our position…

#13

In my ideal world these wars are outside of the existing system so if a leader declares a 50v50 war it has to be accepted.

#14

Not true. “Not accepting” a war would come at a cost, just a very low one

Rejecting wars over time would reduce your rank, but the OPTION to decline a war would protect teams that just lost 10 players from dying instantaneously. It would simply buy the leaders a little time to regroup.

So, if team X declared on YOU and was wagering xx rank, xx gold, xx lumber (etc). You could ACCEPT the terms and wager the same, or DECLINE/FORFEIT and give up a modest amount of rank, gold, etc…

#15

How about this suggestion.
Make the different leagues work more like sports leagues. That is, have one round last 4 weeks (or longer), and allow every team to declare not more than once against another particular team within that division. Theoretically, given 25 teams per league, this gives 50 possible wars per team in a 4 week season (or longer, I don’t know). Make a win give +3, a draw 0, and a loss -3. Then promote/demote at the end of the 4 weeks (or whatever time is agreed on). Give a worthwhile prize to the top teams. Rinse and repeat.

Now we could differentiate between home wars (team declares) and away wars (team is declared on). Make it in the case of a tie breaker that the away team has advantage. I would change the defense point system, maybe even removing it, and limit the number of attempts allowed on an individual base.

#16

Personally this is just going to allow players who don’t feature in your top 25 or 12 to slack off & do less.

Not sure I’m a fan of that idea.

They just need to get to a point where wars are dependent on flames, not defences. But that’s another story.

1 Like
closed #17

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