Change to wars to limit account sharing and allow for smaller teams to succeed

  • Good idea
  • No way
  • Needs tweaking, left comment
  • Why bother, who cares

0 voters

Here’s my proposal to help players to not need to share their account to avoid not missing wars AND to help smaller teams succeed AND to avoid the mass war declarations when someone leaves the team unexpectedly. Interested? Read on.

1- Add a red/green war status to the Settings>War page where members can set their war status to red/green.

1a- The only players that can participate, either by attacking, backing, or defending are players that are/were green at the time of declaration. So, in 7 below, players that were green but were omitted from the war by whichever method used (tbd), they are allowed to back other members in THAT war.

1b- Changing your red/green status AFTER a war is declared would not allow you to participate as a backer in wars declared BEFORE you changed your status, but would apply to any declared after your status changed.

2- When the leader/Officer goes to declare a war, they are shown who is red/green and they can add/remove players to make an increment of 5 to declare war.

3- When being declared upon, the aggressing team can only use an increment of 5 (or any other predetermined number) to what the defending team has in green status.

4- Abusing the system…can be prevented by requiring a team in a “1” league to war with 45 players at minimum. A “2” league, 40 players, “3” league, 35 players, etc or any predefined set of multiples, 49, 44, 39, etc, they don’t even have to be increments of 5, it could be 3, 2, or even 1.

5- In 4 above, if a team is in a league and has less than the required players in “green” status, the number of players is forced to the required number when declared upon either by omitting either the lowest levels, the least active, or the least number of medals (tbd).

6- If the team does not have the required number of players, then the aggressing team is automatically awarded 5 flames for each player the team is short (similar to how it is now).

7- If the team being declared upon has a non increment of 5 (or other predetermined number) players green for war, then the number of players included in the war is rounded down to the next increment, omitting either the lowest levels, the least active, or the least number of medals (tbd).

8- League promotions. If a team has the global ranking to move up to a new league that requires more war participants (ie going from Gold 2 to 1 at league changeover or down from Platinum 4 to Gold 1) within the next 24 hours, a system email is auto generated and sent to every member on the team. If the required number of War participants has not cleared by league changeover, the needed number of players is then selected when declared upon by the method determined in bullet 5 above.

So, an example. Let’s say my team is in Platinum 2. I have 43 players green for war and am going to declare on a team that has 50 players green for war. I must select 40 players to participate in the war (making 3 red status) and when I declare, the opposing team is reduced to 40 players either by level, activity, or medals.

Questions? Thoughts? Comments?


Thanks for the suggestions. While I agree some issues with wars need resolving this doesn’t seem to be the solution.

Participation and acvitity have to count for something so if my team has 50 active and the other 40 then the other team needs to do more recruiting.

I don’t like that teams can swap in people after wars are declared … seems once the war is declared the roster should be fixed.


I think the war participants would/should be locked to those that are/were green status at the time of declaration.

And nothing is stopping anyone from declaring/having 50 players in green status. By all means, good on you. But there have been multiple requests for smaller teams to be successful as well. This enables that, in a way, as you can leap frog some leagues and/or stay in a league that meets your team’s activity/size.

While this may not be THE solution to the current issues, I think it could be A solution that at least gets us going in the right direction.

Edit- and the base numbers could be different, instead of 45, make it 49, 44, 39, etc, so you have a “bench” spot.

Thanks for the feedback.

That’s another topic for another thread as recruiting is broke as hell.

Wouldn’t alts just serve the purpose and fix the problem? I’m not for or against this but curious if there’s actually any reason why alts wouldn’t be the way to go.

Do you have someone on 24/7 to bring in an alt to avoid being declared upon at all times in case someone unexpectedly leaves the team?

This would end that freak out that occurs whenever someone unexpectedly quits the team, or even better, accidentally leaves (stupid random team invites) and no one is online to accept them back into the team.

I read the whole thing and am confused.

Please clarify these two

1 Like

5 and 7 should be determined the same way. I’ll edit it on my laptop, pita to do it from my ipad.

Edit, thanks, finished editing, I think.

Edit, added 1a and 1b to include locking in war participants and backers.

Thanks again for your feedback, I changed the proposal a little to take into account locking rosters as well as added clarification that it doesn’t need to be in increments of 5. I just arbitrarily chose 5. Could use 1, 2, 3, etc. It would basically allow you to have a “bench”, while at the same time allowing for the “benched” player to participate by backing others, if they are in green status.

The intention is fantastic. The execution, IMO, is a bit too complicated. I agree that wars, recruiting and teams need to be optimized. How about allowing an officer or leader to attack twice in the case of a quit? This could be limited to once every three wars, or something. Also limited to no more than twice per war. Take out the panic and allow smaller teams or surprise quitters a chance. Also eliminates “spying”: installing an alt in an enemy team to get info and quit after war is declared for the 5 flames.

I agree, it is complicated, but honestly, it has been done before, similarly, in other games (Clash of Clans). The only difference is we are divided into leagues and choose who we war, whereas there, you just hit war and it finds you a random one within set parameters. This allows the best of both wars, you still choose who you war (within your sub league) yet you have some control over the participants, to a degree.

I’m don’t think allowing anyone to attack twice is an answer or should even be considered an option (see the threads on mercs). Who is to say who should be allowed to attack twice? My adaption of this idea allows for fairness across the board, while at the same time still setting minimum attackers required per league, and would end the merc problem (if you consider it one).

Edit, and while it may seem complicated up front, it really isn’t any more complicated than succeeding in any of the PVP events, well, that is without just spamming energy to win by brute force

I suppose comparing my situation with, say, a Gold teams’ wouldn’t be particularly accurate. Considering the sheer amount of alts I have.

No, but if needed any member online would be able to text/msg in Line/@ mention/etc me to get the situation handled.

I don’t know/remember if you have any alts but that’s just another great thing about having them.

1 Like

I think, regardless of league, this could ease the “burden” of wars and allow players to “take a day off” if you will, especially in the higher/more competitive leagues.

Yes, I do have a few alts, and while they are great to have, relying on a third party messenger type software to get in touch with someone to bring in an alt sucks, same with having to @ someone to bring one in (and hoping it isn’t in the middle of the night where they are, etc etc) Even with as much time as I spend in WDs, there are times when I want to have zilch to do with it.

This could also improve the quality of life in the lower leagues and allow new(er) players to grow and to ease into wars.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it :+1:

This just seems way overly complicated, I like the idea of a free extra run for a left or inactive player.

Limit it to the final 15 minutes of war and we could actually have something worth changing in wars

Thanks for the feedback. I’m firmly against allowing someone an “extra” attack. Who chooses who gets to attack twice? What if it’s a merc? Etc, etc, that just opens a whole other list of problems.

And while it may seem complicated, it really isn’t that complicated…

Hmm maybe in my instance WDs has just become too much of a lifestyle :laughing:. Those have never failed for me in the past.

1 Like

One possibility might be the MVP from the previous war. Just an idea, but implimented well, it could put some flexibility into the warring grind.

I read through it a few times before I stopped to vote.

Try as I might I can’t find any benefit that outweighs the added complexity on an individual level. You compare the complexity to that of a PVP event. As someone who was leading a team when the very first king of the hill was run (it was literally a month long PVP) I can tell you you will burn out just about everyone by week 3.

You can’t sustain that complexity over that time. Especially with actual PVP events thrown in as well.

It’s a well presented idea. I can’t see it working though for the reasons above.

1 Like

What happens if everyone sets themselves red?

1 Like

While I liked the idea initially, I can’t get over the idea that it benefits weaker teams disproportionately. What’s to stop teams from consistently leaving their weakest players in red status so they don’t have to struggle with getting those flames? Also, it doesn’t solve the fact that a lot of the time when players miss a war, it was because of an unforeseen circumstance. This wouldn’t fix those issues. I think when somebody is going on vacation or knows they will be unavailable, most teams are able to swap in an alt. It is the unforeseen (somebody ended up in the hospital, my phone got destroyed, etc…) that is a problem. And by then, it is too late to go back and change your status to red.