Imagine this theoretical scenario…
You are level 600…all 49 of your team mates are level 1.
You declare war on a team comprised of members from level 30 up to perhaps level 300…maybe higher…doesn’t matter…it is a good team.
You have a lot of time on your hands (that’s how you reached level 600 without spending a bean😜).
Every level 1 team mate hits and you back all 49 attacks and of course you do yours. They all swap immediately to let you strut your stuff.
This mechanic needs to be addressed.
Even if you win on defence points or tie…chances are the level 600 base will be beyond more than perhaps 3 or if lucky…4 flames…
Ergo they lose.
I suggest a maximimum of 5 back up runs per team member. The team leader/officers decide where best to place backing runs…
It is tactical…it is fair.
Imagine this theoretical scenario…
War Dragons 2019 Quality of Life discussion
Limiting war joins
No. Just no.
Just cancel that theory. You spent alot money. Lol
Does this happen? Or is just theoretical?
Or,you are a hacker and have a hacked immortal Kelvin who can kill any base with 1try
Yes,I’m absolutely agree that it must be limited!
1 person shouldn’t win the war for a whole team
I’d vote for 3 BU and 1 Attack as a leading attacker
It’s fair for any member of that team to follow any team member they choose.
What’s not fair is telling a team nope this player because he is strong is only allowed to attack X amount of times.
This would not be good!
Also the attacking team is the one at the real disadvantage.
If they really do use one strong player to follow each team member then your team can seriously load up on defensive points!
Even if that strong player completes each base the first time around your team is capable of getting over 100 defensive points!
I doubt that a team has a 600 level who backs all level 1’s cause you can’t join a team till after level 10 I believe or close to that, but it does happen a team has a a couple high levels and they back every run with a team of low levels oh to often.
Mainly it happens when
Team has one really nice account who literally winning wars for them
Team has cheater (for example I saw lots of old hacked accounts with old spell Superfreeze ,which was limited and there is no chance that someone have it unlimited still)
Team bring hitman aka they winning war which they supposed to loose
I think this game must be based on teamwork
And there is no teamwork,when one big guy literally smashing everyone and leading attacker just quitting the battle.
Or when team brings hitman to get unfair win
I think it shouldn’t happen
Ppl must learn to recruit,improve,work together and be able to accept loose
We win a lot of wars,but also lost a lot
Team shouldn’t use any extra tricks and must fight their own wars
Talking about… if you get declared by top team,being 20 ish team,it won’t cost you anything almost to loose
So you can declare 2 more wars to improve ranking
I know,sandbagging in a lower leagues is a big issue rn,I haven’t seen that much 300-400 ever ,even in gold
But there still must be a limit
There is no level 600 (or otherwise) that is going to backup 49 war hits every time. Not gonna happen.
What’s in it for them?
Hm I definitely don’t like limits in defends. No, just no.
But this scenario is real. One team with one 450+ and 530+ and most of others 20-60 lvl or something (and just a bunch of 150) currently warring with us sooooo yeah. Everybody backed up by Vanguard is such a dull war. It’s just super boring to watch at.
I think the issue needs to be addressed as well. I have seen way to often a team who have all level 50 some players and one or two level 300-400 back every player in the lower. Wars should be based on “Team” strength and overall strength, not you were able to bring in one or two high level players that can take out an entire team. How is this even fair?
To many teams bring in mercs as well as a last minute hope to win. I believe that it should be when the war was declared that who is on the team should battle not someone you brought in after the fact.
Then you are supporting the idea that PG should restrict who can and can’t be on a team, as well as what each player on that team can do for the team.
This game has enough problems as it is. For such a mechanic to be instituted would be the absolute death of this game.
No I am not supporting PG restrict who can be on a team. I am supporting that if they join the team after a war starts they can’t battle in the war. They do it now with the events it shouldn’t be that difficult to implement it happening for wars. I also think that they could easily limit how many wars a player can back.
I’d really like to ask such people (like we currently war) what’s fun for them in that, and if it’s worth it, but I don’t know Arabic
Why death? At least ppl will stop using tricks and will use some strategy in flying
Aka,plan which bases are most critical
Yes,there might be not much 250 flames
But will he be less fun?
I don’t think so
Usually,team which have few tops are lazy,not trying to fly,just swap and that’s it
And defending only those 2-5 ppl
That’s not how it supposed to be
Or I’m just old and grumpy
My mini team had hilarious war earlier
About 1/3 of hacked accounts in team
We had 0 chance
But! Since those cheaters became 400 in a few (?)weeks they had no clue about def points AT ALL
I noticed,when they been tying war all the time
We did 100,they will do 100 etc etc
But they never bothered get even 5 extra flames,lol
So they lost
I thought I’ll die laughing
Maybe not that extreme, but around P1 there are definitely level 450s carrying a team of level sub 200s by having an unkillable base and backing 20+ runs.
I guess it makes them feel strong and powerful if they can crush a P1 team. I reckon these are people who spent a lot but didn’t have the skils to keep up with high sapphire play.
They were doomed that’s pretty funny
The one we war with seem to pay too little attention to defends as well since they only can attack one after another without waves cause of only 2 BU available. So they gave us 70 free def points if only we can kill one of those biggies…
Nope…not a spender nor a a hacker.
Wanted to raise this because I reckon it may be something that might happen.
My theoretical numbers were used to exemplify my point. I accept they are not natural.
That said…there may be an element of this possible…
I have also learned from your replies.