Limit number of back ups by each team member


#182

I don’t like the war mechanics of this game.

My idea is to remove a flame if a backer finishes the base. Also, remove a flame for doing additional attacks after the first one, there’s no mulligans in war.

It should be hard for a team to reach 250 flames imo. Less wars would be won by the “tie-breaker”.

The problem I think is that too many players are so used to the current system, they are afraid of how any changes might negatively affect their teams league position. That’s the only reason I can think of for all the backlash whenever someone proposes a change.

I would be happy at this point if they just completely did away with Wars and used other means to determine team rank.


#183

And if you’re facing a team where your highest level is 50 levels lower than their lowest level and are able to take out their highest base with 2 players because you actually strategized, you should be penalized for that? Nah. I’ve already got too many damn people sending me invires, please don’t make it any worse by requiring teams to ne full of big accounts


#184

I don’t see how your response is in any way related to my comment.


#185

Noooo - don’t spoil my retirement plan! :triumph:


#186

I like that idea Obfirmo. When I was in a P1 team in 2016 often the war results were less than 250, in fact most of the time the winning team would have 235🔥 and sometimes it would still be a tie and fall to defense points (I’ve always had issue on how these are acquired).

By the end of 2016 seems both teams would get 250 and defense points was what it came down to.


#187

I agree with the limiting backup runs in wars. Bugga the teams that rely on 1 player to win their wars. If there was a limit then the leaders/officers would have to work out which targets and which team mates a huge player could back. More strategy less sheer bulk is what I would like to see


#188

Sounds like an issue with your team leadership then. If a player can’t participate in a war wave (or at least organize back up if that’s not possible) then they aren’t a teammate, they’re a solo gamer squatting on a team. We boot anyone who goes Leroy Jenkins, especially if they fail. Poor behavior on some player’s parts does not constitute a need for change in war mechanics.

I think what you mean to say is “I need to teach all the players on my team to do this, or replace them with players who will”. Because this is what happens on many teams.

Not much. Which is why that 350 won’t stay in that league for long. He’s either on a week break or close to quitting the game.

It would just create more new problems and screw a whole lot of people in every league at some point. Reference Liz in post 175. I could go into a lot of different possible scenarios where this could hurt even teams trying to hit within 5-10 levels of themselves. This isn’t a game mechanic issue. Even if you lose to that one team in your league that’s like this, win 1 or 2 wars with the other 23 teams in your league to make up for it.

Edit for grammar, which is probably still poor.


#189

My comment on what I have seen have nothing to do with my immediate team. I have seen i the past on teams where a player picks something and runs with it so no training needed on my team lol…

I know some are afraid of any change that affects game but I don’t believe that a small change to fix the problem going on will hurt and leagues. I think change to this issue would actually resolve issues and improve the game.


#190

You are correct, I am terrified of any changes that will further break this game.

If you haven’t seen how this will cause more problems from all the posts so far, you either are ignoring them or can’t understand them.

The ONE thing that has been said regarding changes to war mechanics that I would be ok with is this: if a person joins a team during a war, they can’t participate in the war. This would certainly prevent ringers from winning a war for an undeserving team then going back to their old one.


#191

While I agree there are no “mulligans” in the sense you imply but I can personally tell you many have charged and fought over the same small piece of S*** land / hill (whatever is deemed “strategically significant”) over and over and over.


#192

Also, I don’t know the last time an app crash or glitch cost a war, as would be the case from time to time without mulligans. I am trying to imagine the look of confusion on Napoleon’s face as his reliable Old Guard regiment freezes all motion mid-battle, a digital circle swirls over them, and then they all just go black. Then he reappears in his camp earlier that morning.


#193

I resent your comment about I am ignoring or can’t understand… I understand fully that there are as many people in this post that are happy with the game mechanics, but just as many not happy with it.

When is having a difference of opinion ignoring or not understanding?


#194

ZI don’t know if limiting backups would be the best approach. Instead, I think some mechanism that compared the strength (Att/Def) of the attacking dragon(s) relative to original attackers dragon strength would be a better approach. The mechanism would nerf the attacking dragon(s) capabilty by a respective percentage. Without having numbers in front of me but just as an example. If a level 300 is backing up a level 50 on a level 200 and uses an Orange (or lower) tier dragon as the backup no nerf would be applied, but if that level 300 used a Halbinger, that nerf May be as high as 95%

And this mechanism would only apply to dragons used by the non-instigator player.

For defending players, no adjustment as defense effectiveness is unrelated to player level, but instead on knowledge of how to defend and quantity of defense items.

[edit: spelling correction]


#195

I’m not sure how possible this would be able to be implemented without utterly breaking the game…


#196

I didn’t say it could be done without totally breaking the game whether it’s due to poor past coding and/or current coding expertise, but from a perspective as to how it could be best addressed.

As I said farther up, best leave it as is and make up for it by declaring wars on other teams. You’re right, based upon this game’s history to attempt any mechanism to address this issue would probably literally crash the game on boot.


#197

Having read through the thread, there is only one way to solve all the problems with the issue of “high level players back low level players to take out mid level player” that everyone seems to talk about. Wars are single attack only, no invites possible. If you can’t take the base out, take on one you can.

However, I would be against even this idea. A lot of team strategy now is to take out the highest bases so those who aren’t on at war start will have a base they can take on their own. No going off willy nilly and attacking a base you can’t hit.

We are human, and humans (whether we like it or not) do try to find the simplest/easiest/shortest path to a goal. That means that no matter what we do, besides just removing the invite from war attacks altogether, will solve anything. We will just find another way to do it “the easy way” and we all will be right back here complaining about “unfair” wars again.


#198

I’d vote for a lot of changes to wars. The theoretical described by the poster does happen and it is annoying for everyone involved, but in the grand scheme of things, it probably does work itself out as the high level player burns out or decides to head for bigger rewards.

My biggest issue with wars is the negative peer pressure they create on players who have other things happening in their lives. I’ve seen teams get really toxic with someone who just lost a loved one, had a major health issue, or was in a natural disaster because it cost them several wars and league status. Leaving or changing teams when you know you will be out for a while makes sense but getting booted because of one or two days of missed time when something major happens in your life is excessive.

I don’t have any ideas to fix it other than something like reducing the max points from 250 to like 200 and saying that only the first 40 attacks count but I am really uncomfortable with the aspect of a team yelling at someone and booting them for a major real life issue when they have been a quality player for 95% of the time.

“Sorry about your brother dying, but we’ve really got to let you go now. You know, wars are important and you cost us several. I am trying to be sensitive here but you’ve cost us a bunch of eggs and rewards that we’ll never get back. When your brother died, you should have told us right away that we needed to replace you. We’re really all a little hurt that you didn’t think of us sooner.”

I’m on a bunch better team now where I don’t think that would happen but that quote above is pretty close to what I saw on one of my first teams. Except there was a lot of profanity and it wasn’t that diplomatic and it involved a young guy (a kid for all I know). I know WD is all about peer pressure to show up every day but the way wars are structured can turn that toxic quick.


#199

I agree with your post, as I have been on both sides of the situation.

One, I knew I was going to be out of service range for a good time or I would have very limited access. I sent a mail to the leader with just a blurb telling them I would be gone for a while. I was surprised I was still on the team when I returned, luckily we didn’t get warred on that week.

Two, I have been on a team when several people not only not showed up for a war when we got declared ON (we didn’t start it) but then turned their notifications off so we couldn’t ask them to come do their war run. They didn’t show up for days. We knew about where they lived, there was no natural disaster in the news for that area. Then they try to come back and act like nothing ever happened. I’m sorry, but it upsets people when you don’t give someone the courtesy of letting them know ‘Hey, I have to be gone for a while.’

Three, I get it that life is messy and sometimes you feel like there is not enough minutes in the day to do everything that needs to be done. I’ve been there. I was an absolute wreck when my mom died. I had to try to not only help with the memorial but also keep dad together, and my son (9 at the time) who was devastated. However, I took the time to send out a mail to my gaming group at the time and say something along the lines of “Sorry, my mom just died. I’ll be gone for an unknown amount of time.” I didn’t even read any of the responses for like 2 weeks. To me this was common courtesy so they didn’t try to plan something around me when I couldn’t be there.

This is all human nature. We can’t get away from it and it is only amplified in our games, not just WD. I don’t think there is anything that we can do to mitigate any of this “toxic” behavior in a game designed to get people to attack and war with each other. It is designed to increase tensions and emotions and give that high when we win and low when we lose. All we can do is find a group that is understand and not toxic for us as individuals and ignore as best we can the others.


#200

An energy concept could be implemented for wars. The main attacker don’t rely on this but if you are a backup, you need energy. You start with a certain amount exactly like an event and the energy can replenish over time or not. You would need to be more selective on when to back up.


#201

They already have a mechanism event for the mini event where you get more points when you use dragons below a certain strength level for a given base - the total strength of all dragons used.