Limit number of back ups by each team member


#322

Incentivizing players to move up is one part of the equation. It doesnt solve the people who sandbag because they want to feel big and bad. Or players who progress faster than the rest of their team but feel too much of a personal connection with them to leave.

My idea is even more punishing than just limiting the number of backups. I would see a flame removed for every base finished by a backer.

I also don’t like that players have unlimited tries to beat a base. I would also have a flame removed for additional attempts after the first.

I think teams that teach their players how to breed, build and fly properly should have more of an advantage than teams who rely on a single player who are out of their league to win. Something like this war system would also make ties very rare.


#323

Hmm, that might work if the app didn’t crash in the middle of a run. I would be pissed the eff off if I lost flames because of that.


#324

The same thing could happen to the other team too though. A disconnect doesn’t generally give players a free pass in other multiplayer games I’ve played either.

Anyway, I’ve beaten this dead horse too many times now. It’s just hard to see so many people agree that war sucks but nothing is ever done about it.


#325

But in other games is it due to the app itself or sometjingnon the players end? Anywho, yes war does suck as in it’s current state. Honestly, I don’t know how to go about fixing it.


#326

Why should a thread be closed because the OP stopped posting? The topic is still evidently being discussed. That is all that should matter.


#327

If the OP wanted it closed, the mods would close it. But since the OP is not here and it seems the thread is still gathering discussion, there is no reason to close it.


#329

TL;DR

Wars are boring :white_check_mark:
Big players carry teams :white_check_mark:
Huge advantages to sandbagging :white_check_mark:


#330

PG needs to change the first and last one and find ways to encourage more team work without punishing players for playing in a specific way. In this case, a carrot would be much preferable to a giant stick.


#331

If you say so keep up with the off topic comments so this thread can get closed already :roll_eyes:.

On topic if the advantages to sandbag are taken away there will be less big players carrying a team. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell someone…hint hint…

Wars are boring but limiting the amount teams can back each other won’t make it any more fun for anyone.


#332

Which has been rebuttaled already with logical points you keep ignoring.

Those points being:

A) you can’t force high-powered/high level players into leagues or teams they don’t want to be in. Some people take breaks from higher leagues because of the stress/time involved, and you can’t just tell them they have to be homeless either.
B) some people enjoy being the big dog on the block so much so that they would be ok with lesser prizes just to trample people (it’s called narcissism, and it’s a real condition.)

You’ve yet to counter what I’ve said my proposal brings to the table, and you’re very obviously afraid of what those changes would mean to your team because one or more of you probably does a lot more work than you have to just to keep things chugging along. You don’t want anything to effect you and your game, just higher levels. And you thinking prize incentive is the fix is hilarious. Because there’s already enough prize incentive between platinum and where most of the players you’re talking about SHOULD be but they ALREADY don’t care, and more prizes isn’t going to be the deciding factor for all of them so it won’t fix the entire issue and leaves the root of it intact, even if it alleviates some of it.


#333

:joy::joy::joy::joy:


#334

I just found it funny that your sitting here talking about narcissism.

Yes this change would affect my team (no where near as much as your assuming, remember what happens when you assume things) that’s not what I care about as this change your recommending wont change what league my team is in or how we play the game. You dont know me you dont know my team so I’m going to ask you again…no tell you stfu about my team and keep them out of your mouth.

What I’m more concerned about is people being limited on HELPING TEAMMATES! There should never be a limit on how much one teammate can help another.


#335

I believe there are probably many instances where a person’s backup in war is truly helpful - both attackers providing meaningful contributions towards the setup/destruction of the base. Realistically, having been in high platinum/low sapphire for well over 2 years, I can tell you that this ‘help’ is more often someone doing the all the work. For a large percentage of the team. Repeatedly.

It’s like me asking you to help me wash my car, and you agree to help me. Great! I’ll grab the soap and a bucket, set them in front of the car, and go have a beer while you do the actual washing of the car. You didn’t actually help me do anything - you did it for me. Different things :man_shrugging:

If there were a limit to 5 successful backups, the higher level player(s) can still be very helpful. But now other people have to be helpful too. This is teamwork. One person doing all the work, whether by choice, force, or necessity, is still not the same thing.


#336

Ok, I’ll be nice. But just this once :rofl: Follow me here tho…

Teammates will not be discouraged from helping each other, in fact it will be entirely the opposite that would happen. Based on the level/strength discrepancies caused by mixing of F2P and P2P players, as well as the the facts surrounding base building & breeding (where a bad start or a lack of know-how can put you in a serious hole that takes months or longer to climb out of) then yes, in wars, players should be limited in the amount “help” they can give - especially since it will provide a depth in strategy.

Let me break it down…

You get 5 chances to help a potential of 5 teammates get potentially 5 flames. Most will have no problem doing this at all, but what will happen is that when teammates are backing against bigger players you won’t always reach that 5 flame mark and will have to be careful with who has remaining assists left to clear as many flames as possible on all targets. It will encourage players to work together with each other to save the assists allotted to their higher level players for those bigger bases, so you can’t just have everyone come on for war and have the highest level player non-chalantly walk through the other team’s bases. You still have 5 assists per player. Which means you only need 10 people in theory to do the backups for the entire team. But you’ll want those assists mostly coming from your mid-range players and your lower players working together, or with bigger players for wave follows to sneak them in past defenses. It wouldn’t change a whole lot about how wars work if you truly think about it for a minute, it would still mostly effect the biggest players and the closer the teams strength got (think in terms of Diamond) the harder and more incentivized these wars would get. In fact the more I think about it, the less I think “successful assists” should be applicable and instead any assist should count towards the limit, making them a much more valuable commodity.

What are the point of flames? Why even have 1, 2, 3, or 4 flame victories if we’re just gonna stay indoctrinated into thinking that 5 flames are the epitome of what war results should look like? Why have a 250 flame win count if that’s all it’s ever going to be and we’re just going to let defenses joined be the deciding factor in wars? Currently there is zero purpose for a 2nd player joining an attack other than spectating and picking up boosts. It should obviously matter in some way, especially if flame count is going to continue to be used to determine the success of a battle. The entire 250-flame-is-a-must mindset comes from before defense points were added to the game anyways and we just needed to make sure we were tying the enemy team. Every team in old diamond prior to defense points shared account information to make sure they always tied. That’s a fact. The way they structured those defense points are why wars and leagues continue to stagnate.

No. What would make this game interesting and fun again is relying on waves to sneak people through defenses to have a better CHANCE at those 5 flame victories, but sometimes having to just take those 1, 2, 3, or 4 flame wins for what they are sometimes.

Having to use 2 backers for a W of some kind because you just can’t catch an opening in the other teams defense so you gotta thug it out with 5 dragons and hope you can clear it. Some bases might get zero flamed just because of the adamance of enemy defenders and your teams lack of ability to defeat them or just that you can’t justify wasting anymore assists on that player. A 250/250 tie might turn into an anomaly where a tie was actually broken based on solid defensive effort and not just how many were joined.

These results would make people WANT to be online for wars again, if would make people WANT to keep an eye on defenses, and it would incentivize people to really start warring again in all leagues because the chance that they could move up and push people out of higher leagues would be a real thing. Because at that point, wins would no longer be guaranteed based on player strength being higher on one side than the other. It would obviously still help, but it wouldn’t be a for sure thing anymore. So yes, it might change what league you’re in and how you play the game with your team. It might make your bonds tighter or drive you away from each other. There are plenty of dependent factors at work there.

That fear of being pushed down from higher leagues would have teams in higher leagues trying to pad their ranking score with wins and needing to war to do so, also pushing some teams downward again. The way leagues in every other game or sport work because there should be no stagnation. It just doesn’t exist the way it does in this game in any other sport or game I’ve ever played. Wars should never have been based on this current defense counter based on joins. Even a simple change like the flame counter defense point system I’m talking about (4 flames = 1 defense point, 3 flame = 2, etc.) should be tried first if this kind of change is too extreme for people - but I honestly believe that both of these changes together could create a huge uptick in wars and activity for all.

Additionally, prizes do need to be boosted at that point as well. Because like I said, it all overlaps. The reward difference you get for events, token payouts for war wins, everything. Should all be more significant the higher you go to keep people warring and moving up and down the ladder.

But this change I’m proposing is more for the fun of the game. Sandbagging may always persist, but this change mixed in with the others would fix the part where they could dominate an entire team by themselves if they wanted/needed to.

I would much rather see wars ending with less than 250 flames. Or at least be decided by the amount of flames taken away in defenses. I would much rather see my entire team working together to see how they could preserve the assists of higher-strength players by helping each other instead of asking for a cakewalk. I would much rather see higher leagues forced to war again to maintain or lose their position no matter how strong they may be.

You could even make it so defense points mattered even without a tie like I said before which would add an even deeper element to them. So at the end of a war you add the total number of flames gained from victories to the number of defense points earned and that’s the winning number. So you could technically win more defensive wars as well by making the other team burn assists and failing on bases.

P.S. Dead last in Diamond 2 should net you higher prizes than first place in sapphire 1. And so on & so forth.

P.P.S. This should go without saying but if this is implemented, there should be an easy and visible way for all members to see how many assists each teammate has left available.

I’ll edit this later when I haven’t been up for 24 hours. Way later since I still have to be up :joy: but I hope it makes a little more sense and you don’t feel so bullied now. :sweat_smile:


#337

…I really wish you had a tl;dr version… q.q

But you deserve a :heartbeat:, so there you go. :grin:


#338

I had a player on a former team suggest a form of that for matching players up for wave target assignments. Rank on a team is sorted by metal count, which again is not relevant. You can have darn hard bases near the bottom rank because they are spenders meaning higher level base (whether designed well or not) with very little metals.

I gave it an objective assessment and discarded it and did the homework first so was pairing players on actual base regardless of where it was in rank. Also, Officers aren’t always the higher level players but their “rank” is going to be at the top of the rest of the team.

Like I said, this doesn’t have a simple solution.


#339

Actually I think for wars and PvPs the ranking outside of officers is strictly based on level - but to your point, level doesn’t mean much in terms of base difficulty. I don’t find base power all that useful either, usually go by highest level tower + layout. The former could be used for ranking, the latter not.

Edit: maybe what is needed is a “power concentration” metric, total deployed base power (including gear and boost consumables), divided by the number of deployed towers.


#340

Officers don’t rank higher, they just show up at the top. Pay attention to the points they give in relation to their teammates around their own level and you will see it’s all the same. It’s based on level.

I agree with changing the way power level is displayed as well. It works a little better for dragons, but even then should be based off of say the top 10 overall dragons you have benched or not so it’s not all based on current roster.

Tower level divided by tower amount would be a great place to start and a much better benchmark for points/rank or whatever.


#341

I agree with some points but take this into account. So my most recent war we had a team declare a war on us in p1 yes i am player over 400 and have a fairly good base. But i have been on this team for a very long time. When i was just over 300. We had a war declared by a team with alot of 3 and 400s also had a high level 500. My team is all mid 200s so yes i need to back alot of the team. And yes i will take time to do so because u lose rankings and eggs for your entire team when u lose war so of course i want my team to win so of course i backed almost every run snd will continue to do so. Its just good team support and ethics. If your loyal to a team u do what it takes no matter what.


#342

Preach :fist:t3: