Limit number of back ups by each team member


If this change did hgo through what would happen to currently existing teams.

  1. Strong teams with lots of high levels using vangaurds see no change and stay exactly where they currently are.
  2. Weaker teams that are struggling to stay in league with a couple of high level players will have extremely tough wars, and will probably drop to a lower league.

So the already strong players stay in a better team and higher league to continue to grow at a faster rate that the lower level players. I do not see how this helps out anybody other than to make wars more exciting.


This is gonna be a no from me. All it takes is to get a connection bug to kick you from a run and that’s one follow down. Also, if someone wants to carry their team, that’s fine. One person cannot take a team very far. Also, they cannot make team players do wars ,so there is that.


No, just no


I can tell you this theoretical scenario will never happen. You need to be level 6 or 7 to join a team. :smiley:


This is a good idea in theory, but in real application is a big fat no. It’ll raise more problems than it solves. It’ll hurt your own team as it hurts any other. It’ll create problematic issues based on who’s online because of time zones, work, etc. There will also be no correct number of backups to decide on. Let’s throw the 49 lvl 1 players scenarios out the window. Let’s say a really good active team has …oh…2 or 3 lvl 300 players and got declared on by a team with 10-15 300 players that are all bearable by the 2 300 players. (This is hypothetical but more realistic with more players dropping leagues). Limiting backups for said team creates an automatic loss. Now…this is just one scenario, but you get it.


Strangely, we are in a war with someone who must have saved up a lot of super freeze. And these seem immune to red and blue mages somehow. They persist to following dragon even though corni wasn’t the lead.


Our last war was a doozy, with a lot of strategy on both sides put into defeating one base on each team. This required a lot of decoys and a lot of failed attempts as different strategies were used, even some new ones! By limiting the number of times a backer can be used you would be restricting the strategies used to take down big bases, which imo is one of the only fun things left in wars.

Personally my experience is that teams who use a gatekeeper hurt themselves over the long run. They get sloppy with waves and learn bad habits. When the gatekeeper is gone (those that stick around I would hope would be few and far between), the team has no clue how to compete, so it is a short term gain and long term pain for teams that use this method.

Is it painful to see teams where one payer is holding the spot in a particular league?.. Absolutely. I agree that there needs to be better anti-sandbagging mechanics, however imo limiting the times a player can back is not one of them.


Uhhh no this is a horrible idea. Limiting the amount of attacks a person can follow is just silly. All i can say is defend better or build better defenses. Any dragons can be dropped if defended correctly.


This will stop some MVP hogging… :eyes:


In gold, the levels in each team may be unbalanced but there is plenty of chance to win in these scenarios because most teams do not have 100% participation in wars. It usually is more like 70-80% even in Gold I, so one high level on the team does not decide the outcome at all. The number of people who decide to log on makes a much bigger difference. We have beaten teams that have had higher levels than ourselves because we have more people that participate. The level restrictions on leagues wouldn’t be a bad idea, but I am not sure how that would be implemented.


Is that a thing?


It is with PJ… :eyes:


Bahahaha no!!! I need that mvp to make me feel needed :joy:


Instead of limiting the back up, why not even out the points a little more? Give more points for attacking solo, no backer. That way, littler players would get to participate, even if the bigger guys are way out of reach. Base points on the overall size of the team you are warring against. That way, it makes it fair for everyone of every size. Let’s also get rid of automatic points for going against a team with fewer members. That seems unfair too. Maybe a team could be worth a certain number of points, as a whole, and those points are distributed according to the number of members, with bigger members being solidly a higher percentage, much the way attack events are scored.
Balance it all out instead of a bandaid fix. :woman_shrugging:t2:


Your idea encourages sandbagging, higher level players/teams sitting in lower leagues. If a level 400 is on a team of 5, with 4 of his alts, distributing 250 points across the 5 of them, the 400 would be worth 200+ war points, making his team of 5 players virtually unbeatable in lower leagues :man_facepalming:


Or here’s a thought…leave wars the way they are and focus the fixes on stuff that’s actually important and really require attention. Just a crazy idea I figured I’d through out there.


Not necessarily, if someone who has been 5 flamed and done their 5 flames then nothing is lost. I also agree this is a non issue and just learn to live with this wierd deal.


They change from being defeated by a player to being defeated by “left team” which can be important if you are in low plat team and so not getting 250-250 every single war


Then you aren’t looking. It is almost always the same people defending every time.


Has it considered small player assisting smaller players against bigger target? :thinking:

Since most of these discussion focus is a giant backing up all their teammates against targets smaller than the giant.