Limit number of back ups by each team member


#142

You know what I don’t care :stuck_out_tongue:


#143

Where did I say I wanted people to be tactful?


#144

It doesn’t take that long to lvl and the game is designed to put you and your team in the league where you belong. I just don’t see a problem with it. It will help you get better at attacking higher lvls than yourself cause when you get to the higher leagues you are not gonna be getting a backer anyways. That’s how you pull defenders by doing massive waves. So a possible solution is to just lvl up as a team or leave for another team beyond gold or platinum till you get to the Gem leagues which if you are very active will take only about six to twelve months to go from bronze lvl7 to saphire lvl 200+. Even less if you spend but if you’re not happy or winning in gold then maybe you belong in silver until you are ready.

Let’s face it this is not a new game anymore and diamond is not all lvl100-200 anymore. Lvl600 is a thing now so naturally there’s going to be lvl300s in gold (they have to be somewhere) but they are either not active or they will be moving up into next league in which case you won’t even care. You aren’t going to win every war.


#145

You seem to be missing the point that there are no tactics required if you have the biggest, baddest dragon in your league - just back everyone on your team. Yawn. No point in defending, either, when you see that Vanguard dragon bearing down on your level 100-200 bases, over and over and over again.

War could definitely use some improvements - right now it is more of a participation award.

I wouldn’t say it is a high priority, though, and I don’t think limiting backups is probably the best way to go. I’d much rather see some sort of point scaling awards/penalties depending on relative strength of attackers vs. bases. So a level 30 taking out a 300 by being backed by a 450 is worth less than a 30 taking out a 60 by himself. But there are issues with this sort of approach as well, if a team of 200s attacking a team of 250s is awarded more points for hitting up, while the team of 250s is penalized for hitting down - and they have no choice. Maybe it should be based on ordinal ranking. If you hit someone within +/- 5 of your own rank, you get full points.


#146

This is a complicated situation and i don’t think it’s as easy as limiting the number of times you back someone up. For example, last couple wars I’ve had to backup against at least 15 bases because of the level. My team gets targeted since we don’t have as many higher levels so I have to back people against 400+ bases. Isn’t like I’m backing against bases lower than myself either. 🤷 Making it to where there’s a max backup number will just further teams to get an advantage in this particular situation. In other scenarios maybe it’s the most ideal solution… but it’s not that easy.


#147

I’d agree that something should be done. Heck, in one of the recent wars we fought, I backed more than 20 attacks. All were against targets that the attacker couldn’t have 5-flamed his- or herself, and all were basically them swapping immediately, because leaving me with full rage was more beneficial than any damage they could do.

That wasn’t “tactics,” or even “war,” that was me easily tearing through bases weaker than the one I’d chosen to solo, without any real risk of being shot down regardless of defenders. There might as well just have been a single button to press that gave us 5 flames for every person online.


I wonder if the best solution might just be to change the way flames are counted.

Instead of “-1 flame for every additional dragon used by the main attacker, down to 3 flames, and those 3 flames depending on the percentage of base destroyed,” just implement “5 flames for base destruction, -1 for every additional dragon required to do it.”

That way, a player still gets 5 flames for soloing with 1 dragon, and 3 flames if they solo with 3. But any additional dragon, follower or not, gets counted against the total.

So a team where 1 heavy-hitter did all the work on every attack could get a max of 201 flames (250, minus 1 for every attack that required 2 dragons). It’d also mean that if a level 30 kills a level 200 by bringing a level 600 backer, he doesn’t earn as many flames as the same level 200 killing the level 30.

It’d mean fewer 250/250 battles, which is probably a good thing, and allow people to back up as much as they’d like - while reinforcing the existing notion that an attack that cleared the base with X dragons was more successful than one that required X+1.

…alternatively, if you want to go even simpler, just limit all backed attacks (where the backer actually flies) to a maximum of 3 flames. You can still help, but you just get the “destroyed” flames, not the bonus flames for doing it exceptionally well.


#148

This whole limiting backers and taking away flames is an extremely flawed concept. If you dont want to do it so be it others dont mind the extra work. Take my team for example multiple 200 and up in plat 4. Some people just cant fly to save their life especially when defended against. By limiting backers or taking away flames teams with these people are going to be forced to boot them to “remedy” your fixes to a none existent problem. They may not be able to fly well but they have fun playing the game always do wars and do well in events so are good at everything except flying war runs.


#149

Do…what, exactly? The issue people are complaining about isn’t “work,” it’s a design where wars are not determined by who has the best team or tactics, but rather by who has the highest-level player.

Yep. My team is in the same boat. We have a handful of 200+ people, and we’re in Plat IV too. And yeah, some of our players aren’t the best flyers, or don’t have the best dragons. That’s basically true of any team outside Diamond. It’s okay for people to be imperfect.

As many people have stated, in quite some detail, it’s not a non-existent problem. And why would you have to boot them? Your team isn’t the only one with imperfect people.

And if you’re doing far worse, because you have tons of people who can’t five-flame an enemy base and your enemies don’t have that problem…well, then isn’t that how it should be? They have a more powerful team, rather than a single more powerful individual.

Or to put it another way, why should wars be a contest of “Who has the highest high-level?” rather than “Whose team is better?”

Okay, but it’s not unreasonable to ask people to contribute more than a warm body if they want max flames. If anything, 80% of the maximum for doing nothing except hitting “attack, invite, swap” is generous.

And if they do really well in events, well, you get ranking points from doing well in events, too. So that will help compensate for any ground you may lose in wars against more powerful teams.

So please, explain to me again how and why this is a flawed concept? Why is it unreasonable for a team’s success in war to depend on the whole team’s performance?


#150

Guys, y’all playing a game with set rules. You now want to change those rules. It’s like saying I want a 2 pointer to be introduced to basketball because I think those that dunk should get extra points. :man_shrugging:


#151

…Grumpy, you’re awesome, but this is a really dumb comparison. The game has many flaws; It’s not unreasonable to want to fix those flaws.

The fact that wars depend less on teams and more on a single individual is among the game’s flaws. And hence is not an unreasonable thing to want to fix.


#152

Interesting example, since people did want three-pointers to be introduced to reward long distance shots, and the rules were changed to improve the game.


#153

The issue is that different leagues use backers for different reasons. What works or is the reason for needing backers in Platinium, might not be the reason and need in Diamond.


#154

Why is that an issue, though? How would it be a bad thing if Diamond teams ended wars at something besides 250/250?

Presumably Diamond teams are using backers as an actual complement to the first attacker, rather than the sole attack, but the principle stays the same - a single-dragon success being valued above a multi-dragon one, just as it is when you’re the sole attacker.


#155

Hmmm… having an entire team with strong lead dragons, thereby eliminating strategy required to take big bases does not seem like fun to me… but that’s just a personal opinion. There should be benefits for good flyers and eliminating this strategy and skill out of wars doesn’t appeal to me.

Well with the change to spell scaling and the emphasis being put on dragon power it may be moot anyway…


#156

Shh - history doesn’t apply here…


#157

Sorry, maybe I’m missing something. Won’t the team have those dragons regardless of any potential changes? All this would do is encourage them to try to solo if they could - which would mean a greater benefit for good flyers.


#158

Grumpy basketball depends on the whole team not one player to win the game. So this comparison is flawed :stuck_out_tongue:


#159

Not if you’re Jordan…although he did have Pippen… :man_shrugging:

Anyway back to my corner


#160

I don’t think one person in this thread said high levels couldn’t back, It was suggested that players attack more at their own level and perhaps stop using larger players to win their wars.

Maybe if teams would have players pick an opponent within reason say 5/10 higher or lower and a good backer, and ask the player to run as much of the battle as they could might be fine, but the issue is there are teams being carried by high level players and players lazily swapping out as soon as they start because they choose bases way to high for their level.

It would be nice to see wars being won on merit not who has has the largest player to back.


#161

So you want to encourage people hitting down?