Limit number of back ups by each team member


#162

Ideally, I’d like a design where people are encouraged to solo the most powerful bases they can.

Reducing flames based on any dragons used would mean that if you can’t do it with one dragon, you might as well use the strongest backer you can. BUT in doing so, you accept that you’re limiting yourself to a max of 4 flames. You could hit down, and guarantee yourself 5 flames, but if your stronger people are hitting down, your weaker people will be forced to ask for help…limiting them to a max of 4 flames, AND making it less likely you’ll get a good number of flames if the backer dies.

Reducing flames based on the presence or absence of a backer would mean that if you can’t do it by yourself with two dragons, you might as well use the strongest backer you can. BUT, in doing so, you accept that you’re limiting yourself to a max of 3 flames. You can hit down, guaranteeing yourself 5 flames, but if your stronger people hit down, your weaker people will need to accept help…limiting them to a max of 3 flames, AND making it less likely you’ll get even 3 if the backer dies.

The current design encourages using the strongest backer you can from the start, knowing that you’ll still get 5 flames. And encourages everyone to do that on every run.

So it would encourage soloing, and ideally soloing the toughest target you could, since that would make it easier for your teammates to solo.


#163

So screw the lower levels on your team if a team full of mid to high levels declares on you?


#164

No, so they either attack up solo, and win, for 5 flames, or they get a backer and win, for fewer-than-5 flames. And if your enemies have no one that they can hurt, they shouldn’t be getting 5 flames for their attacks on the enemy, because they’re not actually contributing anything to the battle.

It just means that the more powerful team wins, instead of allowing the team of lower-levels to win due solely to the fact that they have a single high-level player.


#165

While this might be interesting, I think it’s not good as skills aren’t valued as much.
They have limited it by how many dragons a lead can use.

Perhaps some D1 / D2 players can chime in how the wars in higher league are…


#166

As someone who has been on both sides, agree to disagree.


#167

Let’s try it from the other direction - why do you think it is good that a 30 takes out a 250 being backed by a 450? The 30 contributes in no way other than by showing up - doesn’t have to have skill, or even be strong. Additionally the defender of the 250 has no chance against Vanguard dragons - no point in actively defending (other than … just showing up). This is good game play?


#168

Sort of on topic, I’d rather have a 30 (non-alt) show up than a 300 that doesn’t. Nothing worse then defending your butt off for 23.5 hours only to have the last person not show. Really not that great that they saunter in 5 minutes before the end either.

So, I do think participation and activity often trump size. I do get your point but how can you stop giving “auto-wins” to the team with the larger members?

What’s the point in even fighting? You could just compare bases and award the outcome solely based on bases.


#169

Well, active defense, participation, and strategy does matter for dragons and bases of players of comparable level. The main point of this thread is when you have one player that is so overpowered as compared to his teammates and opponents, there currently is no point in fighting, the war itself is pointless and no fun for anyone involved. Folks are trying to provide constructive alternatives to limit the impact of such overwhelming players.


#170

I’m not a huge fan of ideas that limit and restrict my ability to play the game as I have been until now. What if I’m not the biggest player on the team but I have gold dragons, I have the skills to fly them, and I’m available to help back my teammates in a war run. Now you want to restrict my ability to help my fellow team members?

Granted I am currently on a team where my being back up in a war run is a rare occurrence since I’m one of the lower level players on the team. But I was on a Platinum 4 team for the better part of 2 years and towards the end of my time there I backed a lot of war runs simply because I was on and available and I was a good flyer compared to the rest of the team. I wasn’t the biggest player on the team level wise, but my breeding was advanced for my level and towards the end I had some of the highest tier dragons on the team even though I was a considerable number of levels lower than some of my other teammates.


#171

I understand where players are coming from here, however the best war fights I’ve ever been in have been between two teams strategizing on how to take down triple defended bases. To limit a team to three flames because it took 5 different attempts to achieve an amazing success is not a good limiter. If the underdog finds a way to take that base they should get full credit. The defenders get credit for defending the attempts after all.

Giving a team 3 flames and giving defense points over the 5 tries it took to get them there is a double whammy.


#172

I hear you but you don’t want to address one issue by making several new ones that would effect other demographics


#173

So if it broke, don’t fix it, stick with it? It sounds like a philosophical difference, valuing individual play vs. team play. I think I’ve seen you make proposals of change in various other topics for improvements - why not improve war, if possible?


#174

Teams who rely on one or two big players don’t get very far anyway. Eventually they’ll hit a point in around Plat 3 or 2 where the teams they declare on also have big players so now it becomes a 250-250 war.

A bit ago in Plat 3 there was a team like that there (one level 360+) and the rest sub-100 and they lost because the big guy couldn’t take our biggest bases for a while and we gained a lot of defense points.

Also it was a bit funny since he said about 30 of the accounts were his alts and that he plays on six devices at a time but still he rarely got any successful defenses. :joy:


#175

As it is now it is based on team play. Players can back each other without a penalty. If it changes so that every person has to solo to get max points it comes down to individuals. You also have to account for teams sandbagging in lower leagues with multiple high level accounts. My team has no one about 247 but regularly beat teams that have 3-4 low 300 accounts due to planning. Only a couple of us can hit that high so we would be penalized for having lower level teammates.


#176

Not for the scenario described here or the one Liz described, which is what I was responding to - basically relying on a Shaquille O’Neal player that no one can stop, to get back to the basketball analogies. As I’ve stated above, I personally am not for limiting follows - for a number of reasons - but if Shaq was limited to attacking/following on only the top 5 players on the other team, for example, it would limit his dominance.


#177

I never said that I did all the work on those war runs, simply that I ran back up. I was there in case the other player failed to beat the base they chose to hit.

It would severely suck if you only had a 5 minute window in which to do your war run (due to real life circumstances for instance) and the ONE player who was online who could back you just in case you had an epic screw up or the defenders were better than expected, was unable to back you because they had already provided the maximum number of follows for the war.


#178

In case for Merc, it’s pretty simple. Don’t let the banner show up for anyone not eligible.


#179

When you say 5/10 do you mean as a fraction i.e., 0.50 - 1.50 x lvl or are you saying players hit 5 to 10 levels below or above their current level? I’d take issue with such a small 5-10 lvl window. Players who focus on breeding and leveling dragons over the base, are usually capable of taking down players 60-70 levels above them depending on dragons and their skill. I wouldn’t do that during a war without a backer, but I do it all the time in PvP events.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree with the issue of teams having 49 players less than level 50 and a lvl 300 doing the runs. But, it’s only hurting the team on the long run, as eventually it will catch up to them. As the years go by this issue is only going to get worse. May be time for an Obsidian league! Lol regardless, there are those who prefer to be in a lower league and sandbag. In an ideal world a Leader of the above example team would only declare on another team of like level players and tell his teammates to back each other only taking out the one or two high level in the other team and then only help in defending.

However, many want to be in a higher tier to get the better rewards, etc. even it they would become a better player if they were in a lower league and work at taking down bases themselves with similar level backup so it isn’t just a walk in the park. Anyway, good luck with this, probably best to just leave things as they are and declare/fight wars arround it to make up for those unavoidable losses.


#180

D1 has more strategies, and even some have war books where they actually know a lot about the teams in their league. They almost always do waves, almost always require backup, although sometimes will intermix solo runs to use as decoys and/or draw off defenders by attacking lower level bases, or all of the above. The goal is to take out the most difficult bases (notice I didn’t say player levels) within the 1st two waves. Some D1 stress focusing on setting up the base for the backer instead of trying to solo which include tactics such leaving a tower behind for rage. Often these teams also know what dragons their players normally lead and/or back with and set up pairs accordingly. In D1, they have their act together both in managing attacks as well as defending.


#181

I am more referring to what one can attack but to looks 5 or 10 higher or lower then what they are. I don’t have issues with someone hitting a base higher if they can do it, but I see way to many times a level 50 going for the highest player in the war which might be a 300 and expecting without asking if someone can even back them and end up with no flames or one because they went in picked a high base and expected the higher level to take it out for them.

Realistically an ideal game would be a player choosing a base no matter the level that they could solo and have a back in case there are to many defenders. It would teach them to look at a base, analyze what they are attacking and then running it with a backer, but taking pride i that they could take the base by themselves if they had to.

Our team is in a war right now that the same 350 with a vanguard Oni is backing every lower player and cleaning up most of the lower levels on our team. What satisfaction is there is swapping out right away to a higher level to do your war run except you know if you lose that player you sure won’t be where your team is standing for long.

I believe if backs were limited or if there were penalties it would fix some of this. Wars should be how strong your team is not who has the highest player to back the team.