Make it great again

#1

The structured war offers little excitement as its is. Many of the lower lvl player jump on do war runs, rely on the high lvl to finish and some times defend . And if lucky defend there own base on first dragon. .and maby waist a ton of defence on defending against a dragon they cant have for years. If structured a little better with a points system and flames geared for improving ability, defence awards, and throw in a hail Mary super shot to reduce backers to a leval that can be possibility defended. then we have teams with 35 active be able to beat 40 active on merit and skills.

#2

“Fix War” is the second most common repeat topic on the forums after “Bring back so-and-so dragon”

Not disagreeing with you, war definitely needs fixed. Just saying PG has shown no interest. Wouldn’t be surprised if their long term plan is to phase out wars altogether and make league rank atlas based.

2 Likes
#3

A team of 35 should never beat a team of 40 activity doesnt matter. Wanna win wars build a better team.

2 Likes
#4

Eh. Part of the argument there is that the “better team” that you describe depends too heavily on numbers, and too little on basically everything else.

35 optimally-leveled-and-built, highly-active, highly-skilled players are absolutely a “better team” than 40 crappily built, log-in-once-a-day, no-idea-how-to-fly players. Or for that matter, one guy and 39 of his baby alts. But the 40 can still win easily.

Wouldn’t the game be a better place if teams could win based on their activity, their bases, gear, and dragons, and their flying and defending skills, rather than whether or not they’ve filled all their empty slots with baby alts?

7 Likes
#5

While I agree in most cases quality is better than quantity at the same time if the team of 35 was so great why do they only have 35 members instead of 40 or 50?

Do I agree wars should be fixed somehow yes they do but it should not be a priority in the game anytime soon. There are much bigger issues than fixing wars.

Fixing invites so every banner shows up everytime, fixing the ember, black pearl and timer economies, fixing the progression hurdles and fixing the constant crashes and atlas issues are a few that instantly come to mind ahead of wars.

2 Likes
#6

Imagine, then, the same two teams - one highly skilled, active, and well-built, one unskilled, less active, poorly built - both have 35 players.

But one guy on the second team creates 5 level 9 alts and adds them to the team, to bump their numbers to 40. Why should this suddenly make the second team a better team than the first?

4 Likes
#7

Because one guy worked a little harder?

1 Like
#8

Did you miss where I said wars do need fixed but shouldn’t be a big priority or just seeing what you wanna see?

If the second team has enough drive to make alts just to get their team further ahead doesnt that mean they are putting more effort into the game?

The first team doesnt feel they should have to do that so even though they arent recruiting or trying everything they can to make the team better they should still win then?

1 Like
#9

You forgot fix ryuu. Apparently that’s way high on the list according to PG. I bet it’s the number one issue for everyone.

#10

How about this,
You get 5 flames for attacking in a war.
You get 1 bonus flame for every level over your own level that your opponent is.
( Level 30 vs Level 40 = 15 flames )
Anything lower than your level will only be worth the initial 5 flames.
If a teammate joins the battle the flames will be based off the highest level in the group.
( Your team : Levels, 35 38 and 40 )
( Opponent : Level , 40 )
( Battle is worth 5 flames )
Or if a level 397 joins, the battle is only worth 5 flames.
With the same + or - flame system depending how many runs it takes to complete the base attack.
This would make the playing field even and make the defense more fitting.

#11

I feel like this would end up with a lot of situations where people are punished for their level…

6 Likes
#12

agreed shimo, also Hi been a while, fatcobra here :wave:

#13

You would still get flames for helping just not as many as you would if you were within level range. It would equal out the point spread if a team 20 level 14s they couldn’t defeat a level 30but could still get 5 flames with help. If the help was level 20 it would give him 15 flames as long as it was finished with the first join. A join above level 30 and it’s only worth 5 flames. This works out for all teams even if a guild of 50 alts with 49 lvl 14s and 1 lvl 400 go to war with a well randed guild of 50.

1 Like
#14

Won’t work. A team full of 600+ will be defeated easily by a team of 550, while both has exactly the same firepower (the scaling is too great IMO…)
-edit-
IMO, Atlas glory scaling is a better approach (though the lower cap shouldn’t be 0)

1 Like
#15

Unfortunately, it gets blown out of proportion with normal wars.

Right now, there is a massive imbalance - having one high-level player can turn an entire battle easily, to the point where 49 crappy players (or inactive, low-level alts) and that one high-level can beat a team of 50 good, active players.

With your change, it goes too far the other way. Having a high-level player becomes a massive liability, because if they can be beaten, winning that battle alone is more important than winning virtually all the others combined.

In one of the wars we just finished, for example, both teams were fairly well-matched in levels, save for one player on the other team who was about 200 levels higher than the rest (with a poor base for their level). This is not at all uncommon in lower leagues.

Killing that one player would have gotten us ~205 flames. A virtually insurmountable lead, even if 75% of our team didn’t log in at all.

#16

In perspective our team was a near capacity. We were winning battles 45 vs 45 or less with 12 to 15 no shows members in event and war. We droped 5 in inactivity and 2 the team carryed fot months. At 36 with 85% showing up we will lose more than win. Which was the beter team?

#17

Recruit better or join a more active team.

2 Likes
#18

How insightful.

#19

Wars shouldn’t be balanced for teams of 35 or 40. Every competitive team has 50 players. No serious player in this game is going to say “We had 35 more active people and they beat us with their 40. No fair!” Leaving empty roster spots is just poor management. At least fill them and boot out the crappy players as you get better ones.

Wars shouldn’t be handicapped either. The whole point of a war is to determine which team is better, and the points awarded will impact ranking. It isn’t “let’s give the underdogs an advantage and handicap high level players.” This is a war game. The higher levels and bigger spenders are going to win. And they should. Otherwise there is no point in getting high level and spending money.

1 Like
#20

Assumption: that you can get and keep better players in the first place. :eyes: