RE: A Letter from the Community

In relation to 1. Our content team wasn’t opposed to the change but wants to talk about what operational impact it will next week. Will have an update for you then.

In relation to 4. This is being actively specced by our designers. We cannot commit to a specific release until the design is complete (including GPF input) and engineering has a chance to cost. We will have an update on this before the end of the month on which release later this year it will be in.

In relation to 7. As players only lost 2 days of the season to the boycott, we don’t feel its appropriate for the business to extend the discount period; however, sigil prizes will be increased in select prize tiers during next week’s event instead.

I believe those complete all the updates I committed to today. Next week we can continue the economy conversations and other things brought up through this process. As i mentioned before, Im not going anywhere and am committed to making WD the best game it can be and creating a more transparent environment going forward.



The only thing that I think people will find issue with is the resource availability by league.
Resource availability not being equally available to all further entrenches the current status quo making it increasingly difficult for up and coming players to succeed relative to their peers who are already at the top.

D1 already has many advantages over other tiers, do they need more?
It’s a cut throat game where advancement is made by acquiring more rss than your enemies. Should people who are already the best be given more so they can stay further ahead?

I’m not drinking the PG Kool-Aid just yet but @PGAwal has been very personable and understanding of the concerns of the community on all fronts. Try to keep an open mind and a level head :slight_smile:

Regardless of which method is used to solve the economy problem (yes there is more than 1 “right” answer) and addressed adequately it should come out as a win for everyone no matter your level or league as well as PG.

For those worried about league or faction bias I can honestly tell you I haven’t seen any of this. Everyone legitimately wants whats best for the entire community.
“A rising tide lifts all boats.”


In relation to 4. I would like to further emphasize on what GBB proposed. As with all new seasons and lineage dragon drops. Players are bound to make mistake/remorse in setting up individual dragons after getting them to expert. No dragons are equal on a real base vs atlas invader base. Sometimes you will realise certain dragons does not perform the same taking on live bases after speccing them out. However as rune dust are particular rare (and specific runes are limited items IE Invoker runes and mythic glyphs, a lot of us cannot afford to rune every new dragons. Only the ones we truly use. So we have to conserve and only rune the dragons that matter.

I made such an error with all my latest dragons this couple of days speccing them out early. And of course as usual, I was continuously denied by support for any rune removals.

Therefore, it is imperative for an avenue of rune removal to be release with immediate effect to curb this problem until PG long term solution is out. End of the year is not acceptable and just too far of a time away for the players community to wait. I continue to hear many players being approve for removals while I and others are not. And the number of runes removed in the pass as a consideration for support is not a fair metric.

This gives the implication that long time players with more dragons are to be penalised for playing longer with more need to require rune removals as oppose to newer player with less dragons? Or a player who tries to rune all his dragon is penalised as oppose to a player who does selective runing on the minimal amount of dragons? It is not a fair and equal process to allow support sole jurisdiction to decide on rune removals. Make it fair. Use rubies for such removals. It will then fall upon players to decide if they want to spend those quoted rubies for removals or not.

I do believe the whole community is collectively in agreement when it comes to rune removals. This has to come now. I suggest the same time frame as Lvl 81+ tower rebalance if not earlier. Just go with what PG has approved previously in support on rune removals with ruby (Refer to GBB quoted post above) until PG alternate long term rune removal swap/mechanic is out.

We need the avenue to remove rune and glyphs now. This can’t wait.

@PGawal @pgEcho @PGJared @Arelyna @Crisis


100% agree


Hey Folks,

Bunch of stuff in the works so here we go:

Timer Missions

Wanted to give a better timeline for Timer Missions. We communicated earlier that this was being worked on, but we can now say it should be in our October Version release, currently targeted for mid October.

Tower Power

We have continued to work with GPF on deciding what the % increase to tower power should be. There seems to be consensus somewhere in the 20% range, but we are putting together a build to test this change with the GPF, which is currently targeting Thursday / Friday for delivery to them. Once we’re sure the tower changes feel better than where they currently are, the changes will be rolled out next week as part of a minor update.

Economy Updates

  1. On the topic of the economy, we have identified a particular area which is disproportionately difficult for players which we will fix through tier based discounting. Harbinger and Vanguard timer costs were inflated beyond the intended slope, shown by the chart below. The intent is to roll out this change before the next fortification event.


  1. Also on the topic of economy, we have discovered that Gold / Platinum XP costs were higher than intended, inclusive of tier based discounting adjustments. We will be adjusting them to be in line with their current position in the dragon collection. This change will roll out next week alongside tower power changes (pending GPF approval).

  1. Finally, we have been having internal conversations about the overall balance of the economy. From reading the forums and talking with different individuals I am focusing on two distinct topics:

    • Pushing players towards end game - the goal here is to accelerate a player’s path towards later content in the game. We believe this is good because this is where the most engaged players are and where the social features are more engaging. We already have a tool that we have been using for this (tier based discounting). The deliverable here is transparency in terms of generally when things will be discounted and also by how much (based on how many tiers you are away from end game). Expect more updates on this within the month.

    • Balancing earn and cost ratios - We believe that the amount something costs should be in relation to how much players can earn. If a player’s ability to earn a given currency does not increase in any way, the cost of actions using said currency should not increase over time. We are in the process of systematically going through all the currencies in our game and looking at earn rates vs costs per tier to make sure the rates meet expectation. The two examples (dragon xp cost and tower timer cost) above are situations where we found inconsistencies and want to correct those. We will continue to communicate new findings in our mission to reach an overall better in-game economy.

Our goal is to make the game more fun and more balanced for all users. We will continue to keep communication channels open with the community and appreciate your patience as we work to make War Dragons the best it can be.



People are asking if there’ll be a return on speedups? It’d be more of a challenge to tell what the build time decrease was for each tower then, but max research + Defender would total 37% reduction.


How does the cost of embers apply to this?


Ember costs were scaling at a rate that outpaced change in earn rate. The fix we made was intended to resolve that

1 Like

This is an extension of tier based discounting, which hasn’t had refunds in the past. As such we do not plan on having a refund for this.

Also asked to counter - Would this be an exceptional case, particularly considering that players had to run the analysis themselves? This would also help the players who are now running into the Abyssal wall/those who never saw any benefits from tier-based discounting or just recently finished.


Im not sure I understand your question

1 Like

While people generally understand that tier-based discounting doesn’t typically result in a return for the people past that point, people are asking for an exception. Part of this is from the players needing to point it out for themselves that the requirements for those levels were increased too much relative to other tiers. It’s also a fix over normal scaling.


To be really clear: tier-based discounting in its current form is a bad imitation of a catchup mechanism. It offers barely noticeable benefits to players at N-4 (obsidian) through N-1 (emp). Progress slows to a crawl and (unless you are spending ~$200+/month combined with peak performance) actually starts to move backwards in N-2nd (vanguard).

This is because of a cost model that had major errors. The costs of those tiers have been based on the spending of the largest spenders in the game during the time when those tiers were endgame. They’ve barely been adjusted since. I did the math, and a 10-20% discount on costs that were 250-350% too high still works out to be 200-315% too high, which in nonquantitative terms is what we call too damned much.

Players in those tiers play at overwhelming disadvantages relative to Nth tier, and they are generally forced to play against higher tiers due to Atlas being what it is. As such, it is no surprise that many players stuck there have quit or are on the edge of quitting.

Combining a long-term fix with a one-time refund for people who’ve recently been in those tiers would give them a glimmer of hope of one day being relevant.

I strongly recommend you reconsider.


Just to keep this thread as source of truth, the tower adjustments went into GPF testing yesterday. If alignment can be reached quickly they will be shipped later this week.


Following up on the ability to release towers over multiple fort events, I can now confirm that for the next set of five towers (planned to release starting in November) will be split up among three fort events. This should resolve point 1 listed above.


Can you clarify what is meant by limited in the latest release

Rune Removal

Limited Dragon Rune Removal is also a feature that is slated for release before the end of the year. As more information is ready to be shared, we’ll be sure to post it on the Dragons Blog and provide everyone with the latest information about its release!


I believe the details of the spec are still being figured out - the limited note has to do with potential for rate limiting but its still in early design phases.

Also for an update on tower power. The initial parameters for tower power increasing for 81+ towers were gone over with the GPF. The specific buff was fine in testing, but uncovered an issue where individuals who are “battling up” are going to have a much harder time if we buff end tier towers. There are still conversations happening to figure out how to account for this.

Finally, I know a couple people have mentioned Android in the other thread. 5.05 went live today which had multiple crash rate improvements. Hopefully they are felt by our Android users.


Excited to announce the “tower buff” portion of this post has shipped along side some other things that were part of the GPF convo around there. You can find more details on it here:


Sorry to say but the update made the balance lopsided again…Now towers are stronger than the dragons…I would say it was pretty balanced right before the update with the base boosts applied…I am just trying to be fair to all…Personally, I have a 38B base myself so I don’t mind the OP tower but it is unfair to the players who built 11B dragons and yet fail on our bases pretty easily…I definitely would say that the tower strength needs to be revisited and set right.