Rework the war points?

The current war system believed 7 flames wouldn’t be the normal, but it is at least for where I play. With this I see a problem and offer a solution.

Currently if you’re even 49 members you can only score 343/350 points, vs a 50/50 team. 6 on the 50/50 team can get only 6 flames and still win.

Let’s say you’re 10 short. Max score is 280, other team can have 29 5’s and 10 6’s to still win.

At 24 or less members a 50/50 team is automatic win.

What if lower team was able to have two runs, but second run was only for 5 possible total flames?

49 members, 348/350 max, other team can only have 1 person score 6. If 49/49 members get 7 flames and 2/50 can’t get 7 the lower team wins.

40 members, 330/350 max, other team can have 19 members score 6.

16 or less members gives 50/50 automatic win.

1 Like

Strongly disagree with almost everything said here but I’ll leave it to people more bothered than I am to explain why 50/50 teams should have the advantage in wars.

5 Likes

They still do, just can’t slack off when attacking a lower member active team.

What we want is 3 full teams. Not 6 teams that are half full which this enourages, I’d say we want to discourage having less than 50 players at all times, extremely like the current war system even. I don’t even understand why we have half full teams…

5 Likes

The problem with giving low member teams a chance to make up for their lack of numbers is you often create an incentive to kick members or create smaller teams of only higher levels.

If you can have your strong accounts do extra attacks, even just for five flames, those extra attacks start to be preferable to extra (weaker) teammates who can’t get the 6th and 7th flames.

6 Likes

This encourages sandbagging for bigger players that only need 25 players on their team to beat full 50/50 teams. Absolute horrible idea.

4 Likes

楽しいチームなら、人数は減らずに増えていくはずです。

If it is a fun team, the number of people should increase without decreasing.

そうとも言えますね。

あなたのためだけに翻訳していました

Same thing 3 times.

Disagree as 25 players could be beat by 126 points earned in total by the other team, that’s averaging only the regular 5 flames per fight vs the 25 member team, with 1 being a 6. 18/50 members getting 7 flames wins too.

100% disagree with you logic. While the math is correct, it is your responsibility to scout and plan your attacks. Diversity your roster and plan your attacks and 7 flames isn’t hard to obtain. If players are struggling, then maybe they should hit lower or take the resists more seriously.

Exactly the reason I see a problem. The 7 flames was supposed to be rarities but instead the change to it changed nothing but make less members, even 1, at a major disadvantage.

:thinking: Won’t this be solved if the one with 49 members creates 1 (extra small) alt?

I don’t think it’s worth to overcomplicate things.

3 Likes

It doesn’t have to be 25. Consider your weakest link. Maybe they don’t always show up or they can’t 7-flame many bases in your league. Why not kick them so you can at least get 5 flames? That’s not a desirable feature.

If alts were easy maybe, but not everyone has multiple phones.

Show me an instance it’s preferable to have less members?

I’m talking about teams with less than 50 members, why would they kick anyone to make their disadvantage larger?

:thinking: They’re easy. Multiple alts ≠ multiple phones
-edit-
One player can even have 50 alts on one phone.

:thinking: is this not against the TOS?

AFAIK, no.
Multiple account is allowed. Shared account isn’t.

Wouldn’t what I suggested be preferable then? Compared to a 25 person team with 25 alts?
Less for one or multiple members to keep up with, but just as equal in strength?