I know many people want to improve wars, which I understand and agree with at the foundational level. I think when solutions are proposed (for anything) it needs to be more than a bandaid fix for just one part. Each issue in the game has one or more core differences, and unless those are addressed, changing things will almost always just make situations worse.
I will not pretend to have all the answers, by any means. One of my greatest issues with myself is that it is far easier to be critical than helpful, as I think is the case with many people. However, to the topic at hand.
We need to fine the core issues behind the boredom/annoyance that is war before we can fix the mechanics of wars. I think, in this situation, we must ask ourselves a series of questions long before we can look for the answers. The questions that come to my mind regarding improving wars are:
- Why don’t people war in what are very clearly meant to be the most competitive leagues?
- Why are most wars between competitive teams end with 250, therefore using the tie breaker system?
- Why can one person determine the outcomes in lower leagues?
These are starting questions. I ask, as the OP that this thread purely be focused on questions and the possible answers to questions. This is NOT meant to be a suggestion thread, so get those off topic suggestions the duck out of here. I want questions, simple answers, or follow up questions.
Updates based on thread:
Q: Why don’t people war in what are very clearly meant to be the most competitive leagues?
- Wars do not provide enough reward for the amount of effort required. - Liz & Lee
- Basically it falls back to the fact that the league structure proposal you came up with was never fully implemented. The rewards that would have to be paid out at D1 to make it appealing enough for teams to really fight to be in that league is a lot more than PG seems willing to give away. - LIz
- Why try pushing for D1 where PVP events are a HELL of a lot harder when the team rewards you can get are barely better than D2? It makes more sense to say in D2 where the team as a whole can have an easier time getting their personal points in the event, especially since there isn’t a ton more prizes to make up for the lower personal scores. Personal prizes have always been much better than anything you can earn as a team for the team’s placement in an event. - Liz
- Basically saying that it actually makes more sense to NOT war and stay in lower leagues.
- In order to win in a competitive league, the team often puts Atlas raids on hold, keeps runs to a minimum, and has as many people as possible watching for banners the whole time. - Lee
Q: Why are most wars between competitive teams end with 250, therefore using the tie breaker system?
- Full attendance (250 flames if all bases are killable) is becoming the norm - Morreion
- Q: Why is 250 flames becoming a norm?
- Q: Should 250 flames be the norm?
- Lesser league’s wars don’t often see a 250/250 war and thus don’t need a tie breaker simply more flames. Hence why one none active player makes all the difference. Not everyone has time or has other irl priorities to get one for 5mins and do a “neccessary” war when it’s only a game. - D3athlyDescent
- Q: Do you feel that wars are therefore more balanced at lower leagues rather than the competitive leagues?
- Q: If players do not see the value in 5 minutes to log in and do war, how might others feel at the long hours spent staring at the screen, waiting for people to attack.
Q: Why don’t people enjoy wars?
- I dislike wars because of the time commitment they require. It’s just not a fun way to spend my evening, and I still play the game for the fun of it, not the prestige of being in a higher league. - DRintheSky
Q: Why can one person determine the outcomes in lower leagues?
- No matter how badly built and badly defended the base of the 400+ is, it will be impossible for the other team to 5-flame a base with a load of maxed towers (barring some Hau magic).
- No matter how poorly the 400+ flies, a one-button warrior several tiers up will still cut through all the lower level team bases, so no skill is needed in the 400.
- It makes the level, skill, and base quality of the other 49 team members completely irrelevant.
In other words, the only thing the 400+ team needs is attendance, and some resistance to boredom of the 400+. (Morreion)
- Roster makes more of a difference than skill or activity (Bratman)
- Q: Why are these players in lower leagues or rather, why is there such an imbalance of rosters?
- Q: Should rosters like this be able to solely determine wars?