What war tactics did they employ that weren’t fair?
Having inactives in Gold IV is probably more common than not… They are even 1 player short…
why is this unfair? because they have more people than you do? if that’s why you are complaining then you should recruit more people.
Also how do you know they are not active? do you have an alt in there? you are in gold league, having low activity teams/not full teams is almost a given.
If a player shows as “inactive or banned” (that’s the message you’ll see) when you try to attack him in war you’ll always get rejected.
However he can attack you if needed. So that’s why the OP said “this is unfair”.
inactive/banned should automatically be 5 flames against them in war IMO.
I haven’t been in gold since i started a long time ago. So I don’t know the dynamic of the lower leagues and most people seem to think PG cares more about sapphire and diamond. So if teams are exploiting roster spots so people can’t attack them, this should be fixed. It sounds to me that they have 49 people on roster, but when you try to attack players, it doesn’t let you. Is that accurate?
We wared team the same the other day. Was hard to find a target
My Alts team did
That’s exactly right.They start out with more points and when any of my team members try to attack it won’t let them because they are inactive or banned
I wasn’t complaining about they have more team members I was complaining about there was only six active members everybody else you could not attack therefore we could not get no points to even beat them
A lot of teams in gold 4 and 5 have small rosters (think: under 30 members, maybe 10-20 who actually sign on and participate), so this is legitimately annoying.
Inactive users should both be free flames during wars and be removed from consideration during PVP. (For plat+ people: if you’ve got an inactive user on your team, they can’t be attacked but still take up space and affect the distribution of points awarded in PVP events, so it’s conceivably possible to have an entire team where the highest attackable base point value is sub-100.)
I think to stop this and make it fair every war should be started at zero flames just saying
Then short handed teams would gain the advantage since teams going against you can’t get flames for players you don’t have
So it seems like the timeline for becoming “ineligible to be attacked due to inactivity” is shorter than the timeline for which a player is auto kicked from their team for inactivity. PG - Just make them the same, problem solved.
Hey all My team is having the same problem as we are trying to move up and now loosing cause the other team leave befor war then come back and attack but we can’t attack them ! This has to be fixed ! I have sent messages to pg and had one team disband but this just keeps happening . We are hopeing to move up this week but with all the teams in this stupid league basically doing it it’s hard to move up even if we are doing wars like crazy .
Should and are can be very different.
Stuffing a team with inactive players is actually pretty clever. If they jump on, do their run, and jump off, you would never win against them.
By should I did not mean “the game behaves that way.” I meant it as in “the game should be changed to behave that way.”
I was agreeing with you, but also admiring the cleverness of the team. It is certainty using mechanics to their benefit.
The mechanics should be changed.
The threshold for inactive is quite low. The players would not be able to be on much at all. Once they got the status, they could maybe long on for a couple minutes per day. Just to grab tokens.
Wouldn’t it be easier to make it so if they are inactive you can still attack them just for wars ?
If you are on the roster you should be a target. I agree this should be changed.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.