# War Dragons 2019 Quality of Life discussion

#545

If 70% is the limit, wonāt forcing 1 flame be a good strategy?
Or the attacker can repeat attacking to reach 5 flame without penalty?

#546

If the attacker keeps trying for 5 flames and keeps getting less than 70% each time then the defending teams keeps accruing defense points. If they get 2, 3, or 4 flames each time, no defense points are awarded but the attacking team is still āpenalizedā by being down flames in the war.

#547

PG please do the maths count properly if you expect this game to be nice to play yet very very expensice game in the virtual world.

#548

Indeed PG should do a better job with cheaters.

I can imagine more scenarios, literally anything would be better than the current system.

Maybe some sort of scaling system?

Iām not an expert, just thinking loudly here.

0 flame = 5 def points
1 flame = 4 def points
2 flame = 3 def points
3 flame = 2 def points
4 flame = 1 def points
5 flame = 0 def points

#549

This would actually be worse, it would be an incentive for the teams best player to back every single attack to ensure no defense points.

#550

For war, hope we can prevent war banner shown to ineligible players.

#551

Good luck with that. Even the strongest player needs to sleep or will be completely drained after a few wars in a row.

#552

Thatās the āplatinum problemā Iām talking about. It causes more issues than it solves/

#553

Well, Iām just throwing ideas in. Iām sure we could come up with some sort of solution. Iām in platinum, but canāt really see the āplatinum problemā from here.

#554

Are you sure that the teamās best player can 5 flame every single attack?

#555

For some platinum teams, yes.

Iām in P3 where there is a team with a bunch of 300s and even a 400. Iām sure that 400 can 5 flame everyone they encounter in P3 and lower (and probably P2 if not P1).

#556

Of course some teams have 400s or higher, but not every team. They can steamroll everyone now and probably just a few could take a 400s base.

Anyway, who has ideas about a good reform to the war system?

#557

Could try searching for a the threads on it or making your own.

#558

I like this idea, especially in conjunction with my idea of limiting any given war attacker to no more than 3 backing war attacks per war. Letās bring some teamwork and cooperation back to wars, rather than them just being about who has the best big gun.

#559

I mightāve been overzealous in my list in trying to be thorough. Lol. Thanks for the correction.

#560

Hereās one open thread on the war systemā¦

Dunno if you were looking for something different though.

#561

Could be 1 points after every defender joins to the battle plus defense points for flames as below:

0 flame = 5 def points
1 flame = 4 def points
2 flame = 3 def points
3 flame = 2 def points
4 flame = 1 def points
5 flame = 0 def points

Thx Red I will read that topic.

#562

Thatās more or less the same idea. Perhaps I shouldnāt have called it āmyā idea. My list was made during about 2 days of massive amounts of reading threads and jotting down notes, so while some of my ideas might be original, many were probably inspired by others and I just collected them together in one place to add my support and voice to them.

EDIT: Atfer having read the entire thread you linked to Liz (yes, every single last post), I have come to the conclusion that I was looking at the situation too simplistically. I agree with what many others have said, wars need to be fixed, but I am no longer sure that limiting the number of backing runs is the solution. Thank you.

#563

Hence why backing by any player should be limited to, say, 3 backing runs.
This will encourage more teamwork and strategy in wars.

#564

That is what we need strategy and tactic in wars. As long as we can come up with something useful we can call it teamwork