This is an incentive to grab and use an extremely overpowered backer. It has next to zero teamwork except grabbing your biggest guys. It is DUMB and not what should happen, so stop suggesting it.
We indeed need a way to encourage more teamwork and strategy for sure.
Do I think this is the best way to do it? I don’t think so.
Am I going to discuss it more? It’s not something that i’m allowed to do.
I won’t argue with you, as I see it the war system as it is now is an incentive to use an overpowered backer too and also dumb.
Not disagreeing here.
But your suggestion would make a dumb thing even worse. Dumber? Dumber-er?
Why do you think that suggestion would give extra incentive to use big backers? I’m just trying to understand your point.
If every attack is a 5 flame, the opponent gets 0 def points, which means 5 flame is really important. The best way to ensure a 5 flame is have a super powerful big to back every attack. This doesn’t incentivize teamwork and effectively punishes people who put in the hours to stay up and defend attacks.
Well being that if a team relies on a powerful big like that it will lose to a properly structured wave orchestrated then other team is forced to make up the difference bc once the lead or control is established then that bigs effort is in vain.
Not to mention how long till that big gets tired of being a babysitter and joins other fish their size
Waves would not matter if you can 5 flame every single base (and therefore give 0 defense points, as indicated by this person’s structure they set out).
Also, don’t quote me on that, quote the original person who said it please.
Yes i noticed that also but didnt intend for it to be directed towards you its just with it 1 by 1 there is a pretty crappy excuse not to get 50 points which all the other team needs to do is slip a few in undetected
Biggest problem i see is pairs dont coordinate or discuss a strategy before their run… what so ever
If im way off then i apologize and just ignore me, i just wanted to be apart of the group <3
I believe what it will do if this happens, is that we wont recruit lower leveled players knowing they will eventually grow and be strong.
Kinda crazy idea for war.
Why not making it completely one on one battle?
One attacker, one defender (owner?)
Das ist nicht Krieg Drachen das ist Verteidigung Drachen
Wer kann mehr Zeit am Telefon / Pad verbringen
Hat nix mit Krieg zu tun.
Vor 3 Jahren habe ich Angefangen da war es noch Krieg Drachen dann wurde es zum Verteidigen mutiert.
Mach Krieg und wenn 250 / 250 dann ist es halt Unentschieden.
This is not a war dragon this is a defense dragon
Who can spend more time on the phone / pad
has nothing to do with war.
3 years ago I started there it was still war dragon then it was mutated to defend.
Make war and if 250/250 then it is just a draw.
Limiting backups, say 3, does it mean 3 times or 3 bases🤔?
I understand the problem. But what will happen in leagues high enough to need a lot of teamwork to win wars. Ridiculously high lvl bases can be taken only if it’s done by a certain pairs of players (dragons) and with teamwork including waves and such. Sometimes we can take it easily but sometimes we need a lot of attempts.
It’s not easy to have many good Hau flyers, not also easy for Plat -Sapphire teams to have many members big enough to clear +400 bases led by Hau, even more difficult if backups are limited.
If the limit is 3 bases I kind of understand (still don’t agree) but 3 times I definitely disagree. Then, war results can still be determined by how many bigs we have anyway. It looks like a double edged sword.
Don’t active teams with teamwork and with more defense points overall even after failing a lot of runs to 5 flame a couple of bigs deserve to win?
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
I meant limiting it to only successful, 5 flame backups of 3 different bases.
However, I’ve done more research in the thread linked above by Liz, and I am no longer sure it is a good idea. I have amended my original suggestions list.
Also, I think we’ve kinda gotten off-topic here. I’d like to suggest that we stop trying to fix wars in this thread and return to talking about general quality of life improvements to the game. There are other threads better suited to the debate about fixing wars.
To be honest I think PG should not incentivize people to stay up and defend attacks.
Tired people make rash decisions (like buying packs).
The two notions aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
I think Lutrus was saying time and teamwork should be meaningful essentially. Aka wars shouldn’t be possible to outright buy wins in. (You can sort of buy a base or dragon and gear, but you can’t spend money directly to win)
I agree with that.
I also think the game shouldn’t require folks to be online constantly. It is a game afterall. That doesn’t mean those who do shouldn’t get something for it, but it should be possible to play a game without turning it into a second job.
The two are not contradictory
I definitely agree with this sentiment! Eid did a good job of explaining what I was talking about.
This has probably been mentioned already but I’m constantly annoyed about it:
You know those game crashes that they always tell you to fix by restarting your device and switching from poor to medium to high quality, but then they inevitably come back after some update or another or you haven’t restarted your device in a while? PLEASE make this problem go away forever. I’ve lost count of how many pvp event attacks I’ve wasted when the game crashes in the middle of my run.
Related to above, when the game crashes, I would be so much happier of it counted as an invalid attack and I automatically get my stuff back, rather than counting as a loss.
I want to see a harsher glory scale in Atlas when it comes to level differences. If I get 0 glory hitting a lv 150 in the pvp zone then so should a lv 400 bulldozing my poor lv 250 base with Oni. Maybe the new level scaling will help with this but it could go a lot farther.