Alliance war, a failed attempt to please the top players

So we had our first alliance war today, again a miserable attempt of creating a ingame game to please only a select few. The war has several flaws and bugs and are proving to be of poor execution.
First off, 30 heroes are just too much.
The revenge arrows are just insane, in normal raid mode it is barely possible to win over a team your own strength due to the increased energy gain the defender has, in the wars you have arrows that take 25% of max hp of each hero. And the arrows comes fast! There is no point in these arrows. You are forced to attack ppl way lower than you to have a chance of winning, where’s the fun in that? And this bullocks two times a week? Once a month would be better.
And as long as the war is on, you have a big x on your alliance tab. Making it impossible to see if anyone are chatting in your alliance.
We’ve had several players from our guild in beta, reporting of these faults, but to no apparent effect. What’s the point of having beta testers if you don’t listen to what they report?
The war today was also bugged, no bonus points for finishing a already broken team, which it clearly says it should.


That’s some harangue you fired off there. I just gotta say I disagree with you wholeheartedly.

AW has just been launched, and SG has already stated that they will follow up and adjust/evolve the feature. The arrow attack is there for a reason. Is it too heavy? Maybe, but it’s the same for everyone.

AW is free, as no items are needed to participate, and AW is here to entertain you. 30 hero’s is easily obtainable for everyone, also free from training camps. If you don’t have them already, you’ll get them as soon as you wish. It’s all up to you.

It’s it too frequent? Not at all if you ask me. It’s not like it takes a day to do your attacks.


Ther is no one system that would please everyone. I like it as it is…


You’re wrong, @Khaldris. Alliance war is a successful attempt to please the top players.


If this is the feedback on some high rate alliance, i’m very curious to see the small ones.

It’s not malicious intended, but it is very probably that alliance war pleased only top players because the greatest feedback on beta comes from them.

It’s the same problem of a billionaire that proclaime to know poor people problems. (No politics reference, no no no)


This is an interesting point.

Most the beta testers would be those who are more committed to the game, and would likely be in the better alliances.

Also, the initial feedback will as of now only be coming from the top alliances, because those are the ones with first exposure to it.

I think SG need to be prepared to be quite agile in balancing or responding to feedback, because it is entirely possible that the experience and perceptions reported from the more average alliances may well be quite different. The feedback up to now would by necessity be reasonably skewed, so I’m interested to see how that develops as the exposure is increased.

I have no opinion myself at this time, but am just interested to point out this dynamic.


As it is I know Khaldris, and he happens to be a top player, who does not care a bit about being top something or another. So this war did not please all top players. Someone here mentioned 30 heros is easy to get. I suppose so, if you either spend lots or uses your family budget. Level them up? Even a bit? That I would like to see. I do seem to remember there was advice to concentrate in one team, that seems to have changed. Some new manuals are needed. Advice to new players, get your training camps fast to produce at least 3* and max them so they can be destroyed by 2 arrow attacks. And receive, what up to now, seems to be trash.
Also, some very few beta testers were not high levels, but intermediate, and they did mention some of the problems that could arise out of the wars as they are now. Alas, their voices were drowned by the big shots. Somewhere else one of them even said all beta testers agreed in the end. Not true.


No. SG received various feedback. They purposely chose to listen to their top players / biggest spenders. Their right to do so.

1 Like

Personally, I do not like them.
I used to play in a top 30 guild so we started Wednesday, and it was very stressful. Leaders wanted to plan the first war in the best way - and this, of course, was understandable - so there was a lot of requests to know all heroes, to decide who will attack first, etc. At the end of this delirium, I decided to uninstall the game. I am a drama free person so I do not like to have stress - spend too much time - for a game. Furthermore, I did not enjoy too much last events so that is.
Returning in topic. Today, my wife’s alliance is having their first war. She does not like raids so I played her character (she finished with more than 120 point so I did my job). The guild - always around the 100th position so not bad at all - did not plan the war, and it was a disaster.
I believe you need time for these wars so, maybe, two per weeks is too much. One per month could be OK. Surely, a lot of players are going to disagree with me. This is only my opinion as former player, and as usual I am happy someone enjoyed this new update.
To give you all data. We are spenders. I prefer to go outside for a dinner than spend $ 100 in a game but luckily I can spend systematically some of them without to think. At this point, at least from me, they will have nothing. Anyway, it was happy to play in these months so thank you and good luck for the future.


Hey @Kirur

If you decide to come back and want a stress-free and drama-free alliance - look up Aleph Null. :slightly_smiling_face:


Yes, it’s easy to get 30 hero’s, and you don’t need to spend a dime to get them. What you do need, however, is time and level 13 (eventually level 20) training camps. As I see it, aw is a nice incentive to develop my hero bench.


We’re a borderline top 100 alliance, we planned nothing and we’re having a great time. I don’t know if we’ll win - it will be close - and we’d probably perform better with some planning, but wars do not need to develop into a total drama.


This is new content folks. It was most people’s first try at AW. There is no right and wrong strategy to play AW yet but people will learn how to play.

Alliances will be matched against similar level alliances. They may tweak this to make sure that matching isn’t unfair but everyone is in the same boat here with not having 30 heroes. (There’s a tiny portion of players with huge benches)

I’m loving trying out new heroes. I don’t care if they aren’t levelled yet. But I’m learning how to use the special effects of the different characters. Even if they aren’t levelled…still learning different strategies with different heroes that i didn’t before.

This is new free content. You don’t have to participate in it BUT… It’s a new way to get ascension items. It may be a small chance but SG just increased chances for people to get items.

My real point here is…give it some time.

In my opiniom…this content isn’t supposed to be for everyone. It’s content for people who have been playing the game a long time!



(20 characters)


Give it some time may be good and at the same time a very dangerous thing.
While people may need time to take courage and understand how it works, others can just demoralized that nothing change on something they really don’t like.

Time, yes, but not too much.

It happens that many people forget that this is a game, this is to have fun, not to stress or subject their partners to a regime of fulfillment of couches of damage or to act as a “Leader”.

AW is a good initiative, like everything, needs improvement but developers will be put in that, for a few and not all will have their reasons or reasons, so do not start to discourage those who have not yet active, We already had our first war and we won it only with 28 members, I suppose that next time we will go better prepared.

I 100% agree with you! Now if I may branch a little further…

The Alliance Wars were tested for quite some time in Beta, and most of those Beta testers are already in top Alliances. Yet roll out Alliance Wars to the Top Alliances only? To the players who have already played it and offered feedback, that makes no sense.

I am an avid player as is most of my alliance, but we are an " average" alliance. We don’t have the Wars yet. Most of us are 3000+ team power. So not newbies but not top tier by any means.

So as someone who hasn’t even had the opportunity to play, it frustrates me to see loot complaining…cause well if it’s crapppy loot it’s better then the nothing I am receiving. Especially those receiving ascension items, you are getting loot most players don’t even have access too at this point.


The purpose of rolling out AW to the top 100 was to continue tweaking the basic game (most top 100 alliances have gamers who are well aware of all aspects of the game, and might therefore offer more complete feedback).

It was not intended as an insult to those alliances who have not yet been able to play. :wink:



The loot can be decent and I had fun. We didn’t really plan anything. I can see the arguement about 30 heroes since the second round was pretty quiet for many of the alliance members. I think as everyone gets used to it, it will become easier overall for those who are frustrated.


Mine was more a comment that SG may (up to now) have only really got feedback that may not represent the full spectrum of the player community… those that have been involved to this point are (by necessity) the ones who have a more active interest in the game and perhaps maybe slightly different motivations or tolerances to the average player.

So the feedback may (possibly) present a skewed image of the feeling for alliance wars, and SG should have their eyes open to this possibility.

I’m not criticising their approach… it’s a necessary fact of life that your Beta testers need to be those who have the most interest in the game… and those with this interest are likely to be in better alliances (simply because they have the interest, so they play more and/or spend more and/or read up and practice, etc.) It’s also prudent that the early adopters be your alliances that are likely to have the most experience and therefore have a good basis on which to judge whether it’s working.

But… the result is a reasonably weighted demographic that are giving the feedback, and this may well lead to the bulk of players (who may well have different motivations and priorities) holding a different point of view. So SG need to be AGILE in their monitoring and response to the continued feedback.

I can understand your frustration… but hang in there… it will come (and others are being your guinea pig). Plus: the result when it gets to you will hopefully be the better for it.


Cookie Settings