Alliance War Proposal, 30 "individual" flags instead of 6 "group" flags

I originally posted this as a reply in a different post, so thought i would post it here since this seems to be the proper place.

I am fairly new to the game (about a month now, only seen one Atlantis so far) so this may or may not be a good idea. I will let Y’all decide on that.

Right now you get 6 flags total for AW with each flag using 5 heroes… What about instead of 6 flags you get 30 flags BUT each hero uses up 1 flag. So you are still only able to use 15 heroes each session. This gives the option to use less heroes per attack if you wanted. For instance lets say my defense team is down to 1 hero and you only want to use 2 heroes because 5 is way to much and save the other 3 heroes for another defense team that has 2 heroes left? you would still be using the same amount of heroes each session but have the option to attack more than 3 defense teams.

This could make it more interesting perhaps? Thoughts?

Hope that made sense :slight_smile:

Thanks,
Zoob

That would definitely add another layer of strategic depth.

6 Likes

If you did a 12 flag start, there’s 18 flags left, more flags every 80 minutes.

So impatience and strategy begin to sink in more

I’m a fan of tiering the wars as level goes up to increase the number of total attack teams. This works better as with this concept. The end result would be a more active war requiring more attack teams at higher war scores. More war teams means more heroes needed. Just saying SG.

1 Like

I really like this idea! I hate feeling like Im wasting my heroes when finishing off teams… would definetly open up for more strategies and playstyles and make the wars way more fun too.

Has to be one of the best ideas for war and would really make it a hell of a lot of fun.

On the surface I like the concept of individual flags adding more strategic depth to wars.

It might be necessary to see something like this in the median alliance range though. For sake of argument I don’t know if alliances with say 50k alliance score would be as enthusiastic about this because they might not have the heroes to really make this as viable. SG may lose frustrated mid tier players and I really don’t know if the increased incentive for well established players will outweigh the losses incurred at a lower level.

In short like the idea, don’t want to lose players from the game over it.

With the OP’s permission I would like to cycle this post through my own alliance and I will give other points of feedback from some who might be interested if they aren’t already active on the forum. Thank you for creating this topic as it definitely is a concept worth exploring.

The tactic would be optional though. If players still only wanted to use 6 flags for 6 teams with 5 heros each they very well could even if this option was in place.

I think mid tier alliances would benefit even more from this personally. Since a lot of the ones I’ve been visiting have a bit of division between their cleanup players and stronger players. Clean up players could hit multiple targets if they choose, stronger players could help a bit on cleanup if they choose but neither will lose 5 whole heros from either choice.

Say if there’s a full team standing with a damaged tank, normally this wouldnt be considered a target for a lower cleanup player. But now it could be if they have an odd number of viable heros, and can use that 1 extra hero to finish off the tank and a stronger player can use 3 or 4 heros to finish off the rest.

I think it would increase team coordination and bring a bit more of a tag team option for lower alliances and even allow them to punch up beyond their current war opponents if they have good enough defense teams and awesome coordination

1 Like

@averagejoe33 Please do talk to your alliance and any all feedback is welcome :slight_smile:

@Zoob

I just got so confused, I read that other AverageJoe’s comment and was thinking “When the hell did I write that, I dont even know what I’m talking about” haha

Zoob message meant for @Averagejoe :joy:

(what a way to earn my ‘First Mention’ badge, with a message not even for me! :smile: )

1 Like

Lol, sorry about that @averagejoe33

I really like this idea; out of votes, though. Can I do two cleanups with partial teams? Hmmm. :face_with_monocle:

1 Like

Wth was this flagged for? I was joking

Making multiple forum accounts is prohibited by the Terms of Service. :slight_smile:

So are game accounts but people openly talk about alts. Anyways not pissed about it, was just confused.

Game alt accounts are tolerated but not supported by SG. Just clarifying your initial question. Pesky TOS is culprit! :slight_smile:

I’m new to the forum. I used it some in the beginning and forgot all about it so I haven’t read a ton of other suggestions but this one sounds interesting. Coming from a mid tier alliance I can see the benefits of having each hero count as 1 flag instead of a whole team. It’s especially frustrating when one of our heavy hitters almost gets a one shot and a single Del is left. On the other hand I also like being able to fill the extra slots with my unleveled heroes to get the extra tile damage. Following along as more ideas and opinions emerge. :blush:

2 Likes

I have gotten some feedback from my alliance and right now we seem to be pretty split into one of three camps. I will try my best to paraphrase and summarize our conversation.

Camp 1 Generally approve the idea and would like to see it implemented in some degree or other. I lean toward this position personally with one or two reservations which can be addressed when and if this materializes.

Camp 2 Generally neutral to the idea, but feel it still favors those with higher quantities of 4-5* heroes.

Camp 3 Don’t like the idea at all and will likely consider it another point in favor of quitting the game if implemented.

In all three cases there are about 3 people in each and each have relatively sound points. While I don’t expect this to be as devicive in all alliances I definitely suggest more conversation on the topic and I will likely hold my last remaining forum vote for a while.

Shifting to me personally I think the idea needs more of a practical test angle and that might not be possible without the use of beta resources that SG might not have available at the moment. I see this working in the long term but the short run may be a bit dicey and that is assuming other implementation barriers don’t exist.

What are the points against this proposal that your Camp 3 allies make?

To paraphrase they take some of camp 2s points too far IMO. One person essentially just said they hated the idea and gave no explanation. I would guess their issue is the matchmaking in general, but I can’t read their minds. Also because I don’t know if any of them use the forum I am afraid I cannot invite them to speak for themselves. Like I said I am attempting to paraphrase as best I can but I will recycle the question in hope they communicate more. Sorry I can’t give a better answer than that at the moment.

@Kerridoc

I have heard back from the main person who objected to this thing. First and foremost he said he doesn’t like the potential amount of change this would bring to strategy and wars. I personally disagree with him, but I could understand how busier players might not welcome having to relearn wars after so long. We always have a saying “Real life comes first” and I think as long as each individual alliance allows this to be the motto they use with regard to the idea it should eliminate (In my estimation) something like 33-50% of the main objections regarding this. I can’t argue higher because of the amount of work I can appreciate some players might already do in game.

TlDr version for everyone
If you are seeing other significant objections to this it may likely be the change aspect on top of players’ busy work schedules combined with reaction to the amount of change this might represent. Hope this helps others to iron out other objections they hear from their respective alliances too.

Cookie Settings