ALLIANCE WARS....... Frustrating, Boring & definately unrewarding

Thanks @Brobb. Will read up. It’s a long thread though, and not organized as much as I’d like, but it’ll have to do :slight_smile: Are the AW rules posted anywhere? I didn’t know this time around a kill gave no points and it was based on removing health points alone. Would’ve loved to know that ahead of time.

Did somebody mentioned in beta test that you could have your latest attacking team being your next defence team by force? After the attack I mean.

I want to clarify what happened in beta. There were some of us who are considered loaded with heroes who argued quite vigorously that the general players would have issues with the revenge bar as is with six hero teams. It wasn’t that we were drowned out, it was that the discussion ran its course and the only way to settle it was to see what happened during roll out. If you look at the thread I started about AW experiences in this forum, the first post has a very short summary of features that were discussed in detail.

2 Likes

The way to make things better is not to say everything sucks, but rather to come up with ideas for consideration. This is a new feature, and I am sure SGG wants people to be happy, and not just the top 100 alliances.

Here is one suggestion off the top of my head. It is apparent that no implementation will satisfy all the players because they are in different stages of development. There are different challenge levels, different raid arena levels, why not different alliance war levels?

Beginner Level - Use one team of five heroes for attack during the entire event. No revenge bar, or have it set to very low level.

Intermediate Level - Use three teams of five heroes; these reset at the 12 hour mark or after the first three attacks. Revenge bar set at 12.5%, about half of what it is now

Advanced Level - like current implementation, use six teams, with revenge bar at 25%

The point is, make this into a constructive suggestion thread, not just a complaint session.

20 Likes

That’s a pretty clever idea. I think I’d be for that.

1 Like

You’re welcome. This is the closest thing to an outline of the rules:

It’s worth being aware that bonus points should be awarded for finishing off a team. They’re not, because of a bug.

1 Like

No, I don’t remember that suggestion. It does sound interesting, but wouldn’t work I think. If you change the defense team after you attack, it would become a waiting game, as long as you don’t attack your strongest defense team would be up. Plus you would have to take team composition into account when choosing your attack heroes (that sounds very complicated).

What was suggested was that once a hero was killed, it would be replaced by next in line (but that would give also the composition problem, because the tank is likely to be killed first).
Then there was a suggestion of multiple defense teams, so once the first team was killed a secondary team (of lower strength) would revive. Either in the current implementation or a total revive after all teams were down.
The total revive after all were down was also suggested for the current mechanism, so the same teams won’t get killed over and over again.

2 Likes

@Elpis

Thank you very much for your postings.
I fully agree.

@GeneDude

Now, that is a great suggestion!

@Zero2Hero

This is the first time that I fully agree with you :wink:

I do not like alliance wars either.

I will have to do this for the alliance. As co-leader and strong player, I do not have much of a choice.

But I refuse to spend several hours a day in alliance chat twice a week (been there, done that, got tired of it, in another game, left the game when it concentrated more and more on those stupid battles). And I do not enjoy competition. Never have, never will.

Thankfully, we have a great leadership team who like leading the battles, so I think that I will not be burdened with this time-consuming duty.

I already told one leadership team mate : “from now on, I will do the first 2-3 attacks, and when I have my new flags, drop me a note in line and tell me when to attack and whom. And I will”
This strategy should make it bearable for me to do my duty for the alliance.

edit:
Our alliance is very nice, very friendly and very chatty already. We need no additional boost.
And after several years of this strategy stuff in that other game, I am just tired of this

Edit2:
we just won. nice.

6 Likes

I didn’t play Raid for nearly four months because I didn’t like it. That was my choice. Today I find if I actively fight Raid, I can actually win more than a few! :grin:

I think it’s the same with War. Don’t like it? Don’t play! Do something else you consider more fun…Season 2 is coming up.

But those who want to try War, and who surprise themselves by winning, or even just putting up a great fight…Are we really gonna give all of them skunk eye because they are enjoying it (and you are not)?

I think this: War isn’t what it will be; it’s still being rolled out and tweaked and tested, even now. I’m willing to wait and see what it will become. :wink:

8 Likes

I play another game that has something very similar to our alliances. Those had been established quite a while before a competition element was added…something similar to alliance wars. In that game, they added a feature where each person could opt in or out of the “war”. At the beginning of the next war each alliance was matched against another with the same number of participating members. It didn’t matter how many were in the alliance, it only mattered how many had opted in.

I will say that the initial,launch of the competiton was a bit chaotic, but it settled into a decent thing for those that wanted the extra competiton and there were MANY tweaks along the way as the developers received constructive feedback.

4 Likes

One problem that has shown itself in my opinion is the fact that the opposition can avoid clearing the higher levels
With the revive happening on individuals every 5 hours it just results in the opposition clearing the lower lvl players constantly. This is very unfair and gives then a certain advantage if they don’t play fair.
I think that in reality that the revive should not happen until all opponents have been eliminated or even make it 75% before it kicks in. This will force attacks on higher lvls.
We are fighting a close war and we actually played fair and took out the bigger players and if not clrearing them we got the lower lvls to clean up but this does not make you win.
Despite the added annoyance of the bug that regenerated a team if it was lvld during war ( no biggie bugs happen) and also one member who can’t log in to war.
This left us 28 v 27 so a fair battle. We will lose by maybe 30 points hey it happens.
But just being able to erase the lower teams is not a fair playing field
The other option could be that once killed for the second time they take longer to regenerate meaning that they can only be cleared a maximum of 3 times in a war maybe would be fairer

This has been mentioned to the devs and I know they were looking at it but not sure what the outcome was or will be

_

I agree, all should die before any regenerated to be fair. We were well matched and both sides moved in all out, unable to pick and choose much, but our higher levels chose higher levels to fight as did I ( not so high a level lol), it was fun but just playing the map and video could get the same loot. Epic Hero would be nice for a Chang instead of troops.

_

I agree with this idea, would help alleviate dissension regarding fairness.

Why not give players the option to " opt in/opt out " ? Not all Alliances are unanimous when it comes to participating in AW. Why force already stable Alliances to be potentially broken apart because not everyone agrees within their own Alliance on whether they want to participate in AW or not?

Perhaps offering the players a choice, can give players who are skeptical the opportunity to give AW a chance. To see for themselves if they like and want to participate in AW. Why not let each individual player decide on their own terms, at their own pace instead of it being all or nothing? Not only that, what if a player does not want to play AW 2x a week? Which to me seems excessive, but to someone else, not enough?

From what l have been reading thus far, in multiple threads regarding AW, there is definitely disagreement. Offering the opt in/ opt choice might be a remedy to the discord?

3 Likes

We already have an opt in feature for AW. Just don’t attack or even bother putting up a defensive team. Continue on in other aspects of gameplay as usual and ignore it.

I’m not sure what else SG can do tbh, as I’d sincerely hope they wouldn’t pull the feature just because some don’t want to participate.

Even if you hate raiding at all (I admittedly use to be one), what’s the harm in just throwing together a def. team and hitting opponents 6 times. Maybe you do horribly, maybe surprise yourself, who knows, but you will at least get some free loot for the inconvenience. There need not be any stress if you don’t plan to compete. Just look at AW as another way for free loot, which is always a nice thing.

7 Likes

That’s pretty much what I’ve decided to do, lol.

1 Like

I am actually not opposed to AW wars at all. I am in an alliance with 3 alternate accounts which do not get played much, so no big deal I will just let the other team attack if I can’t opt out. In the other game, opting out was important so the teams were evenly matched and alliance mates weren’t penalized.

To @havok333, @Jules and @Rook who allude to this…
I have posted an idea that addresses the issue of some in the alliance wishing to opt out while others want to take part. Link below.

The problem with the current system is that you can’t actually choose to ‘opt out’ without being a burden on your alliance’s chances. If you ‘opt out’ and don’t set a defence, you are handing your opponents more points for each of your active members they take out. This will lead to frustration or annoyance by those who are taking part. If you do set a defence, you will still be under pressure from your members who want to compete to take part in the attack to contribute points.

My suggestion addresses this, and also addresses the obviously flawed matchmaking methodology to boot.

5 Likes

People are trying to make this sounds like you have to devote 48 straight hours to strategize and have meetings and game plan and all that…I mean I am on here a lot cause I have no life and cause I can get away with it at work, but if o could only pop in for a little bit of time each day I could still contribute very well to my team score. I really understand some of the issues and the 30 issue thing is tough and the arrows are annoying but some of you guys are really overdramatizing this. Our alliance had fun…we were not on for 48 straight hours…we discussed enough strategy to win soundly but I certainly did not feel overburdened in any way. Everyone take a breath, relax and have fun with it…

13 Likes

@Little_Infinity, thank you for the thread. I will continue with any further discussion points there.

2 Likes