Alliance wars, if it were me

I realized my thoughts on alliance wars are all over the forums, and while not many people seem to agree with my take I felt that organizing them would help the developers see just what they’re potentially missing out on.

I’m posting this on the general discussion section because as well (or poorly) recieved these ideas may be… They’ll likely never get implemented because it would require a major overhaul of the coding to the feature that’s practically already rolled out. So this is more for the entertainment of other forum participants at this point.

I’ve only participated in one alliance war to date, and it was fun. I didn’t dislike the experience, but do feel there is a fatal flaw with it’s design keeping it from being solely a positive experience for all - and that’s the revive mechanic used for the defense. I understand there’s a patch to make it more enjoyable for the top 50 alliances, it’s just sad that too me they’re the only ones who matter.

To me there’s a simple approach that would repair the war feature for all players, and it stems from the suggestion to replace the revive mechanic altogether with having the defending alliance set up multiple defense teams. I’m going to outline how this small change can fix the following problems :
Alliance matchmaking
Points awarded during war
Roster depth and stagnation

And will then follow up with a bonus of how it should be possible to sensibly enable heroes to attack more than one in a war. Thanks for reading and I hope y’all enjoy my thought process =)

1 Like

Matchmaking -
The biggest complaint I’ve seen so far regarding the present matchmaking process is that it doesn’t take into account roster depth, and that people can manipulate their statistics in order to gain an advantage in their upcoming war. Taking the step to have defenders set up 3 defense teams, and pick the order they defend in, can help fix this. It would require that the preparation phase take place before the opponents are decided - but based on the number of defense teams and what their team power is one could better determine who is a match for whom.

Best part is we already have a great source to pull our numbers from. The current raid arenas are 1200, 1800, 2400… Of course team power doesn’t stop there though so we would have to add 3000, 3600, 4200+ as well though. By having opponents with a similar number of teams in each power range face each other, roster depth is taken into account. This also completely removes an alliance ability to manipulate their strength if you take my scoring recommendations into consideration…

Scoring -
The alliance score is currently how we determine a match, and by not using it we relegate it back to a use in only determining the approaching titan strength… But it doesn’t have to be that way. Our alliance scores could be the determining factor in how many points or opponents can earn. After all when we beat a higher/lower opponent in a raid it determines the outcome of our trophy gain.

Take my alliance score at 60226. That’s a bit too many points to earn in a war, so let’s drop the last digit, making it 6022 points split amongst the hp from all of alliance defense teams. Keep in mind that the number and strength of our teams determines who we are matched against… So if our mostly 3* defense teams are matched by a higher alliance with a score of 87349 points trying to gain a weaker opponent to defeat - we only get the chance to gain 8734 points for defeating defense teams of similar strength. They might have an easier job getting all our points but they’d be shooting themselves in the foot in the process. I get that an argument could be made that an alliance with weaker teams shouldn’t be punished for having a higher score, however if they have a higher score there’s a reason they accomplished it and that should prove true in the war as well…

Roster depth -
The biggest reason I can see for the developers to consider this change, is at present players really only need to level up good strikers. We pretty much all have good raid defense teams, and since they revive constantly… the push to get 30 usable heroes is just a push to get another 20 or so glass canons - so defenders can be killed before the revenge arrows strike.

A change to having 3 defense teams would push for people to level more skittleskulls, tiburtus, boldtusks and kirils for their defenses instead of just scarletts, grimms, melidors, and sabinas. Basically while people will still want their strikers for the 6 war flags… More than 30 leveled heroes will be the goal for players going forward.

Not to mention that this structure of coding is expandable. Alliances will clearly fit into different tiers much like raid arenas… And rewards could be scaled to match the effort involved. The present monotony of revivals only dissuades participation over time because while a higher arena could enable alliance to set 4 defense teams and get a total of 8 war flags throughout… Right now the only offer on the table is to get to fight the same team, again.

Bonus post time, how attackers could be easily allowed to fight more than once in a war. I’m sorry that my explanation will be rather lacking as I’m really just going to outline the structure of how I would do it. Before even reading this you either agree or disagree that heroes should attack more than once so persuasion isn’t my goal here. Anyways, heroes should fall into 4 categories in a war :
Hero.ready1
Hero.ready2
Hero.bench
Hero.dead

By default, heroes that can attack are in ready1 state. At the end of an attack wave, heroes that die or have less than 40% health are moved to hero.dead and no longer participate. With less than 40% health, it’s not just a flesh wound and attacking a fortified position just wouldn’t happen.

Heroes with over 85% of their health after an attack are in ready2 state, and immediately available again for attack. Any hero after an attack in ready2 state moves to hero.dead after, regardless of the state of health. Defense teams don’t typically take more than 2 war flags to beat so having an attacker usable more than twice doesn’t seem fair.

Heroes with between 40 and 85% health left after a fight are moved to bench state. Bench state changes to ready2 after a 6 hour cooldown, representing the time it would take to recieve decent medical attention and prepare for another attack.

Some interesting thoughts here. Some quick observations:

  1. Matchmaking: I worry that tying matchmaking to defense teams opens the possibility of manipulating matches by putting out an artificially weak second/third-string defense. I prefer the proposals elsewhere to use either: (a) add power of top 30 heroes of all participating allies, as a proxy for bench depth; or (b) create a War Ranking metric based on performance in past Alliance Wars.
  2. Multiple defensive teams: I like in principle the idea of encouraging developing more than five defensive heroes. But if heroes can be reused (per your third idea), then we can get first-string heroes fighting second-string defenses, with predictable slaughter. I also worry about this situation: Weaker allies’ defenses get taken down and the respawn timer starts. Rather than fighting the tough defenses, your foe just waits to take down the even weaker second-tier defenses of these allies. And so forth.
  3. Limited reuse of heroes: yours is the best thought-out proposal for hero reuse that I’ve read. Do heroes come back with full health? A refinement might be that heroes gain N% of their health back per hour while on the bench.
2 Likes
  1. I suppose I should clarify, it doesn’t matter which order the game would be put in… It would match alliances based on total number of teams in which ranges.

ie - an alliance with 30 teams at power level 3200 and 60 at 1200 would still get matched with another alliance that has similar teams. So having that false front would possibly prevent all the remaining teams from being wiped - but don’t forget that in proposing the scoring change so they would still just be handing the opposition points from their alliance score.

  1. That would certainly continue to be the case for another 3 months. As people continue to build their roster over time it would get straightened out… But like I mentioned above people would focus less on only building glass cannon heroes and more tanks would get trained too. The process simply would take time for people to adjust to like the way events surprised the fan base.

  2. I like adding an exact regeneration amount to the benched heroes, but honestly if I was coding it anyone moving from ready1 to ready2 wouldn’t regenerate because they’re ready to go back in immediately. I wasn’t actually considering benched heroes coming back with any more than 85% before though, I think both ways would work.

All really interesting and i like how you write it, seriously.

Sadly you pretty much answer yourself in all the themes here (too elaborate to coding or change right now) and other proposal (like take in consideration all the player roster) are just better for the matching.

But it was interesting and i like your reasoning :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Why not just drop to max lvl of lower ascension? For example 5* at last tier and lvl. 1-80 would drop to 70->60->50->1

For the record, I don’t agree with hero reuse. It would make 3* and 4* at 60 obsolete. And those are the cheapest and most accessible, costing no ascension items.

I think the coding involved would be unnecessarily lengthy for that. Would someones hero that is not maxed still be dropped to the max level of a lower ascension? Or would it keep the same amount of progress in a drop and would you round or truncate the result?

Choosing to drop levels also affects attack and defense not just health, so why should attackers be punished for returning to battle when the defense never does? It’s an interesting approach but I don’t think it really fits in…

The hero reuse is an interesting set of ideas, I like it because it sounds more ‘realistic’ but probably it way too complicated for casual players.

1 Like