I mentioned in another post about alliance war matchmaking how hero chevrons might be a helpful way to match alliances; basically my definition of a chevron is a an ascension tier containing a specific max level. So, 1* heroes and 2* heroes have access to the level 20 chevron, 3*-5* heroes have access to the level 50 chevron, and only 5* heroes have access to the level 80 chevron. Instead, maybe add restriction saying you are not allowed to attack with heroes that have a larger than 2 chevron disparity upwards from the hero with the lowest chevron on your war defense team. So people with even a single 1* level 10 chevron confetti on their defense team can only attack with heroes that can access the level 30 chevron or lower (2* and 3* unascended is the limit here). So, that means you cannot attack with level 80 chevron heroes if your war defense team even has 1 hero below the level 60 chevron (this could be a 3* hero or unascended 4* hero that acts as a limiting factor).
If you are not fairplay that is not my problem.
Am I âfairplayâ? Perhaps I am âfairplayâ. Does that mean I am your problem?
Weâve run into multiple teams using this strategy and wars with these teams represent our most lopsided wins. When I say lopsided, I mean that we beat these teams by thousands of points. We are a team that takes down 7* titans and is getting better at taking down 8* titans, so we arenât exactly a top team.
You should be happy when you encounter this strategy and if you are losing those wars, you are doing something very very wrong.
Itâs not all about the winning though. This âstrategyâ is very widespread, for one reason or another (I guess we will never know). It just simply isnât fun to face groups that decide to put up confetti for their defense teams. It is super insulting to all of the hero levelling I did in preparation for the wars. That is why we are all here discussing ways to directly disincentivize the behaviour.
The OP didnt start this discussion because they thought it was too easy to beat these teams, they started it because they though that those teams had an unfair advantage (while the opposite is actually true). I actually started a discussion asking why teams are seemingly trying to lose on purpose by using this strategy. Since I donât think teams are really trying to lose on purpose, I think this strategy will eventually die out. We havenât faced a team with that strategy in the last few wars. I would rather have teams eventually figure this out on their own rather than make a gameplay change in response, which would only reinforce the flawed notion that this was in fact an effective strategy.
I was thinking the same thing when I started AW today. I noticed a lot of 3* defenses which limits the points each attack gets. I thought it was odd but I guess Im not the only one who was thinking the same thing.
easy to win when they are only with one hero team. but when they put 1 hero team on only few teams and all others teams are at 3000 at the end of war tell me how did you make point when yours last teams are about 2000 or less ?
you are not. But if you purpose to do the same thing like theses cowards and put 1 hero teams I will never do the same because I play fair.
Perhaps you ought simply to realise that you can easily defeat such a misguided strategy, and stop tossing around foolish words like âcowardsâ. If players want to field one-hero defences, there is nothing unfair about it. Itâs just stupid.
you speak about my words and use âstupidâ after⌠I donât understand⌠are you ok? So now I donât care what you will say.
I appreciate that English may not be your first language. Allow me to restate my thoughts in a way that may make them easier for you to understand.
- Fielding one-hero defences is stupid.
- Calling the practice âcheatingâ is foolish. But perhaps that is just down to the language barrier.
- Any dummy can beat the one-hero defence strategy, as has been discussed many times in the forum.
If he is openly admitting to using this âtacticâ as a means to win wars, why would there be any questions as to this being an issue?
Use all your best heroes (you and your comrades) to beat or soften ONLY the stronger teams (not 1 heroes teams).
When you reach a point where you donât have anymore good heroes (only 1* or 2* left) and most likely you canât do pretty much nothing on a tank, then you can go for easy kills on 1 hero teams.
Itâs really easy, but all of you guys must work as a team and donât touch the weaker defences but work togheter on strongers in the first half, and beat the weak ones on the second half.
Believe me we try and we play together. But 21 teams at 3000 or more and 4 teams with 1 hero. We have already attack the stronger teams and we must do it again and again we have no choice. Itâs âstrategyâ of course yes not âcheatingâ but really a coward strategy because we donât know they will do that and we canât do anything, while they farm ours lowers defending teams at 2200.
So what is the end result so far?
I would expect if you manage to take their stronger heroes a couple of times, the concentration of points there will give you the win, even if you make far less progress on those strong teams in the 2nd half.
So if you are trying to take down their strong heroes (and I suggest you discuss team work - pick a few and team up on them instead of expecting members to pick their own) Iâd be interested to know how it worked out for the team fielding the 1* defences.
To me it looks like it canât be a winning strategy⌠but curious to know your results in points.
10h lefts to the war, for the moment we lead 2292 vs 2271. But we are 30 with lot of 2200 defending teams and they will farm it, 5/30 guys have not attacked on our side and 5/25 in their side, but their 5 lefts players who havenât attacked are more stronger than ours. There are a lot of us who got again their 3 attacks of 2nd half. For me itâs done I tried to down one easy 3000 teams without healers with my last attacks to get them one more time tomorrow for ours mates who didnât attack yet. We used 6 or 7 attacks to down a 3000 team, the ennemies only use 1 or 2 attacks to down ours lower teams. 100 points for a 3000 team, 50 for a 2200 team in 6 attacks we made 100 points, the ennemies in 6 attacks made 150 points.
Hey! I hope this is not to much out of topic⌠We are currently fighting a team with only around 2/3 of the amount of points a somewhat equally strong member of our team has. Why is that?
itâs a balance between number of members no? How many players in your alliance and in their alliance?