And give a reward after many won wars, f.e. 10 o 20 won wars, increasing that number any time
If I understand your idea, there would be something like a War Chest, along with monster, heroes, and titans chests, that would give an extra reward after winning a given number of wars suggested before but a good idea nonetheless.
Thanks. You catched my idea and give a practical way to do it. That’s it
Not until the matching system works, please! My alliance hasn’t stood a chance in any of the wars we’ve been in and have won only twice becaause of lack of participation from the opposing alliance.
In your situation, a chest would benefit, you just don’t want this to go down in your permanent record with all those kindergarten timeouts.
Are you talking to me? Because if you are that’s very inconsiderate and insulting. Why do people find it funny when others are suffering from alliance war matches that consistanly considerably favor the opponent? It’s not as funny when you’re on the losing end of ten wars you never had a chance to win. Try being empathetic sometime; it’s good for friendships.
I said a chest would work for you. Take a joke. I thought it was cute myself.
It would be nice a war chest with 4* ascension elements. It is hard o less frequent to get them .
“You just don’t want this to go down in your permanent record with all those kindergarten timeouts” sounds more like you calling me a child than it does a joke, and a war chest would not benefit me at all because we lose all the time due to terrible matching. Therefore no part of what you said read as a joke.
When writing a joke please bear in mind that the vocal tones normally used to imply that it’s a joke do not translate well in the written word. A joke that is misunderstood as an insult is not cute to the one receiving it.
Given how wars work currently, a war chest should really be filled by participation, not winning. Add a point towards the total for opening it for each attack against the enemy in a war, win or lose, and that might get some of the inactive players participating more.
As a side-note, unless someone is making an explicit insult, on the internet I find it’s best to assume some form of miscommunication as a default rather than a deliberate attempt to be insulting when there’s potential confusion about what someone means. It’s usually the correct call, and saves on the stress all round.
The insult was explicit to me and it’s an issue I’ve seen many times where the ones who are treated unfairly are mocked and called whiney babies. It was an issue I felt necessary to address, otherwise I would’ve simply ignored it and chalked it up to someone being an inconsiderate bully.
I still do not understand how it could be anything but a deliberate insult, but I don’t want this thread to go off topic so I’ll drop it. We all said our piece.
Here’s how I’d adjust the overall loot:
Have tiered Victory/Defeat loot, based on the number of flags you used: Bronze 1-3 flags; Silver 4-5 flags; Gold 6 flags. Current loot quality is silver; reduce it for bronze; buff it for gold.
Have a War Chest below the Titan Wanted chest, which take 5 war victories to fill. Loot quality should be akin to that in an elemental chest, given that most players won’t get more than one per month.
The first mechanism encourages participation by alliance members. The second encourages strategic play to win the wars, not merely “mail it in” to rack up hits.
Point 1, tiered rewards is a great idea that would go a way towards making things a bit better right away. Point 2 really needs to hold off until the matching issues aren’t giving alliances regular crushing mismatches if it’s based on wins instead of participation, but after that, again a great and regularly brought up point for the devs to consider implementation of.