I have been playing this game for a little over a year and still continue to enjoy it. I have on the other hand came to the same conclusion many people playing this game have which is the game is dominated by Holy and Dark tanks. I know E&P is currently working on great new heroes to help create balance and offer more tank choices to build teams around for war. My idea to help E&P in this endeavor is for them to create bonus rewards during matchmaking to use a particular color tank that rotates to incentivize trying other color tanks besides Holy and Dark. They could for example offer a 2% health bonus to all teams that choose to equip Green tanks during a particular war. It will still be a choice that alliances will have to weigh out whether the bonus is worth swapping to that color tank but I think this will help create excitement and longevity to the game. I Look forward to hearing what everyone thinks.
Ooh interesting… Could be pretty fun!
Could extend it from just colours to having a bonus for specific Class/es?
Just wanted to like it and now it’s in suggestions. 
And I’d like to refer to my field diversity idea:
Awesome idea! One thing that worries me about a rotation that is too fast is that some alliances may be incentivized to keep holy tanks anyway, as emblem transfers are so expensive in food and iron that a switch in war tank color wouldn’t be practical at a higher competing level.
What I would propose as part of this idea would be to have a “color of the month tank” which would go according to a cycle. Then, alliances could plan around emblem resets in preparation for the next month to try and maximize the impact of these bonuses and keep things interesting for all players.
Again, I LOVE this idea!
Would be very nice to get slight advantages for sticking to some given rules. There could be a few rules for each war with stacking advantages like the family bonuses.
For example:
- use fire tanks +2% points
- field a sorcerer +2% heal
- at least one epic +5% def
- all female def +4% mana
Increase the numbers by 2 if you follow 2 rules and by 4 if you follow 3 and by 6 if you follow all of them up to a maximum of +8% points, +8% heal, +11% def and +10% mana generation.
The advantages should apply for defenses as well as for attackers.
Definitely off topic…
Click for Off-topic ranty rant at a certain individuals accusations
Uh excuse me…? For one, how would you know what a hero would or could be like? You never played with them or experienced them prior to release unless you’re in beta…
Secondly, any changes made prior to release are by definition NOT nerf’s… a NERF is a change that affects a LIVE aspect of the game and tones it down in effect/impact… Changes made in beta are PRE-RELEASE changes… thus are not a Nerf and have absolutely 0 (ZERO) impact on the live game…
I think you’re wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off base here friend… Telluria is a kick ■■■ tank as she is right now… She’s beatable yes, but thats the point… Beta V1 & V2 of Telluria were also great tanks… too good in fact…
Finally there is this massive over-exaggeration…
By definition there are a finite number of times where the so accused “beta whiners” have had an impact on anything… that number is the number of heroes which have been tested, adjusted then released… thus its not “countless”
It’s worth pointing out that (once again) Beta Testers test & provide feedback based on their experiences… we can make a suggestion as to what we think would be a good change but ultimately it is SGG developers who make the change and implement it…
More off-topic stuff....
But doesn’t do anything bad either…
A rediculously OP hero on the other hand does in fact do something bad for the game in that it unbalances everything…
I stand by my statements I made. non-Beta testers THINK they know what a hero is like but until you play with them & use them, you dont. Period.
As for the “recommended nerfs” well you frankly don’t know what recommendations & feedback was given… so cut the crap on that front
Yes… Beta Testers do… thats one of the things that SGG specifically want them to do… SGG use beta testers as a pre-release test run of heroes in a live situation… Check the latest AMA that SG did with mods if you don’t believe me…
Why does this have any relevance to anything? Have you even done any comparisons between Clarissa V1 and the hero who is widely recognised as the greatest hero to date (GM)?
And you want to release a hero who has higher base stats, hits all, same speed, a massive elemental link AND an innate resistance… and thats what “power creep”? sure…
Aight, im outta this “discussion”. If you want to continue with your Beat-Bashing, make your own thread about it so the rest of us can ignore it rather than hijacking someone elses thread for your own agenda.
I don’t like this. it’s more mandatory activity for players in leisure guilds who can’t necessarily all be so active. When thinking of more variety for the top echleon of players, let’s not destroy the game for the minnows.
I wouldn’t say “mandatory” activity but rather a small reward (incentive) if it is followed/ completed…
Nothing game breaking just enough to warrant a second thought…
well, technically nothing is strictly mandatory; even living itself isn’t; you can always choose suicide.
But for all intents and purposes, this is as mandatory as it gets; if you don’t do this, not only do you harm yourself, you harm your entire alliance.
Not necessarily true…
if its just a 2% boost or the like its the equivalent of having a couple extra levels on the troops… Nothing major nor game-breaking…
Personally I see it as being:
- Small boost to each player who fulfills the “rule”
- slightly larger boost if the entire alliance fulfils the “rule”
The flip side of the “hurting the alliance if you don’t do it” is that if you have to field say greymane as your blue tank, thats worse than if you field a levelled Kashhrek or whatever…
Hence the suggestion to make it small & not game-breaking but instead something that gives pause & warrants additional consideration.
I’m not talking about game-breaking or bench depth. My perspective is, I think activity should be rewarded and incentivized on a personal basis. I don’t think players should be guilted into playing more for the sake of the alliance any more than they do now.
This is coming from the most active player by far in his alliance. Most of my alliance mates don’t even use all their alliance war flags (some not at all sometimes); and I’m fine with that.
Agree to disagree then…
I see Alliance Wars & Titans as a TEAM aspect of the game… not a personal selfish element… so as such anything which incentivises more team play (or at least gives rise to some king of consideration of it) fits into that model…
Great idea! Not hard to do and can show variety.
As a special twist of fate, I would even lower requirements like: “Each team must have at least 1 level 3, 1 level 4 and 1 level 5 defender”
I would like to support the idea of making wars more divers.
in mid level wars you come across 85% blue tanks…
This idea would be for them to offer a bonus as an incentive not force alliances into it. If alliances dont like the color or bonus, they can still stick to what tank and color they are comfortable with. This wouldn’t harm anyone. If anything it would allow smaller alliances to experiment more verse trying to be like the top alliances.
Lol
Still stand by this statement?
Maybe we should merge all these topics together?
Universally, we just don’t want to be facing the same tanks/teams over and over again…
Just make it fun and not too demanding
The two threads are similar but different enough in execution that I think there is merit to both ideas.
Realistically I personally am sceptical that either will be implemented but no harm in trying 