🧪 Early Information on New War Rules [Part of The Beta Beat V32 & V33]

[Circe]

Well I for one am happy that they are trying something different. Wars were indeed becoming too stale.

A few thoughts, setting aside the issue of matchmaking which really is a topic by itself:

• We are matched against players, not the system. So if one team is struggling, usually the other is too. In war, benefits or drawbacks from rules usually balance out over the war, even if individual battles at times feel massively unfair.

• Changing defense every war is going to be extremely challenging. We follow one tank color a month and even that usually takes a few wars for everyone to get changed. Unless the system forces you to set a defense every time instead of auto picking the last defense or a random team … I foresee this going to be a problem.

• Specific color: In my alliance, around last Dec, I started a system where every month we would rotate tanks based on hotm color, whether you were level 15 or 75. It was difficult for the younger and mid level players in the beginning but we helped them prioritise hero levelling and build all round teams. Despite having to start with 2-3* heroes, 10 months in and everyone has a serviceable defense in every tank color. And that includes our f2p and c2p players. So color change isn’t going to be anything new for us.

I’m looking forward to seeing how other rules play out. Different doesn’t always have to be good or bad. Sometimes different is just different.

[yelnats_24]

Actually, it is a bit more tricky.

Yesterday, we (red tank) won the war easily over opponent with blue tank.

My alliance have under 50% win rate against alliance with red tank despite abundance of blue heroes we have.

On the other hand, my alliance lack green heroes, but we are happy to face blue tank because they are easy, we don’t need green for that. The win rate against blue tank alliance is upward of 60%. I really love that before Telly, almost half of opposing alliance use blue tank. Thanks to them our overall win rate can be upward of 50%

Imo, in mid-level alliance, blue is worse than red. In fact red is the best option because availability of TC tank, not many have Telly/Guin/Ursena/Kunchen. Blue do not even have A+ tank whether from TC or not.

Now red will get even more boost from very fast rule because the red TC tanks are slow heroes.

[Oliz]

It was much easier currently when some alliance mates will simply dump their defenses in the field…without bothering to change to suit each war, now with the inclusion of some changes like very fast, etc there would be more need to start prodding some to change defenses… That is the additional chore that alliance leader would have to deal with, probably you didn’t think about that. Anyway, I’m satisfied with the few changes.

And btw, war and tourney appeared same but slightly different, while turneys involve personal play…war is kind of a team activity,…thank you for the opt out and opt in advice.

[Mr.Sabaton]

About the rush wars… Well as much as i like the 3 and 4* rush wars i hate the 5* ones. Because rush 5* matches are basically dependent on 2 things: 1, Sheer luck with the starting board and 2, Alfrike. If you have Alfrike you will win almost all your defenses and most of the attacks, just because of that one hero, she is absolutely gamebreaking on very fast. So very fast wars will be about which alliance has more Alfrikes which is basically P2W at its finest.

[Deathgaze01]

Sounds like a jerk response, so according to you this is one of those “don’t like it don’t use it” type scenario and we should blindly like everything that gets added?

[Deathgaze01]

Problem is then you miss out on path of valor, i guess the better option would be to have the new order that way people can opt out depending on whats coming next i know fast wars will be horrible because i dont have deep pockets nor the heroes so just like tournaments i dont bother with that trash

[Guvnor]

You’re saying literally the same thing as me lol…

---

The thing you seem to disagree most with is the comment about it being even with regards to slow or fast hero availability…

I’m talking about overall averages being even… For mid level alliances OVERALL there will be a ROUGHLY even distribution of Slow, fast and whatever else mana heroes… Dependent on spending, availablity and summons… So OVERALL it is even.

So if you look at an INDIVIDUAL this statement holds true:

@yelnats_24

it will come to who have more slow heroes that can be put in defense.

But I specifically stated overall averages

---

Anyways, the distinction is moot as we’re both saying the same thing.

[Duaneski]

Couple thoughts:

1. really cool. I like new rules! Yay variety!

2. I wish the Fast Mana were literally fast mana instead of Very Fast. Since we already have one event at very fast mana, I think the nuanced variety of going fast woulda been neat - as well as being less of a boon to the slower heroes, aaand more of a nerf to the very fast people.

3. for equalizer… does this affect heroes who have their max health boosted or reduced? (I’m looking at Baldur as a hero who can skirt around the “equalizer” and still have an effect over time that’s useful, ya know?). Wondered if there were other heroes who sorta skirt around this (Seshat with her replicating minions is probably a good thing as well. But yeah, there’s gotta be some specific heroes that this really favors, and some if really dumps on, right? )

4. closing with a: cool. Yay new rules!

[Guvnor]

@Duaneski

for equalizer… does this affect heroes who have their max health boosted or reduced?

Boosted and reduced HP are not status effects, so no.

HOWEVER, Baldur required his brawler buff in order to have the random damage and the mana protection thing. This buff IS an effect and as such is removed.

[Charvel74]

While wars are stale bringing in some new variations would shake things up a bit. All they had to do was mandate a tank color to add variety. These variations are horrible that they decided on. Rush attack will be strictly decided by your board and nothing more. Think 30 Telurias was bad wait til facing 30 Alfrikes.

[Aboisso27]

Yelnats, they’re never, ever, ever going to give someone (even a leader) control over another players roster or teams. That’s just asking for a massive disaster of animosity. And I don’t blame them.

[Aboisso27]

Guv, the problem with very fast isn’t necessarily that the matchmaking will be uneven, it’s just that very fast PvP sucks. At the top level it’s 100% luck based. Completely. There is 0 skill involved at all. It’s not that one team will have an advantage over the other, it’s that everyone involved will find the process insufferably pointless. Yet, equally pointless.

[B1gHeadAss]

Still really hoping they scrap Very fast war. I can already imagine the Alfrike +19 tanks with Heimdall/MotherNorth/Alby left wings. Maybe G.Owl on right wing as well. Very fast revivers are just broken and not fun in wars.

[djmindcrasher]

Rush tournaments are my favourite, I’m happy to see my slow heroes shine in wars next.

[TijaraTaj]

I am all for Fast, not Very Fast. And now seeing a good reason to finish those slow 4*, lil John etc. and the 3.70 slow 5* heroes I keep skipping. If only the mats would show up!
Big worry I now have is that I do just that, and everyone complains so much they get rid of it and then those slow heroes Return to the bench never t be seen again…

[Guvnor]

@Aboisso27

everyone involved will find the process insufferably pointless. Yet, equally pointless.

As I said. People will love it or hate it.

Same as the current war rules

[MuaddibMcfly]

@Itty

How about instead of rush war we have slow wars every hero special is very slow

Well, that would make Roc more viable, given how much of that birdbrain’s value is straight up stats (top 15% of effective HP and top 25% of attack score)

Fun fact: there are only 4 heroes in the top quartile of both effective health and attack:

• Roc
• Lianna (with costume bonus, w/ or w/o costume)
• Domitia (with costume bonus, w/ or w/o costume)
• Odin

[LucaeBirba]

in my opinion that would be a fun idea too, but the attacker would be disadvantaged i think because the enemy would always be quicker then him at chargin mana and with a bad board you got punished more then you are with normal or fast wars

[MuaddibMcfly]

@Guvnor

In THEORY two alliances of (roughly) equal scores will still have (roughly) equal hero power despite very fast wars…

In theory, yes, but I don’t subscribe to that theory.

For example, consider the following heroes on my roster (as currently leveled and emblemed)

• Kunchen +18, Slow, 860 Power
• Seshat +18, Fast, 860 Power
• Alfrike +14, V. Slow, 860 Power

Those three heroes have precisely the same power (as the game calculates it), but there will be clear differences in the effective power of those heroes under a Rush War vs other. If the evaluation of the heroes does not take those factors into consideration, that’s going to skew things. If one alliance happens to have more heroes with slow & v. slow mana in their top 30, that alliance will easily overwhelm an “equally powered” team that happens with more fast & v. fast heroes.

Now, maybe when you’re looking at the top 900 heroes of a full alliance (30 players @ 30 heroes), that might fall out, but the fewer war participants an alliance has, the more likely it will be that you’re going to run into that problem, due to increased variance between players/alliances.

@Guvnor

The only exception is the Top tier of players who have >> than 30 heroes used in the weighting

Not at all. That would simply exacerbate an extant problem; if the calculations weren’t inherently off for Rush Wars, then the miscalculation as to which heroes were in the Top 30 wouldn’t be as important.

Indeed, it might be less of a problem when you are dealing with alliances that have lots of War Depth; just as you’re going to trend towards a more even distribution of Faster vs Slower heroes with 30 players with 30 “war-ready” heroes, you’re going to find even more regular of a distribution when you consider 30 players with 60 “war-ready” heroes each.

@Guvnor

For mid level alliances OVERALL there will be a ROUGHLY even distribution of Slow, fast and whatever else mana heroes…

Overall, yes. But aggregate results don’t speak to individual experience.

What sort of comfort it that to the those alliances that happen to be skewed towards the “fast” end of the hero pool, that “overall” things average out? Will that make them pleased to seemingly be “designated losers” every time they face a team with “equal” power in Rush Wars that has less of a skew towards fast heroes?

In principle, looking at things “overall” is like telling someone who, after several years of playing, has only one HOTM that it’s “fair,” because somebody else, who did the same number of draws, over the same time frame, got all the HOTMs except that specific hero.

No, friend, unless the mana speed of heroes isn’t considered at all in War Matchmaking (including by way of “Hero Power”), the natural, inevitable variance between alliances will hurt alliances according to how heavily that alliance happens to be skewed towards faster heroes. And, if it isn’t normally used for the Matchmaking calculation, the skew-benefit is reversed, with those with a higher percentage of faster heroes having the advantage.

[D_DI]

@TijaraTaj

I am all for Fast, not Very Fast.

Very fast heroes need level 11 mana troops to get charged up faster while fast heroes need level 29 mana troops (not counting talent and costume bonuses).

So it will be more difficult for the attacker to charge up their heroes if they don’t have level 29 mana troops. This means that the people who have these troops (who are spenders) will have a big advantage.

As FTP I don’t really like that idea (I’ve been playing for 3 years and 4 months and I have a set of level 23 mana troops) and I don’t think that many (if any) FTP or CTP players have 29 mana troops.