I really hate those arrow like there team in war is losing but who gets killed me because its those arrow with 2 time that kill me not the other team i would be ok if it was the other team that kills me i would congrat them on a job well done but no its those arrow that take me down they need to get rid of thosr blasted arrow to make it a fair fight
Its unreadable. Try again.
That’s what she means.
Ok, thank you Rook. Well, the opponent having same troubles as you are, so its a fair fight. Also, try to bring in more healers, they really help. Nevertheless, its not the same as raiding, so try different tactics. Hope this’ll help.
…is what you meant, right!?
As a preface, I will state that I have lost battles due to the Arrows. I really don’t see the problem with them though. We all have to face them, so it is fair. In an AW battle, either I can accommodate for the Arrows or I can’t by the time they go off. Its part of the battle. I just do the best I can with what I am dealt and that’s often the case in conflicts. I really do not see any need to change the arrows. You may need to change your strategy though.
I just figure war is different from map, Raid, Titan. I curse the arrows, but I don’t mind them; if it’s a fair fight, my opponent has to face the darn things as much as me.
I’m seeing the same old arguments in defence of the arrows, and still don’t buy them. I explore them more in this post.
Really, introducing an unpleasant mechanic that reduces fun and increases frustration is not justified just by ‘being different’ nor by ‘the other guy is having as unpleasant a time as you are’.
I had yet another battle in which I had a bad start utterly ruined by arrows… I’m talking not even getting a single special to fire. Unlike raids, in AW you are scored on your performance/damage even if you don’t win (yet another differentiator in addition to the whole choosing 30 heroes to attack with and teaming up against other teams)… and your chances after a rubbish opening are just utterly trashed by this arrows bollocks, leaving you with no chance to come back or redeem yourself after such a start.
Nope, keeping something unpleasant that screws up your fun just ‘to be different’ doesn’t cut it for me. Find a more imaginative way of differentiating AW that doesn’t translate to a random kick in the privates every so often.
You think they are unpleasant. I think they add a whole new strategy. You know, I should bring 2 healers, but I don’t have 12 healers, so I make due with 1 on most attacks and make loading their mana in time another priority. Yes, I have cursed at those arrows, but not nearly as much as I have cursed at Albi when he revives someone…Wait, I know, they should get rid of Albi, I find him so unpleasant! And I don’t have him, not fair!
You see, i don’t buy your arguments either. You don’t like the arrows (I got that from all the arrow topics), so nobody can like them, because they have to give you arguments why the arrows are neccessary. They are not neccessary, they add something different, some people like it, some don’t.
I can do something about albi. I can target them, fight them, etc. ‘Bring another healer’ doesn’t represent an awesome increase in strategic depth to the game. Arrows reduce the stragic interest in the game, they don’t increase it. I’m now limited in options in marginal fights I may have previously won. Because I’m now required to carry an extra healer. This weakens me in other respects and limits my options… to counter a mechanic I can do absolutely nothing else about.
Heck… why not just bring in ‘the rubber mallet of doom’ that just flattens your troop after x attacks.
I’m sure you’ll then get a contingent that argue,’you just need fast attacking heroes’. I love it because if this extra strategic depth it adds to the game. Sure I find it frustrating, but I also get frustrated by xyz other hero that is hard to beat, so we can’t argue to get rid of rubber mallet of doom without also arguing that we get rid of xyz hero).
Sure, you’ll get the supporters… for whatever reasons. I just don’t buy the reasoning. They are welcome to their paradigms… it just doesn’t fit in mine.
True, except it’s not “an unpleasant mechanic that reduces fun and increases frustration”. It’s an awesome mechanic that juices the coolness and pumps up the fun(k)!
I can’t understand why some people dislike it, but that’s fine - de gustibus non est disputandum, as I’ve said before. Still, a few curmudgeons’ dislike for a feature is no more reason to change it than my (and many others’) affection for it is a reason to keep it.
So what are the pros and cons?
- Makes war battles end quicker than raids.
- Makes weaker players’ defensive teams worth something.
- Gives weaker attack teams a much more significant role.
- Gives players a licence regularly to scream, “Argh! I’ve been struck by a flight of arrows!”
- Graphics are a bit rubbish.
- Boiling oil would be 20% more awesome.
Already addressed in another thread
You can balance weaker teams by score… you don’t need arrows.
Arrows prejudice weaker teams more on attack… you are already weak against the defence you are facing and now you also get arbitrarily reduced every x attack.
Why do you want to shorten the encounter? Who thinks this is a good thing? I don’t… I find the attack role in AW very interesting. I don’t want to have it very artificially shortened. Just because the game makers think it’s a good idea to differentitate it in this way doesn’t make it a good idea to differentiate it in this way.
It doesn’t give weaker teams more of a role because it prejudices against them when they attack. It reduces their role. You can protect them in defence on score differential, and give them more of a chance on attack by not crushing them with arrows.
I can’t argue with your no. 4.
(Edit… why do I end up liking your posts when you keep arguing with me? It’s just not right you silver tongued medusa from the black depths).
(Edit2: I bleeding HATE responding to forum posts using a pad. My deepest respect to @Gryphonknight who writes entire white papers on a flippin’ phone!)
I just had to say that I smile when I read your posts, even if I disagree. Your initial one made me outright grin.
As you were…!
I like the arrows. Yes I do scream a lot, but bear with me. I am the strongest player in my alliance, but we have a really nice spread of players from newbies to “old hands”. The arrows do favor the weaker teams. I like that because it gives our weaker members a chance to shine. Trophy Raids, Titan Strikes and Challenge events are their weak points, so it is nice to have one thing for them to excel at.
Granted that means I loose a lot of AW raids I would have won in regular raids. But I don’t care about my individual score. I only care if my alliance does well. So, I don’t play to kill, but to soften up the tougher teams so my other alliance members can get the kill with their 2nd and 3rd string “rubbish” teams. The other strong players in my group do the same. We do the softening up at the start and at the half so my other players have as many chances to kill the teams we are feeding them.
If I fight on my own, I score between 300-350 points, but I am kill stealing some of the mid level defense teams. If I do the soften game, I still get lucky and kill a team 50% of the time, and my score drops to 180-270. But the junk teams of my alliance now have a much better shot and pick up 200-300 points we would not have claimed. The net score is positive when we work together.
So far it is a cool alliance team building exercise and we seem to be doing really good with it.
My point is my alliance changed “how” we play the AW game, rather than try/hope to change the game.
I buy all that, and counter with: you don’t need arrows for that. You can still tackle the strongest teams against whom you don’t expect to win to soften them up for your weaker teams…
…and think how much more your weaker teams will accomplish if they aren’t now losing 25% of their total team health every few attacks (reduced in time now that you’ve left them a few open slots)?
The nice thing about AW is the team dynamic it brings in… in no small part due to the fact that you have limited choices in your attck (because you can’t re-use your heroes). This brings the team dynamic you talk of.
Sure you emphasise the dynamic by making the defense stronger to be able to weather more attacks so the strongest attackers don’t just go romping home with it. I don’t see arrows as the best way to achieve this, because they suck away some of my fun as attacker. I want the opponent to kill me (even if it is due to having boosted attack and defence) but with it being an interesting contest. Arrows foreshortens this interest.
Sure, but why would we use score when we’ve got arrows?
Not correct, by the maths. Stronger teams are prejudiced much more by the arrows. Against a given defence a stronger team will take only a little damage (let’s say 15%, for the sake of it), but will take 25% per volley from the arrows. A weaker team will take much more damage from the defence (say, 35%) but still only 25% from the arrows. So more than 60% of the damage so far suffered by the strong team has been caused by the arrows, while only about 40% of the damage suffered by the weak team has been caused by the arrows.
(This leads to a phenomenon you may be familiar with: ‘How can I be on the verge of dying when I’m using my strong team?!’ It’s the arrows making your strong team much less effective. Now another team will have to come in and clean up whatever you left behind. That’s job creation.)
I think SG might reasonably wish to shorten war battles because adding another six raid-length battles to a player’s time commitment twice a week could be a big ask. But that’s sort of a question of taste too, and I wouldn’t mind longer wars, personally. I multitask. So I cede that point to you.
But you’re doubly wrong about weaker teams. Arrows have created an excellent dynamic where an alliance’s use of their weaker teams is just as important as their use of their stronger ones, in efficiently cleaning up remnants and collecting all those kill bonuses. Get rid of the arrows and suddenly the strong teams wipe out opponents and the weak teams are no use.
I’m sure we could devise some other way to make weak teams useful on attack, but we don’t need to: the arrows are doing a fine job.
(PS - You like my posts because you subconsciously recognise that I’m just your other personality, posting when you have those worrying little blackouts. And you have my sympathy for posting on a pad, but I’m going to one up you; tonight I’m travelling so all this is coming courtesy of a phone. It sucks.)
I’m not too happy with the arrows because it seems to me that it gives poor defense teams an upper-hand because the weaker the defense, the faster the revenge bar grows. Players are already limited to using the heroes once but when you have arrows that destroy heroes faster than the defense, I think there is a problem. Personally I think they should nerf the damage that is done and slow down the time it takes to activate. That way it forces teams to pick stronger defenses. In all the Wars I have been in, the majority of my losses are against weak defenses and really strong arrows. Its a great concept just poor execution.
I hear your displeasure and recognise that you don’t like them, but I think you’ve just made a really great case for the arrows.
Im not against having the arrows , I just want them to be more balanced. It should be balanced on both sides but as it stands it’s very lopsided in my opinion. Defense gets strong arrows but offense can only use the same hero once. On offense, you are at the mercy of the randomness of the boards regardless of how strong your heroes are. Inconsistent boards leave you with nothing to attack with but the revenge bar is constantly moving. I just don’t like the fact that I’m limited to what I can do to help my team because the arrows destroy my heroes before I can even make a difference in an attack. I understand it helps me on defense as well but I already put up a decent defense as it stands.