How Would You Redesign Wars?

I am hesitant to start yet another post about wars because there are already so many, but most of the threads that do exist consist largely of complaints.

Like many of you, I am disappointed with wars. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea, but that the execution thus far has been poor. I would like to focus this thread on ideas for improving the concept, rather than criticizing its current form. Let’s keep it constructive.

So, how would you make wars better? Feel free to do a complete reboot if you like.

Here’s what I think I would do:

I would keep the concept of the single defense team. I would continue to give players six attacks, but I would scrap the top 30 concept and allow players to reuse heroes. I would regenerate each defense team immediately upon its demise, but would limit the number of attacks on any particular defense team to six–three in each 12 hour session. I would match alliances based on a each player’s top 5-10 heroes, using a decay factor to adjust for the nonlinearity of hero power effectiveness. I would try to match alliances with the same number of players and with similar distributions of adjusted defense team scores (i.e., avoid matching an alliance with 10 3,000 power teams and 10 1,000 power teams against an alliance with 20 2,000 power teams). I would assign points to defense teams using this same decay factor adjustment, so that really strong teams would be worth considerably more than really weak teams. I would also get rid of the arrows.

I believe that this would allow for quite a bit of strategy, encourage coordination between alliance members, and make wars more accessible to newer players lacking deep benches.

Say goodbye to gormeks and kashreks in defense.

Say hello to Fabian strategy.

May be you just like raids?

1 Like

Matchmaking:

  • Same number of opponents (±1man)
  • Top 30 heroes team power
  • Double top 10 heroes team power value

How it work:

  • As it is right now

Additions:

  • Opt out button
  • Remove 1day prep time
  • Win count on Titan’s chest
  • Defeated teams lose revenge bar at respawn
  • Undefeated defending teams add +50 score at the end of the war
2 Likes

I’m not sure I understand why. Can you elaborate?

Maybe, but haven’t we shown Fabian to be a losing strategy?

If we were really concerned about this, perhaps instead of having a constant of six attacks, the number of attacks is scaled to compensate for total team points? So, if a player with a top 5 team score of 3,000 posted a defense team of 1,000, he would get x attacks, but could be attacked 3x times, and the other team would get these extra attacks distributed across its team members.

You could use this same approach to make sure that a specific team power was always worth the same number of points. Right now, identical defense teams can be worth a different number of points on different alliances based on the distribution of the alliance’s other defense teams. What if the defense team power times the number of times it could be attacked was roughly constant across teams? Obviously, there would be some issues with this because the number of attacks must be an integer. You can’t have 6.5 attacks, for example. You have to either have 6 or 7, and there’s about a 16 percent different between the two. That’s a large jump. You’d probably wind up in a situation where the number of attacks would have to be distributed unevenly across an alliance.

The advantage of this approach, however, would be that you wouldn’t necessarily need to match alliances of the same strength. Weaker alliances would wind up with more attacks than stronger alliances.

Edit: Getting this right would depend a lot on the nonlinear adjustment of team power. Giving a 1500 team two shots at a 3000 team isn’t going to make a difference.

If I may disagree, I know many hate the arrows, but I would keep them in war.

They force me to strategize completely differently than I would for Raid, they put more emphasis on healers than on strikers (so those who have been focusing on Titans are not immediately at an advantage), and they chip away at 4/5* defenses when facing an inferior force, thus “leveling the playing field” (sort of) among players.

Those dratted things are actually helpful when taking the long view. :wink:

I agree that the arrows do introduce the need for different strategy. They also encourage an element of team building different from raids and titans. That’s a really good point, Rook.

I think my primary concern with the arrows is that they encourage people to attack less powerful teams than their own. This often means that the strongest teams go through a war without being attacked at all. Our alliance has had more success by ignoring the heaviest hitters and turning over the mid and lower tier defenders as much as possible.

The arrows also really affect newer and less powerful players, who might only be able to defeat opponents after those opponents are weakened by more powerful players. I spend a lot of attacks trying to take out healers and tanks so that other members of my alliance can do cleanup. Perhaps less powerful players are content with that role. I don’t know. I’ve always found it much more satisfying to wipe out a fully healthy opponent than to perform mop up duty, though.

1 Like

Besides the matchmaking (which they are working on), I like the wars how they are.
I severely dislike your suggestions, you could just raid the same team 6 times during the war with the same attackteam, how is that any fun?

I would like to see an attackcounter for each alliance and for each player within your own alliance (please add this for titans too).
I still like the idea of multiple defense teams, but don’t feel as strong about it as when the wars were just starting.

I’d like to see an incentive for attacking opponents that earn more points during the war (a sort of revenge strike). That could come in the form of extra rewards (e.g. when a player defeats an entire team, add X% to the value of their own defense team to make them a more attractive target) or diminished rewards (e.g. a player loses X% of their accumulated points if their defense team is defeated).

Something like that could add more strategy for attack timing and targetting to maximize points based on enemy activity instead of it feeling like 6 raids but with arrows.

They are weak and have a lot of hp.

In your example it will be loosing strategy.

It’s mean that team with higher score is the best for defense, but this is wrong. It’s mean that teams with equal score are equal in defense, and this is wrong. Also it will reduced quantity of strategies. Each player will set best team to have more attacks, and it won’t be need to cooperate defense team.

More complicated system will have more bugs.

The strategy you choose to pursue is entirely up to you. Yes, you could do something that you don’t enjoy doing, but if you have better alternatives, why would you?

I agree that attacking the same team 3 times in quick succession could be unfair. You could eliminate that by not doing an immediate regeneration. Perhaps there is a reset timer like there is now, but with a shorter window, say 1 hour? You could also cap the number of times a player could attack a specific defender.

I’m glad you disagree with things I’ve written. That’s the point of this thread. I don’t profess to have all the right answers, and it’s very good to hear dissenting opinion. I happily defer to consensus if there is one.

1 Like

Thank you for proposing ideas; that’s where the balk starts rolling. Let’s see if we can take this toy apart and put it back together in a more pleasing configuration. :slight_smile:

Well, this makes no sense. Point of war is trying to win as an alliance. So, best strategy is to one shot the toughest team you can handle. So, that means for me the best strategy is to attack the same team over and over again with the best attackteam I can build for that team. I can re-use my heroes, and no arrows to take into account, so it is just like raiding. I will probably win most attacks, because raiding favors the attacker. Maybe we can swap teams a few times (but only a few times, because most members aren’t raiding in diamond, so it makes no sense for them to take on the 4k teams). I don’t see better alternatives, can you? And if we are really well matched, we divide all the opposing teams between all members and we can all try to one shot them 6 times. No need to team up, because if we are matched well and can re-use our heroes, and there are no arrows, we can just do those raids, oh sorry war-attacks :wink:

I just can’t understand why you would want to make it exactly like raiding. And I actually like raiding, I even use my raid attacks just for fun without needing resources or having a chest to fill.
And I like to use all my 4*s again, some I only use in war even.

This is why I like the “can only use each hero once” model. Instead of one-shotting teams over and over with my super team, I’m forced to create new teams which do not have the same power and may not be able to fight as well as my initial team(s).

And therein lies the quality of the player: does he/she know how to put together a successful new team on the fly?

1 Like

Rook, we seem to keep running into each other :smile: I don’t have any complaints about the general concept of how the wars are structured, with the exception of the arrows… which I will continue to reserve my right to hate! I’m just stating the fact that before the update, FOR OUR ALLIANCE, the battles were well matched and fun to play. I know they aren’t using the overall alliance scores but I still can’t ignore the fact that before the update the difference was within 5k and now the difference is 20k.

1 Like