First I’d like to say how appreciative I am of the way everyone voices their enthusiasm and concerns. Not every community is as civil and mature as this one. Also, glad to see my ideas pick up some steam.
@SuuriKoira, @TomV93,
I’ll answer to you both at the same time, because your concerns have a shared point: what about casual players/members who might be impacted? I’d say that inevitably, when deepening game strategy, the game becomes less casual-friendly. And AW are a marginal part of the game, one from which players can even opt out.
That being said, I see upsides to this scheme. It may foster more communication, and could incite players who normally wouldn’t to engage with their alliance, which is something many leaders of more casual alliances want (at least according to comments I read in the Leadership groups on Line). Everyone wins when player involvement is on the rise, the players, the community and SG. Less people quit the game, and more engage further with it. The only real loser might be those players’ wallets.
Additionally, a strategy with this feature wouldn’t require constant coordination, and the same principle of “attack someone your size” could be retained—although alliances with better coordination would have an advantage. If weaker players get on during the first hours of the war, with only strong opponents facing them, they still have over 20h to check the game again. The war lasting 24h certainly allows many more casual players to connect at least twice. As for the issue of International alliances, ours is very much global and this has seldom been an issue in war. The war and the respawn timers are usually long enough to accomodate players from different zones.
The choice between battle mechanics would certainly be an option, but I do not believe that it would be something that SG is likely to consider. Unformity is considerably simpler.
@Ender
Hey Ender! Yes, I do not mean that players would get upset.
I don’t believe those changes would require more coordination, but they certainly would reward coordination more. Especially since wins now give access to the rewards from the war chest. Although thanks to the current match making system, many casual alliances will end up facing other casual alliances frequently.
@Tamertain
- Allow rearguard attacks, for example, Team A makes it all the way through to A1 and C1, allow attacking B1 and then backwards (B2-6).
That is indeed part of my idea, but it might not have been very clear (I’ll eventually work on rephrasing it and adding all the great feedback that I received). As long as there is a continuous path of defeated teams, you could attack any adjacent teams. Having defeated teams from A6 to A1, you could attack any team from the B column (B1 because A1 is down, B2 because A1 and A2 are down, B3 because A1, A2 and A3 are down etc). Having then for instance defeated B3, you could attack C3, B2, B4, and any other team to which you have a continuous path toward. But if A2 were to respawn, you wouldn’t be able to attack C3, B2 or C4 until defeating again A2 (A2 would cut your continuous line from the bridge, despite A3 and B3 being down).
I know it’s hard to visualise with coordinates like this, but if you draw a grid on a piece of paper, it becomes much clearer.
- As for AIDs, I’d add some bonus attack % when facing rearguard and w/e bonus perk the opponent may have when the whole Line 1 is down.
The idea of implementing flanking mechanics is interesting! It could be added to the optional ideas.