Why not have an all-in riskier raid option to spice things up.
Since people like to complain about lack of ascension mats.
Those who are willing will enter their hat into the ring at the watchtower.
Cost of entry is a SINGLE x 4* or 3* ascension mat that will only be refunded if you win the raid match. And perhaps a minimal (?) gem payment.
(Is this any different to paying 100 gems for the now-discussed raid challenge or is this more acceptable @Brobb)
This special raid option is only available once every two months per player.
(This is important from SGs point of view, otherwise it would be too easy for players to get mats)
Browse opponents and search/filter for ascension mats they have.
Two players must agree to the match, as they want what the other is offering.
A raid battle or match begins. Player A raids first. Player B raids next. Whoever wins or defends (or one of each) two raids in a row wins. Whoever wins takes the other personâs mats and their mat is refunded.
The loser has an option to revenge two months later but the opponent may put a different mat on the table.
Revenge will have a new meaning.
Perhaps this is an old idea? Or superceded by the raid challenge.
This could be great fun. I like that itâs a longer form, kind of like a tennis match.
Probably needs to require a 3*-3* match or a 4*-4*.
If you allow players to seek each other out, this is open to abuse. If i can fight my alt, i can throw the match and transfer a 4* mat to my main. If instead i put up a dart and tell the system, âi will do battle for a telescopeâ then i might find anyone looking for the reverse trade.
But then thereâs the problem of tiers. Top players with powerful teams could suck yet more mats to themselves. But a whale could also cup-drop into platinum then offer a 4* raid, lilely demolishing the gullible platinum counterpart.
If both players have to agree for the match to happen then couldnt the concern in the last part of your post be relieved or at least minimally concerning?
Another thing is idk about most but if matching system uses same or similar raid match system(i would rather the matchups use âwar powerâ in this scenario though) then that could limit the factor of alts as well. I know my main hangs much higher than my alta but iâve also retired my alts for the most part so that limits my current relativity to your scenario
Doesnt help. I already play on two devices, and in the hypothetical worst-case, we have a player in an alliance with a bunch of alts all farming the rare quests.
It could be a new actual live PVP mode, but @FrenziedEye seemed to be suggesting a modified âbest out ofâŚâ series using the existing Raid system, where the winner was determined by multiple consecutive wins:
That approach wouldnât require as much new design/programming, nor would it need to be real-time.
I think the only way to keep this fair would be the players choose their battle team without seeing the opponents defense (there would be a limiter, where you need to be in a power range of 900-1100, 3800-4200, etc). But if you are 2nd to go you will see what they attacked you with (little insight into their team n troops) Then, 3rd round that opponent sees what you revenged with.
I think the only way to minimise the risk of alt account exploitation is to have no rerolls or to have only 1 reroll as @Rigs said . This wonât guarantee a non alt account opponent but it would make it likely.