Teams that respawn repeatedly on the battlefield should give less points. This would prevent the strategy of alliances just attacking weak teams over and over. Then using more of their flags at the end to reset the other alliance.
It forces the rest of us to either put up with losses and maybe quit wars, or to use the same tactics. Then we’re all using the same lifeless tactics. We become enslaved to those tactics and for some-spreadsheets. Where is the fun in that?
Like many people I used to believe that wars were about attacking the enemy’s strongest teams. Having to rally together with your alliance to tackle their HOTM 4200 teams. That effort and teamwork should be rewarded. Not picking at the weakest teams over and over.
Obviously, with this forum, there will be people who say that unfair is just the way it is. The problem with that is this is a video game. Many of us play it to get away from the stresses of real life. We don’t want to have to deal with this mess in a game that should be relaxing and entertaining.
So I implore the developers to do something to make wars more fair, like penalizing low tactics. Do something so that your war system can’t be manipulated so easily.
Again if you attack the enemy’s strongest teams you’re gonna lose against the alliance that one shots your weakest teams until the end - alliances that do that should see diminishing points with each respawn of those weak teams.
I don’t see this as an issue. The points awarded already account for this. The increased respawn time also does too. This is a mechanic and, when used right, can be a very good strategy.
Disagree. There is no advantage since every alliance is free to use whichever strategy they feel works for them against a given opponent. Reducing points because some don’t like a strategy another team uses just opens a door for other changes…for example — we fought a team that sent in their weakest teams to tank-bust…not something we were used to, and had to adjust accordingly. Should they have gotten less points for each subsequent tank-bust?
Also — how do you determine the strategy used to kill those teams? This would reduce points for any respawned team, regardless if it the weakest or strongest …… so again, no advantage since it would still affect both teams.
We have used, and had opponents that used, this strategy. It is not foolproof…if it was, every team would use it and would win every war …… which is not possible — always a winner/loser – I have yet to see a draw.
Every war is different, and your team needs to adjust and adapt to the opposing team’s strengths, weaknesses, and strategy.
How about just weigh more points to the strongest teams and less points to the weaker teams to make less incentive to pound on the weak teams and more incentive to have to hit strong teams.
I think this is already the case? It’s not a huge difference, but you do get more points for the stronger teams although the total points available for the entire alliance remain the same.
The first time you kill any team they return to the battle-field after 6 hours. Second time it takes 8 hours and the third time it takes 10 hours. It is not really possibly to kill weak teams “over-and-over” unless you kill the strong teams as well to reset the whole alliance.
I think the other complaint here is that coordinating a strategy is difficult and probably not worth doing for casual alliances.
My alliance is one of those more casual alliances, we have players all over the globe and no super serious players. If you get beat by a well organized alliance then that is to be expected.
Yet doing that is one of the most popular war “strategies” in the game. Up until the end of the war, where you go for a full reset of the opponent.
As I said this takes planning. You have to either be willing to follow set formulas to win or be prepared to lose. That’s not fun.
Surely SG can implement corrective measures that prevent the war system from being so easily manipulated. Make wars more dynamic.
There should be more incentive for attacking stronger teams and less for attacking weaker teams. I’d like to know that using flags on the super strong 4200+ team at the start is helpful than picking off the weak teams and holding back until the end of the war.
Because, as it is you’re better off attacking the weaker teams as many times as you can before resetting the enemy.
What does a “lifeless tactic” even mean? Wars are meant to be won. And you do this by going after the weakest enemies first. I think it’s pretty obvious. As for fun- you do realise this is an extremely grind-y, heavily based on RNG game, right? I admit a lot of mobile games are this way to generate income for the devs, but still. (Though this is the only one I’ve played longer than a week).
Who believes that? I’m genuinely curious. Why waste your heroes on suicide missions, instead of going after the weakest first? Plus it’s still teamwork since you’re fighting alongside your mates for a general score, not a 1 on 1 like in raids.
Don’t know about you, but I’ve never found RNG and grind games fun and/ or relaxing. (This being the only exception). Though I completely agree games should be fair- unlike real life. It’s actually one of the reasons I became disillusioned with football years ago- some of the referees have too much bias and don’t always make the right calls which made the game extremely unfair.
If you’re looking for a relaxing game Euro Truck Simulator 2 is surprisingly good. I know it can sound boring, but try it out and before you know it, you’ll be happily hauling cargo across Europe while listening to a radio station or an audiobook.
No such thing as “low” tactics. There is only winning and dying. And the good old proverb “All is fair in love and war”. So go after the weakest first.
If I was ir anyone in my allience strong enough to down 4200+ teams I would be killing them off first and getting the the rest of the alliance to take on The smaller ones for a quicker reset.
Your suggestion suggests that you have that capability so why not use it to your advantage
This is how we win our wars by taking big guns first, they are worth more points.
And the upside to it is your going to put them on edge because your showing them their big guns don’t scare you off.
And how does it work in a real war? Would you send your reserves towards strongest targerts to face a sure dead or would you concenrate on elimination of easier targets to prevent enemy to regroup. I think your philosophy goes completely out of any logical sense. If your alliance cannot follow a simple war discipline then you should go for a better alliance.
I didn’t know this was real war? Real war also contains immense suffering so not a good comparison. This is supposed to be a game.
What you describe is not a simple discipline, it’s kind of manipulative of the war system. I think the war system should be corrected so it can’t be so easily manipulated. Maybe my suggestions aren’t the way.
As I noted it’s not the worst manipulation of the system. It seems there are ways for alliances to lower their war score or fake the system. I’ve been in a few different alliances recently, warred with them, and seen some questionable things. This goes beyond balancing points better, although that would be a start.
I do the same thing, and in the alliances I’ve been in - most of them have too. Attack the big teams first. It would be nice if that paid off more than it does. I think a more robust and dynamic war system would be good.
This isn’t real war, the most we can strive to playing a mobile game is keyboard warrior. So sayings about real war don’t apply.
If “all is fair”, why not cheat? Low/cynical strategies would be any manipulation of weaknesses in the system to gain advantage over other alliances-that the other alliance probably doesn’t know about. Where is the line drawn? There seems to be a few ways to manipulate things, including war score. This is a game so a certain amount of checks and balances to promote sportsmanship are expected.
About going after strong teams first - I’ve never seen it as a suicide mission, nor have most of the alliances I’ve been part of. I’ve found that most people naturally go for the big teams. I find it brings out the most camaraderie and teamwork. It would be nice if the point system better rewarded that.
I don’t play video games to not have fun. Maybe some people are masochists about mobile games. The only reason I still play is because it’s fun. Although the war system could use work regardless of whether my suggestions are heeded or not.
A simple way to think of this war strategy and communicating it is with a message like this one on the group description or chat:
“Use your weak teams first to take out the weak teams, then use your strong teams after we get 3 additional flags to reset the other alliance.”
That should suffice for even the most casual of active alliances who don’t want to plan or communicate much. Note that this does not require everyone to have same color tanks, or a deep bench of heroes, or drop trophies (and even that isn’t as effective anymore since war matchmaking was tweaked)… or whatever. It’s a simple sentence with basic instructions that everyone can understand. It’s not the most optimal way of resetting, but it will help any casual alliance do well.
If you dislike war so much, find an alliance that lets you opt out and hit titans only. We have a 50+ lvl player who does just that, he does not enjoy war so he plays the game by hitting titans only with us… and we’re fine with that too. War matchmaking only takes those opted in into account, and titans are much more important to kill than winning wars anyways since they are more frequent (every day compared to wars which are twice every week… with maintenance breaks in between too).
