Stopping Enemy Alliance From Using Weak Teams

I’ve been noting more and more that some alliances are using really weak “defense” teams during alliance wars. I came across two such teams in the current war my alliance is going through. One team were all level one heros (both in star rating and in actual levels). The other was a mix of level ones, twos and I believe one 3 star hero (most of which weren’t leveled either). Both of these members had been in the alliance long enough to have time to level these heroes I assure you.

You might be thinking “well…easy to beat them then right?” and while…yes…you are correct what you don’t seem to see/understand is that since these are VERY weak teams you get VERY few points for defeating them. This causes the alliances that go for resets to burn attempts in order to do so. That isn’t right or fair or fun.

I think, in order to combat this, make it so if these lower level’d teams are…say…500 points of team power lower then the average of the alliance make the points for defeating these very weak teams an average of the rest of the alliance’s defense teams. This may not stop this “weak defense team” use in wars but it at least makes it so you can actually get the points you deserve for defeating them.

Otherwise this will just devolve into many alliances just using the weakest teams they can and hoping the other misses/doesn’t use some of their attacks. This will (mark my words) kill this game if something isn’t done about this.

One other idea I just came up with is make it so if the enemy team does have some very weak teams the opposing team won’t use up one of their attempts for defeating them. I say let them keep the points they get for defeating the team but if that is unfair (which to me it isn’t…not my fault members of your alliance are using low power defense teams) then just make it so an attempt wasn’t used in doing so. I like the idea for getting the points because (just in case) if the enemy alliance does use this “weak defense team” strat…the opposing side will still get points without having to waste their attempts…punishing those who use this “strat”

I don’t know what the cut off for team power should be in order for this idea to be used/kick in but…idk… lets say if its 2k or less then the average of the opposing alliance’s teams then this idea should be put into effect. I know there is no perfect way to deal with this (some alliances will just shift to the bare minimum to avoid this happening) but something must be done and done quickly.

This is pretty much taken care of already, and fairly well. Both Alliances are worth the same amount of points for killing all of them once. If you don’t believe me, add them up!

Each Alliance is typically worth about 1500-1600 points, give or take, no matter the size of the teams in them. Then those points are distributed amongst the teams on the basis of HP. Small teams are worth less, big teams more. If the difference is very wide, as with what you describe, then the big teams should be worth a LOT more. If they are all small teams, they will all be worth the about the same… but of course then you should win every fight, and get the all-important flip very easily.

Rounding errors in the point division means the sides may be out by a few points, but overall if everyone in each Alliance dies once, each Alliance gets the same amount of points.

1 Like

I think it should be based on the median power of the alliance members particupaying in the war in question. The maximum possible points will remain the same.

This would provide enough of a disincentive as the weak defence teams will be worth enough to cost the alliance the war and reward those who use the strongest defences possible.

The reason for using the median is so that one strong defence would not cut it. The whole band must cooperate to protect the weaker teams.

Averaging is not good. This would penalize Alliances with even a few lower-level players, which is a very common use-case in E&P. The current system reduces the utility of sandbagging without that social cost. This has benefits for the meta-game.

With the current system, sandbagging with a low defence doesn’t actually help much. It actually increases the utility of your opponents worst attackers. If someone does this to you, it’s a bonus, take advantage!

We mostly won against enemies that use this trick. I think it’s an advantage to face easy take out defenses. It increases the war value of our weakest members. Anyway, haven’t seen this in a while.

1 Like

They used to have a flat rate per team defeated. From the Changelog:


I somehow doubt they moved away from a flat point structure because it worked so well.

It’s a gamble for sure to sandbag. But if the other alliance doesn’t have ppl to take out the big boys worth all those extra points then gamble pays off.

I requested some of our lower members to run their worst defences, because of our match ups. At their strongest, they are 2000-2500 team power.

The enemies we face, have usually at LOWEST around 3500 team power. So if the weak guys would run their best defences, they would get defeated just as easy, but now at least they are worth less points.

Plus the surplus of points transferred to other teams are also a benefit, because now they can’t just beat up our weakest team for good points. They HAVE to attack our strongest teams as well and it pays off in our case.

Yeah it’s sucky but it’s unfun to lose just because their weakest players are far more stronger than our weakest so they get ‘farmed’ wich has made us lose countless times.

I left an alliance for this very reason, several of my alliance members were purposely assigning weak defensive teams. Actually, I found this was hurting our alliance in war, as we lost most of our wars, since the opposing alliance was easily able to reset on us – it is easy to 1-shot a weak defense, leaving a lot of war flags for a reset.

2 Likes

It is not a smart strategy to play in war at all as others already have explained clearly.
We live to face those in war…

1 Like

Cookie Settings