Suggestion for changes to war

We have all seen the gazillion and one threads complaining about war matching. This isn’t another bash thread, so don’t start. It’s suggestions for a change to how war prep, matching, and battles are done that may address some of the difficulties in finding a matching algorithm that works across all player levels, alliance levels, etc.

  1. Opt-in phase at player level rather than alliance level. Making it default to opt out will eliminate inactive players from the wars before matchmaking, and having it before matchmaking won’t penalize alliances for players who don’t like wars.
  2. Prep phase occurs before matchmaking. During prep phase, each player sets up 6 defense teams and chooses the order in which to use them. As in attacking, a hero can only be used once. These defense teams cannot be changed after matchmaking is completed. If a player doesn’t have 30 heroes yet, the remaining spaces are filled with 1* trainer heroes to form a rainbow team. The selected heroes are locked for the duration of the war, so they cannot be fed away. As each team is killed, the next selected team takes their place after an appropriate cool down period, say 4 hours. Once all 6 teams are killed, that player cannot be attacked any more.
  3. Matchmaking phase. Match alliances based on the following criteria: Number of players opted in +/- 10%; Total power of all 6 defensive teams for all opted in players +/- 10%; Average player level for all opted in players +/- 10%. In order to prevent players from setting up unleveled 1* defenses to get an easier match, for each player, if the total power of your 30 defensive heroes is more than 10% lower than the total power of your top 30 heroes, your top 30 are used to calculate matching instead.
  4. War phase. Since defenders in a siege would generally have advantages such as cover, reinforced walls, etc, the defense teams in war should have some boosts as well. I like the random nature of the new system, and the fact that the arrows can no longer kill the attacker outright. I’d like to propose a couple of new possibilities. Cover: Attackers have a 10% chance to miss for 2 turns. Morale boost: Defenders gain +10% attack for 2 turns. Booby traps: Attackers get a -10% defense for 2 turns

Feel free to ask questions and pick holes in this. If you can think of exploits, let me know along with a way to prevent them.

1 Like

@Rook Feel free to move this if it fits better elsewherr

I think #4 already has heroes to provide such “boosts”:

  • Joon, etc for blind/miss chance
  • Boldtusk, etc for +Atk
  • Grimm, etc for -Def

That’s my only thought so far. :wink:

This is a horrible idea and unnecessary given your framework. How VP an impossibly predict which set of heroes I will want to use for my next battle? If I’m doing cleanup on a team with just Alberich and Joon left,I’ll choose a different team than if I’m cleaning up a Rigard/Joon team. Why should I be forced to use the same team?

Even forcing me to choose 30 heroes doesn’t work. I’ve worked hard to get more than that trained, and I don’t see any compelling reason for me to pre-guess which I’ll want.

Just base rankings on the top 30 heroes, like they already do. Leave me to decide if I want to pull someone up from below that.

1 Like

@Kerridoc - unless I am mistaken, you are referring to attack teams and OP is referring to defence teams… his suggestion would not interfere with your choices of attack heroes during the war.

@Rook

Can you, please, ask the devs what are their thoughts on the suggestions that were put forward the last 3 months?

OP, I like your suggestions, although at least several of them I’ve already expressed in other topics (namely 6 defense teams that change, separation of preparation, then matchup, explicit opt out/opt in in every preparation etc.)

I do not like the defense aids you put out, I’d much rather have the battlefield be actual battlefield and have tactics involved, such as - you cannot attack 2nd row heroes unless you’ve killed at least one team of 1st row (another thing I’ve said elsewhere). Having the Leader set up the battlefield positions.

And many more like that.

As of now matching algorithms are not doing their job. So devs need to commit on different things and change the rules. Three months fiddling with matchmaking with no satisfactory results would’ve been easily avoided with a simple ladder system and some creativity.

The community is active, devs are holding back. Why?

Kerridoc, I’m talking about defense teams, not attack teams. You can still attack with whoever you want.

Personally I like the war the way it is currently setup. My understanding is that there is a few different types of “aid” for the defense team, that is selected randomly before the war. This makes things more interesting and applies more thought and strategy. If there’s any change I’d like to see it is to add a war chest, much like a titan chest, that you get to open after winning a few wars, because more chances to get items in this game is needed.

1 Like

Oops, you’re right. I like the idea of sequential defense teams. At least, i did when we had the brutal arrows. The new, softer rules make this change less important.

1 Like

Devs have been actively testing and changing matching, adding several new types of enemy aid (not just arrows), and just a few hours ago added an alliance opt-out feature.

They are not sitting idly by. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

If there is an option in/out, I’d like players to set their own default or at least have an on-screen notification.

The default could time-out after a week or two inactive and reset to out.

Some of our players miss a day or two but would still want to join the war.

Although you are right, I still think they are pushing in the wrong direction. We should’ve had ladders by now.

Working on flavors like aids when the very founfation is flawed does not speak well. And there’s hundreds (if not thousands) of posts here to prove it.

We are 4th month in and the progress is negative. And the rewards for the wars are insulting to say the least for a 48 hour endeavor.

Don’t get me wrong @Rook , faith is here. Just, we are pouring them dollars and we get laughed at. That’s the feeling. A fix to war rewards is a 5 minute job.

1 Like

The one GLARING OMISSION from the wars, and this doesn’t require any rules or format changes, is a hit counter. Simply list somewhere how many hits each side had taken. This information is already available, but going through the war history list and counting 100+ hits from each side is really tedious.

3 Likes

I can see why they don’t adjust the rewards at this point.

While the matching is still sub-par, having the victors of a mismatch getting great loot while their victims get nothing much would be adding insult to injury.

At least right now nobody, winner or loser, is materially benefiting ingame much more than anyone else from the matching issues.

2 Likes

Thank you for restating what I’ve been saying from the start. Why should an alliance that doesn’t have to lift a finger get great rewards. I don’t want to see great rewards until the bad matching is fixed.

2 Likes

Cookie Settings