Tank Buster's Bonus

But hold on he has more coming, lol, :thinking:

Guess i might as well chime in while I’m here

Issue is that “tank buster” was never meant to really be a good thing i believe

A “tank bust” is typically a “failed” 1 shot

Where as a complete kill is a “succesful” 1 shot

Player’s tank busting should go for full kill but if that goes sideways then at least bust the tank as a door prize so they don’t a 0

Not sure SG would think rewarding a “fail” would be a good idea

Personally i have no vote either way as we don’t tank bust anymore. We have 1 shot attempts and we have cleanups. And that’s it.

If a player can’t do more than bust a tank with current experience and roster, they may be in over their head alliance wise 1st of all. But 2nd of all it should lead as motivation to improve, not discouragement to even try. All depends how the individual player percieves it and handles it. I don’t think an adjusted point system will change that.

Again we both agree and disagree. Individual points do matter. If everyone is getting new personal bests, it’s a good indicator that the war is going your way instead of the enemy’s. If someone is a 4400 TP team and is only getting 150 pts in war, they probably aren’t utilizing their teams the best way. Individual scores are the quickest way for an international alliance to see who did what efforts in war when they couldn’t have been online to see the entire 24 hours of it. But it doesn’t reflect what actually happened, and chat doesn’t always survive for people to see what discussions were had for why certain people got so few points.

Let me lay this out more clearly for you and @LadySuzanne because I saw in her strategy, her “low level” teams probably aren’t as wide a gap as mine. We have 3 sub 3k teams and 9 4k+ teams with a scattering in the middle ranging from 3.2k-3.9k. When I say low level teams tank busting, I mean a 2800 TP MAIN TEAM going in against the lowest TP enemy at around 3400TP to kill a tank because their strongest team has 2 reds, and it’s the best use for that team.

How dare you imply that it’s our fault for making them feel inadequate. As I said in a previous comment, we encourage and support all of our players regardless of their level so long as they do their best and are active and willing and driven to improve. If you have never been the small fish, I guess you wouldn’t understand the feelings of inadequacy that a number can give you. We tell them constantly that they are doing their part, and when we win, no one really cares two hoots who was top hitter and who had the lowest score. When we lose, the smaller players really feel it’s their fault because they didn’t score 300 points like the top hitter, or didn’t score as many points as the lowest level enemy ( even though the enemy had a 3600 TP defense compared to their 2800). That’s a hard wound to salve, and we do our best. I am only recommending a small token to those small teams that do what they can (hell, even the middle teams that are just doing what they can to get that 2nd reset). To answer your questions:

Yes, we all do. If we go in for the one shot, we explain thoroughly what happened. If we usually score 200 points, and we are scraping to get 150pts, we apologize for sucking that war. If we just feel the war is going badly for our individual battles, we let the team know we aren’t throwing the war on purpose.

Leadership and experienced players all support one another, and especially our smaller guys who are still growing. Our alliance is over a year old with a majority of the members having been there for over 4 months. Needless to say we like each other, and we all saw each other small and flailing at higher strength opponents. We are very understanding of a smaller team’s situation.

I have offered to help smaller teams strategize and have helped smaller teams build up their rosters, but growing takes time, and I think having a small bonus for their efforts can definitely help encourage them on the long road to scoring 100 pts regularly.

I would also off-topic like to say I am a woman. I am used to being assumed to be a man since I’m an engineer with a gender-neutral, typically masculine name, but I have a picture of me for my avatar… I’ve been on these forums for over a year… c’mon…

1 Like


I’m out of likes lol dam it

1 Like

I don’t know that I can agree with this. Perhaps that is how the majority feels? But we definitely will have members trying to get the reset coordinating in chat saying they don’t know if they can one shot a 400 TP stronger team, but they can definitely clean up without the tank, so a smol guy with mono maxed 2* or 3* will fly in (since his falgs aren’t wasted on a tank bust) and take out the tank (sometimes more) so the ally can clean them up and get the reset, and both players have more flags after to hit and bust up more teams. I think that is heroic and should be rewarded.

That’s all I’m going to comment on I think, since you’re just here for the popcorn :laughing:

With that same team a cleanup should be possible if the tank is gone i think. Unless the board is just horrendous which very well could lead to a failed tank bust as well.

My experience in cleanups is limited but typically it seems like it’s just goin fast mana mono and ghosting tiles in the open spot where the tank used to be. But maybe I’m missing somethin

1 Like

I think that others have already covered the alliance/teamwork aspect of why I disagree with this change. Now let’s look at the game balance issue:

The current rules split up 1,000 points evenly across the total health of the opponent’s teams, divvied up by hero, and across 500 points divvied up by team. @Rigs already covered this. Up until this point, the discussion has assumed that each team being attacked is fully wiped out after one or more attacks (i.e. at the end of war, every team is either at full health or zero health). However, as we all know, that is generally not the case.

If we assign a bonus to the tank position’s value, and an attacker is able to take out the tank without defeating the entire team, this has the potential to inflate the score received for leaving a partially defeated team on the field.

Let’s consider the one team vs. one team scenario, for simplicity. Under standard rules, each hero is worth 200 points (assume that all five heroes have the same health), and the team bonus is worth 500 points, for a total of 1,500 points. Now let’s increase the tank to 300 points, and reduce the other four heroes to 175 points each. I get 300 points for clearing the tank, even though I am unable to defeat the team in full. My opponent takes out a flank, but leaves my tank; he will only receive 175 points. This does not lead to a fair war result.


You’re completely correct in this.

And like I said earlier, if our smol is heavy on tank busting colors, they will tank bust over cleanup. But if the stronger team goes in and just fails to one shot, the smol guy might be left with an enemy hero he is not strong on. we don’t really know. there is more control the one way over the other. Sometimes, we also call in a tank buster because we face a lot of monotanking enemies and we’re just out of green heroes to stack, but our little guys can mono still, if that makes sense. Most of this, is again for the 2nd or 3rd reset when we’re all digging deep into our benches trying to make stuff work.

I have but the last thing I ever worried about was how far up the leaderboard I was as just being able to complete kills was far more satisfying and this is what we teach our members.

I think we are all on the page when it comes to alliance strengths here as our average smallest opponents teams ate around the 3700tp with most (at least half) at above 4000 up to 4300. I am also one of the higher hitters who usually only takes on the 4100 plus teams.
Been leader for around 16 months with 25 of my members together now for just as long. So we are no beginners as a whole.

Also when dealing at these levels it makes it far more difficult for the lower levelled players that have only 2800 or so teams available in their roster to be of much effect thus thus is where team work comes into play, but I assure you that not ones cares about whether they got 70, 100, 200 or 300 points on the leaderboard and the only thing they are interested in is succeeding in making those kills.

That’s the way it should be.

The question here is, WHY would they even think they needed to get 300 points. This is the part that eludes the whole bases of the discussion and why I mentioned that they probably feel that way because they weren’t properly tutored by the experienced players into what’s more important, completing a kill or getting higher scores.

I think the speaks for it’s self really beyond.

1 Like

I see your point, but with an Alt that does 1v1 wars, I have never seen either of us just take out the flank. I think this is what we in the design engineering field call High Risk-Low to Zero Chance or HRLTZ, (usually talking about potential safety hazards, but I think it applies here) which are treated same as just “Low Risk”

My alliance is not currently at that stage, but we’ve been there many times as we get new members. Those wars are much more difficult than having all 4k teams :unamused: Regardless, we’ve typically used the same formula - It’s a team effort so make the best choices as a team.

Hopefully you didn’t mistake a comment I made earlier (Him? Her?). If so, I’d like to clarify I was talking about Itsadragon. S/he is not well-known to me on the forums so I haven’t gotten a feel for gender :slightly_smiling_face: If it wasn’t my comment, then please ignore… lol

1 Like

A 1v1 sample size is rather small. My alliance is not high level but we field 20-30 teams each war. In that sampling size I have seen any variety of partial kills you can imagine. Including killing all but the tank. It’s bizarre but I think that happened 2 wars ago?? Maybe 3…

@Ozy1 I think this goes back to @Tamsin ‘s statement that their goal is to get 3x what their defense is worth. So if their team is worth 100 points they’re shooting for 300 points. Perhaps I misread that, but it’s not a bad goal to shoot for. I do that with titans (hitting for 10% of the total health), but that’s my personal goal.

If I knew the answer to this, I wouldn’t have suggested this solution lol. I could just dispel this notion they have.

And I don’t think they think they need to get 300 points, but they don’t think they are on par with the top half (cause they aren’t) but they see it as being a burden, where we don’t. It’s just getting the message across that their efforts are wanted, necessary, and appreciated.

1 Like

I get that, but my point is why worry about points at all, concentrate on total alliance score for a win NOT individual player points, there is just no need to.

Completely understand and am there with you! Was just making sure you saw her statement about their goal.

1 Like

Lol, thus where making them feel good verbally makes all the difference, not saying you don’t congratulate them when they do good but MAYBE try changing their whole view point of what the wars are about as a whole instead as per player.

Two thoughts:

  1. Emphasizing individual scores in wars encourages competition between teammates instead of teamwork.

  2. Increasing tank-busting points will decrease clean-up points, in your scenario making the clean-up crew feel less important.

In general the weaker players are the ones doing clean-up, not tank busting.


While they are at it, defense on war is totally overlooked — doesn’t even have a stat…

that fat bastich team that takes 4 flags to kill and keeps you from being flipped like a coin is an unsung hero


I like the idea. I think that if they split the bonus half for the tank and half for the last hero then it would be equitable, for those who tank bust and also those who one shot that Team of 5.


Cookie Settings