Tournsments - love 'm or hate 'm?

I’m wondering about the feelings of players about tournaments, positive it negative.

Personally I really like the concept, but in my opinion there’s also an issue with it: it has become too much of a lottery. The main course is the fact that colours are being left out in a number of the tournaments. In normal raids we already know about the ‘bad field’ raids, where it can be hard or even impossible to win from stronger teams, because your colours don’t show up enough. In the raids where colours are left out, the same effect applies even stronger to opponents of equal strength. The reason being that it has become much harder to take out the tank, because it takes more hits without a strong colour. And that’s a shame. I like the tournaments, and I know, luck is part of the game of course, but IMO it’s role becomes too determining when colours are being left out.

They are extra free hits to fill hero chests for a few days until you are knocked out.

The loot is generally male bovine feces even if you finish top 1-5%. No one in my Alliance pays to continue any longer. Mystic Vision over the course of the 5 days awards better loot.

3* tournaments are a complete crapshoot unless you want to dump emblems into them which I personally would never waste on, but many do. The starting board determines your fate with high probability because they die too quickly. With 4* and 5* tournaments you can survive a bad board longer and recover.

Edits: Your final ranking is somewhat our of your hands. The first teams you face are reflective of your starting team score. Even if you go 5-0, 10-0, etc you will still be a few hundred points behind the leaders (irregardless of defense) unless you started off with high emblem heroes and thus a high TP score.

Also, the defense attacks algorithm still doesn’t seem to be balanced. Roughly equivalent teams and accounts may get 5 attacks, or 15 over the course of the same period. Generally, the more attacks the lower your grade gets. Start off 4-1 for example on defense and you will do well. I think the defense points should be awarded on a per-day grade and not overall.

2 Likes

Many tournaments are “Gravemaker wins.” I don’t have Gravemaker. :frowning: or Azlar. :frowning:

I like the tournaments because they offer different gameplay.

I really don’t like. How it’s made. 5 days of tournament it’s too long. Is only for you to waste gems on continuing. Normally I loose 1 or 2 perday. I’m in 3rd day and already lost 3 times. Very very ridiculously defeats. No boards at all, fells that happened to you to loose and purchase de continue… Im not buying that. For that loot no o.

In my opinion, this is part of what makes the tournaments better. If all colors were always available, then you would see the same teams over and over again, week after week. The only variation would be based on the rules. The color limitation is a big part of what makes it unique, and makes it more challenging. Even with the no-red rule this week, I’ve faced eight non-green tanks, and only four green tanks so far.

This is a big plus for me, too. It’s nice to fill the chest in one go, instead of coming back every couple of hours.

I mostly agree with this. It could be fixed so easily by reconfiguring the rarity of the AMs so that top 1%-5% guaranteed an unfarmable AM. It’s so disappointing to see chainmail or boots in the AM slot (just like elemental chests). Given that you can collect up to 72 emblems weekly from trials, or even 25 just from a week of MVs, that aspect is also underwhelming. But with all that said, it’s almost like another elemental chest, minus the extra AM roll. I’ve definitely had some elemental chests that didn’t feel worth the WE or time.

I’m one of those people, and as F2P, it makes sense to me. I have four maxed 4* heroes. I could make that eight, but the next four would be Kashhrek, Colen, Gobbler, and Colen… I have no other place to put my emblems. And if I did put them all into my 4*s, it’s just going to hurt my starting position in 4* and 5* tournaments where I can’t compete. So I may as well put them where they’ll be used, which is 3* tournaments and my war bench, which is 2/3 maxed 3*s. In the long run, it’s just wasted ham and iron, as a 3*+18 will only cost me 15 lost emblems without a reset token. I can recover those in a single trial. Anyway, to me, the 3* tournaments are fun, because I feel like I can compete evenly with the rest of the field.

I don’t like this aspect either. I don’t know any tournament format where the best face the best and the worst face the worst, and the best of the worst ends up ranking better than the worst of the best. I feel like it could be setup more objectively.

I agree with this, as well. The algorithm for distributing attacks against defenses has the same flaws as the issue above, because again, if you’re highly ranked, your defense is getting tested a lot, and if you’re low-ranked, you’re not seeing many (any) attacks. It’s great that I have a C in the current tournament, despite the shortcomings of my roster, but is it really an accurate reflection of the quality of my defense, relative to the other million+ defenses that are competing? Probably not.

1 Like

I agree that the special rules make the tournaments better. All apart from omitting a colour that is. I guess that the difference between you and me is, that I find it hard to see it as a challenge when it depends too heavily on luck.

It doesn’t work that way though. After every fight you win, you’ll get a stronger opponent and when you lose you fall back to weaker opponents. I actually think that’s pretty well thought through. The only real problem is perhaps the first opponent, but even this gives real strong players the opportunity to score bigger right from the start, which should be to your liking if I understand you correctly.

1 Like

If we didn’t have the omitted color, we would just have 3 different variations of 3 different levels. Only 9 different possibilities, which might get kind of boring honestly. Now we have 45 possible variations.

Depends too heavily on luck? Heh, a large percentage of success in this game relies on RNG or a fat wallet.

During a recent vacation I let my 9 near old niece do a lot of raids. I would set her up with a 2/1/1/1 team (and she didn’t like even missing that single color). The opponent was almost always 100-300 pts higher, as I do not cup drop. She had NO idea how to plan moves or organize specials. Match 3, mash specials. It was days before she would distinguish between healers and damage. Her success rate? About 38%.

In other words…a monkey can win at this game.

It also means that only the strong players will finish in the very very top tier. Given the number of players in the pool, you will always have a fair number of them that go 25-0.

I don’t agree with Benn’s comment though about “the best of the worst ends up ranking better than the worst of the best” being a bad thing. That’s what a tournament bracket is all about. March Madness baby. Perform, and get lucky.

Actually leaving out a colour can make those battles really boring and frustrating, especially in 5* tournaments. Leave out purple and what you get? Guin Guin and some more Guin if it wasn’t enough already. Leave out green and you get what? Yes, you guessed it Aegir, Aegir and again Aegir. And i could go on. So if you don’t have those heroes you are at a severe disadvantage and because those heroes are always HOTMs or event heroes its a huge P2W thing. Thats why i dont like the 5* tournaments, there is more diversity in normal raids even, not that there were so much. 4* tournaments are okay, i tend to like those, there is some diversity there and you can win without having any event or other rare heroes.
3*? Its a joke. I don’t even know why do people max 2* troops and 3* heroes with emblems.

That’s exactly what I meant, so I apologize if it wasn’t clear. The issue I have is that if you’re ranked at the top, you face the hardest possible defenses (in theory). If you’re ranked at the bottom, you face the weakest possible defenses. In a standard tournament bracket, it’s the opposite! If you’re ranked at the bottom, you face the strongest teams, and if you’re ranked at the top, you face the weakest.

Yes, eventually, if you keep winning (whether you’re ranked high or low) you end up at the top, but it should be harder for a lower ranked team to keep winning than a higher ranked team. At least give all teams the same theoretical level of difficulty, so that the ranking is truly relative. Maybe SG has crunched the numbers, and the ranking/seeding system they use is fair, but it doesn’t seem intuitive or fair to me.

Cookie Settings