Here’s a funny idea: the bonus points should be equal to the remaining points of the team.
As an example: you kill a team worth 35 points (without bonus) in one attack, you’d get 35+35 points. But if you need two attacks, then you might get 20 (first attack) + 15+15 (second attack) points.
It will increase strategy to unimaginable heights!
I can see why this would be fairer when it comes to the actual effort put into killing a team, but I think it would discourage team cooperation, as a lot of peole go for easier wipeouts to maximize their personal points instead of working together to take down harder teams, the heavies breaking the tanks and as much else as possible and leaving the rest for their weaker teammates.
2 Likes
Huh? I think you are confused and didn’t think it through.
I did. My observation is that a lot of people will prioritise their personal scores over the alliance results, and thus try to go for easier one hit team kills instead of helping their teammates take down harder teams, because the latter will give a smaller personal score. Your proposal encourages that more than discourages it. It’s not that I think the idea is abstractly wrong or a bad one, I’m just noting that people will be people and I think the results will be as I predict.
The really good competitive alliances probably won’t act like that, but a lot of the more casual players will. It’s not a matter of logic and fairness, in which I actually think your proposal is better than the current system, it’s just that people aren’t always logical when competing, so I don’t think the results would be as beneficial as you expect.
I would love to be proven wrong on this one though, but the only way to be sure would be to test it.
2 Likes
Sorry, but you’re still not thinking it through. Let me help you: With the current system, are people prioritizing their personal scores, or the alliance result?
In my interpretation of Paulon remark is that the proposal would lower scores against teams that require more than one attack versus to the scores you’d get from “one-hit” teams compared to the current status. If players proritize individual score (and actually they mostly should as AFAIK the team score is the addition of all scores and there is no sinergistic effect), that should lead them to favor individual targets (one-hot) that do not require cooperation compared to harder targets that require multiple hit.
I agree with that analysis.
1 Like
Well then I have some news for you: If players are prioritizing individual scores now, then they’re not cooperating.
To answer your question, I think some players cooperate for their alliance, and some don’t. I also suspect that in an otherwise even match of alliances the former group would be the ones who win when facing the latter.
Pyros summarized what I was trying to say quite nicely.
I’m not making any judgements about the morality or rightness of how players should be working together or otherwise, I just think your suggestion would act to discourage rather than encourage intra-alliance cooperation if implemented.
1 Like
That’s just stupid. But okay, if you want to play dumb:
Why would the players that now cooperate for their alliance would be less inclined to do so after my suggestion? Just to prevent another dumb answer and waste of time: those that cooperate for their alliance are not maximizing their personal scores.
Personal insults are a no-no.
To answer the question, your suggestion will suddenly penalise the team score for cooperation compared to solitary effort. If the team gets less points for working together on a harder target than they do for individual winning fights then they will try to get more points working alone for single kills. This is thus encouraging the exact opposite of cooperation.
I agree that while this seems good on the surface certainly goes to kill team efforts.
One way to work jointly, if team members ganging up. One uses a GOOD team (but not good enough to finish a stronger team). Their GOOD team softens up the enemy, killing some of the stronger players before the revenge attacks grind them down. then the team mate comes along with some of his scrubs, and mops up. The next attack is reversed. The 2nd team mate uses a quality team to soften up a strong team, while the first player can use some of his scrubs to finish them off.
This IS a alliance war. not a war with a bunch of teams. Alliances which spend time coordinating deployment (and defenses) should not be forced into only getting ‘real’ points from their individual work.
I think the way the AW is setup is pretty well done. A LOT of people have complained about the revenge. As someone who has spent a lot of time in raiding, mostly for resources and NOT for cups, I can certainly see why the revenge was added. It forces your teams to actually fight, and simply not poke a hole in the enemy lines, then load up your mana firing non-attacks through the hole. ALSO, since the revenge is a straight percentage HP attack, it actually makes scrub’ish teams (which are the cleanup teams) workable, since the Rev causes same ‘percentage’ damage, vs causing a straight 250 HP hit or something like that.
Sorry for the slight OT of the past paragraph, but my point is PLEASE do not change things. The AW are different, and certainly take some pre-planning (if nothing less to get 30+ usable heros as quickly as possible), but also in strategy. It is certainly a good setup, and being in a good alliance DOES help. by good, I am not meaning ‘powerful’. The matching system puts teams together that are somewhat close. By good I mean an alliance that is willing to work together, to learn ‘how’ to better run in the wars, and coordinate attacks. The AW as setup is a much better alliance teamwork task than the titan battling ever could be. For titans, it is simply using the best raw power all on your own (each member doing such). The AW adds a lot where a team that wants to work as a REAL alliance can really grow and work together.
Instead of asking for major AW changes, instead work with your alliance. learn ‘how’ to win (it IS a different strategy than in other parts of the game). Work with your alliance to become a team. Alliances which do this can become very strong in the war. Our alliance lost the first 4 battles. But once we started to figure things out, we have only lost 1 of the last 10 or so, and we just barely lost, and it was against a team that was full 30 members almost 25% more cups than we have (and we just barely lost). The current AW system IS well done, BUT may take some learning on how best to play it to win. For sure.
I*** Learning how to play, and something different like this keeps the game from getting boring ***!
The players that can kill 6 teams from 100% to 0% health are doing just that even now. Those that can’t are going to work together both now, and with the suggestion (only those that want to work together, of course). Incidentally, with the suggestion getting the most points from an opponent team in multiple attacks is going to need better planning – therefore more cooperation. (Though I admit more cooperation wasn’t why I proposed this.)
They’re doing that because they’re bored and they like to wait for one another? The way you described it it would be simpler for each of them to soften their own target, then kill it in the second attack.
Not always. It allows 2 differently powered team mates (or even more like 1 top end, and 2 jr members), to better use their available heros.
The way the members of our alliance as working together, is we have some members that go strong on round 1, others play scrub teams. Then that is reversed on the 2nd 12 hour run. It has been working well for us, and was NOT how we started out. Now, yes, we are only a moderate alliance (21 active members, 26 total, 30k cups and 30k titan score). But since we have started to work as an alliance (under the existing rules of the AW), our AW percentage as gone from about 25% win, to about 90% win. But it does take more than just thinking about your own spoils.
@GloriousCodger okay, but if your request “PLEASE do not change things” was because your alliance is winning the majority of wars you might already be in for a bit of a disappointment: there are two changes in Beta with the purpose of killing the rather frequent habit of alliances in your range of putting 1* hero defenses. My suggestion from this thread I’m guessing would not affect your alliance’s chances of winning, might even increase them a tiny bit, but you don’t seem to believe me, so… whatever.
We do not run any 1* defenses. We do have 1 player who runs a single Melandor which does cause the other team members to be a couple points more valuable. Yes, changes which would cause teams running garbage defenses to have a penalty would be ok. The thing is, if there are teams running many 1 hero defenses or several running full 1* defenses, they already are really in a losing situation, giving away a LOT of points. We have only run into 1 or 2 alliances playing this way. Most at our level (~60k alliance power) seem to fill out thier best defenses for the alliances power range.
Now as for your original post, I can not speak for alliances with 100k power, or 150k power (not sure what cap power would be at), or for alliances with 20k power (true jr alliances). It may be that the current rules for AW does not work well for those alliances. I really can not say.
But whatever changes are made (if any), we are not really overly concerned. Yes, we may not win as high a percentage after a change, but by working as a team to try and ‘figure out’ best strategy with any changes, I am sure we will be right back up into the win ‘most’ AW levels. teams that talk things out, work to improve each others defenses and work on attacking protocols which work better overall will continue to flourish.
I will say, that the alliance matching algorithms seem to be working better lately also. The last AW we were in was very well matched (IMHO). Our opponents were 10% or so stronger overall than we were, but that is to be expected. Matching will never be 100% ‘fair’, but it should be close. We still ended up running them into the ground about 1950 to 1150. they simply wasted too many attacks against defense teams they should not have been attacking.
So any changes coming, our alliance will work through them to find better (or best) strategies and coordinate using them. Most other alliances will not take the time, and will be at a significant disadvantage which is enough to exploit and win most of the wars.
Kah, do not take me the wrong way. I do think this thread has lots of good ideas and information. For the level your alliance is at, it may well be that a change such as this would make the AW playing better for all. I personally do not see it as ‘broken’. It is the SAME for all teams (both sides). If things are hard for your side, then they are equally hard for both sides. If things are easy for your side, then they are equally easy for both sides. I actually enjoy that the AW is unique within the game. It is not simply a ‘set’ of raids. It is not simply an extension of the titan attacks. It is it’s own beast where different methods and techniques are required within the alliance to optimize the end result. But like I said on my original reply, the AW really IS the only place where there is game play, where working as a team vs working as a group of individuals is really a good way to go.
One thing that would also go to ‘better’ alliance ‘team play’, is to implement cost free / reward free attacking between alliance team members, to allow working on better defense teams and better offense strategies. Even if this intra team attacking was only done during the setup stage of the AW, this would really be good for adding another layer of alliance coordination. But that discussion is for a different thread.
I mentioned the 1* hero defenses not because I thought you’ve been using it, but because I thought your enemies did. It’s something that would’ve helped a lot more your alliance than theirs. It will be disallowed in the very near future.
We do see a fews ‘single’ player teams. But so far, no 1x 1*. It has been a single ascended Boldtusk/Delilah/Kiril/Rigard etc. Something that actually requires using stronger scrub teams, or they will simply heal themselves forever (or you will die out from revenge attacks). That is actually not that bad of a strategy. That team will net 18-25 points only (depends on total alliance strengths of course), and it inflates the other teams only a point or 2.
Our team has not really done that (we do have a new member who is just running a single Mel, but so far we have just ignored that). We will just wait and see exactly what changes to the format there are in the AW and if any changes to our fight/defense plan need to be made, we will simply figure things out.
I know there has been some grumbling about the AW, but for me, I find it pretty refreshing to have something different and unique in the game, and took time and trial/error to be able to improve. Changes will simply be more time/trial error if it changes things over the way we have been winning 
Its all good!
I don’t think this is a good idea. It forces the higher hitter to go one shot lower teams, because that will give more points than 2 shotting a stronger teams. And that leaves the stronger teams for the weaker players that can’t one shot any team. Not much fun for them right?
I think you didn’t think this through actually, or are you in an alliance with all same strength people, then it might make sense. Well, I am not and depending on the opponent ofcourse, I often go for the strongest teams (that I might one shot if I get lucky or get down far enough for someone else to finish). In your proposal, I should better go for the teams which are one shotted more easily and so should our other heavy hitters and the ones with slightly lesser teams should one shot the weaker teams. This gives most points, and leaves the strongest teams for the weakest members.
If I understand this correctly, your basically asking for bonus points to simply be combined with earnable points. Which then makes your last sentence make absolutely no sense…
If there is no bonus because it is all determined by how much is earned then the only factor is how well a single team can perform. This takes great less strategy than the current method.
And I’m agreeing with those that believe this will end teamwork within the alliances.