War Tier Options

I truly hope this isn’t a repeated idea.

I wonder how it could be implemented that an alliance could “filter” their heroes for matchmaking wars with 3* heroes and lower, or 4* heroes and lower. Heh – I’d enjoy a 2* war, for that matter!!

That would certainly shake up some alliance structures . . . .

But it could be a fun way to play . . . .

Maybe even turn it into an “event war” . . . .

EDIT: to be clear –

I’m proposing that the alliance as a whole would war in the tier they have selected. I have heard of “gentlemens’ agreement” wars between alliances where such things are done, but having it automatically set would be an easier, more secure method.

Great idea. It would mix things up nicely just like the raid tournament.

Much better than the current war set up.

1 Like

The Raid Tournaments are not generally beloved. I wouldn’t like something like that messing with our wars

Tournament-like rules for wars would be very interesting.

Maybe paired with my suggestion to force a certain element or class as war tank aka
Field Diversity.

Voted here and there.

Hmmmm . . . . Forcing a class or color as tank is a unique idea. I’m not sure I’d like it, but it would definitely add a new wrinkle to gameplay . . . .

3 Likes

I love the raid tournaments so far, and they can only get better as the wrinkles get ironed out.
I have noticed a little bit of whining but that’s pretty typical for this forum.

Well, in our alliance they’re pretty much disliked, at least for now. And I’m not a fan yet. The thing is that the tournaments force you to use heroes you stopped developing. Which is ok for tournaments. However, in wars you want to used the best you can and not allowing 5* heroes just doesn’t make sense.

I have once suggested that there could be some field effects instead, which force you to think about your heroes instead of just using what you use all the time - for example battle on an Unholy ground would give advantage to purple heroes and disadvantage to yellow ones.

3 Likes

The raid tournament forced everyone to develop heroes they had ignored
The trials forced development of heroes that had been ignored

Now some people had theses heroes already, typically f2p who develop whomever they get.

Why not have wars that force development of heroes that have been ignored.
Of course by this time most people except the most stubborn whale would have a decent bench.

Ps sorry you are not enjoying the raid tournament, creating a 3* defence team was a blast.

150 Aife vs 150 Aife - yeah :rofl:

1 Like

I like the idea. Perhaps not on a regular basis since it involves the whole alliance (unlike the raid tourneys), but maybe on a seasonal/rare schedule, just for fun, for rewards the whole alliance can use such as titan flasks.

2 Likes

Fun stuff first:

  1. Yes, much as the underwater levels in Season 2 absolutely hosed my red-heavy RNGenerated roster, terrain options as a war feature could be a great deal of awesomeness!!! By color or class, features beyond the three war boosts would be nice to see.

The other part:

  1. I do understand that the proposed “filtered war” option is one that would be used only by alliances that have well-developed rosters. Part of the reason this idea came to mind is because I am co-leader in an alliance that has a broader spread of player levels than others. The pressure to rush things for those “weaker” members is real, if unspoken, generally. And, after all – I’m only suggesting an option, and not a be-all, end-all feature.
2 Likes

Loved the 3* Buff Boost war, BTW. Actually scored in the top 1% with zero emblems invested!! :smiley:

1 Like

Because it’s a war. Special rules like this make sense for tournaments and trials. They’re about proving yourself. But war is about winning at all costs. You don’t bench your best heroes for war unless you have a pretty good reason for it. For me it would make sense to add rules which discriminate some heroes but don’t force not using or using them.

Well, I didn’t care much until they killed a war we would win :smiley: (I’ve been organising that initial attack and it went even better than planned). And I kind of got annoyed with them because they were deployed before they were finished.

Other players in our alliance dislike them, though, and if these same effects would be applied to wars, I would dislike it too. Most of our players don’t have any 3* and I don’t want to lose a war, just because the macthmaking was terribly done and we got enemies with talented 3*.

That could be done by a few war options to choose from. The leader would opt in or out those options, the ally won’t fit for or dislike. Options opted in would come randomly. Matchmaking has to take care of the active option.

That is true, but the way this game is developed, you would break the game :smiley: This small addition would break a lot. It involves elaborate matchmaking. Which would most likely end up with unbalanced battles and cancelled wars.

But I mostly have problem with the storytelling. How do you explain that you can’t use 5* heroes in war?

Also, this would force players to have 30x 3* heroes in the roster and there’s not enough space if you also want to keep 4* and 5*

(I’m sorry, I’m not trying to put your idea down, I just see too many issues)

2 Likes

I fail to see how this would break the game. The series of conditions which would have to be met are several, but are in no way a set which would derail the game. Here’s my “walkthrough”:

  1. The alliance leader toggles one of the options now added to the war tab – say, 4*s and down (this, of course says nothing about the political aspect of alliance membership enjoying the idea)
  2. When matchmaking commences, the algorithm pairs alliances which have selected the same war option against one another
  3. Should no opposing alliance be available, the algorithm could default to “full combat” mode, and the preparation phase continues as normal

And it seems to me that this expansion of wartime features would boost sales, especially of gems, for the sake of extra roster capacity and additional summons.

Maybe I’m just waxing nostalgic over my pack of 3* heroes that were painstakingly leveled and maximized (ESPECIALLY before the quintuple skillup chance was introduced). The raid tournaments that showcase the 3*s are fun, but enabling that to include the entirety of your alliance seems a strictly improved option.

Again, this wouldn’t be for every player, nor every alliance – but isn’t the thought exercise at least a bit interesting? There is far more design space available to explore here than just MAKEMOAROFTHEMAXEDTHINGS.

1 Like

I have a very strong belief that the game is poorly designed and that individual parts are not well separated (as showed by the tournament causing problems with war, when they shouldn’t influence one another at all).

I don’t know how the game is designed, but I’m pretty sure it’s not as simple as we would expect.

This would reduce the pool of possible matches. Depending on number of options, there would be several pools.

If one weak alliance falls into the pool where a lot of strong alliances are, how would you deal with it? Would you assign them a strong alliance or kick them out of the pool? How would you decide if you should kick them out of the pool? If you kick them out, do you remove all of their selections or place them into a less strict pool? How do you chose which selection to ignore?

Let’s say you have only the option of limiting stars (as oposed to limiting hero classes as well, for example). When one team has selected max 3* and another selected max 4*, would you match them together and make it max 3*? They could be ok with it. Let’s say you have an option of selecting max 4* and if no match max 3* else no restrictions. When do you say that you haven’t found a max 4** match and move to max 3* pool?

We don’t know how the matchmaking works, but I think we can be sure that it’s not simple. State-space search for the best or at least an adequate match is no easy task

This is a great idea just like the raid tournament and gives people a fair chance too while having fun

1 Like

@InnkeRaubenstern

Did you read the third point in my walkthrough??

I did, I admit some of my questions were void because of it, but it still makes sense to think about them. (also, it was 2am, so it was more like a brainstorming) The still relevant questions are the first paragraph of questions without the last two. And the second is just something to consider. It could make sense to adjust restrictions, if no match was found, before removing all restrictions.

Either way you now have to match both by restrictions and alliance strength. If there would be more than one restriction to tick, you would also have to think about the relationships between these restrictions or it might happen that there would be too many categories in which you look for matches.

It took them some time to make the alliance war matching work well. Many things they do in the game affect parts of the game that shouldn’t be affected, which indicates that the game is not well designed for integrating new stuff.

Basically my biggest problem with this is that I don’t trust SGG to make it work well enough at deployment, which would destroy the last good thing about the game

Cookie Settings