Revenge needs to be removed. WHY you ask. because in war if your dead you can’t take revenge. Besides it gives the other team an unfair advantage.
1 Like
There’s been a lot of talk regarding this… You’ll find plenty of other people agree with you if you read the 9 or so topics already discussing it.
1 Like
Guess i can occupy the Slovenia then.
If i can take one down, the others can’t shoot at me.
Call me king from now on 
3 Likes
Well I do see not the purpose to give the other team this advantage, it is what is making lot’s of time the difference, in favour off the defender, why should they have advantage?
In war, defender is usually granted a built-in advantage…
1 Like
Defenders get the advantage of revenge arrows so that weaker alliance members are not totally useless in war. Power distributions within alliances are wide enough that without the arrows, the weaker half (three quarters, perhaps) of many alliances would be one-shotted three times in each war (more, if extra respawns could be triggered).
Revenge arrows are totally fair, matching the strength of the attacker, compensating for the weakness of the defender, and applying to all battles. Complaints about their unfairness are ill considered. They are a vital and fascinating aspect to the war mechanic.
They are also fun. You may disagree with this. De gustibus non est disputandum.
8 Likes
Revenge is in your raid like in your opponents’ raids…
I totally agree, arrows should be removed.
Defenders should revenge with cats instead
9 Likes
I don’t think the arrows should be removed. Just tweaked a little. Maybe damage amount should be determined by current health and not max health. Might ease some of the complaints
1 Like
They’re needed to balance out the lower power teams. Both sides have to deal with them. It’s a good dynamic. There’s multiple times in a war where we only have 4 or 5 teams left to attack. We could kill all of them, force respawn, and maybe kill them all again if we didn’t have revenge arrows. I think they’re genius how they work. I like them.
1 Like
I hate them because they’re brutal, but I don’t think they should be removed. In war, the defender should have the advantage.
True.
I like the arrows. When I lose, I wish they were weaker, but I appreciate that they level the playing field for ALL participants. Thanks for the reminder.
2 Likes
My latin is rusty to nonexistent, please enlighten me with english translation…and,
Blockquote[quote=“Elpis, post:8, topic:22291”]
Defenders should revenge with cats instead
[/quote]
perhaps they could go with a Monty python motif, and use farm animals launched from catapults…
1 Like
‘Matters of taste are not in need of disputation’, or more colloquially, ‘There’s no accounting for taste’. Juvenal? I think it was Juvenal.
Bring the cowapult! moarchars!
You do realize that when an opponent attacks -you-, they face exactly the same barrages of arrows, right?
1 Like
Thx Brobb 
more characters…
Not convinced. You can protect the weaker members by emphasising the difference in points which will create a natural disincentive to ‘pick on them’ as low hanging fruit.
If this were the primary motivation for arrows, the points differential would be more effective… with the arrows the weaker teams have even LESS chance attacking strong opponents. Without the arrows the weaker would be more effective on attack… and with points differential would be less attractive targets on defence.
So what if the attackers against me are also facing arrows? I gain no succour from the fact that some poor sod is feeling the same misery I do when attacking… that’s just schadenfreude. My active part of the game is when I’m attacking… I want this to be more fun.
All that being said, I buy more the argument that arrows does introduce a different dynamic that differentiates AW from raids (although the whole assemble 6 different teams thing is in itself a sufficient differentiator), so can tolerate the concept. I don’t like that they kill my heroes though - a percentage of remaining health rather than absolute percentage of health would be far more preferable, and they would still achieve all of the benefits already stated for them (as masochistic as many of those stated benefits are…)
So… not passionately arguing to abolish arrows, but really not accepting weak arguments as to why they should remain.
(Notice how I cunningly responded to @Rook instead of @Brobb to avoid it all kicking off? Oh… did I say ‘@Brobb’? I meant to say ‘Brobb’. Oh dear… tactical error)
4 Likes
Foiled again, blast it!
2 Likes
Gosh you’re cunning! I never noticed! 
1 Like