War..... Why revenge should be removed

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 :wink: 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! :grin:

1 Like

Oh well if they want to keep their little arrows then I refuse to give the other team any one to attack. As of now my alliance will not have any one on the battlefield. Let that sink in.

CppY7YDUIAQX2hm

5 Likes

Because they implement a feature that means you might have to think and do something different than you do when you raid… I don’t know why some people still amaze me after all this time.

1 Like

I enjoy the arrows… in all reality, once one or two heroes are gone on defense, I can build most if not all of my team’s specials to knock out the rest of their team. At least this makes it a little more difficult. I have a deep bench though, so I like the challenge.

1 Like

I enjoy the arrows, too. But I don’t like dying from them - the defending team should be the one knocking off the attacking heroes.

My suggestion is the revenge strike should be 25-33% of the heroes’ current health, not 25% of their starting health.

That way the attacking heroes have a chance to recover or take one last shot before they are killed by the defending heroes

1 Like

Thats the way buddy,.
If you sit crossing your arms and staring at them with a sulky face they sure change something.

I mean, all of us million people want you to fight.

2 Likes

The only way I can consider removing the revenge arrows is if mana generated from previous fights is kept just like damage…

But no one wants to start a fight against 3 to 5 heroes already at 40%+ mana bar. This is why the arrows are added in - to make up for the fact that defenders loose all mana between fights.

I much prefer the easier to deal with consequence.

Not following the logic.
I can think of a horrible alternative they could do instead of revenge arrows… and assume that is the only viabe alternative to revenge arrows, then I can be happy that they keep revenge arrows in its stead?

Nah. Not a good reason for revenge arrows to remain.

So far we have the reasons they should remain as:

  • “Balance different power teams”. Not necessary. It’s A way, but not the only way, and certainly not the most effective way (considering they DISADVANTAGE weaker teams on attack).
  • “Because Otherwise it would be just like raids.” No… the dynamic of having to pick multiple teams from a limited pool of them and team up to take down stronger opponents, etc is what makes AW different from raids. A repeating kick in the nads in the form of arrows is not the differentiator here.
  • “Because they could come up with something much worse.” Not an argument. Moving on.
  • “Because your defence has it and think of the pain it’s causing your attackers.” The fun in the game is your participation during attack… you don’t experience it in defence. So I’ll take more fun in attack over the rather academic interest that my (passive) defense is causing someone else frustration. So, nah. This point doesn’t fly.
  • “Because of the added challange in attack”. Pah. Unless you are heads and shoulders above any of the enemy (which is unlikely unless you’re one of the top players in the game) there is plenty of challenge to be had in just picking a worthy opponent for your awesome skills. You don’t need to be arbitrarily reduced on a periodic basis to find a challenge. All that does is lower the bar of where you are competitive - Whoopie ding. (Unless of course you’re just in to masochism… in which case that’s your bag baby, and I don’t share it).

The only argument I feel is vaguely worthwhile is that “it is something different”. Even so… something unpleasant that is different is not worth having just because it’s different.

I repeat my earlier statement from a post above: Keep these things for the right reasons… but I’ve not read many that count as such.

(Edit)
I buy the ‘something different’ reason a bit more because they preclude you being able to arbitrarily ghost until your mana is full. They force a certain pace to the attack, which is indeed a different dynamic.
But… I don’t like that they are so arbitrarily brutal. If they took % of remaining health (instead of % of full health) they will still be different, and still level the playing field, and still add a challenge, and still be better than worse alternatives and still be different from raids… but will be all these things without getting too much in the way of the enjoyment of the battle… because then it will at least be the enemy heroes that kill your guys rather than some silly deus ex machina construct.

1 Like