Folks, I think Wars are steadily improving and I’m a fan of the war chest addition (although that might change when I see what’s inside), but I don’t think 1 point when losing is enough. The effort that goes into just losing a close battle, for instance, is just as high as it would be to win.
So I’d like to see an increase at least to 2, maybe even 3 points for a loss. Let’s assume people want to battle - they’re serious about it, try their hardest and still lose. Why condemn them to a gruelling 25 wars before they open a chest (esp. when matching is still problematic)?
Always accepting 1 point is better than 0 (that really was harsh).
I also think that 1 is very little but 3 is too much, 2 or 2.5 would be the fairest I suppose. By the way, what happens when you exceed 25 points? Suppose you are 24 and win a war, would you start the next with 4?
It should be 3 for win, 1 for loss, 15 to open chest. 2/1/10 would be nice, but probably expecting too much.
The current 5/1/25 makes losses almost negligible. You can have the following records to open your chest:
5 wins and 0 to 4 losses
4 wins and 5 to 9 losses
3 wins and 10 to 14 losses
If you average a winning record, the losses won’t matter(unless excess points carry over). If you average a losing record, it won’t matter if you go 4-5 or 4-9, it’s the same for points(unless they carry over).
@Petri Do excess points carry over? If you have 24 points and you win a war, you fill your chest, but do the extra 4 points carry over?? (existing 24 + 5 for the win - 25 used for chest = 4 left over)
Hmm. I understand what you’re saying. My point though was that 1 point doesn’t reward the losing team enough for the effort, coordination, planning etc which goes into a battle - which is just as great as the winning team’s.
In the past, there were many complaints about matching. If teams find themselves losing most of the time, and it turns out chest rewards aren’t that great, I can see alliances switching off again. I hope I’m wrong.
I consider the 1 point a participation trophy. Not my style, but it’s just a game. Yes - we all put a lot into it, but if we don’t win I don’t expect anything.
I know that’s probably not a popular opinion, but I’ve never been one that expects something when I don’t accomplish my goal. Knowing that this is a game, I understand the devs giving us something for the loss and it is appreciated. I’m just not in the ‘raise the amount’ group since I like to earn the rewards.
I’m sure this will cross the minds if anyone reading this…yes I use all my flags in wars. I work hard to level my 6 teams. I’m also the war cheerleader/info provider/organizer for our alliance. I spend a lot of time on Wars and am unhappy when we lose (about 50% win/loss). At this rate, we won’t open a chest for about 2 months. It’s a frustratingly long time, but I want to earn it
the points should depend on the points your alliance get in the wars. 5 points for the winner? than 4 points for the other alliance if the difference is “1” e.g. point in total between the two alliances.
I don’t buy this. In raids, you get points for each hero you kill. If you want to donate those on the basis that you didn’t win and you don’t deserve them, fair enough - I’ll gladly take them.
I was thinkin 30 points for completion. 6 points per win, 3 points per loss. Just seems like it would be a little more rewarding for those participating but losing. Then again current system should encourage those in losing alliances to do better
… but that’s an achievement, not effort/planning/etc. Even in raids, you don’t get points for planning and making an effort, if in the end you don’t actually make the kill.
You earn points through kills (raid) and victory (war). And a consolation prize for losing (war).
Now, you could suggest other achievements for war, and I’d listen. More points just for showing up though? Nah.
(I’m not sure what other achievements that would be. The war chest, like the war, is supposedly a collective thing, so it ought to be some collective partial achievement? I dunno what might be, but I’ll listen …)
Hmm. Whatever your philosophy re winner takes all and if you lose you’re just a loser is not the issue here.
I guess this comes down to what’s in the chest. If it’s a bunch of 3 & 4* ascension items, I’ll take my alliance through 25 wars if needed. If it’s just rugged clothes and oil again I’m taking my alliance straight back out of wars. And I won’t be alone. In other words, the reward has to be worth the effort. I guess we’ll see in time.
I have another idea. Why not reward individual efforts in AW? So, ok, 5 points for everybody on the winning side, 1 point for those on the loosing team. So far so good. But afterwards, why not do something like this? 1 point for 3 flags spent for every player (that is 2 points for using all 6 flags), three points for the top war attacker, two points for #2, 1 point for #3, regardless which side they are on. This kind of reward system would stimulate war efforts of individuals. In my alliance out of 25 members only a handful fight in AW. And from those who fight, only a few spend all 6 flags, and this often leads to defeat… You’re going to say “kick out those who don’t participate”, but that is not the idea. The idea is to get them to join the war effort, so I really think that rewarding the individual degree of participation would improve the quality of AW.
Take your point @Ian487, but I think that might be a step too far for the devs. But incentives are what’s needed - hence the chests, but only if they’ve got useful stuff in. So we wait - some much longer than others it seems.
Just for ref, my alliance won it’s first 2 wars under this scheme.
Always accepting 1 point is better than 0 (that really was harsh).