We need 13* and 14* titans--unfair advantage for top alliances

What I’m reading is that:

  • there isn’t a resource management issue. Top alliances would simply let 14* go, as they’re impractical to fight currently. Maybe they’d just let 13* go, too. Either way they’d find their comfort zone, same as the rest of us, and stay there.

  • as a result, this isn’t ACTUALLY about creating a resource management minigame, this is about loot equality.

  • in my mind, and I think in any reasonable person’s Mind, the loot equality between an alliance hitting 10-11* titans and an alliance striking 12* endlessly is NOTHING compared to the loot discrepancy between that 10* alliance and a very weak alliance. (4* Titan for example.)

  • meanwhile, the mechanisms to achieve higher loot for both the 3* and 10* are exactly the same. Get better members. Level your heroes. Learn the game.

There’s a lot of finger pointing at 7DD here like they’re cheating the system and pulling one over on everyone. And I think that’s bologna. We are all pulling one over on someone a few rungs down the ladder. So using that as THE REASON to bring 13-14* back, to just screw over the top guys, to me is really poor form.

I do think there are legit reasons to bring them back now - S2 heroes, more HOTM, now talents. That all makes sense. If THAT were the reason I would not have ever responded to this thread.

But the way that people are blaming 7DD and accusing them of getting something they don’t have, saying it isn’t fair when it’s perfectly attainable. THAT really really frustrates me. Especially because we all know that weaker alliances and players get less stuff. That’s just how it is.


Low level alliances are part of the game. The formula for them to get better loot is the same as everyone else. A ceiling is inevitable and I would argue necessary. People raging against the ceiling with the same argument that should be used to bolster loot for the little guys, yeah, ticks me off.

I see that this is the weakest part of my statement here and possibly creates some sort of fallacy or logic gap:

  • there isn’t a resource management issue. Top alliances would simply let 14* go, as they’re impractical to fight currently. Maybe they’d just let 13* go, too. Either way they’d find their comfort zone, same as the rest of us, and stay there.
  • as a result, this isn’t ACTUALLY about creating a resource management minigame, this is about loot equality.

The reason I stated this I want to put here. When 13-14* went away, the top teams didn’t have any room for additional growth. Like they wouldn’t need to keep testing the water on the next star up because their team output is consistent, their rosters already maximized, as well as their game knowledge. As such it wouldn’t be a resource management issue, it would be a leadership and group decision based upon some quickly gained knowledge to say “This is our comfort zone.”

And until probably the coming months when they make some progress up the talent trees, that still might not have changed.

So that’s where those bullet points come from, that it isn’t resource management and it is about loot equality. Well. That and that’s the drum being beat on in this thread.


I will be happy to show you my supply of battle items fighting 12* titans daily for more than 6 months:
(Edit not competing for more than top 1500 in events)


True, and my calculations were made on that basis, I just made a typo by writing the number 360 instead of 380!
Thank you for noticing :slight_smile:

For the rest, I’m not trying to get something out of 7DD or anyone else, I just made a fact finding. It can not be denied that the alliances that have been capping for several months on 12 * titans are gaining an advantage, whatever the reasons. And you can not make me believe that SG is unable to get out of the 14 * level titans in such a way that these alliances have to make real efforts to kill them, playing like 95% of other alliances do (on the Titans which constitute their limits). And as I say, if on this point SG implements a “titan level limiter”, that will solve a lot of problems and feelings of unfairness raised in this topic.


… I’m not in ANY WAY affiliated with 7D … I am in an alliance fighting 8-9* titans. We are called Nocturnal Winds. It’s a family and I wouldn’t trade that alliance for the world.

That was some kinda rant you had there. I don’t think any of it made sense. But it did give me a good chuckle.


It also can not be denied that alliances hitting 10* titans gain better loot than alliances hitting 4* titans.

Why is one okay and not the other?

FYI, there are, in fact, already at least a few posts in #ideas-feature-requests for this, but none particularly gained traction — you may want to resurrect one of these in support of this idea:

(@Kerridoc @Rook @Coppersky FYI, in case you want to merge those first two posts I linked. The last one from Mai is in a “here are a bunch of ideas” post, so it’s not suitable for merging.)


All this discussion fail when top alliances starting chain 12* after 2 weeks of release. 2 weeks. Not 2 months. Weeks.
But 13 and 14* were too much.

Now it is useless to recall it? Probably, but reading that they are still convinced of it and people support this idea really makes me mad.

In which game you reach higher levels and get easier rewards? Which game? Because that’s what we talking about.
Stronger alliances, that suppose to have more difficulty of lowers, had easier fights and better rewards.
And thats ok, because developers ask their opinion.

Honestly, i just needed an “i’m sorry, we were selfish that time” and i would forget all of that.
Now on the opposite i’m quite disgusted.

I stop here, thank you for open my eyes.

Uhhhhhh this game, for one.

Ask someone with a max 2000 power team how they’re doing in Trials. Or how they fare in the monthly AM quests. Or if they’ve ever finished an event of any tier.

As you progress, not only do new rewards become possible, at some point they become EASIER

Duaneski hits fast forward on Stage 5 of Shrikewood

Welcome to E&P.

Thank you for being willing to share this. It’s always good to get data points in a discussion like this. It helps to remove mistrust and false impressions.

What I’ll say is that it looks fairly similar to mine except in Dragon Attacks and Bombs. This is even though my alliance skips titans periodically (well, not in the last couple of weeks; my alliance split recently, so I’m currently “enjoying” 4*/5* titans; those we don’t skip).

That’s not too surprising, though, since we each get the same amount of WE every day, and I have a strong enough roster to farm every place that you can. The real difference here is that I have to skip titans periodically to maintain the same kind of stocks that you have, and so I sacrifice shots at AM in the process.

I’m certainly not threatening to quit the game, or withhold cash over the issue, or any such thing. I enjoythe game, warts and all. Also, life isn’t fair, and I’m a big boy, so I’ve learned to accept that and get on with the things I enjoy doing. But it also wouldn’t break my heart if SG decided to introduce a bit more uniformity on this issue.

1 Like

@Uclapack I think you nail one of the important issues here.
Maybe 10-15 alliances are ready to move on for 13* titans to have a challenge compared to other alliances in top 100.
A few maybe 3-5 alliances will now be able to take the step further for 14* without being totally exhausted on items and flasks.
But as you say it seperated veteran alliances facing them back then, I am afraid it will do the same to us newcomers getting to the top since then.
I know that it is first of all an individual choice for every alliance about how hard to push to stay at the top, but still a concern to me.


I hear what you’re saying (and thanks for the edit to clarify!). I guess I disagree that it’s simply about loot equality. It’s about opportunity equality, and my need to engage in resource management reduces my opportunities.

My odds at loot are worse on the titans I can hit than the odds top alliances get. I’m at peace with that. What I would like is the same number of opportunities to draw against the loot tables at my current tier (opportunities is not meant to be AM slots in a titan roll in my usage here).

I would prefer that titans work more like heroes wanted chests. Everyone can fill them at roughly the same rate, top-to-bottom but the stronger you are, the better the odds are that completion will produce something nice.

I’m happy to also talk about loot equality across the level span. But like I said, I see that as a very complex issue.

Because these alliances that kill 4* or 10*, both of them, necessarily have “holes” in their titan cycles.
The advantage that I quote on the alliances that tap the 12 * continuously is that of the boot loots “titan” that they can open every 115h, unlike all the other alliances that jump titans. If we give other alliances, whatever their level, the possibility to do the same, no problem for me.

1 Like

I imagine it is a very complex issue :stuck_out_tongue: and for what it’s worth, I have no problem with it.

That’s a REALLY specific want, that totally ignores what lower level players would similarly want.

Everyone wants better loot. I mean the top guys would no doubt love to see 14* back in the game if their chance for non farmable items was “worth it.” But they don’t get to choose that. Just like low level players don’t get to choose to complete Shrikewood, and level 29 players can’t even try the last level of trials.

And we are all getting shafted on titans compared to the top dogs.

So I don’t get how everyone seems to rationalize out that one thing and say

THIS. THIS one particular thing where the top guys get the bonus. THAT is the unfair thing.

(Edit: me not getting how other people rationalize things is nothing new. I think I’m extra “engaged” by how this particular rationalization has resulted in the group flogging of 7DD)


Allowing all alliances to limit their titan size would change the game significantly, and probably shouldn’t be done lightly.

It opens up some interesting titan management options, not sure they are good ones, like lowering or raising your limit when you expect a rare titan to show up, depending upon which you think would be better for you … or when you just barely kill a titan and need to recover flags, dropping 2-3 star levels to make sure you can kill the next instead of doing a pass.

And if it is done, it would turn a ceiling from a mixed advantage for top alliances (being out of the titan pass cycle like it or not) into a disadvantage. (Being forced to chain titans when killing stronger ones is possible but the choice isn’t given to them)

NOTE: I’d ONLY support allowing alliances to limit titan size if at least 13* and 14* were restored, and probably 15* just in case; I really don’t want to see top alliances punished for their success!

This discussion have gone far, but do I understand it right that what we are still discussing here is the unfair advantage of top alliances having in average 16% more rolls for 2*-4* items,
(4* items being maybe 1-2 %) when not passing on a titan once or twice a week?


I agree, and you raise good points that I hope you’ll share if a thread with that idea becomes active. :slight_smile:

I think this is correct on average. Please correct any mistaken assumptions or calc errors:

3 AM slots per titan average, 292, 300, or 360 titain kills per year.

The 4* drop rate then gives:
292x3 = 876 * .02 = 17.5
300x3 = 900 * .02 = 18
360x3 =1080 * .02 = 21.6

The gain, based on required skip rate of others, is:
4.1/17.5 = 23.4%
3.6/18 = 20%

So it’s somewhere around an expected 20%-23% gain in 4* AM. Or 3.5 to 4 if that’s more informative.

Like many things, I suspect the importance of that gap will be viewed differently by those on the up-side and those on the down-side.

Your calculations looks right if the drop rate of 4* items is 2%, in my experience it is less. I have been tracking 4* items for some months, and it is on a good month I am getting two 4* items from 12* titans. Some months none.
Besides from rare quests, I am getting the most free 4* mats from daily chests, elemental chests and mystic vision.


Good to know! So 1.5% when chaining 12* titans is 16.2 4* AM per year. That’s 1.35/month, which sounds more in line with your numbers.

At 1.5%, it would be 13.4/13.5/16.2. This gives gains of:

2.8/13.4 = 20.8%
2.7/13.5 = 20%

So that will hopefully frame the full value perspective of the issue going forward (in terms of tangible rewards). It’s not nothing, but I also wouldn’t recommend getting too bent out of shape over it one way or the other. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Well on a normal 12* titan we usually get 95 ascension rolls for the entire alliance and we probably average 4 or 5 4* mats per titan…


Cookie Settings