Two Tier Win System for WAR

[Necksahn]

Instead of just winning by most stars, why not also enable a secondary goal where the person with more glory also has to limit the number of stars the opponent gets. The primary goal will impact your glory and leaderboard rank. The secondary goal impacts the resources you win.

This way even though you know you will get your butt kicked you will still attempt to get as much stars as possible for resource/ruby reward.

 

[MSS-Gaming]

This is a brilliant idea. I would love to see this implemented in the game.

 

[yemen]

Doing anything based on glory right now would be insane. Glory is always a little unpredictable, as stronger teams can easily have less glory than weaker ones depending on their war weight and the vagaries of the matchmaking algorithm. But at the moment, with KA and other high glory alliances starting new alliances, climbing the leaderboard, and then abandoning and doing it again, it would just add insult to injury.

 

[Necksahn]

Every battle model has downsides. This is why I’m proposing multiple goals in a battle and you can use the goals as levers where you can increase/decrease reward to get the outcome you want.

As it stands now, if quickly see you will be crushed you give up. This could provide an additional incentive and morale boost.

I think matching purely by Glory would be a mistake. It would force people to jump alliances so that you ha e teams of only CWA and then only Atomic and so on. A lower level base is useless in Glory only matching.

 

[IShrugged]

We just don't bother trying to win badly matched wars anymore, eats up resources for no reason. We can win wars mismatched in our favor without using more then the basic troops that cost time and food and some oil. We seldom get an evenly matched war, maybe 1 in 20-30 matching. They are however fun and get resources galore because everyone is so pleased to finally get a war worth fighting. I like the idea of trying to balance the matching system somehow, but seems no one has found a way to do that yet.

My proposal is to only score one battle per player, but I have suggested that a few times and no one even comments on how it would effect the outcome, I think it would change things in a useful and balanced way, but hey, that's just my thinking. I would like to see others think about it and offer some pro and con suggestions.

Why hey I don't really care anymore: I am on the lower tiers or our alliance and have found that I can be happy down here collecting some rubies etc... without expending resources to do it. I now save those resources and go on power raids in multi-player where I look for the most gold/food available with no worries of their defense or level. I use resources yes, but can collect a vast amount of resources in an evening of battles and keep my upgrades going full steam.

So like many other players I stopped fighting the system looking to make it "fair" or "better" and just accept it for what it is and battle on. And I do believe the developers are trying and slowly progress is being made in many areas.

Why, cause I like the game and it's slow, steady pace of progress. And after all, eventually, even I can adapt to reality.

 

[Necksahn]

I’ll keep suggesting and I believe they do appreciate it when it is constructive and not just a whine

 

[Pepyto]

I would like to see glory limitation in wars - to limit minimum and maximum glory points per war!
minimum could be 50 and max 500 or something like that. It's insane that 1 defeat could cost you 900-1000 glory points.

 

[yemen]

One attack per player would COMPLETELY change war strategy. Taking untested players to war would be much much riskier, and communication would have to be so much better. It would obviously deal with sandbagging, but the matchmaking would have to be perfect to make it work; having 10 even players at the top and then 3-4 mismatches in the middle is no big deal and would be considered a fair match now, but would result in an unwinnable war with one attack each.

Lots of room for discussion there, but I think 2 attacks acts as a bit of a buffer for imperfect matchups, game crashes, teaching newer players, imperfect communication, etc. And that we need it because all of those things won't be fixed. Sadly, it also allows sandbagging. I think we need a different fix for that.

 

[Necksahn]

I also agree with having a max glory threshold. Maybe max 600 gain. If they are 1000 glory higher, most often you get crushed and they gain no glory. Lose for everyone.

still prefer my idea of multiple objectives though. Gives developers greater flexibility while keeping players fighting for something