• Announcements

    • Alysea

      Discord Server   09/28/2016

      Hello everyone, We now have a Discord Server for Royal Revolt 2! You can head out here to join us! Please note that this is not a support channel and it is not an official channel. If you need to contact the support, please go here: http://support.flaregames.com
KKStar

Shortcomings in the War System

Alliance Wars  

197 members have voted

  1. 1. What according to you is making Alliance Wars Unsatisfactory?

    • Same boosts as rewards over & over again
      103
    • Unfair Match-up
      104
    • Too less an Incentive to Participate for the whole alliance
      71
    • Structural Problems like Placements in War Map, thus a new system needed
      71
    • Low Loot & Low Individual Rewards
      93
    • Easy abuse of the system - Fiefdom Dropping, Switching Alliances, etc.
      111
    • The overall concept is not good
      35
    • Only few minor annoying things
      9
    • It sucks a lot of gems and time
      45
    • Other, Kindly specify
      9
  2. 2. What could be a Possible Solution?

    • A Complete Rework
      69
    • Implementation of Minimum Fiefdoms
      15
    • Implementation of a Ban on Switching Alliances Mid-War
      83
    • New Matchmaking Criteria
      91
    • Same system with a Shorter Format
      23
    • New War Boosts
      96
    • Provision for Better Individual Rewards
      99
    • Rewards for an Alliance for Participation (eg. Gold Reward)
      108
    • Removal of LB/Change to LB/Addition of a system like LB
      40
    • Other, Kindly Specify
      21


Recommended Posts

Don't forget the CoF. Most don't like it cause it's random and pay to win, but it does a bit address the base difficulty.

The skull bonus from CoF is set by you postion on the list which is set by trophies and harder bases will usually have higher rating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know someone who has hero level above 100 but have very weak defense like level 50 hero has. What do you think about him? What will happen to him if there's no cap hero level that determine his base skull? Will he only be a burden to his alliance?

I think flaregames did that to balance war alliance as we have SP to boost those skulls. Perhaps they choose to capped at level 95 because they have thought at that level the player have decent defense (most/all of them are maxed but not forged and will begin forging their tower after that level).

What's your reason to give those option to flaregames? There's 4 option, but I saw point 1 and 3 have same meaning; point 2 and 4 have same meaning but with different amount.

I found it for you:

z4.JPG.3ad12c31757c4ce7b60ec96b80ece92c.JPGz3.JPG.56c662cff93debd30d054bb663e3f421.JPG

Few players decide to open or not to improve their defenses. The two players with level 99 that you chose have 3987 trophies which are smaller than 4000. What did the original RoyaleDing end up doing?

Edited by REVOLTROYAL
I forgot to quote another post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, REVOLTROYAL said:

Few players decide to open or not to improve their defenses. The two players with level 99 that you chose have 3987 trophies which are smaller than 4000. What did the original RoyaleDing end up doing?

It's not that much. You need 13 more trophies to get 4000 and only need 1-2 battle to reaching that. It's easy. I think originally he has more than 4000 trophy but got attacked while he is offline and his trophy decreased. I'm sure right now he/she already have 4000+ thropy. 😊

What do you mean by original RoyaleDing? and doing what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RoyaleDing2 said:

It's not that much. You need 13 more trophies to get 4000 and only need 1-2 battle to reaching that. It's easy. I think originally he has more than 4000 trophy but got attacked while he is offline and his trophy decreased. I'm sure right now he/she already have 4000+ thropy. 😊

What do you mean by original RoyaleDing? and doing what?

There are RoyaleDing and RoyaleDing2 profiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, REVOLTROYAL said:

There are RoyaleDing and RoyaleDing2 profiles.

Oh yeah, that's me, but I forgot my password and email that I use to register in this forum ➡ try to contact flare but got ignored ➡ make a new account. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After having more thought on the topic, and reading suggestions from this thread, and here and here, I have clearer idea on what I would like see change in the war system. For brevity I will list the ideas first, then discuss them,

1) Fixed number war seasons.

2) Use current maps, add terrain bonuses.

3) Remove CoF and replace with Spoils of War.

4) Better incentives for participating in war.

4a) War badges.


1) Fixed number war seasons.

You choose to play in 10-player per side, 20-player, 30-player, etc war seasons choosing a higher number of players gives a better rewards. No more fighting alliances with more players than you!

Once the war season commences, the players in the war season cannot be replaced. They can leave the alliance / be booted and thus lose the ability to attack in the war season: BUT they can ALWAYS be attacked during the war season. This fixes certain forms of gaming the war system (see here), and in theory should allow the CURRENT matchmaking system to give better matches: the matchmaking system use the trophies of the SELECTED PLAYERS ONLY, and the number of fiefdoms of the alliance.

Default setting is for system to select the largest size war season with the highest trophy players in an alliance.

Leader CAN select which players should participate, and even select less players than their maximum: eg a 55/60 alliance might choose only 30 players. Remember: the incentive against this is more players gives better rewards. BUT some alliances might choose a smaller number of players for several reason: players on holiday (unable to participate), alliance is supporting low level players (not a good idea to bring them into war), new players (not vetted for war yet). There is some potential for abuse here: mostly relating to large alliances ALWAYS choosing a smaller war season: this is where the better rewards are key: one possibility is more players should change the war chests available (which ones, and at what skull level they can be collected). Others include better skull bonus, or a better gold bonus (another new idea: gold bonus for war!)

To further limit abuse: ideally war boosts WON during war only apply to the participants. This may upset high level players: but you all play in war, don't you?!? Also players left out of war might get upset: so earn more trophies so you're not left out of war! (Because the expectation is, when everyone wants to be in war, the lowest trophies members will get left out).

Finally, ideally players should have an "Available for war" flag that they can set. The system (when it does the selection) ignores the flag. The leader (when they select the players) can CHOOSE to ignore the flag... so really the flag is there to tell the leader: "if I am included in war, I can't participate". Goods leader will honour the flag (unless they are going for a higher number of players for better rewards), bad leaders will just let the system do its thing.

2) Use current maps, add terrain bonuses.

The current map has many issues: but rather than change many things, a single change would be to give tiles terrain bonuses. I acknowledge this is not a simple change.

Terrain bonuses affect either towers/obstacles of the defending alliance, OR defending troops & attacking troops of the alliance ON THAT TILE when attacking from or defending that tile. Since each alliance starts with 3 fiefdoms, then for each alliance, one tile has a tower/obstacle buff, one tile has a tower obstacle debuff, and one tile has a troop buff. This introduces map design into the equation: the placement of each terrain bonus is important, and what each terrain bonus is becomes important (the maps should be interesting: not the same 3 terrain types repeated for each alliance, but something that makes simply fighting from one side of the map to the other not always the best option). This SHOULD make wars interesting, as holding the debuff tiles (or holding access to them) can make war results more a result of tactics, than one alliance strong arming the rest (which I am sure will still occur: at least the buff tiles should give you a chance to hold a fiefdom or two??).

I note that many have suggested to change the map layout: IMO this is so the alliances in the middle don't feel like they are playing "piggy-in-the-middle" (I hate those war seasons). But fundamentally, a lot of the problems of the current layout relate to fighting in war seasons where there are alliances with more players than you.  Changing the map layout might remove the "piggy-in-the-middle" feeling: but when the other alliances decided to gang up you, I don't think ANY map will fix that. Additionally, I don't think ANY change to the MAP LAYOUT ALONE will make war seasons a richer experience: thus I think a new element in the maps is required.

3) Remove CoF and replace with Spoils of War.

The CoF is a bone of contention for many players. Fundamentally it feels like a way of monetizing war results (to a degree): it definitely feels that way if you are a player who has just started out and don't have piles and piles of gems to waste. (I note the same thing can be said of the ninja portal: but many of my players view the gem spend in the CoF during a ninja portal to be about maximising ninja & pearl return (i.e. ensuring you place first for maximum reward): I have no such defense for the CoF in war). One possible function for the CoF in war is to randomise the outcome of wars (to a degree): but this argument falls flat in the face of players with plenty of gems.

SO? Replace the CoF with "Spoils of War": two chests: one contains a random number of skulls (1 to the usual number) and one contains gold (say 0.1% to 2% of a players treasury value). (The gold chest is then addressing the need for better incentives for participating in war: the average gold yield is then ~1% per war battle: so over the course of an average war season (2 x 6 x 5 = 60 battles) you can fill your treasury from Spoils of War alone).

4) Better incentives for participating in war.

But one of the biggest problems I face in War Seasons is encouraging the lowest trophy members and newest members to participate: a lot of them DO NOT see value in collecting skulls for war chests, and certainly most of them (when they do participate) do not collect enough to get the better chests: so war for them is NOT FUN.

Changing the CoF to Spoils of War helps address this. But really I would like to see a minimum gold return on attacks: something like a minimum of 100000 gold for a 3 crown attack (i.e. if the base is worth more gold, it is worth more gold). This would stop my top players grumbling about fighting gold poor alliances (actually they don't: but they enjoy war more when fighting gold rich alliances): but hopefully for my lowest players, this might encourage them to attack.

4a) War Badges

I still like the idea of Badges for each war season. It's a simple incentive that doesn't affect the game economy, but provides a visible record of a players war participation habits.

On Saturday, 5 August 2017 at 3:18 AM, Teliaxue said:

A simple change would be to provide players with badges for EACH war season (kind of like a combat medal: they all look slightly different for each war season): you get a gold badge if you did 6 attacks each war, silver if you did at least 3 each war, bronze if you did at least 1, and steel if you did any battles during the war season. Badges don't do anything: but they are a record of a players war participation: which should be visible in your profile... and hence become a way of knowing if a player is the sort of player you want in your alliance. System would only need to show the badges for the last 10 or so war seasons (means players aren't stuck with a lousy record forever: they just need to invest some time to improve it).



 

Edited by Teliaxue
Clarification of (2) required

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Teliaxue said:

and in theory should allow the CURRENT matchmaking system to give better matches: the matchmaking system use the trophies of the SELECTED PLAYERS ONLY, and the number of fiefdoms of the alliance.

I don't make any claims as to understand the current matchmaking system: but I should have written "the matchmaking system uses the SELECTED PLAYERS ONLY, and the number of fiefdoms of the alliance, when making a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Teliaxue said:

I don't make any claims as to understand the current matchmaking system: but I should have written "the matchmaking system uses the SELECTED PLAYERS ONLY, and the number of fiefdoms of the alliance, when making a match.

I think a first declare anywhere on map would fix a few of the issues.

If you are weak then no change, but it would stop bad placement or getting locked out determining your fate.

Many teams lose the opportunity to compete and earn their place. purely because of initial placement.

The first declare gives you one chance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 9:32 PM, whatsa said:

Yeah its important that the requirements are realistic for the vast majority and not just an obsessed few.

I actually feel a 3 day format would be better.... and maybe 1 less team. Really the more variety of events is better. Shorter run times makes fitting an event into you schedule doable. Plus the obvious thing of finding something a bit different each time. More festivals events then rolling through them keeps things from getting stale.

It may be that lvl ~50 and above have their own format ie a separate league? That would cater to the different player.

I agree, Start Thursday night or Friday and end before monday.   War on Monday is hard.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 12:13 AM, UncleTH said:

I agree, Start Thursday night or Friday and end before monday.   War on Monday is hard.



 

Yes, but playing on Friday, Saturday, Sunday is hard for me... it's the weekend, and weekend activities usually get in the way. Monday on the other hand is usually OK. Actually, I'd rather a Monday to Friday war season... (LOL: now that'll put the fox amongst the chickens?!?)

In all fairness, I like the 5 day war season as it is: it is hard for EVERYBODY in some way or another. Changing it to a 3 day format, while less stressful because it is only 3 days, is going to stuff some players up timing wise... (like me: if you make it a 3 day format over friday+weekend, then I'll make the game NOT FUN for me (I survive the weekend right now, because I can enjoy the game before and after the weekend)).
 

Edited by Teliaxue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War matchmaking right now goes with total fiefdoms an alliance has. My alliance is ranked 325(120k trophies) and we got to fight a rank 54 alliance( 230k trophies) and a rank 185(180k trophies) which is totally unfair new war system asap!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, audigy2zs said:

I think the alliance war should be between alliances that have the same level so that it will be a fair fight .

No it would not be a fair fight. A level 38 alliance with 25 players ranging in level from 95 to 15 (with a mean of 67 and median of 67) is NOT THE SAME as a level 38 alliance with 35 players ranging in level from 110 to 30 (with a mean of 80 and median of 82). In fact a fight would between these two alliances is extremely one-sided. How do I know this? Happened to my alliance.

This type of ridiculous match-up is what the current system produces for my alliance: all because someone seems to think that if an alliance is good at war (i.e. has lots of fiefdoms) that they must be able to attract players and thus won't have this ridiculous problem. The reality is if you are good at war (and have lots of fiefdoms) then you'll get matches with alliances you can't beat (i.e. alliance with more players than you): which means holding on to the players you currently have becomes more difficult. Actually my alliance has lost players AFTER WAR SEASON WINS!! Makes no sense to me: clearly the war season boosts aren't valuable enough for players to stick around.

Fundamentally, not only is the war system broken: but so is the alliance system: as far as I can tell, players want to join alliances with elite boosts, they don't seem to care about winning war seasons (they like being losers?): my alliance boosts cost are that of a 43 seat alliance... but we only have 25 players, some of them are very low level (and thus low level alliance tower) (i.e. they would have to contribute for 80 days to afford the cheapest 6 hour boost)... so boosts are expensive for my alliance (because our donation capacity barely covers ONE 24 hour elite boost per day)... so we save gold and boost during war seasons (aiming to win)... we are very good at war: but only if matched evenly with the opponent (actually we sometimes beat opponents who on paper are stronger than us)... if we win we have long term boosts: but these war season boosts annoyingly don't seem to attract players... but if we win we get more fiefdoms, so NEXT war season we end up with a nightmare war season, which means we don't win, then lose more players... so any work done to increase the number of players is wasted (i.e. back to square one).

How do you fix this? Well, war seasons should be between the SAME NUMBER OF PLAYERS. That would fix a lot of problems. It would also allow players to take a break without penalizing the alliance: because right now when a player takes a break before a war season, unless the alliance boots them, then the alliance has to accept they are one player less, but their base CAN be attacked: so this player-on-break is negatively affecting the alliance. A PROPER system would allow you to put the player on break... and hence they are NOT included in the war season (i.e. they cannot attack or be attacked).

Also I would like to see the cost of boosts have some relationship with the actual number of players in the alliance (and maybe their theoretical top alliance tower level: got to keep it fair for Flare!) (personally I would like the cost of boost have a relationship with the alliances maximum daily donation: because that is more fair on the alliance). Because while it's nice to assume alliances SHOULD be full of players... the reality is far from that... certainly NOT by choice in my alliance's case... but finding the RIGHT player for an alliance is a WHOLE OTHER ISSUE!


 

Edited by Teliaxue
errors were made, then corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is in the rewards, alliances drop fiefdoms so that next war they get an easier battle and get the boosts, but dropping fiefdoms makes those boosts worse.  Getting from 60-120 fiefs is hard work (and I've done it twice in two different alliances) and you have to take the good with the bad, but the boosts, when you win them, are great, or were great, necro/monk/LT boosts are much more important than the war rewards now, and Viking/basilisk will probably be similar.

An alliance should never be incentivised to drop fiefs.  The top alliances (120 fiefs) should have their excess redistributed to the losing alliances.  There should be rewards for all positions, with 6 boosts for #1 and 1 boost for #6, you should be allowed to select which boost (so you don't end up with doom gate), or completely randomise the rewards with the random boosts, but keeping the OP ones out (uber LT, putrid prowler), or allow alliances 3 tower and 3 troop boosts (for example), or give boosts for fiefs won, and a gold reward for the alliance that finishes 1st/2nd/3rd etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 11:56 PM, audigy2zs said:

I think the alliance war should be between alliances that have the same level so that it will be a fair fight .

True. My alliance lv is 17. And we always get paired up with lv 25 to 30. They have more players and higher ascension. Also, mostly the 2 highest alliance gang up on 1 team. It makes it less to no fun at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 at 7:13 PM, montysingh said:

We are talking on this topic from about 8 months and there is no resulting response from flare. It seems flare turns deef ear toward this topic. Get up flare. Nothing getting changed.

Perhaps it is because they're too busy mucking about with the Pro-League instead of rebuilding the extremely broken war system??

Hate to be the team that has to rebuild it... that said: DO IT!!! It would be an extreme case of stupidity if you manage to create a new war system that sucks more than the current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Teliaxue said:

Perhaps it is because they're too busy mucking about with the Pro-League instead of rebuilding the extremely broken war system??

Hate to be the team that has to rebuild it... that said: DO IT!!! It would be an extreme case of stupidity if you manage to create a new war system that sucks more than the current one.

At least they can change boosts. Every time same boosts on winning war seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now