• Announcements

    • Alysea

      Community BAND   02/23/2016

      Hi all, If you wish to chat with the community, you can head out here: http://band.us/n/afabT0be63WeT Please note this is not a support channel and this is made by the players. It is not an official channel.
    • Alysea

      Titan Chests and Invitation Codes   03/08/2017

      Hey everyone, Please take a look at this topic to find more information about the Titan Chests and Invitation Codes: You also can share your Invitation Code here:
         
    • oisia

      Version 3.8.0 - The Hunt Begins   11/20/2017

      Hello Olympians,  The update 3.8 is live. You can find more about the update in the thread:   Thanks, Your Olympus Rising Team  
Hellslord

🔥🔥🔥DEVS, WARS ARE NOT FAIR. GIVE US FAIR BATTLES PLEASE🔥🔥🔥

Recommended Posts

Dear Olympus Rising family and Devs,
 
The lovely game of ours, has a great problem. War system is very problematic and gives no fun anymore. Why?
 
OR is based on competition. And current war system does not allow fair competition and in fact destroys the competition.
It is making me upset and also i think most of you get upset after waiting, getting exciting,  prepearing for war, and hard working at war session, at the end you encounter:
 
-Allied alliances: Most of you know, but never discussed about, it is a tabu???
 
-Who are they? I will not tell the names, they are many allied alliances at top 30.
 
** If your alliance are not at high ranks, you probably not know the issue, but please look at top alliance hall of fames. Are  some alliance’s names  near same???
 
Guys/girls, we play a war that the results are constant at the beginning. It is not good,it is not fair…
 
Ok, what those Allied Alliances do?
 
They took the all the  joy of alliances seeking fair game. 
 
They never attack each other. They gang bang 1 alliance, for god sake, i saw 3 alliance attacking 1 alliance too.
I saw a top class alliance gifting to a clearly weak allied alliance a torch with zero defence.
There are many examples and of course prooves, screen captures of these.
 
I wish, they stop acting like this, but i know they will not stop. Even they want  they can not. Because they are used to play with the easy way or they can only fix their low commandings or weakness with such actions. 
But most probably someone started this, and they have to react like this…
 
Okey, no need to find the guilty.
 
As long as war system continues like this, problem will continue and become worse (more and more allied alliances will be created, and game will become  more and more unfair). 
I honestly say, this war system is the weakest link of our great game. It is more important at anything in the forum suggested. 
And the undeserved war blessing earning or deserved but not got  war blessings, affect players personal playings too. So it makes unbalance not only for alliances but also all players game experience.
 
Devs, please change this weird war system and give alliances who seek fair war and the rest a FAIR WAR. 
Devs, make wars based on 1vs1 battles.
Devs,let every alliance get the deserved win or lost…
 
Guys/girls: please honestly share your thoughts, you can tell your personal experiences without giving alliance names.
And please if you not think like me, don’t  tell me i am crying or else, please try to proove it with your comments.
Please reply

@CaptainMorgan, @Chris, @oisia

Edited by Hellslord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hellslord said:
Dear Olympus Rising family and Devs,
 
The lovely game of ours, has a great problem. War system is very problematic and gives no fun anymore. Why?
 
OR is based on competition. And current war system does not allow fair competition and in fact destroys the competition.
It is making me upset and also i think most of you get upset after waiting, getting exciting,  prepearing for war, and hard working at war session, at the end you encounter:
 
-Allied alliances: Most of you know, but never discussed about, it is a tabu???
 
-Who are they? I will not tell the names, they are many allied alliances at top 30.
 
** If your alliance are not at high ranks, you probably not know the issue, but please look at top alliance hall of fames. Are  some alliance’s names  near same???
 
Guys/girls, we play a war that the results are constant at the beginning. It is not good,it is not fair…
 
Ok, what those Allied Alliances do?
 
They took the all the  joy of alliances seeking fair game. 
 
They never attack each other. They gang bang 1 alliance, for god sake, i saw 3 alliance attacking 1 alliance too.
I saw a top class alliance gifting to a clearly weak allied alliance a torch with zero defence.
There are many examples and of course prooves, screen captures of these.
 
I wish, they stop acting like this, but i know they will not stop. Even they want  they can not. Because they are used to play with the easy way or they can only fix their low commandings or weakness with such actions. 
But most probably someone started this, and they have to react like this…
 
Okey, no need to find the guilty.
 
As long as war system continues like this, problem will continue and become worse (more and more allied alliances will be created, and game will become  more and more unfair). 
I honestly say, this war system is the weakest link of our great game. It is more important at anything in the forum suggested. 
And the undeserved war blessing earning or deserved but not got  war blessings, affect players personal playings too. So it makes unbalance not only for alliances but also all players game experience.
 
Devs, please change this weird war system and give alliances who seek fair war and the rest a FAIR WAR. 
Devs, make wars based on 1vs1 battles.
Devs,let every alliance get the deserved win or lost…
 
Guys/girls: please honestly share your thoughts, you can tell your personal experiences without giving alliance names.
And please if you not think like me, don’t  tell me i am crying or else, please try to proove it with your comments.
  

I absolutely agree with Hellslord on this particular matter.Alliance wars are no longer fun to play rather every time a Alliance war starts I pray that opposition teams do not have more members or members at high Ascension level.Also what Hellslord has said about Two or more Alliances attacking a weaker Alliances during war To win a easy win is also true.I have come across such incidents many times and have been a victim of such cheap play.I have been playing this game from Mid August of this year and would like to say with recent upgrades Invasions are increasing during Alliance wars as a result heroes are always send back to Mount Olympus and Players at low Level Ascension are unable to collect resources to advance in the game and are unable to enjoy the game.In order to prevent heroes being send back Mount Olympus they have to hire fleet in every 18 hours,which quite frankly is expensive in the beginning of the game. I do not understand why Developers are doing this .Games are meant to enjoy rather than making your Players life hell.If I remember correctly Infamous and MrCouPer has  also raised the similar issue in the past.Element of fairness is completely gone from this game.

Captain Morgan and Chris Please do something about this.

Edited by HOLYDIVINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back then everyone was sharing 1st, no one liked that , many complained. Devs came up with this system of war , and we are still complaining. So now tell me what’s the point of changing something again  when tomorrow we will complain again about new changes..! 

The only resolution to this war system is remove torches and  just leave the points and who ever gets more points wins.. but even with that you can still help ur allies :) 

so yes , there always be something that we’re going to complain about , no matter what DEVS do. 

SMOKE WEED EVERY DAY!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Onelove007 said:

The only resolution to this war system is remove torches and  just leave the points and who ever gets more points wins.. but even with that you can still help ur allies :) 

Who gets high points? Looks fair at first sight but not. Those allied alliances now will attack their 3 skulls, gwt easy wins and high points, because their allies will not defend, after then they will attack their 4 skulls and then 5 skulls. They will collect insane points... You see, not fair.

Only solution 1vs1 battles, 2 rounds. Winners of first round play for rank 1, while loosers of the first round, plays for rank 3 at the second round. 

Edited by Hellslord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dumpster said:

I would like a cooperative mode where we can play with our friends. Maybe we could build an acropolis together. War is good for absolutely nothin'.

What do you suggest fir war system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acropolis or alliance base of some sort would be ideal.

1v1 battles or some league - like formation is also a very viable idea, tournament mechanics were in development for decades, why not using the achievements of the process?

Politics and big games are also important, but with 4 random opponents with RG deciding your chances to get a pre-chozen ally and no global chat it is kinda close to useless. Someone proposed a 100 vs 100 battle mode with the ability to choose allies before, consider this as an option for war (one week = league, second = 100v100), so that both parties would have an ally. This would be fare then and still allow some politics.

Matchmaking fix for low levels - would be ideal. To be honest, league-like table would sort this easily too.

 

Those are just some quick ideas, which I can discuss should people be interested. There are countless ways of making stuff better, given that there is no fear of trying it out.

Edited by Infamous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hellslord said:
Devs, please change this weird war system and give alliances who seek fair war and the rest a FAIR WAR. 
Devs, make wars based on 1vs1 battles.
Devs,let every alliance get the deserved win or lost…

Honestly, isn't diplomacy part of war? even in real life, I think the answer should be a "yes".

I'm not very sure how do you suggest to change the war system, at least I don't see a whole picture of your new war system. If only comment on the contents you gave as above, will 1vs1 not being more boring than current war system? You said you hate to know the result from the beginning because there're allied alliances, however, if change to 1vs1 like you said, won't the result also be determined at the beginning, when you're matched with an alliance that is stronger than yours? I think the "result is fixed in the beginning" situation is the same, and it's even easier to tell what the result will be if change to 1vs1 battle, right?

14 hours ago, Hellslord said:

i saw 3 alliance attacking 1 alliance too.

And you talked about 3 alliances attacking 1 alliance, too. I don't really get it how did this happen? with current war system, it's not possible to let you attack the alliance at diagonal, isn't it? The diagonal alliance can only attack you like 1 or 2 days later, after it won the islands separate you and it, and this process takes loooooong time to complete, is there any misunderstanding here?

14 hours ago, HOLYDIVINE said:

with recent upgrades Invasions are increasing during Alliance wars as a result heroes are always send back to Mount Olympus and Players at low Level Ascension are unable to collect resources to advance in the game and are unable to enjoy the game.In order to prevent heroes being send back Mount Olympus they have to hire fleet in every 18 hours,which quite frankly is expensive in the beginning of the game.

I have a friend started to play this game recently, so he's definitely at low level, but he never have the same feeling like you, he doesn't think his heroes are sent back to Mount Olympus and doesn't think it's too difficult to collect resources. Furthermore, he NEVER hire the fleet for protection not only because it's expensive but also because it's not necessary. And neither do I, I played longer than him and I NEVER hire the fleet. For your reference.

7 hours ago, Hellslord said:

Only solution 1vs1 battles, 2 rounds. Winners of first round play for rank 1, while loosers of the first round, plays for rank 3 at the second round.

Then how to resolve the problem when you're actually no. 2 strong of the 4, but in the beginning you're matched with the no. 1 strong alliance, so you ended at 3rd place but you're actually stronger/better than the alliance ended at the 2nd place? Is this the "fair" you want?

You may want to say, then the dev. team should match only the top 2 for 1st round, and then the other 2 alliance for 1st round. Yah, then the question is, how should the dev. team determine who are the top 2, before war starts and alliance members start to act in the war? If the dev. team could tell who are the top 2, then why do we still need war process? Dev. team could directly determine how the 4 alliances in the war be ranked, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

Honestly, isn't diplomacy part of war? even in real life, I think the answer should be a "yes".

I'm not very sure how do you suggest to change the war system, at least I don't see a whole picture of your new war system. If only comment on the contents you gave as above, will 1vs1 not being more boring than current war system? You said you hate to know the result from the beginning because there're allied alliances, however, if change to 1vs1 like you said, won't the result also be determined at the beginning, when you're matched with an alliance that is stronger than yours? I think the "result is fixed in the beginning" situation is the same, and it's even easier to tell what the result will be if change to 1vs1 battle, right?

And you talked about 3 alliances attacking 1 alliance, too. I don't really get it how did this happen? with current war system, it's not possible to let you attack the alliance at diagonal, isn't it? The diagonal alliance can only attack you like 1 or 2 days later, after it won the islands separate you and it, and this process takes loooooong time to complete, is there any misunderstanding here?

I have a friend started to play this game recently, so he's definitely at low level, but he never have the same feeling like you, he doesn't think his heroes are sent back to Mount Olympus and doesn't think it's too difficult to collect resources. Furthermore, he NEVER hire the fleet for protection not only because it's expensive but also because it's not necessary. And neither do I, I played longer than him and I NEVER hire the fleet. For your reference.

Then how to resolve the problem when you're actually no. 2 strong of the 4, but in the beginning you're matched with the no. 1 strong alliance, so you ended at 3rd place but you're actually stronger/better than the alliance ended at the 2nd place? Is this the "fair" you want?

You may want to say, then the dev. team should match only the top 2 for 1st round, and then the other 2 alliance for 1st round. Yah, then the question is, how should the dev. team determine who are the top 2, before war starts and alliance members start to act in the war? If the dev. team could tell who are the top 2, then why do we still need war process? Dev. team could directly determine how the 4 alliances in the war be ranked, right?

 

Thx Jerry, for your nice comments. I want to share a quick info. Currently at first rank 30, except few alliances, most of alliances are allies. I know my team is not currently much powerfull to win first 10. So i put them a side. When i think about my potential opponents, most of them are allies. They never attack eachother, they gang the lone alliance, and when one of them is in trouble, that one enters defence stance and get help by others. Think you are commanding 2-3 of alliances at the battle, that lone alliance no chance. You can manipulate alk the map. And lone alliance is something like a bone to the dogs.

And that is not the only unfair thing. This is a game. Games are created for fun. And conditions must be fair for everyone. Some alliances even use rats, traitors, by sending them to the lone alliances. They collect war infos and know your every move. Screen capture everything, and get joy if it??? God sake, that is so low behaivour. 

Did you notice? When someone starts a topic something like Ariadnes first spell cooldown changed by 0.1 sec, there will be lots of comments, arguaments on it at game forum. Am i right? Now this topic is about the tabu, allied gang bangers problem, and most people say nothing. Why they don't speak?? Any guess? Problem is major, you can imagine... 

If 1-2 alliances have symphaty to eachother, ok maybe i can understand somehow, but there is a b....hood,  consisting of at least 12 alliances between rank 10 and 30. How a lone team can break or pass them? They also try to confuse minds with rats and also reach by forum etc and forced lone alliance to join them. Ok lets make a diplomacy (in fact i will never do) and lets say i join them, what will be the game like for outher rank 30 alliances. Who seeks fair competition and want to climb the ladder... 

Wars are not giving fun now. Unless you are mosoistic... 

I hope your alliance climb the ladder to see this with your own eyes. And be prepared to be the 4th,if you score the highest team points... For long battles, see how you ganged and see how diagonal attacks are made... 

Only solution is 1vs1 battles, round based. At least i will be happy to loose a stronger alliance and happy to loose a seems weaker but good contrubuter alliance. (Sometimes i deserve rank 2 but be rank 3 or opposite).

I trust my alliance so i will be more happy when i win a crowded, and opponent seems stronger on paper like we do mostly.... Please check my team, our power and our rank please (The Reaper of Souls) and our potential opponents, their powers and their member counts... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

When i think about my potential opponents, most of them are allies.

this is a strategy game, so you could also find an alliance to ally with them, right?

43 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

Some alliances even use rats, traitors, by sending them to the lone alliances. They collect war infos and know your every move. Screen capture everything, and get joy if it??? God sake, that is so low behaivour.

This are also thinks happen in real-life war, right? and games are something you could experience things you can't have in real-life and cost you much less than real-life, that's why there're war games everywhere, right? I couldn't see why these are "wrong" here. You could do the same thing if you want, right? And I think you did because you said you have some screen captures as evidences you want to provide to the dev. team, is this correct?

49 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

Now this topic is about the tabu, allied gang bangers problem, and most people say nothing. Why they don't speak?? Any guess? Problem is major, you can imagine...

Probably because most of players don't think this is a major problem, make sense?

53 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

consisting of at least 12 alliances between rank 10 and 30. How a lone team can break or pass them? They also try to confuse minds with rats and also reach by forum etc and forced lone alliance to join them.

Why you have to be a long alliance? And if you really don't want to join them, like you said, even 12 of the 10 to 30 are allied, there're still 8 which are not, you could make friend with them to against those you don't like, right? I don't understand why, you seem hate diplomacy.

58 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

see how diagonal attacks are made

I know diagonal attacks are possible, but it requires time to start, am I wrong? Unless you tell me there's a way to attack diagonal without going through alliance besides him (which you call "their allied alliance"). Any alliance needs to attack and won the islands besides him before start attack diagonal alliance, right? And if I guess right, the fastest it will be AFTER 3 islands are taken from the sides, which means more than 24 hours needed at least.

1 hour ago, Hellslord said:

Only solution is 1vs1 battles, round based. At least i will be happy to loose a stronger alliance and happy to loose a seems weaker but good contrubuter alliance. (Sometimes i deserve rank 2 but be rank 3 or opposite).

But the problems I said, it's more boring, less strategy you could use, and the win/lose was determined in the beginning when the match was made, totally not resolved from your reply.

If it's 1vs1, I can't see how a seems weaker but good contributor alliance can win the alliance stronger than it. It will be face to face, means no way you could use strategy, so, how contribute can help the weaker alliance win here?

1 hour ago, Hellslord said:

I trust my alliance so i will be more happy when i win a crowded, and opponent seems stronger on paper like we do mostly.... Please check my team, our power and our rank please (The Reaper of Souls) and our potential opponents, their powers and their member counts...

If your alliance is stronger than all the allied alliances, I don't believe you'll be the 4th place. You probably can't be the 1st because the others are allied, but you can't be the 4th if you are really stronger than one of them. I say this because we were attacked from both sides, no matter they are allied, or doing that not on purpose, coincidentally attack us at the same time. When this happened, we focus on defending one side. Because the game rule is you win a torch when successfully attacked another alliance, and lose torch when you fail in defend your island. This means, if you are really stronger than one of the allied alliance, you'll win torch from them, and lose torch to another one that you give up fight against with. Then the result is the number of you torch remain the same, stay at 10, like the beginning of the war, and the one of allied alliance you chose to attack, lose torch because of you. So, not consider the diagonal alliance yet, the one you give up fight against, will have most torches, you're in the middle, and the one you beat will be the last, because they have the less torch.

So, unless you can't win any one of the allied alliance, you can't be the last. Or, you choose to fight against both of the allied alliance attacking you, then you'll lose as many torches as you want, for sure. Or, your team members are not following your instructions, so when you choose to focus on defeating one of the allied alliance, some of your team member still attack the other one, and waste treasurable fury, then you could be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also a problem mostly for the 3 days war. During the 2 days war, only one attack can be made on the alliance of the opposite side, unless this one wins islands and gets closer to you. But you can avoid this by using strategy to attack islands further away, which is easier if one of the alliances is weaker.

If you cannot defend against any of the two alliances next to you but could win the one on the other side easily, it kinda sucks but you’ll have a better draw as well. Allied alliances have an easier time when  together on map, but they’re not always together. And many in the brotherhood are really weak, be it for the firepower or the strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ataide said:

This is also a problem mostly for the 3 days war. During the 2 days war, only one attack can be made on the alliance of the opposite side, unless this one wins islands and gets closer to you. But you can avoid this by using strategy to attack islands further away, which is easier if one of the alliances is weaker.

If you cannot defend against any of the two alliances next to you but could win the one on the other side easily, it kinda sucks but you’ll have a better draw as well. Allied alliances have an easier time when  together on map, but they’re not always together. And many in the brotherhood are really weak, be it for the firepower or the strategy.

There's still strategy you could use if you cannot defend against any of the two alliances next to you, and they are allied, and you could only win the one on the other side (diagonal to you). Since you can't attack the one on the other side (diagonal to you) in the beginning of the war, then you should wait, your diagonal alliance in most of the case attacks one of the two alliances next to you, and then you see, you attack the same one. This way, you have chance to win a torch, or break-even, because you're in fact "allied" with your diagonal alliance, and this doesn't need any diplomacy if you really hate diplomacy. This is pure war strategy you could use easily. 

Besides, it doesn't really matter if the two alliances next to you are allied, because they can't attack each other NOT because they are allied, but because the fact they are at diagonal position. So, allied or not, doesn't really matter in this situation. The only bad part is they could attack the same alliance after communication/agreement so they could make their attack more efficient, but the target could be you, could be the other one at your diagonal, unless the other one is also their ally, which I think this is a bad luck draw. But, even so, unless the diagonal give up doing any attack, so no points won for them, no war chest for their member, you could still use the strategy as above, to attack the same one they attack to increase the chance to win and not become the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Isjerryhuang said:

There's still strategy you could use if you cannot defend against any of the two alliances next to you, and they are allied, and you could only win the one on the other side (diagonal to you). Since you can't attack the one on the other side (diagonal to you) in the beginning of the war, then you should wait, your diagonal alliance in most of the case attacks one of the two alliances next to you, and then you see, you attack the same one. This way, you have chance to win a torch, or break-even, because you're in fact "allied" with your diagonal alliance, and this doesn't need any diplomacy if you really hate diplomacy. This is pure war strategy you could use easily. 

Besides, it doesn't really matter if the two alliances next to you are allied, because they can't attack each other NOT because they are allied, but because the fact they are at diagonal position. So, allied or not, doesn't really matter in this situation. The only bad part is they could attack the same alliance after communication/agreement so they could make their attack more efficient, but the target could be you, could be the other one at your diagonal, unless the other one is also their ally, which I think this is a bad luck draw. But, even so, unless the diagonal give up doing any attack, so no points won for them, no war chest for their member, you could still use the strategy as above, to attack the same one they attack to increase the chance to win and not become the last.

I really waiting forward to see that you take your alliance with the help of your great war tactics to higher ranks. And really waiting forward to see, when you get higher ranks, which way do you choose, seeking for a game that i named fair  or the way that i named unfair (you thought fair???)  and waiting forward to see what actions will you try for making alliances to be your ally?  Or if you choose the way that i named unfair what great war tactics will you process, while getting all attacks from all your borders for 2 days/3 days...

Guys and girls, this play style is not suitable, someone started this and many fall into this thing. There are still some alliances want stop this. It is like a cancer, started and it is spreading, for the benefit of all the community it must be fixed quickly. As alliance HEROES declared before, i am speaking as  the founder of THE REAPER OF SOULS , we will stand tall, we will not join any alliance now or in the future. We will always seek for fair competition.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

I really waiting forward to see that you take your alliance with the help of your great war tactics to higher ranks. And really waiting forward to see, when you get higher ranks, which way do you choose, seeking for a game that i named fair  or the way that i named unfair (you thought fair???)  and waiting forward to see what actions will you try for making alliances to be your ally?  Or if you choose the way that i named unfair what great war tactics will you process, while getting all attacks from all your borders for 2 days/3 days...

Guys and girls, this play style is not suitable, someone started this and many fall into this thing. There are still some alliances want stop this. It is like a cancer, started and it is spreading, for the benefit of all the community it must be fixed quickly. As alliance HEROES declared before, i am speaking as  the founder of THE REAPER OF SOULS , we will stand tall, we will not join any alliance now or in the future. We will always seek for fair competition.... 

 

Man, I won't sincerely reply any more. Obviously you're totally NOT answering ANY of my question, just keep talking what you want to say. You're not reading my replies and point out where the problem is or what I missed, you just keep saying "let's wait and see", "this is not fair", "this is not good", "this has to be fixed", blablabla.......

You're even ignoring my opinion to answer your question "Why not many people join this discussion?". I think now the answer is very clear, not only because not many player think this is a problem, but also you're not wanting a discussion.

11 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

As alliance HEROES declared before, i am speaking as  the founder of THE REAPER OF SOULS , we will stand tall, we will not join any alliance now or in the future. We will always seek for fair competition....

For the last part of your reply, I want to say: good luck. Hope you're the strongest alliance so you can beat everyone, and hope you're strong enough to win 1V2 or 1V3 in a war. Cheer up. Since you seem a fighter expect fight, you'll get fights all the time, which is good for you I think. Keep stand tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hellslord said:

I really waiting forward to see that you take your alliance with the help of your great war tactics to higher ranks. And really waiting forward to see, when you get higher ranks, which way do you choose, seeking for a game that i named fair  or the way that i named unfair (you thought fair???)  and waiting forward to see what actions will you try for making alliances to be your ally?  Or if you choose the way that i named unfair what great war tactics will you process, while getting all attacks from all your borders for 2 days/3 days...

Guys and girls, this play style is not suitable, someone started this and many fall into this thing. There are still some alliances want stop this. It is like a cancer, started and it is spreading, for the benefit of all the community it must be fixed quickly. As alliance HEROES declared before, i am speaking as  the founder of THE REAPER OF SOULS , we will stand tall, we will not join any alliance now or in the future. We will always seek for fair competition.... 

 

BTW, I think you just want the way you want for the war. That's it. So, good luck and wish you get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

this is a strategy game, so you could also find an alliance to ally with them, right?

 

Or maybe the system could try to prevent or minimize that .. obviously you consider two alliances teamed up as one a "strategy" while Hells considers it unfair.
Keep in mind please that Hellslord is not whining about a single war where two alliances team up against another. He's complaining against an organized system that several top alliances have and that is being abused often. They have two alliances. Really, two. They keep 'em at similar torches level so to have more chances in getting teamed up in the same wars.
So in effect you are fighting against an alliance with up to 100 players that can attack twice as often as you. This is not "strategy" in Hells opinion (and to be honest, neither in mine).

So don't confuse tactic and strategy with this, because it's as similar as chocolate with poo.

2 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

This are also thinks happen in real-life war, right? and games are something you could experience things you can't have in real-life and cost you much less than real-life, that's why there're war games everywhere, right? I couldn't see why these are "wrong" here. You could do the same thing if you want, right?

All right. And if I find your smell irritating I can shoot you, right ? and if you rob me I can rob you, right ?
All is right and correct. At least technically. Just, perhaps, some people would hope in a relatively fair fight at least in a game, regardless if you can behave like a rat. But obviously honorable behaviour is something that's more important for Hells than for you, right ?
Anyway, I find your lack of honor disturbing, young jerry, as your blindless to what is right and wrong. Still, in my humble opinion, rats might be allowd to survive in their sewers.
 

2 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

Probably because most of players don't think this is a major problem, make sense?

Not really, there are often posts of whinings, complains, suggestions, cursing and swearing about the current war system and matchmaking. Just, normally they are avoided by devs, which hardly take stands in this matter. Then, of course, it is hard to come up with solutions that make everyone happy. But Hells is not alone in his hopes of changes on this, not alone at all.

2 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

Why you have to be a long alliance? And if you really don't want to join them, like you said, even 12 of the 10 to 30 are allied, there're still 8 which are not, you could make friend with them to against those you don't like, right? I don't understand why, you seem hate diplomacy.

He doesn't hate diplomacy. He hates unfair fights, and would prefer to be able to enjoy the attempts of climbing the roof without having to resort to cheap tricks. Again, some people would like to be given a chance to fight fair and win or lose in that way. Others, as you from what I see, are absolutely willing to get to compromises to obtain what they want.
The game wasn't born with clusters of allied alliances in mind. Probably this is why Hells find it unfair and irritating and probably he thinks this is a loophole in the system. I think the same as him.

2 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

Diagonal attacks are possible, but it requires time to start, am I wrong? Unless you tell me there's a way to attack diagonal without going through alliance besides him (which you call "their allied alliance"). Any alliance needs to attack and won the islands besides him before start attack diagonal alliance, right? And if I guess right, the fastest it will be AFTER 3 islands are taken from the sides, which means more than 24 hours needed at least.

 

I am please to see you are familiar with the map. And right, it needs time to do it. Infact, this situation is not too common, even if it happens.

 

 

Anyway, I (and most from my alliance) started seeing the issue Hells points out, and it can be really annoying and spoils the fun, without doubts. If the devs could come out with solutions, we would be most grateful.
One possible thing to consider is - for example - avoid to match the same alliances with each other for XX number of wars after they met. So regardless of torches, If i had you on my map this week, I won't again 'till .. 3 weeks ? 4 weeks ? whatever seems reasonable. Maybe with a base weeks number + a random value, so to minimize it even further.

I am not too convinced about the 1 vs 1 battle system to be honest, but it would depend from how it's made. After all, tactic is what may allow a smaller tough alliance to win against bigger ones - but if you go just on 1 vs 1, what hopes will you have in 30 vs 50 ? And in a .. say, 40 vs 40 .. would it all comes up to who has the higher levels (that give more points) or the unbeatable map statues (that force people to 95%) ?
A straight 1 vs 1 system would require way more tought before being consider, imho.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with hellslord 2vs1 in an alliance war of 4 teams is not fair at all, either it was due to ally alliance or by chance. And ally alliances in OR where there's no such team events is not diplomacy it is just a cheap and cowardly act.My suggestions to improve the alliance war mechanic is 1.One team can't attack the same side again and again, he has to switch his attack side after say 1 or 2 attacks. This means no team will be ganged up allowing for more engaging alliance wars. 2. Penalties for teams attacking the same side continuously either in the form of slow fury recharge or lesser vp earned after each island ie. 10% less vp on second attack 20% less vp on third attack on the same side. 3. An option to shield your alliance for a limited time with your attack chance for the team being ganged up.

PS.I don't think the 2 stage war with 1vs1 at two stages will be interesting or engaging at all since the results will be predetermined depending on team strengths even before the fight begins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shahnawaz said:

I agree with hellslord 2vs1 in an alliance war of 4 teams is not fair at all, either it was due to ally alliance or by chance. And ally alliances in OR where there's no such team events is not diplomacy it is just a cheap and cowardly act.My suggestions to improve the alliance war mechanic is 1.One team can't attack the same side again and again, he has to switch his attack side after say 1 or 2 attacks. This means no team will be ganged up allowing for more engaging alliance wars. 2. Penalties for teams attacking the same side continuously either in the form of slow fury recharge or lesser vp earned after each island ie. 10% less vp on second attack 20% less vp on third attack on the same side. 3. An option to shield your alliance for a limited time with your attack chance for the team being ganged up.

PS.I don't think the 2 stage war with 1vs1 at two stages will be interesting or engaging at all since the results will be predetermined depending on team strengths even before the fight begins. 

Thx for your comment. And i must say i like your idea so much. Brilliant 👏👏👏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shahnawaz said:

Penalties for teams attacking the same side continuously ... lesser vp earned after each island

This I like. Multiplier for skulls difficult (so need more than usual points to win making islands harder if you insist on the same target), dividers for points taken .. could be worth considering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for a little context, the rules were changed last year so teams couldn’t tie and get full war blessings. So there have been moves made to discourage deal making. 

There used to be a mechanism for alliances who were losing a lot of islands early to have their fury recharge rate sped up dramatically. This was dropped in favor of the skull system, which, while strategic, doesn’t help teams defend a 2 v 1 nearly as well as fury recharge did. 

I would encourage a return to the fury recharge rules, with one caveat: skirmish already has very fast fury recharge. It would be too insane if there was another mechanism introduced. But since skirmish is awful to begin with, the solution would be to just eliminate skirmish. 

Edited by dumpster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Hellslord. 

The current war dynamic is complicated and unjust in values. 
It is not possible to score more than everyone and arrive last.

 

But most of all is the one-on-one battle by choosing a player from the ranking.

Perhaps the war should be organized with a classical naval battle chessboard with dynamics similar to those of royal revolt II 
even if I realize that it is difficult to revolutionize everything. 
But just as it is possible to leave for the Odyssey, it may be possible to face an event-style invasion during breaks between a war and an odyssey.

 

I trust the far-sightedness of the developers who are still doing a great job!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dumpster said:

Just for a little context, the rules were changed last year so teams couldn’t tie and get full war blessings. So there have been moves made to discourage deal making. 

There used to be a mechanism for alliances who were losing a lot of islands early to have their fury recharge rate sped up dramatically. This was dropped in favor of the skull system, which, while strategic, doesn’t help teams defend a 2 v 1 nearly as well as fury recharge did. 

I would encourage a return to the fury recharge rules, with one caveat: skirmish already has very fast fury recharge. It would be too insane if there was another mechanism introduced. But since skirmish is awful to begin with, the solution would be to just eliminate skirmish. 

The faster fury regen was great, would definitely be of help, at least during campaign war. The skulls don't help much, it is much more a way to gain more VPs nowadays, than a way to fight back against a 2v1.

Might be good as well to not match an alliance which got for example 4th, with two other alliances which beat it in the past war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dumpster said:

Just for a little context, the rules were changed last year so teams couldn’t tie and get full war blessings. So there have been moves made to discourage deal making. 

There used to be a mechanism for alliances who were losing a lot of islands early to have their fury recharge rate sped up dramatically. This was dropped in favor of the skull system, which, while strategic, doesn’t help teams defend a 2 v 1 nearly as well as fury recharge did. 

I would encourage a return to the fury recharge rules, with one caveat: skirmish already has very fast fury recharge. It would be too insane if there was another mechanism introduced. But since skirmish is awful to begin with, the solution would be to just eliminate skirmish. 

I think fury regenerationspeed up might help if you are near elemination. I never lived it. But i guess  it does not help when you trying to resist against 2 alliances.  Wish fury regeneration become fast when a team get many attacks from all borders, it would help, it would bring some balance. 

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