• 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

7 minutes ago, ataide said:

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.

That last point is very interesting. There are any number of ways that matchmaking could be used to make wars more fair (which really makes them more competitive). I don’t think forcing an alliance to attack both alliances next to them is a good one. It could force an alliance to attack a team they are unable to score against. I think it would hurt weaker teams more than help.

4th place teams could get incentives though, to help them out the next week.  Not getting paired with the teams that beat them is one, reduced cost of regular blessings is another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the flow people, hence would like to chip in more too.

Maybe a combination of systems would do: Instead of matching just by average torches, do a league system with different tiers requiring certain amount of first places (3 in a row for instance) or ranks based on the torches (top five every week? month? are promoted to the next tier) (Later I believe to be the best). This would not allow the aforementioned "sharing first spot" scenario and would, hopefully break the allied alliances into different tiers, as matchmaking would still use the random algorithms within the tiers.

Now, this would, of course, result in the very same top alliances slowly ending up in the top league, except... I also propose a demotion mechanism for anything but the lowest league. The bottom five alliances would be kicked down and matched with people in there. What happens then is simple: Allies, should they be that good to wreck everyone, would eventually end up being the 10-20 men top league and will have to fight or rotate blessings, with some being kicked down regardless of their torch sharing efforts. Either way is fine for unallied guys, for you will get buffs from going all out in lower tiers, which are kinda equal level-wise and would rely on strategy.

Furthermore, high level/member alliances would easily crystalize in higher tiers, making the system way more even and range-like, allowing new teams to slowly grow, beating their opponents and not relying on luck alone to be matched with similar newbies or "enjoy" the +30 lvl opponents.

 

Now, the exact values should, indeed, be calculated and I can elaborate on matchmaking algorithms should people/devs be interested. It might work though, alongside implementing things like fury recharge increase and some discouragement to attack one side (Like dumpster said by the way, this one is controversial).

Edited by Infamous

Share this post


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

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. 

I thought I was able to defend a 2v1 much better with fast fury regen. Especially because it’s so easy to avoid 4 and 5 skull islands in skirmish, and impossible to hit them in clash. 

Skirmish and clash have *really* contributed to the unbalance in the current state of war. They’re both deeply flawed and the game would be instantly better if they were eliminated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumpster i really wonder what do you think about allied alliances gang bang problem?

Current situation is,

Fair?

Unfair?

If fair, why? 

If unfair? How it started? Why spreaded like a cancer? Did someone started that action, and continued like a chain reaction? Did someone make attempts to stoo these? Are devs aware it? Will devs working on fixing...? 

 

 

Share this post


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

Dumpster i really wonder what do you think about allied alliances gang bang problem?

Current situation is,

Fair?

Unfair?

If fair, why? 

If unfair? How it started? Why spreaded like a cancer? Did someone started that action, and continued like a chain reaction? Did someone make attempts to stoo these? Are devs aware it? Will devs working on fixing...? 

 

 

I don’t think it’s any more or less fair than 1 v 1 wars would be, given the current way alliances are matched up. If it’s a 3v1 situation it’s one thing, but those are fairly uncommon and don’t always work out the way they’re planned. And only really applicable to campaign wars. 

2 v 1s happen often, but that’s clearly how war was designed. There are 4 teams on the war map. I think war in general needs an overhaul, but not really for that reason. 

I sort of enjoy the challenge that taking down strong groups of alliances brings. It makes you use the same tactics, but it’s fun and a challenge. The diplomacy element brings an addition to a war format that is otherwise pretty stale (for me). 

That being said, the street gang that’s taken over the 20-50 rankings is pretty ugly. I hope you guys can figure out what to do there. PM me, maybe we can work together :D

Share this post


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

That being said, the street gang that’s taken over the 20-50 rankings is pretty ugly. I hope you guys can figure out what to do there. PM me, maybe we can work together :D

That is what i am talking about. Thx. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hellslord said:

Dumpster i really wonder what do you think about allied alliances gang bang problem?

Current situation is,

Fair?

Unfair?

If fair, why? 

If unfair? How it started? Why spreaded like a cancer? Did someone started that action, and continued like a chain reaction? Did someone make attempts to stoo these? Are devs aware it? Will devs working on fixing...? 

 

 

At the first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dheth said:

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.

First of all, if you show more respect to people, I think your post will be more worthy to read.

21 hours ago, Dheth said:

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? Could you tell me, in fact, is it still a single war where two alliances team up against another or not? They didn't change the war rule, but just let you encounter such situation more often, but essentially there's no difference than the situation in 1 war there're 2 alliance team up against you, right? So the way to fight against them is still the same, isn't it?

And why this becomes "you are fighting against an alliance with up to 100 players that can attack twice as often as you"?? I don't get it. The 2 alliances are still have separated torch numbers, and separated scores, right? So you can still choose to beat one of them, then you won't be the last, is this not true? If this is not true, it means your alliance is weaker than any of them, so you can't beat anyone even you use all the fury to attack/defend one and give up strikes to another, right? come on, they are not "attack twice as often as you" like you said. Please don't find you chocolate to eat, I will be worry about you.

21 hours ago, Dheth said:

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.

Again, please, don't try to find your chocolate to eat, really.

Can't you tell the difference?? The example you're giving, shoot people and rob people, these are illegal, right? And is "alliances get allied" illegal? Is this forbidden in this game? If yes, then I'm totally agree with you. But, is getting allied not allowed and expressed by dev. team? what kind of example you're giving............

21 hours ago, Dheth said:

But obviously honorable behaviour is something that's more important for Hells than for you, right ?

No, you're totally wrong. I'm not doing ally with another alliance. So, to a guy who think himself have honorable behavior, I'm trying to show more respect to players who want to have allied alliances, since it is not restricted.

21 hours ago, Dheth said:

But Hells is not alone in his hopes of changes on this, not alone at all.

Please, read and see the details and try to understand, I'm not saying Hell is alone, it's Hell saying he feel always ignored when he want to talk about this topic, and then I give my guess.

21 hours ago, Dheth said:

He doesn't hate diplomacy. He hates unfair fights

The unfair fights he hates, is result of diplomacy, isn't it??

22 hours ago, Dheth said:

climbing the roof without having to resort to cheap tricks

You're talking about "have allied alliances" equals "cheap tricks", but, how come you can define things like you want, when somebody else doesn't think so?

22 hours ago, Dheth said:

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.

Your have the right to do what you like, but who give you the right to judge people who are not acting like you is wrong??

22 hours ago, Dheth said:

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.

Are you one of the game designer of OR, or you're the one who define how this game should be? If not, why you're so confident with what you think this game should be and not respecting other players? Furthermore, if this is a loophole in the system, why there's no one from the dev. team show up and say "thank you" to you because you help them find this giant loophole? Did you think about why?

22 hours ago, Dheth said:

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.

Thanks for confirming the truth.

22 hours ago, Dheth said:

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.

Honestly, this is an option, and possible to implement. But I'm not sure will Hell be satisfied with this or not, because if like he said, there're 12 alliances allied from top 11 to top 30, so this solution you provide here may not work as efficient as you thought if thing is like Hell said.

22 hours ago, Dheth said:

what hopes will you have in 30 vs 50 ?

Dev. team could change this by defining the points needed to make each alliance to win. After calculation, I believe there will be a number that could be same difficult to either alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shahnawaz said:

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.

Unfortunately, this may not help to prevent allied alliances. Give a quick example, even one team can't attack the same side, the two allied alliance could discuss in advance and then determine "who is the winner of this war", and then, every time when the "loser alliance" need to attack the "winner alliance", it could lose on purpose, so in the end the "winner alliance" will get the most torches and become the 1st. The fact is, it's difficult to prevent alliance work together, if they really want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Dheth said:

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

Could you let me know, if to choose the alliance you should attack is tactic instead of strategy like you said, then what should the strategy look like in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much bullshit said from you @Isjerryhuang. The thread is about the fairnes in the alliance war. And you are telling us, teaming up with some alliance to gank others is making friends...
The system is not fair. Thats what is written here and i think, that's correct. I'm in a rank 7 alliance and I can see, how we play and how others play. We have sometimes Member from other top 10 alliances joining our alliance, to see how we play and going to war with us. So there is a big exchange of knowledge and of course agreements.
The reason for this: Hold the rank in the top 10.

But the war is far away from fair and changing it will not prevent you, to make new friends... (your personality will)
The war need a fundamental change, to be fair and that the rank is showing the strength of an alliance.
The rank is actually a joke, showing nothing about how good you are.

 

Edited by PanicMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry are these the ways for making friendship ?  

-last week,  one of them joined my team as an ordinary member, and shared all war infos, tactics with our opponents. Our opoonents were all ready for our next move. When I investigate he was another team a while ago. I talked them and they complained too. They even say after the war, those gangers sent screenshots of their war infos while captured at war. DELICIOUS FRIENDSHIP BONUS👍

-3 weeks ago, when war starts, at the very start of battle, one of them sent message to me to join them.... I did not answer and ganged. TASTY FRIENDSHIP BONUS 👍

-This week one of a ganger reached me and wanted me to merge them, refused and wished me luck.... for next war. I think i am going to be.... . AWESOME FRIENDSHIP BONUS 👍

Ps#

*Most of team and me are over 40 years old, and we are quite experienced about something. These are not the ways for getting friendship. We do not have time/energy for theese. We just want to play a game, test our might and get the rank what we deserve. 

**I still (want to) believe, you did not live this and you did not see things, so your comments are not realistic..

***These couple of people try to fix the unfairness, if we can fix it, it would be good for all of us and for you of course. 

Share this post


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

Jerry are these the ways for making friendship ?  

-last week,  one of them joined my team as an ordinary member, and shared all war infos, tactics with our opponents. Our opoonents were all ready for our next move. When I investigate he was another team a while ago. I talked them and they complained too. They even say after the war, those gangers sent screenshots of their war infos while captured at war. DELICIOUS FRIENDSHIP BONUS👍

-3 weeks ago, when war starts, at the very start of battle, one of them sent message to me to join them.... I did not answer and ganged. TASTY FRIENDSHIP BONUS 👍

-This week one of a ganger reached me and wanted me to merge them, refused and wished me luck.... for next war. I think i am going to be.... . AWESOME FRIENDSHIP BONUS 👍

Ps#

*Most of team and me are over 40 years old, and we are quite experienced about something. These are not the ways for getting friendship. We do not have time/energy for theese. We just want to play a game, test our might and get the rank what we deserve. 

**I still (want to) believe, you did not live this and you did not see things, so your comments are not realistic..

***These couple of people try to fix the unfairness, if we can fix it, it would be good for all of us and for you of course. 

This plus everything posted by Dheth and Jerry is completely natural... For an MMORPG kind of game, modulating the real world with enhanced possibilities. There is active gameplay there, relying on people backstabbing, making diplomacy (Stats show that the officers there only spend 30-40% of their time doing actual game content) and doing like things.

Now, not sure about the others, but there is a reason I play this TD game and not MMORPG or something with uncapped and unquantized progress (Namely, other MMORTS like recently closed Spartan Wars (The game is no more, it is not OR competitor and thus can be mentioned!!!). The reason is simple - I am not that very same whippersnapper who had no family to worry about and no job to do, thus being able to devote his time to playing "AntiJamesBond" games with all those spies. Or sucking the balls of other alliances in order to negotiate a gangbang of someone who isnt definitely stronger, but may just match us in power (big maybe here). Or easily getting up due to CTA sometime around 3 or 4 am in the morning... All I want from this game is a reasonably paced, competitive warfare where I dont have to do either of the aforementioned things to succeed.

Assumptions are, most of the people are here for similar reasons, so the frustration with spies and ganks is fully understandable. I am too low level-wise to relate to the current issues, but I do feel certain uncertainty progressing, given that I am going to deal with this crap... The very crap I am running from for the past five years. And this is something I want to be addressed.

With that said, I also understand that there are people who are in their youth or for some other reason can afford and desire a more active gameplay, with spies and diplomacy and CTAs and stuff. They should also be respected, for we are all different and what is acceptable for one is not for the other. Superego is a malleable instance, after all. 

Now, the point of this long "Much a tell about nothing" response is to discourage heated warfare. Jerry, try to relate and not shut the responses of "fairist" people out. And we shouldnt really judge Jerry based on his ideas for an online game either. All responses are valued and helpful for the devs, even if they are not responding. So, lets make it a seminarian discussion and not the arguments we used to have in the toilets of our Public Schools when we were young and have just learned all them dirty words. Ideally, we need a way to keep both the diplomacy and real-world like filth and the ideal, fair novelist conditions together, for black and white are never quantized. Hard task, I know, but, given that we can build upon the preceding ideas instead of simply shutting them down, I believe it to be possible.

 

P.S. Sorry for the lengthy response with loads of bs unimportant personal information, I just wanted to make my way of thinking clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Infamous said:

This plus everything posted by Dheth and Jerry is completely natural... For an MMORPG kind of game, modulating the real world with enhanced possibilities. There is active gameplay there, relying on people backstabbing, making diplomacy (Stats show that the officers there only spend 30-40% of their time doing actual game content) and doing like things.

Now, not sure about the others, but there is a reason I play this TD game and not MMORPG or something with uncapped and unquantized progress (Namely, other MMORTS like recently closed Spartan Wars (The game is no more, it is not OR competitor and thus can be mentioned!!!). The reason is simple - I am not that very same whippersnapper who had no family to worry about and no job to do, thus being able to devote his time to playing "AntiJamesBond" games with all those spies. Or sucking the balls of other alliances in order to negotiate a gangbang of someone who isnt definitely stronger, but may just match us in power (big maybe here). Or easily getting up due to CTA sometime around 3 or 4 am in the morning... All I want from this game is a reasonably paced, competitive warfare where I dont have to do either of the aforementioned things to succeed.

Assumptions are, most of the people are here for similar reasons, so the frustration with spies and ganks is fully understandable. I am too low level-wise to relate to the current issues, but I do feel certain uncertainty progressing, given that I am going to deal with this crap... The very crap I am running from for the past five years. And this is something I want to be addressed.

With that said, I also understand that there are people who are in their youth or for some other reason can afford and desire a more active gameplay, with spies and diplomacy and CTAs and stuff. They should also be respected, for we are all different and what is acceptable for one is not for the other. Superego is a malleable instance, after all. 

Now, the point of this long "Much a tell about nothing" response is to discourage heated warfare. Jerry, try to relate and not shut the responses of "fairist" people out. And we shouldnt really judge Jerry based on his ideas for an online game either. All responses are valued and helpful for the devs, even if they are not responding. So, lets make it a seminarian discussion and not the arguments we used to have in the toilets of our Public Schools when we were young and have just learned all them dirty words. Ideally, we need a way to keep both the diplomacy and real-world like filth and the ideal, fair novelist conditions together, for black and white are never quantized. Hard task, I know, but, given that we can build upon the preceding ideas instead of simply shutting them down, I believe it to be possible.

 

P.S. Sorry for the lengthy response with loads of bs unimportant personal information, I just wanted to make my way of thinking clear. 

I really liked your comment. Personally,  i see a problem and i am trying to do my best for solving problem. And i saw i am not alone. Lots of people agreed, only Jerry not agreed. Ok, fine for me, i respect all and him too.  At least we are a group of people sharing a common pleasure, the OR. 

I think the issue is adressed well with all aspects. I get some personal messages, froö other players, telling who is ally with who. And that lists are beyond my imagination. And really disppointed, we can not cross the lake, how we can cross  the ocean.. 

Now, I really want to hear what will devs say. And if me and the ones that supported me will not succesfull;  i will be happy that at least i/we tried, and did something. Adressed the issue... 

In fact my hopes are decreasing, because lots of alliances are in that endless turn are in silence. 

Again, i wonder so much what will devs say.... I play this game for 1 year, i really worked for my alliance (İ feel huge reponsibility)  but if the game does not present me/us the true/fair competition or reward of my hardworking or the times i spent or the gems i purchased, then i will have to choose my destiny at a different road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are 4 teams on the gameboard, being able to doubleteam an opponent is a feature, not a flaw. And it absolutely does not require intimate negotiations with another alliance, or creation of a street gang for protection. All you have to do is wait to see what the alliance across from you does, and do the same thing. 

The complaints about not wanting to get up at 3am to close out a strike are valid, I don’t enjoy it either, but at a certain level you can’t win wars without players who are willing to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PanicMind said:

And you are telling us, teaming up with some alliance to gank others is making friends...

When you are saying something is bullshit, please think about which part are you talking about? OMG...... you are so good on wrongly interpret what other people are talking.  I am saying team up with the others is making friends, NOT saying gank others is making friends, there’s a difference here. Team up is the earlier step, and gank others is the act after that. After made friends with someone, you can still decide what to do next.

7 hours ago, PanicMind said:

We have sometimes Member from other top 10 alliances joining our alliance, to see how we play and going to war with us. So there is a big exchange of knowledge and of course agreements.

 I do remember in this game there is an option that you could change how to join your alliance from “open” to “application needed”, and you know what’s the better part? You could then decide let him/her in or not. Isn’t this great??

7 hours ago, PanicMind said:

The war need a fundamental change, to be fair and that the rank is showing the strength of an alliance.
The rank is actually a joke, showing nothing about how good you are.

 Please advise your suggestion.

7 hours ago, Neptune said:

Get the point and cut it shorter. You are making most of us ignoring all these long replies 😂

Please try by yourself to explain and describe all these points well, and in the meantime make it short,  I’m looking forward to see it.

7 hours ago, Hellslord said:

one of them joined my team as an ordinary member, and shared all war infos, tactics with our opponents. Our opoonents were all ready for our next move. When I investigate he was another team a while ago. I talked them and they complained too.

This is simply because they are not your friends, and they don’t want to make friends with you. I’m not talking about you should make friends with them, and there’s an option in the game you could decide and control who could join you alliance, and I suggest, don’t let someone you don’t trust get in.

7 hours ago, Hellslord said:

when war starts, at the very start of battle, one of them sent message to me to join them.... I did not answer and ganged.

This is also because they are not your friends, right?

7 hours ago, Hellslord said:

one of a ganger reached me and wanted me to merge them, refused and wished me luck.... for next war. I think i am going to be...

Again, same thing. And if they need to be merged, they must be weak, and you can beat them if you are in the same war map in the future, right?

7 hours ago, Hellslord said:

These are not the ways for getting friendship

Again, I’m not talking about they are trying to make friends with “you”. You two obviously think differently. And you could make friends with the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Isjerryhuang when reading your posts, I wonder if you are not @Warriornator? Because you are telling the same blabla as he does normaly. The whole way you write is just not to be taken serious.

Would be interesting, to know your lvl and rank, to know, on what lvl of experience we are talking.

Edited by PanicMind

Share this post


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

@Isjerryhuang when reading your posts, I wonder if you are not @Warriornator? Because you are telling the same blabla as he does normaly. The whole way you write is just not to be taken serious.

Would be interesting, to know your lvl and rank, to know, on what lvl of experience we are talking.

Blabla? You know greek?

Share this post


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

Blabla? You know greek?

As of Tomaxo's post in Version 3.8, Warriornator is from Quebeck, a small village, to be precise. His main language is French, so I dont know what Greek has to do with it.

Share this post


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

As of Tomaxo's post in Version 3.8, Warriornator is from Quebeck, a small village, to be precise. His main language is French, so I dont know what Greek has to do with it.

Please stop comments

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