Alliance war improvements

I think the alliance wars are the most exciting time and best features of RR2. To really take the game forward it will require the improvement of the alliance war engine and game play.How can we make the current alliance war experience better?

I make the following suggestions for comment:

  1. Alliance leagues - that is setup the same league system for alliances and the alliance with the most medals will win. 

  2. The Alliance search system is not really working - fix it.  

  3. Make the lost sculls statistic more meaningful as it is impossible to calculate who has a better defence from another alliance member. Add the following stats in a screen: “lost sculls”, “number of attacks”, “average sculls lost per attack”, “average level of king attacked”.

  4. We have champions and shields. Add “king boost” - this will boos a king to make him 10 levels stronger (health, wisdom, attack)

  5. In normal warfare sometimes two hero’s will compete to decide the outcome of a war. Add an option where a leader may select a “hero” and if the competing leader also selects a hero let the two hero’s fight 3 matches against each other where the winner is determined by the best % victory. If both have the same % victory then the shortest time to get the victory is used. If there is a winner add 1% scull bonus for the victory team during that war. (For this option to take effect, both leaders need to agree by selecting a hero)  

  6. After the war, give “man of the match” awards and give prices to the following persons:

    a. The person who has won the most sculls

    b. The person who has the most successful defences (say below 30% is successful defence)

    c. The person who has won the most medals during the war

    d. The person who’s trophies has increased the most during the war

    e. The person who has used the most gems during the war

  1. Extend suggestion no 6 to show the top 3 players in each category 

  2. Sometimes an alliance is just not strong enough to fight (more that half the players cannot win the weakest player in the other alliance. In this situation there is really not much to do but to wait everything out to be slowly over powered. I do not know how to improve on this situation. I give one suggestion maybe it will give someone else inspiration: 

  •  Give an option where an Alliance can retreat (when it is really weaker).

  •  When an Alliance retreat nothing will change to the current season.

  •  For the next season the Alliance relative strength will be downgraded to proved an easier match war for the next season.   

 

 

There are some nice suggestions here!

I agree really good ideas would make war more interesting I would definitely enjoy man of match feature and the rewards for it would make more people attack during war

Flare have promised improvised the war matchmaking in coming updates :slight_smile:

Let’s see:

1- This sounds interesting.

2- I haven’t seen any problem with the alliance search function.

3- I really support this idea, that detailed info would be awesome.

4- This is not needed, but not a bad idea either.

5- Another interesting idea.

6- Duuuude, I love this idea so much!!

7- Yeah!

8- This is a good solution.

I like 1,3,4,6,7. 8 needs work on the details because it will be abused.

I will explain this request in more detail:

If I try to search for one of the best alliances with the name of “blade storm”  and enter “bl”, I would expect to see at least 10 alliances that start with “bl”. I only see 2 alliances “Bl1ndAlliance” and “Bl3nders”.  

If I improve my search and enter “blade”, then again I only see two alliances “Blade Allience” and “Blade Brakers”. 

If I improve the search and enter "blade " then again I only see three alliances “Blade Allience” and “Blade Brakers” and “Blade Brothers”.

If I improve the search again and enter “blade s”  then I see “blade souls 2”, “Blade Soul” and the awesome alliance I was looking for "Blade Storm"

In other words, the alliance search is rigged to only show top 2-3 alliances (and not the best 10 matches). This is a big problem and limitation and I will define it as a bug (because the player search does not work like this). This is also the case when you search for a random alliance to join - you are only given a choice of 3 alliances (why not 10).

Why was the search done in this way?

I do not think that the search is broken by accident. I am sure that if we can ask the developers why? they would say it was per request. So why is the alliance search deliberately broken? 

  1. It has less load on the servers (not good answer)

  2. We do not want people to find alliances easily - we rather want alliances to search for members and then invite them.  (If the alliance wants this, there is a setting to do this. Why limit the whole of the RR2 world)

  3. Flare wants us to use the Forum in order to find an alliance. (I have tried to use the forum to find an alliance. The whole search mechanism is very badly implemented. I can not recommend doing that at all. By the way, we do not want to spend our time on the forum, we want to spend our time playing) 

  4. It was to make more money. (I can not see how this will make more money. Improving the search should take minutes to fix)

  5. ???

Why must this be improved?

  1. The most important reason is time. If anyone does not understand this, just play RR2. Everything in RR2 takes time. Every upgrade takes time. Shorter times = gems = money.  I can excuse the time for waiting for upgrades (as this is way things are done in this game), but I can not excuse a bad implemented search method that cost me valuable time to work around.

  2. I have been part of many alliances, and from time to time I like revisit old friends (that is no longer in my “friend list” or “favourite list”). No problem - I can remember that the alliance name was something like… (and then I get stuck and never find them)

  3. If I want to join an alliance with a cool name like “Blade Storm”, I would like to enter “blade” and see a list of at least the 10 best matches. Same goes for “The Avengers” etc.

  4. When the normal matchmaking feature no longer function correctly (because your trophy count has an effect on how it works - and your trophies are too high or too low) then a good work-around is to select an alliance and then go after the members. But if you are the top player in the alliance or the bottom one, then it gets very difficult to find a good alliance to attack (outside of war)

  5. Sometimes an alliance beat you in a war because they are stronger (or sometimes because they use “dirty” tactics like breaking agreements). I would like to remember their names and to take revenge on them. But too many times I have searched for “open…” something, something…  and then I did not find the correct alliance. Very frustrating.

  6. Many times I thought I found the perfect alliance to join. Then I “apply”, get “accepted”, but then I do not understand a word of the chats. O yes the flag is Chinese.   

How should it be improved?

  1. Show the best 10 matches for a search

  2. Add option to select alliances in a range of 200 ratings stronger and weaker than your current alliance starting with ex. “blade”

  3.  Search all alliances of a specific flag starting with ex. “blade”.

 

I will be very happy if only no 1 is implemented and the 10 best matches are shown. 

 

  1. Sounds interesting, but what do you suggest when players are joining and leaving a team. What influence does it have on the league?
  2. 100% agree
  3. As a leader I would not be interested in won and lost skulls. I would even not be interested in percentages of raids won 100%. I would be more interested in historical statistics for the last 5 war seasons of a player. Interesting statistics would be the percentage of wars a player actually fought for a team, plus the percentage of total possible fights in wars he did. When I see that a person who wants to join did not help his team much, I would not accept him as a player and if it was one of my team members, I would at least ask what’s going on. As leader I would also be interested in average donation during the last month. This way we can see if a player donates on a regular base. Last but not least I want to know how often a player switched from team and which are his last 5 switches.
  4. King boost is not required. Level up the regular way, upgrade spells, troops, items and hero. We don’t want another pay 2 win mechanism.
  5. Interesting idea, but for me not required.
  6. I like the idea, but I think the war chests are already enough reward. And skull perk has a big influence on this. I don’t want rivalry in my team due to this.  Maybe a chest per war where all possible fights are done by a player is welcome.
  7. Fine with me, but is this not only for showing off?
  8. Giving up that war is fine, but don’t you expect that the opponent declares another war on your team due to this? You could give up the season, but what if several teams on the same map do this? That’s not fair for the opponents. I would say, change war system, no need to declare wars, fight every team twice during war season, like a regular competition. Every day you have two wars during a war season. Then you can give up against an opponent by not fighting them. They still can attack you. No more 4-6 wars on one day.

I would remove skull rewards from chests, nobody likes it, only flaregames, because players need to spend gems when unfortunate.

I was hoping that the current war will have something new. Sadly it is still the same old things.