# Alliance Wars: Elimination (Tip of the Hat to: ZagorMD)

In the Alliance Wars currently, currently the score is judged by your best 3 fights against any of the opponents in the other alliance.

This is Stupid because virtually everyone just picks the weakest three guys beat them up and quit fighting.

Because honestly, the difference in skulls between beating the weakest 3 opponents and the strongest 3 are only a few hundred when the wars usually turn on thousands of points.

There should be a reason to fight different opponents.

For any skulls taken from an opponent in battle, only half those skulls would be available for the next player to take on defeating the opponent. This number would obviously be shown to the player before he attacks so he can see the repeatedly defeated opponents are no longer prime targets.  That way players would be encouraged to attack the biggest possible players, leaving their weaker allies a chance to beat a weaker opponent.  And that way fighting in the wars would be a game of skill again where you’d actually be trying to do the best you can, not just easily raping the bottom three opponents in the other alliance.  Now this is somewhat complicated so I’m going to give an example.

Imagine we have an two alliances on one side we have: Bob, Jack, and Frank on the other side:Ron and Stu.  Ron has 700 skulls to be taken in battle, and Stu has 710 skulls to be taken in battle.  In the current system pretty much everyone would hit Ron.  But in this new system if Bob attacks Ron (who has never been attacked and has 700 skulls to lose.)  Imagine Bob takes 400 skulls.  That means that only half that: 200 would be replaced so the next opponent, Jack, when he attacked Ron, he would only be able to take 500 skulls at a max.  That’s 300 of the skulls Bob didn’t get and 1/2 (200 of the 400 Bob did get).  Then if Jack totally defeated Ron; in the next battle, Ron would only have 250 skulls to lose.  He’s had 250 because he had 500, lost them all, and only half of anything lost is replaced.  Note: Obviously all the skulls would be replenished between rounds.  Therefore, if Frank wants to attack he would see the weakest opponent Ron with 250 skulls or for only a slightly stronger opponent: He could attack Stu for 710 skulls!

* I need to give a tip of the hat to: ZagorMD who got me thinking of this idea.

The difference between the highest 3 and bottom 3 attacks in my last league was about 400.

Multiply that by 50 and and you get 20,000 skulls.

What happens when 10 people hit the same person at once?

Say one person can only offer 800 skulls. If 10 people attack at the same time who gets the skulls?

Would we have to wait for the other people to get there attacks in 1 by 1? That is just horrible.

It’s not that hard to hit every member in an enemy alliance.

1 person could in theory get the first hit on everyone enemy player.

Every time we made a hit we would have to look through every single enemy player for every single time.

I like how wars need every member to win. And they are fluid, you an just do your own thing or ask for advice but it is very quick.

I have been in several Wars were we won or lost because of a single person and I like that a lot.

Removing the strategy of AW is not the way to go.

I’ve noticed you like everything exactly the way it is.

Do they pay you to argue against any new idea?

And to answer your question, just like when you log on and it says you’re already under attack.  If an attack was underway on any current alliance member his skulls would be diminished by the full half until the end of that battle.

And to answer your other implied question, this would reduce the total score count in a war, but it would do so evenly across the board so it would make the game a little more like soccer in it’s scoring and a little less like basketball.

I wouldn’t mind being payed but I settle for doing it for free! And I’m not against any new idea.   When you post a suggestion thread in a public forum people are going to give there opinions. Mine are just as good as yours are.

There is no point in posting a suggestion if you don’t want anyone to weigh in.

I like how immediately after war starts everyone can attack the same person.

With your suggestion we would have to hit bases 1 by 1 because we would have to wait for someone to finish the base and the skulls to be calculated.

There is no point in complicating an existing process only to make it less desirable for those it effects.

Personnally, I pick players with the most skulls to do my top3, not the lower ones, and I’m not the only one. And don’t think that people with low skulls are the easiest and vice versa

You wouldn’t have to wait.  You’d just have to pick a person other than the one that everyone would normally pick on.  And Ones the dust settled you could rehit the ones people normally picked on.

I think it’d be cool to have all sorts of rules:

• 3 best battles

• Unlimited battles

• Average skull count

• Dodgeball rules

• Ring rules (Wherein each player starts out with 5 rings, can only hold 10 rings, and an alliance’s rings earn points over time. This makes it so that nobody can be massively attacked (because they have nothing to steal), but also so that nobody can swoop in and steal the lead at the last possible second)

And then allow everyone to choose which rules they want to participate under

You would have to wait… If you someone is hitting the person you selected you would have to look through every member until you find someone who is free.

If you can’t hit someone immediately you are waiting til you can.

No.

When you bring up the attack window it currently shows you the enemies ordered by trophies and skulls.  This would be the same exact thing except when you looked at the skulls you’d notice some were low so you wouldn’t attack those players.