Alliances in war with very few members

When it happens to meet an alliance with a very low amount of members … like the 11 ones we are facing this week in the 1 vs 1 war … while victory is easy, getting enough scores for the reward chest might be not.
I have a suggestion … if during a strike one has done all the players in the opposite alliance, reset the malus on points. So if they are so few that you did them all and still have furies, you won’t get penalized by the fact that they are in 11 or 12 players only. It’s not fault of an alliance if it gets teamed up with a disbanding one, and it’s already annoying enough to lose the bonus torches … at least in this way one won’t lose the reward chests as well.

:slight_smile:

This is a practical solution when teams disband during a season. If a team maybe has under 20 players in higher leagues, reset the system so VP is not diminished for attacking the same enemy over and over during a strike.

3 Likes

The reason for the decreasing VP is to give a chance for the opponent to win the war. If there are 5 x 150 levels, you would only hit them, and if your team has 145 levels, everyone would start at uneven point, which only gets worst, while the decreasing effect makes it a bit better.

But to answer to your suggestion, you need to improve it. Because what if there is a team with 15 and a team with 11. Who gets reset VP’s? Both? Is the silver lining the 11th or X player? It would still be a problem in some cases.

You are getting a very easy win, the downside is you don’t get the last chest (or bonus torch as you say). I don’t think that is something that should be changed, unless repeated too much in the higher leagues. That team will go down eventually. Losing on the last chest, can also happen on 1v1 that are equal and they hit the 1 skull all the time. Should we adjust to that too ? Should we make it easier? There is no rule to get all chests… it’s just how it is.

A lot of lower leagues face much more problems, than once in a while for this case. So I would look for a solution, or a rule that applies for those lower leagues, or just the lowest league. Then see how it can possibly be implemented on higher leagues.

I know why the decreasing VP rule was made …
On the other side, it’s not fault of your alliance if it gets matched up by random misfortune with a disbanding one; but it’s you that would get damaged by that. Granted it doesn’t happen often, but how’d you feel if you are competing for the first position all the season and your opponent in last war starts crumbling … and you end up losing not on the field by your fault but due to that ?

The suggestion would just balance that - every time one has done in a single strike all opponents, the malus goes away and you can redo all of them again. You still need to do them all every time for the malus to be gone - so in normal situations you would trigger it only against alliances with less than 30 players in the 18 hours war, assuming you start with full furies on all 3 heroes.

The whole point is not getting damaged by something that’s not your fault and not under your control, but just bad luck.

1 Like

Getting a very weak team that you can win all strikes from is good luck, though. There’s some balance there.

The best solution to this problem is to seed alliances based on qualifications, not just wins and losses. That alliance doesn’t belong in your league. That’s also the most complex solution.

Wrong in part … that alliance does belong to our league. It just got destroyed after the season started leaving 11 members 3 of which inactive, leaving actually 7 targets for war. So ya it’ll be fixed next season when they go down.
But besides the specific case, sure it’s an easy win, at the cost of no torches bonus. And potentially at the risk of players not getting chests rewards - for something that is not their fault - at all.

You could draw a team with 50 difficult players and it could still mean that players might not make all chests, just for different reasons.

The lack of bonus torches is a strong argument for removing bonus torches entirely (which may be coming soon), but it is definitely working as originally intended. You’re supposed to get compensated for tough wars where teams score lots of points (and where you may not be winning as many torches the normal way), and not get the bonus torches when you have easy wars. Its a way to balance out strength of schedule.

When I say that this alliance doesn’t belong in your league, I mean that leagues should have minimum and maximum qualifications for eligibility, and falling out of eligibility, even mid season, should result in re-seeding.

One thing is not making it because you didn’t perform good enough - then it’s just fair you don’t get the prize.
Another thing is not making it because the game doesn’t give you enough targets. It’s just going shooting at the carnival and you get the pink hyppo with 10 shoots but you get just 5 bullets.
If you shoot 10 and miss 5 shame on you. But not even being given the chance is a fraud.

And besides, the fact that a war 50 vs 7 makes it an “easy war” (just being nice), doesn’t mean necessarily that the fights with those 7 will be easy. You might have 7 great defenses that gives you hell regardless how many times you do them. Just saying, the two things aren’t necessarily connected.

Right, and on day 1 of the Alliance Wars release I was complaining that league seeding should be smarter. It was true then and its true now. This alliance doesn’t belong in your league. An alliance with 50 tough as nails defenses doesn’t belong in your league, either.

Sure, but since I don’t see 'em planning to change the matchmaking anytime soon nor the minimum requirements to stay in a league … and the fact that they can’t raise too much the required minimum number of players in an alliance to not break the lower leagues … I don’t see where my suggestion could cause damage. If it’s implemented simply in - have to do all before resetting the malus, it won’t trigger but in few situations, and even then I don’t see where/how it could cause any harm.

So overall, imho, it’s something that wouldn’t ruin the game for others and that would balance somehow meeting those breaking alliances. But I’d rather like to hear if someone finds potential exploits to it (which would be a good reason to dump this suggestion) … since saying that a good matchmaking could make it useless is surely right and good but it won’t happen, as has been requested endless time with no luck…

I understand your suggestion, but you need to weight in the pros and cons. As Dumpster simply put it, you are winning all strikes, no hassle, easy weekend. What’s more important? A win, max torches from islands, or getting the last chest for 50 members?

We can’t possibly want it all, and if we do want to make a system which is better, in my humble opinion, the solution has to be better, so it will apply in all cases, not just one, which is also few times in higher leagues.

2 Likes