Alliances should be required to maintain at least 8 active members during the war season or there are significant negative consequences. Among these could be forfeit of the war season, stat reductions on defenses and troops, bonus skulk boosters that scale drastically as membership declines towards zero for those attacking such under-strenght alliance, skull reduction for the under-strenght alliance on their attacks, loss of all rewards, loss off all fiefdoms in war season, removed member still subject to attack for 60 hours, and/or a two week ban on adding new members to the alliance.
bad idea. just let the system do what it does now
You mean allow an alliance to enter the war season. Dump almost all it members. Become virtually unbeatable what with them running shields and champions on the one or two members left while you can do almost nothing to them? Seems to me that’s not how the game is suppose to work. Oh, and don’t tell me that not how it works. Because they have already won one attack and defended twice because no one could get enough damage on them to beat them. That’s 3 different alliances unable to defeat this stripped down alliance because they are fighting only their highest level players under shield and championed.
As noted there should be penalties in the game to make it such that this is an utter horrible idea with no benefit and only certain death as the reward. Otherwise what’s the point of an alliance? To briefly get enough members so you can start a war season and then dump them?
Sure if you running an aliiance with several level 100 members this isn’t a problem… But who really pays for this game and if the middle level base ceases to support if then what? What does the game become when those people merely become a ticket to entry without being able to play or get frustrated and quit the game because of such tactics?
if you can’t beat them even though you are at the advantage. your problem. They have less people so can no score as well as you can. If your members can’t beat them. level your king up
I rarely see these tactics. normally i just see rl and apoc every war. lol
Beat them when we have the advantage?
One player has run 18 battles for 3,472 skulls. I could run 3 getting 40% less skulls and my total was 739 and I’m the person with the greatest number of skulls against him. That means I, with the maximum skull count got only 21% of the skulls he did. Now how exactly do you expect our lower ranked members to gather enough skulls to easy beat him given you claim we have this massive advantage? So far out of 5 battles this single member alliance has won 4 against 3 alliances. If that’s what you consider him being at a disadvantage is, then what would you consider having an advantage winning 100% of the battles?
No sir, if he’s ‘disadvantaged’ then its not nearly by enough and still doesn’t address whether wars are should be high level solo missions rather that a group effort by a group of players working together for a common goal… If being in a group isn’t what the wars are about then why not let every alliance even those with a single member participate? The 8 member requirement exists for a reason and the game should enforce that. After all if I add a member they can’t attack for 60 hours. Why is it too much to ask that dropping a member should also involve a similar time limit during war seasons? You not give one good reason for why this should be permitted much less why it shouldn’t be penalized. Why is that? Running wars with an army of one are you?
lol. nope. im in royal brasil.
But it would be unfair to penalize those that have less members than 8 as they are unable to score as well as you. For example. i know that i can score about 4.3k against most alliances and 4.6k against newb alliances. if you have 1 member vs lets say an army of 20 low lvl players. You would be able to score at least 3k skull each. 3kx20 people is over 60 thousand skulls. Also. adding this would just make bugs. let the game play as it is now. don’t feel for the past. its their fault they are doing their strategy.
They may be able to get 1.3k per player. And lets say a third can complete his base its 10k and maybe 3 to 5k for the others 15k…
The 8 minimum I don’t think is unfair and go less they just stay active for war.
The rest is a bit much and where do you stop if you start down that road?
The minimum to eNTer is 8 so enforcing the minimum for the duration is not unreasonable.
Kicking and adding is just fine I think…
Unfair…to penalize someone for what amounts to cheating via an exploit? I might see that for losing 1 maybe even 2 because they go inactive…but even then they should still have the 60 hour delay that would apply to adding a member. However when they are INTENTIONALLY booted in mass…that’s not an accident.
Try 3,472 for one player. Now as the highest skull count against him I only gained 21% of the skulls needed to neat him. That means IF, and that’s a big IF, everyone else could do as well it would take no less that 5 people to just match him. Now consider the typical drop off a player or two nor participating or simply unable to run any sort of skulls against him and well…he is 5-1 against 3 different alliances. Clearly just waving your wand and asserting he is going to lose doesn’t match reality.
How far do we go once we go down this road? Simple. 60 hour delays on going inactive, leaving or getting booted from alliance. Dropping below 6 attackable players (after 60 hour delay) means immediate forfeiture of the war season and lose of any rewards and all fiefdoms. That’s how far we go.
So if you’re losing people…you had better find some replacements before that 60 hours expire, right?
dumb idea. stop talking
Wow with such a well reasoned argument based on careful analysis of the issue and showing how mathematically victory is assured on people using such tactics how can anyone question your reasoning?
Oh, that’s right, I can and your post was a stupid idea you should have kept to yourself.
Meanwhile getting back to the issue can anyone offer even a single valid reason why such a tactic should be permitted in an activity which is suppose to build groups…rather than tear them apart.
This is a direct consequence of an even bigger problem, that Flare wanted to solve.
It was like you want before: You started war with at least 8 members. You could lose
a few members and still continue fighting. BUT if you went below 4 members, you did
lose all fiefdoms and skulls and were eliminated from war.
Huge masses of alliances (medium to high) did that on purpose at the end of the war.
They didn’t want to gain fiefdoms and fight against too strong alliances. That turned
into even more problems, when ALL 6 alliances in a war went below 4 members and
unforeseen bugs turned up.
It seems they just removed this feature and i guess, they won’t turn it on again
But it’s probably not a mass problem and you will overcome it by growing your alliance.
What level are you? Cause i been playing this game for a while. kind of know my things. Here is a thought. join an alliance in the top 100. top 500 even!. This weird strategy that you are talking about is rarely used. dumb and is rarely used as the main way of winning wars. play the game right and the game will give you enjoyment. Btw, i honestly don’t think they will start the penalty thing. When i was a newb lvl (around yours i assume) i had difficulties keeping my alliance over 8 people. sometimes during war. they would leave. i would have hated the game if i got penalized for that. Definitely would not be here today if they introduced your “Fair idea”. Good luck
Btw. getting tired of listening to this topic.
What is the name of the alliance?
At last a reasonable explanation. OK so outright elimination is off the table. However they could still impose the 60 hour cool down to dropped members in the same manner as when you add a member during the war season. Prevents the issue of mass eliminations since the alliance will remain in the war however now you still have people that can be attacked yet they can’t fight back. Making that alliance extremely vulnerable to elimination by normal means. That solution would seem to solve both sides of the problem without introducing new bugs into the system that outright elimination did and further you would still have winners, losers and survivors.
IAmWorldLegend in the last war season and in this one its TayNinh_QueHuong (note the last is approximate since it as accent marks which phone’s keyboard doesn’t allow). The second now has 6 fiefdoms in this war, and are 5-1 in victories.
Two items: one if you had issues holding onto members that your problem not the fault of the game. Second the suggest we should only join established alliances means that you don’t believe that anyone would want to form new ones anymore. Hey here is an idea for you when you couldn’t hold onto 8. Abandon you alliance and join one in the top 100. I mean why would you want your own alliance? Seems to be a rather insulting suggestion doesn’t it to someone going to the effort to establish and grow an alliance?
actually. i built my alliance top 100. so no need to get grumpy. lol
Congrats. So you are well aware of the trials and tribulations of doing so. Very frustrating when you see what amounts to an exploit being fairly regularly used against you.