If you are asking to normal guys like me then I will say no it is not balancing, however, if you ask Flare for the same then they will say yes it is balancing and this will be called balancing because Flare said so…
I guess you are referring to the fact that less members in an alliance should not be matched with alliances with more members?
Here both alliances can have 65 members in total, so they are matched together.
If having less members than your max possible amount would match you with less powerful alliances… then it would be super easy to exploit this by simply kicking players before the war season starts then recruiting them right away after the war season starts. You would have a super powerful alliance with 65 players matched with a little one.
Hope this answers the question
Thanx for the reply Flotha but what if that alliance really has 15 members. Also you can see the difference in Rank of both the teams. One is of Rank 3 and one is 700+
What kind of match is this?
I would say, this is bad luck…
If their alliance managed to reach the max level but that they only have 15 members in it when they are supposed to have 65, then there is an issue with the leader of the alliance who doesn’t manage it properly, he needs to recruit players, it has nothing to do with the balancing of the game.
Again you could exploit the Rank by kicking players before the war season and recruiting them just when it starts.
This is actually a really good argument.
However, we all know that this alliance only has 15/65 because it either broke down or they’re droping fiefdoms to manipulate their future war’s matchups.
If you know, you can talk. If you don’t know, do silence. You can’t talk about my alliance. I have spent a lot of money there, A LOT. You can just tell me “thanks” for money. Do you have ruined this game with balance ? Or with Conquest Mode ?
Where did all your members go?
Hi Lacuna, i don’t want talk about my alliance and his current issue thanks to these new changes. I am still too many upset Sorry. I haven’t opened this post. But i couldn’t stay in silence reading who has been always a jumper player (not you, Lacuna) during his experience in game and doesn’t understand the efforts and the time to build an alliance. It’s easy to tell “we introduce balance, we introduce new confused game. Your problems now”. I apologize but I don’t reply again, it’s better so. Hope you understand and i hope anyone closes this post. thanks
It has the same alliance level and similar fiefdom count as other alliances, unless the game is left open to simple exploits (kick and re-join), then the matching was perfect.
I agree, he has no right to question the leadership of your Alliance, especially when he doesn’t know what’s going on
I used to be a great fan of your videos ?♂️
Do i remember you being a leader of any top 100 alliance? ?
I guess no.
It takes a lot of time and money to do so and when you are not paid for playing its even tougher.
I still hope you will have a bit more respect for a leader.
As i am one and believe me if i hadn’t been supported by 10+ generals, who still play, because they love the team more than the game itself and are more sympathetic towards the alliance, our alliance would have been down the drain like many.
We had initially planned to reach top 10
Then we realized that the amount of real money we spend is not good enough.
We convinced ourselves that we will call ourselves on the top even if we reach 25th rank.
Believe me even after ceaseless efforts, we as a team now don’t even think above 50.
We already lost our first leader.
It takes two co leader and a team of 10-12 general just to survive the extravagant loss everytime FG nerf something.
Don’t we deserve to have a team who we can play with?
I am disappointed.
As a general and a very close guy to the leader of a high alliance I can totally understand what it feels like to fight for guys, motivate them, position leavings, position breaks, position bad feelings about changes.
The most important thing I can see is that flare opens up a channel to the guys, who can change a lot. And as I see the communication gets transparent more and more. I think this is a point in which we all have to build up trust and motivation again (in case we got demotivated).
As long as we can give good feedback and requests to make something better we are on a good way to change and let improve it.
Having said this I can also tell you, that our alliance had to take often risks, high player loss, fusion and motivation pushes. After a long road it worked fine enough. I wish you very much power and time to have the same experience!
This thread is a few weeks old, but I am catching up and it is impossible to let this stand like this.
Flothaboss should know the CD for joining wars was prolonged quite a while ago to three days. His argument seems not to be valid. The number of players could and should very well be an important factor for good matchmaking. If someone wanted to use this as a trick, it could only be used for the last days of war, which would not make much sense.
Having less players is a common problem in times where many people are quitting out of disappointment and often not a sign of bad leadership as insinuated in FTBs other post in this discussion. Also it should be taken into account, this makes it much harder for alliances who lost some players to get back on their feet.
One of the main problems for RR2 now is, Flare seems to have forgotten to make improvements to the standard wars, which are still a very important part of this game. Many people only continue to play because of them, and do not like the new Conquest game mode which requires much more frequent log-ons. Those “legacy” wars should have been improved and the flaws eliminated before letting us beta-test something so different in nature like the conquest.
Flothaboss is right. Currently the penalty is only 24 hours. When a team uses that trick, only one day of war is missed (in fact, it can be used to gain skull bonus for the 1st day in the meantime) then the rest of the remaining war, you’ll have a 65 member alliance bullying the rest of the map.
Fiefdom is already the best system. You win you go up in ranking you fight tougher opponents. You lose you go down in ranking you fight opponents who are less tougher. The problem has never been the fiefdom system itself. The problem has always been about the boost reward, i.e. everyone wants the pyro, arbs war boost and so then lose the other war on purpose.
Agree, in Forster-Wars its always the challange who gains less skulls gg
no matter how n\much you recruit,you end up wirh lame duck players,this a match,made by lunatics
a balanced fair approach this is not,it could be balanced and fair,so fix it!!!,I would rather flush my money down the toilet,than play in unfair match ups