Issues in current war system

This post is regarding the issues that exists in current war system which are as follows:


1) Ganking of sister/friend alliances over other alliances. I am sure by now a lot of alliances have noticed that they were attacked by 1-2 alliances simultaneously due to which they lost the war season. Usually it happens because 1-2 alliances teams up and focus attacks on an alliance to force its members to spend food on 2-3 fronts. This leaves the defending alliance in an unfair situation.


2) I found a lot of threads where people complain about alliances agreeing to attack certain alliance and do not keep their word. This creates frustration for alliances who kept their word and got betrayed afterwards.


3) Match-making putting uneven strength alliances together. A lot of times good alliances (almost all members participate in war) face a high level alliance in war season which is literally impossible to beat just because of their sheer strength.  It is obvious a 40 player alliance cannot hope to beat a 50 or more player alliances.


4) It is critical to start a war on time and whichever alliance starts match first has an advantage. Problem with this system is it force generals/leaders to make a decision (during start of war season) of whom to attack without properly analyzing other alliances strength. Also a lot of generals make mistakes and attack wrong tile forcing the alliance to fight on that tile. Also it is important to start a war as soon as the new war ends. For this generals have to be selected from different time zone just to make sure they can start war on time. If their devices or internet don’t work, they cannot declare war on time.


5) If an alliance tiles are in corner near the strongest alliance on map, it is doomed to lose as the stronger alliance will cut its path and stop its advance to other alliances against which it could have managed to win and get 2nd or 3rd position in war season.


6) Loser bonus: After an alliance loses a war at any point during war season, the system detects it as weak and grants it a loser bonus which keeps increasing for every loss. A lot of top alliances have abused this system by losing their first war and then winning all other wars using that loser bonus.


7) Skulls in fortune chamber. I am sure a lot of players (even paid players) have demanded to remove this feature. This feature not only forces grinding alliance members to spend more gems (actual money) for opening the fortune chamber chests but also to pay for extra bread to grind even more. It is plain and clear that almost every member of game does not want this feature in the game and it needs to be removed completely.



8) Grinding vs non-grinding players. A lot of players in the game likes to ensure their victory by grinding while others wants to take it light and play it for fun. Forcing players to grind more for each war or restricting them to certain amount of wars to avoid grinding are not acceptable solutions. Alliances should have a choice to face grinding/non-grinding alliances in order to let them enjoy the game as they like rather than forcing all players to play in similar way.


If you think some of the issues that I have mentioned here should actually exist in war season please let me know. Also if I have missed something, please mention it in the comments. I am working on a ladder system design (which is used in many online games) for war season with the intention to solve these existing issues. Please let me know your thoughts. All meaningful criticisms and feedback are welcome.


Antwod I agree with some of what you have said:


I think points 1 and 2 are just part of the game to be honest, like in any real wars you have allies and mutual enemies, changing sides mid war is also another historic accuracy, the good thing about this just being a game is you only get burned the once, after that you don’t trust the defaulting alliance again.


Point 3 is very valid and to be honest I can see how this hasn’t sorted itself out over time if flare use an algorithm that takes fief count and member levels into account, theoretically there should get to a point where there is a balance where alliances push up until they hit their max level for their membership and then just bob up and down between seasons until they either recruit more players or get stronger, the only thing I can see that might effect this is the transient nature of many in the mid to lower level alliances making numbers not stable. Maybe flare can answer why that’s not happened.


Point 4 is just a fact of the game, it has to start at some point, I’m guessing the current start time is probably as good as it can get in respects of most alliances having members active.


Point 5 I agree with, the map is very limited, maybe it should wrap so no one is in a corner


Point 6 … well what can I say, universally nearly everyone has said the loser bonus is a bad idea, even more so now with the limitations of raids … but obviously flare think different as they are not budging on it … head, sand, ostrich!!


Point 7 again agree, yes it is better now than it was, but we asked for removal of the feature … we got a half baked solution, one that obviously makes us spend gems again.


Point 8, forget two leagues, just let the grinding return, if people don’t want to grind they can stay in lower alliances and if point 3 is fixed still win and play for fun, for those that enjoy a lot of raiding and want to be at the top of the game let them work as hard as it takes to do so. The current system has a finite max figure (which I did work out) of skulls that an alliance can get assuming all get 100% and all open their boxes, this should not happen its has basically closed the game down … maybe we should call the new game RR lite!!!


Flare you are losing players and getting very few dedicated new ones to replace them, you know that. Its not because of grinding, not because or ganking, mainly its because you have created a game where an individual cannot compete anymore without being in an alliance, the alliance only boosts have ruined the game. Those that want to pick it up play a bit then put it down and come and go as they please find that its impossible to play other at the bottom of the pile, so they leave and quickly. You don’t keep them long enough for them to develop enough interest for them to want to pay and proceed. What we have now is top players (heavy investors) leaving because of the changes you have made and low level guys never even really getting started, it isn’t looking rosy is it?

The only point I agree with is 3. Using fiefdoms to matchmake is becoming absurd.

Its the best option we have I believe

Sorry new to forum. I meant to quote Fii Nami. I think they can match by fiefdom and by number of members if they wanted to update the code to make play fairer.


I think the root cause of all problems is that player are given the choice of whom to attack. When players are allowed to do whatever they want, it gives rise to teaming up and ganking on weak alliances.  Also many alliance don’t keep their part of bargain which causes feel of betrayal and frustration. Yes I agree that it resembles what happens in reality but we see enough of that stuff in real life and don’t want to experience that in an online game.  I would rather have decisions of making an attack fair and let system do it for us. Also let system start the war for us automatically (possible if system automatically decides our opponents in war season) so we don’t have to appoint generals just because they are in different time zones but rather based on their capability, dedication and loyalty towards alliances.  The main task of generals is not just to start war on time or start war on correct tile but to help out their alliance members (new/weak) and guide them, which sadly I don’t see in many alliances. 


Now if people want the feeling of having a “Grand alliance” between 2 or more alliances, flare can introduce the concept of sharing resources among the grand alliances.  They can have “ambassadors” ranks along with “generals” ranks who can move temporary to their friend alliance and make donations or fight wars for them.  That way players won’t be restricted to 10 battles and they will be able to do wars for more than 1 alliance which would make it fun.  But then again this needs to be calculated properly so players don’t abuse it.