Keep Skulls, won by Quit/Expelled alliance members - REFINED

I’ve realized that my original suggestion (see the bottom of this post) would be disruptive because it often happens that some player joins alliance and then quickly exits (without winning any skulls).

Here is my improved suggestion: When player quits (or is expelled) during a war in which (s)he won some skulls: 1. All skulls, won by him/her are kept, 2. (S)he could be attacked during this war, BUT the total number of skulls (s)he may lose in this war    (including skulls, lost while being within the alliance) is limited by the number of skulls (s)he won in this war 3. (S)he could be attacked only by 1 opponent at the same time (because we don’t know how many skulls will be lost until the attack ends)

============ My original suggestion was: ============ Currently (as of 03/20/16) when a player quits during a war - all skulls (s)he won in this war are deducted. Probably the idea was to prevent “quickly get some skulls and exit before could be attacked” stuff. But now - other alliance members look at skull count and get idea “we’re sure to win; I don’t have to fight too hard, spend gems on Scrolls & Resurrections …” … And suddenly - some skulls are deducted - we’re not winning anymore ?! I SUGGEST: Keep all skulls won, BUT allow the player who quit (or was expelled) during a war to be attacked during this war.

I like your original idea a lot more than the improvement. Remember that you can set your alliance not to be “open” during wars. In other words you have the option to prevent players from joining without your consent. It is wise to not have an open alliance during a war.

When players in your alliance leave and you loose the war - it is not really that bad. What is very very bad is when you are the clear weaker alliance and stronger alliances corner you so that you can basically do nothing during the war but to provide the stronger alliance with sculls. Then the stronger alliance kick all their members and you win the fight you are suppose to loose and gained a fiefdom. In other words, when we are the clear weaker alliance, we try to loose good in order to get a better match next war. This option is removed when stronger alliances kick members (after they have won all the chests) so that they can have easy wars continually. (This kicking of players is a strategy used in the top 100 alliance wars. Sometimes they do not kick members, the leader only changes the flag and then everyone leave the alliance. The outcome of the war is a total surprise!!!)

The above problem will be fixed by your original suggestion.  


I didn’t know about that lose-war-on-purpose trick (my alliance is somewhat below top 1000).

But my improved suggestion would also fix it, right?

Yes it will fix the problem

hmm no one can quickly join earn skulls and leave. There is a long stand down during war so new additions are always penalized anyway.

Phage, I didn’t say " join , earn skulls and leave". I said " quickly get some skulls and exit" presuming player was in alliance at the beginning of war.

Right now such practice is penalized - skulls are deducted … but the real problem I propose to solve:

When player got some skulls and then quits from alliance - right now it’s punished - skulls are deducted.

When player lost some skulls and then quits from alliance - it’s also punished - lost skulls stay lost.


In fact it’s more than fair that skulls lost stay lost and skulls won are lost.

Otherwhise it’s simple math. Throw out the players who lost a lot of skulls and did not score much just before the end of a war and take them back in immediately again. There you go, an easy victory that way. Why would the war opponent need to be punished for something happening in your team? The leader is responsible for the members he takes into a war season, nothing more, nothing less.

That the skulls are lost raided by some member is also fair. Some teams used a dirty trick in the past. Rules were different at those times. When you were part of a team, left and came back without raiding in another war you could fight immediately and your skulls won were kept at that moment. So what such teams did was the following. They started with a few strong players, plus members who were able to raid immediately. When the players with not so strong bases did their raids they simply left the team, while the stronger members stayed behind. The strong players didn’t get a lot of raids against them, since lower opponents couldn’t beat them. The opponent was not able to score enough skulls against the remaining strong members. 5-10 minutes before end of the war some other players returned and did their raids. Since not enough players of the other team were online, it was simple who won. So for that reason also skulls won, must be erased.

Some of the players can do some bad action that hurts the team, but it’s all in the game. A player can leave, open his/her base or don’t help at all, it’s as simple as that. So try to get loyal members who chat and check them out, most of my players inform me when they have private matters and can’t help, so at least I know the reason.

I hope you do understand now why the skulls lost must stay and skulls won must be 0 when a player leaves your team.

Dena4, it seems you misunderstood my “improved suggestion”,

The “dirty trick” you describe wouldn’t work with it:

  1. After weak members left the team - they could be attacked and all the skulls they won could be neutralized. (and the skulls they lost would stay lost).

  2. If they returned later - they wouldn’t be able to do battles - that’s the current rule which I never proposed to change. Indeed opponents would be able to attack them again; and this time - without any skull limit (that’s also the current rule which would stay intact).

  3. If you think that limit of attacks against members-who-left by skulls-they-won is too low - well there is a point … and there are ways to fix it: for example:

(a) make limit the 2-times-number-of-skulls-they-won … or

(b) limit not the number of skulls but the number of battles - like 2-times-number-of-battles-they-did; so if player did 6 battles and quit - (s)he could be attacked 12 times

I gave this matter some thought and I would like to propose a total new idea. But in order to present the new idea I need to give a bit of background:

One of the major themes in RR2 world is that in spite of the simplicity of the game, you can apply a lot of strategy. Most of this strategy comes into play during war. When you figure out a new strategy and it works - the feeling is unmatched by anything else. The reverse is also true, that is when an opponent applies a new strategy on you, the frustration know no bounds. I was on both sides of this fence. I was extremely thrilled when a new strategy works and was extremely frustrated when an opponent applied a new strategy on me -  (to the point that I have made a few abuse submissions to Flare about these “bad tactics”). The higher your alliance goes up into the leader-board, the more “good strategies” or “bad tactics” comes into play. And here is the “catch 22” situation: As Flare fixes these “loopholes” - the options to apply different strategies to the game is reduced and limited and it becomes impossible to outwit another alliance - it is only a matter of the strongest alliance will always win. I will give a few examples of strategy:

1. Some alliances works in pairs. There will be a start-up alliance that is “open”. When a player join and he is identified as a good player, he is recruited into a higher level alliance. Going forward with this strategy a lot of options open up: 

   a.The stronger alliance can provide gold to the weaker alliance.

   b. The weaker alliance can provide gems to the stronger alliance (and visa versa)

   c. More alliances can be added to the group, each with a different purpose. 

  d. Soldiers can be moved between these alliances according to different strategies.

  e. Some alliances can be used to disrupt the war. This is done by moving all players to another alliance during the war. This movement, depending on the timing can change everything during a war.   

2. When a war starts, the first thing most alliances do is to see who can be pinned (or cornered) against a wall. This will be done first. The moment an alliance is pinned, that alliance can only attack one alliance always. This provide that alliance with a lot of sculls. The term “farming” is used to describe this tactic

3. When a war starts, the strongest two alliances might negotiate an agreement of how the war is going to go. It is agreed on the first day who will be the winner and who will win the most skulls. Sometimes these agreements are broken - this is also a strategy. 


The above 3 examples can look like “bad tactics” or like “good strategy” depending how you look at it. Dena4 has made this suggestion :

" I would say, change war system, no need to declare wars, fight every team twice during war season, like a regular competition. Every day you have two wars during a war season. Then you can give up against an opponent by not fighting them. They still can attack you. No more 4-6 wars on one day. "

If this rule is applied, it will make everything “fare and square”. It will also remove 99% of strategy options during war time. This will really frustrate the Russians and most of the top ranking alliances (they always do the unexpected during wars and uses “bad tactics” and / or “good strategy”). In this set-up - during the first 30 minutes everyone will know who the winner is going to be. No one will go through the trill of “we are going to win”, and then the frustration when suddenly you “loose everything”.  

Another options is to remove this “cool down” effect that is currently implemented - that is -  if a soldier change alliances during war, he cannot fight for 60 hours but can be attacked by all. This will really make things interesting because new strategies are possible. You can move players around to ensure a victory. This is also very bad, because for some alliances this is going to feel like “cheating” and “bad tactics” .  

How do you fix a “catch 22” problem?

I have spend days, weeks, months of my life in meetings, committees, workshops where I worked with the best brains in the world to solve “catch 22” problems. The moment you choose to go in one direction, you immediately alienate the other party. Each side has convincing arguments and in the end you must admit that both sides are correct. No matter what you choose, one side is going to loose big time. In software - there exist a very simple solution to this problem. It is so simple that it is really hard to except it at first. You will say “it can not be that simple!”. Some say “it can not work and it will not work”.  But it always works.

The answer is: Implement both solutions and let the user (or client) choose for himself. 

So here is my suggestion:  Add a settings screen that the leader can select the war conditions he is willing to accept. For a start I will propose the following:

1. Can soldiers leave during the war? (yes/no)

2. Fight everyone once? (yes/no)

3. Can soldiers be added during war? (yes/no)

Note the following:

  1. The more restricted a leader chooses the answers, the less strategy is possible and the more predictable the war will be. (This option will mostly be used by lower level alliances). With less strategy, war is going to be more straight forward and the rewards should also be less.

  2. The less restricted a leader chooses the answers, the more strategy is possible and the less predictable the war will be. The rewards for using more open rules should be bigger during this war.

  3. When the war starts, first match alliances with the same options and then use the default matchmaking algorithm.

  4. The war rewards depend directly on the above choices. (This gives even more room for strategy)

Why this solution will work?

  1. This will protect starting alliances from “bad tactics”.

  2. This provide a path where an alliance can gradually build and choose to be exposed to more war options.

  3. In the life of an alliance there is building time (where you want to level up and use fewer boosts). There is fighting time, (where you activate all possible boosts always). The above war options will allow an alliance leader to better manage both these times

  4. The top alliances only have one rule - win using any and all possible means. As Flare fixes the “bad tactics” and so called “loopholes” submitted by paying clients (or rather remove the “good tactics options”) the only other option left to win, is to spend money, money and money… Some will not think this is bad, but if you read the forum and what the top players are saying, there is sure a lot of people that screams about this.

  5. It looks and sounds like a lot of top alliances wants to quit this game and move to other games. I think this solution should remove a lot of the frustration of these players. I believe that the root cause of their frustration is the fact that the only strategy left in the game is to use lots of money.

  6. I think that RR2 can be the best game of all time - but it is very clear that something major needs to be changed at the top levels of the game. This solution is that change - just do it!

  7. This is the only win-win solution. It works well, I have used it many times.

Any comments are very welcome (even if you do not agree)



I am favour for the league system with two fights per day and facing each team once or twice. No team is eliminated at all is a major advantage of this system plus forfeiting is also not allowed.

Facing every team once (two fights per day) could make it interesting, since you can fight with 11 teams five days in a row. When you fight every team twice you can fight with 6 teams 5 days. To keep it simple, I would stick to 6 teams. Then at least you can take revenge when you are beaten by a team that had war boosts at the start of season and when you face them again you at least have a chance.

Skull rewards are useless with this system and so is loser bonus. So we can get rid of them.

It also makes a division system more logical. I would start with 4 division 1 (to prevent boringness of top alliances), 8 division 2, 16 division 3 and so on. When you end number one, you promote, When you end 5 or 6 you demote (when 6 teams are in a division). To make it even more interesting, two number 2 of a lower division can play one deciding promotion/demotion battle against a number 4 of a higher division. The winner promotes. When in division 1, the numbers 1 fight one day extra for a huge price.

I already suggested this a couple of months ago and got almost no repsonses, so I don’t think they will ever introduce this.

I would add to your rules that a player can’t change his base as option. Otherwhise someone could open the base on purpose. To make it even more clear, leader and general should be able to throw a player out.

I forgot to mention another advantage of a division system.

With current system you can win 5 fiefdoms (By forfeit of another team we won 7!). Next season winners can in theory be matched against teams that were 8 fiefdoms higher. So they probably have more members and war boosts won’t help you then any longer.

With divisions the differences are not so huge. Sure, you can fight teams that are coming from a higher division, but only when you promoted. Fight them during first day (war boost advantage) and also that advantage is then justified. Teams will eventually settle in a division and with the perspective of having normal seasons I think most teams can live. Match making becomes easier. Within a few seasons a team will be in the division where they belong.

If your team is facing to strong opponents, demoting to a lower division will increase your chances a lot. When a team loses some members, it doesn’t have to be a dramatic effect. Demoting pnce or twice ould already be enough for teams to survive.