Level Production Chart Please

This post is to ask forum members who have the time and skill and ware with all to make an expected war production chart for individule levels so Alliance leaders can have a guide as to what to expect from the memebers of their Alliance.

 

What i mean by this for example; if a player is at level saaaay 65 and assuming he/she is gonna battle with in or slightly above or below their weight class,Exactly how many skulls if he battles a minimum of three times per war should he be expected to generate

 

I don’t expect an exact number but for instance it could go like this;level 65-75 = 1500-2700 and 76-80 = 2700-3300 skulls and so forth and so on. I don’t even know if this is possible to do Its just a thought.That way you could have a definite minimum number of skulls you can expect a player to contribute to each war without having to make a general assumption as to the level of their participation.

 

I only ask because I’m getting frustrated.I have a few players in my guild that i think are skimping but I have no guiding star as to know whether it is true or not. i have no way of knowing what they are or should be capable of contibuting so i have no definite number of skulls thats plausible to demand in war participation without offending anyone

 

i don’t wanna bark and say “hey you guys need to contribute 2500 skulls per war minimum or get the boot” and risk teeing of guys who are doing there best and never make over 1600 to 1900 skulls.But i do wanna crack down on guys who i suspect can do more but are just gold bricking For instance I gotta guy right now level 65 which is why i used that example that contributes 8- 9 hundred skulls a battle.Is that right? because i feel like thats not right i feel like he/she could be doing more and he/she is not thee only one he/she is just the one who’s level I can remember

 

I just want a clear stat sheet to where I can say “hey number 65 i expect 1200 skulls or better outta you or get lost” and know that he/she is capable of producing it that way if he/she quits after that my conscience is clear.I’ll know its because he was just skimping and not because I’m an Arse.

 

Can anyone help me am I wrong for wanting this in the first place? Should I be happy with the whatever contibution they make? Can a chart like this even be calculated and done in the first place? it would really help with decision making.

 

Thanx Whoever took the time to read this.

                                                                                                                

When you attack an enemy, you get 300 + 6 * target_king_level skulls. 

But you may not be able to 100% a base of your level. War battles don’t really give resources and no one want to risk losing battles. 

So, the minimum a player should get per war is: 

3 * ( 250 + 6 * player_king_level )

Which simplify to: 

750 + 18 * player_king_level

(2010 skulls for lvl 70 player)

But if there is no opponent available for a player’s strength, he/she will get a lot less skulls. 

The formula of x01x012013 above might be a good starting point. 

 

Though, it’s really hard to get a generally valid formula. E.g. what if one of your most engaged members is without internet for a day, or on holiday for a week and can’t particpate (or not at full strength at least)? What if you face an alliance with relatively low king lvls, giving every of your members fewer skulls, or if you face an alliance with lots of tough bases, so that many of your weaker members struggle to beat any of them? And in general, the skulls possibly gained for 1 attack, depend on the level of your opponent players, not on your players’ levels, not on their raiding skills or strength, not on the opponent base strength. So tying skull-thresholds to your members’ level alone will never be accurate. 

 

Also, for the regular case where the opponent alliance has beatable bases with good skulls, what if somebody has some farms upgrading? Would he have to spend a hundred gems on silo refills if necessary, or would you rather say “save up those gems for alliance tower upgrades”? 

 

Also, if someone e.g. does 3 raids but gets only 66% on all of them, it looks as if he had done only 2 100% raids. If one does 10 raids but still fails all with 66%, it won’t look any different except maybe 40 bonus skulls, which is less than the difference between some songle higher or lower skulls target bases. So can you, from the skull count alone, measure the player’s effort? Of course, on many cases attacking someone easier (giving less skulls) but beating that one to 100% would be favorable over attacking someone higher and losing, but if you begin at the lowest, easiest bases, you’ll need more than the usual 3 raids for getting a decent skull counts for sure, so you might be wanting to try and beat some harder bases as well, increasing chances of failure on some raids. Anyway, for all those that are strong enough to beat some opponents with a good raid, you might want to aim for 3 100% victories at least, even if they fail a few times due to mistakes or wrong enemy picks. 

 

It’s hard / impossible to include all that in a formula. Only way to consider that is communicating with your members either by the ingame chat, or some external means (e.g. chat group in some app, own alliance website, facebook group, …). Communication is key!

Also, of course, sharing info about how to attack certain bases, which bases offer the most skulls for the least effort (beatable for the weaker members as well), making “top skull offering bases” lists for the stronger and weaker players will save them all a lot of trial and error, searching and spending of time and food, thus increasing your average skull performance. 

Thanx for the feed back guys.I would and do understand if they are in the process of upraging farms internet troubles personal life troubles etc. But every war? and not only that.thats what chat is for.Whenever i do an upgrade that may affect war performance I post it in chat to make everyone aware.i basically have to i’m like one of the top three earners while simultaneously being one of the top least likely to be attacked

 

I don’t expect a player to go into detail about their personal lives. But a quick “hey you guys i got some stuff going on so my participation will be sparatic” will suffice’ i don’t expect a lot I just expect 100%.Do you know how many times i’ve been in 1st place in the platinum league with not only a silo full of bread but a farrm full as well with no clear way of being knocked out of 1st unless I just don’t show up?, But then because Alliance Was started i throw away top pize just to be loyal to my guild?..Too many times to even count

 

You can’t knock me for asking for the same dedication from my mates

how does that person feel now if he reads the forum ? it is hard to fight for an alliance when the leader doesnt trust you. alliances depend on mutual trust and loyalty. igive them the benefit of the doubt as they grow and get stronger they will produce more . thats my opinion for what its worth

I guess, communication is key… if you get everyone to talk you have won most of it already. 

 

Main problem is those that don’t / can’t (different languages, timezones, whatever) talk. 

 

Because those who are active in chat will most likely be engaged for the alliance enough to do their top3 raids at least, anyway, except they have some “proper excuse” (which they will then most likely mention when being asked in chat to either fight or explain why they don’t fight).

Also, conveing the general message “hey guys, please do at least 3 good raids!” to those active in ingame chat or other means of communication will be relatively easy. Thus, no detailed "please insert your stats X, Y and Z into the following complicated formula […] to determine how many skulls you exactly need to score to count as ‘good member’ " way of handling things will be necessary. People who know and care about the basic need to participate in wars will do so if they can. And if they happen to score 5 or 10 skulls less, or like to do 50 more than necessary, that should be perfectly fine in like 99% of all cases. 

For the situations where near end of a battle, it is very close and every skull counts - well, you have to handle that dynamically with those currently online anyway, independent of what is reasonable for a general formula. 

Also, if at some point you say “ok, skip this one battle today it’s no use”, then again the “master formula” is no use. 

 

And for those few that potentially may be active in chat but say they don’t want to help, you clearly know what you’re at at least, and can tell them “participate or you’re out” if you want. 

 

For those not talking but nonetheless scoring well in the wars anyway, no need for additional measures. 

 

So the more complex formula would mainly be for those that don’t chat and don’t automatically score well without strict rules, where you “have” to explicitly “monitor and evaluate” their activity (if you want to), and where you have to impose a strict general rule via alliance message as that’s most likely the only thing they will surely notice at some point. And then the question is whether it’s worth the effort. 

 

 

Basically trust and from time to time a brief look at the current war table to see who have zero or very few skulls, then see what’s the reason (communication!) if it matters. Fine grained evaluation for every single member isn’t possible anyway (see long posts above), and shouldn’t be that necessary either.