Loser Bonus, Success or Failure?

We’re 2 years past the introduction of LB in war season. Unlike the present day that we have conquests, or trophy wars before ninja, war seasons were the only arena where alliances could confront each other at that time. Hence, this new change had a huge impact on the competitive side of RR2. It forced many old timers to take their leave, and it nearly got the game itself killed before the addition of conquest as an alternative game mode.

The unmentioned aim of this LB system was to kill top teams who were already at max number of fiefdoms-120- at the time of its introduction. While people were yet to muster a proper intellectual response to what was happening to their teams, many chose in their desperation to protest against this sudden change of game features and shortly after, left the game totally.

LB system intended to kill those teams without their consent or acceptance and when faced with this bitter truth, they all chose to commit Seppuku and undo their own years of progress by their own hands, instead of allowing a greater force to take it from them. Apocalypse was the first of such teams to let go like this and Ironically they are still retaining all their 110 fiefdoms which they were supposed to lose after the introduction of LB.

Many other top teams followed. One after another, they all went out by themselves and not organically by losing their fiefdoms to lower teams. Despair was the only achievement of LB as a game feature in the supposed-to-be fun realm of RR2. To this day, the only standing alliance from those top teams with 120 fiefdoms is Roaring Lions.

RL has a group of proud and loyal members who will never ever go of the name they fight for! Even if playing no boosts for months is what it takes to keep their flag raised high… and they are still eyeing the arrival of a fix for the war season. As of Nov. 2019, RL has been lacking gargoyle nest boost for 12th months in a row which pretty much describes why all other top teams chose to leave the game and not retain their fiefdoms nor climb back down.

This begs the question, why instead of pulling these teams down in war seasons, LB only managed to force their members to abandon them and kill their own teams themselves? Well, there’s a simple answer:

LB mechanism was supposed to prevent teams from climbing high too much but not dragging them down.

All those teams were already 40 fiefdoms ahead of the teams chasing them from behind. Previous war seasons before the introduction of LB had created such a gap of fiefdoms already and it was fine to have too many fiefdoms. Now suddenly, all those teams were finding themselves in a huge disadvantage over night. To lose all those fiefdoms and climb back down where they could fight in a somewhat fair rank, they had to go on losing all wars for 12 months! Flare obviously knew this and intended to kill and undo their progress in doing so.

So, what would have been the alternative decision that prevented this unfair and cruel destiny for all those teams. Simple, devs could have simply capped fiefdoms for all top teams at 80 same as all their other opponents. Teams would have started afresh after the introduction of the new change and from that point onward, most would have tried to climb back up to 120 fiefdoms and choose between taking the risk of losing all boosts, or getting higher level boosts together with a better gold tax. But, they were never given a choice.

None of those teams would have been dead by now and none of them would have gone past 100 fiefdoms knowing that they will be in a huge disadvantage by doing so. LB system would have worked flawlessly and all teams would have cherished its existence in time. Yes, all those teams are dead now because of an incomplete feature release that obviously has unexplained intentions to this day.

As of now, LB system’s only achievement is arguably the emergence of a low fiefdom top 1 team that constantly recruits top LB players (and uber spenders) from lower teams and ensures their unrivaled presence atop the leaderboard. Other teams near their fiefdom count are nowhere near their SP average. None can jeopardize their supremacy and they can throttle their fiefdom level very easily with no danger to their war ranking. PL has all 5 players with top SP of 41.5% in their team which gives them a huge boost of confidence.

LB system’s original goal was to empower lower teams to defeat top teams. Apparently, It only convinced top teams to kill themselves and gave way to the emergence of ever stronger top teams coming from below. So, the choice is yours to decide, has LB system been a success, or is it a failure?

3 Likes

LB should be removed. It was a bad idea from the start and it still is. You should not be getting a bonus for losing.

4 Likes

Its a lie REZA.

Check this out

I said RL is one of those teams that had 120 fiefdoms back then. I didn’t mean RL still has 120. Merely a misunderstanding. But who has a healthy alliance with that many fiefdoms now? Top2 and proud!

1 Like

Mostly if you interesting my opinion the loser bonus at start was very goof

It was time of domination of as named top alliances
Apo, tod, rl, vl as i remember
None has chances vs them and every alliance being in their map- immidiatly become a victim

And APO which was named by you used it with blackmail low alliances vs VL. Like if you ll not follow me- i and my allies will kill you every map

When loser was implemented top has an advantage anyway, cuz their scull perks was huge

But now mostly sp of alliances are same

And im sure we need loser bonus
But ofc i prefer to change a system
Make not 45/55, but 55/65
Make the value of 1% of lb like 1/4 of current and etc

Also there is nothing bad if alliances will refreshing
Its not a problem

But i prefer the system where everyone will fight for his own only
No allies and just straight power

1 Like

The idea of the loser bonus is a good idea, but the formula to calculate it is a bit of a failure…

1 Like

Yeah i agree! Idea is very good, cuz else none has chances against strong alliances

It was 4 year ago…

As i remember , multiplication was started 2 years ago, not loser bonus as well

So and apo and other top teams died not cuz LB
Might be they lost cuz time was came?

LB in its initial form was not the subject of my discussion and to simplify my references I chose to refer to LB in its latest form as LB throughout my frequent references. Dropping some unnecessary historical details is always welcome when applicable.

I think you somehow missed or managed to unsee this forum post.
Of course, they died when LB in its current form made sure all their hopes will die.

I agree that a Loser Bonus mechanism must be in place to help lower teams compete with their stronger rivals and grow. But, introducing such a game feature should never put any groups of people at a huge disadvantage immediately at the time of introducing such a game feature.

I also hope that in any future version of LB, no team’s score surpasses the ideal max score. Allowing weaker teams to beat their stronger rivals with scores higher than ideal max score would simply mean that there will be battles on a war map where some teams have no desire or hope to consider fighting. This will mean boredom on war maps.

As named top alliances, including RL, enjoying by exploiting the previous scull bonus pool system since start.
Loser bonus was an answer and it worked well.

What is it?:rofl: PL max score is higher then RL max score
And which one to take?

What other role is meaningful for teams with 120 fiefdoms currently?

None are even close to ideal max score. 45 players with SP 42.5 may be what is achievable as of now. Of course, even such a team can’t beat a VN with 15% LB which is constantly the case on current war maps.