Loser Bonus, Success or Failure?

Have to say, loser bonus is more a handicap to lower teams that play fair, than a tool to balance things for unbalanced matchups in practice. Wasn’t too uncommon for us to see a 5-10% extra skull bonus for a team 10-30 levels higher for years. We made maybe .3-3% total when we finally started losing/were overtaken by their bonus.

Yes, we always had the highest fiefdom amount, so I’m sure some will chime in and say it was our fault lol. We weren’t weak for our level, often winning the popular seasons, even outmatched in level. However, many others get them (and it’s way more widespread “strategy” this past year), because the mid 60’s, 70’s and 80’s are too afraid they will get a challenge, and lose a precious boost for the season they want lol.

It is very hard to lose tiles now, even if you’re trying, because of fiefdom shedding in and off season everywhere. I can’t completely fault them for it, but it really hurts the ones not doing it, and increases the chance they’ll encounter it earlier and earlier. Lower teams need the chests and rewards to grow in strength early on, and the few boosts they can afford to keep to recruit. The current system can lock them in a pretty bad place.

Maybe it would take a bigger boost penalty to straighten this out as a quick fix lol. Drop an extra strength level or 2 of the boost for every fight no one fights and more for each time they do it. (maybe a certain pt threshold, but something expected for the members, always 5-15 that won’t or can’t fight) :joy:

You could also just put the boost in as a standard leveling bonus and make the mode about rewards chests only.

Looking at the replies from devs, it’s intent was to try and equalise things around the middle of the game, where alliances have different member counts, and in that scenario it probably works well.

However, 80/90+ fief alliances should probably just be “equal” when calculating the bonus, and most of the problems would then go away.

We just dont need 100+ alliances, thats main thing

It does not work in middle area either. It should be removed. Fiefdom count should not give you extra points for losing. You win or you lose no bonus.

Not, it shouldnt be removed

Loser bonus is awesome thing else you will start cry after every warabout mm, about ur lazzy players and etc

If will be no loser bonus-its mean just straight power will rule and its for sure bad

Ao loser bonus is awesome thing , just need rebalance a little, may be

Well that is one opinion.

Why is that bad exactly? If your team doesn’t play as much, or as well as the others, you shouldn’t win right? Penalizing the ones trying and crippling them for playing well doesn’t make a lot of sense. Just need a more honest way of pairing teams for the mode. No 20 vs 50, 50 vs 80 matchups, and 5k lvl 80 alliances vs 1-4k 80 alliances as averages kind of thing. Gap is pretty wide and not likely to surprise when finished.

What we have does the opposite more often than not in practice, with the bonus in the higher/stronger alliance’s favor. I don’t know any legitimate sport that one team gets pts just for showing up, while another has to earn them/counter amount given, and counter handicaps given by the officials.

This is an international game, and a lot of you like soccer/football/futbol/etc. so, what if the ref said to your country’s team making it to the World Cup, that they’d have to start 10 pts down from the team with the best win/loss average. Or what if the World Cup was against the best team in the league and your 6 yr old son or daughter’s team. That’s largely what we have going on as is with how most of you guys are playing it to get boosts and bonuses nearly every time.

Playing the mode tactically should be changing the roster, removing the inactives, forging the skull armor bonuses, which may make you lose more because you can be weaker. If you lose, you try and figure out why, and try again next time. What we have using loser bonuses/fiefdoms and bypassing them isn’t a true challenge.

Whatever Flare does though, they need to think about it in terms or cause and effect. The community time and time again has proven if there is a way to exploit it, they will. Need to think up some real ways to gauge the true strength of a team that can’t be rigged so easily and then pair us up. Data and averages can be collected though, so it shouldn’t be impossible.

1 Like

Im leader of Phoenix Legion

If loser bonus will be removed its mean i will win EVERY battle. And i dont think its good in long term

When the 5 of teams will even have no chances feom 1 second of war

Its good? Ofc not

If you like a soccer example- thats why every national leagues has a money limit for teams.
Else it will be no drama

As leader i need my team has both wins and loses
And i need challenges and fun.

No fun in always winning.

And yes its not work as you said : like lost- and try to be better

There are a lot of useless team in game, i would say 95% of them who even dont try and just try to ask for mercy

It has far more cons than pros, there has to be a team or 10 around your level to pair with for a fair war in a game 6yrs old lol. If not maybe all the high 4 and 5ks need to move around a bit :slight_smile:. Seriously though, glancing at the leaderboards, seems most of the ones that might give you some trouble (if active) are in the 80 fiefdom range. Staying, 20 or more lower than you to keep loss odds down no doubt. Guess that would be one sort of legit case to drop to play them more consistently :joy:.

The problem with the money limit example is it doesn’t exist in the mode. There are no limits if a tough team abuses the intent/rules. Bringing all the perks in, having billions in reserve when the lower teams can’t even afford the boosts with donations, and then deliberately throwing matches to have 50-65 tiles for example to stay largely uncontested. Not fighting/shedding when they lock the popular sets, or putting in the bare minimum, gifting the bad bonus to the weaker teams. The extra skull bonus then is a crutch they don’t need when they do want something.

I just don’t see it as healthy for the mode or good for new player retention long term. Like it or not they are the lifeblood of these kinds of games. Might be a few years before they join you at the top, but they will get there if we let them :slight_smile:.

1 Like

Loser bonus should stay… Otherwise as cromka said… Pl will might never lose to any alliance in current situation and Rl will not lose to any other except Pl. Now what FG needs to do is to adjust loser bonus in such a way that even high fiefdoms alliances should have chance to win against low fiefdom alliances like Chinese vl who has more trophies than Rl and might be almost equal sp as Rl. In current situation Rl will get 1% lb while chinese vl will get 3.5% lb… Which is not fair at all. Since fiefdoms is not showing the actual strength of alliances, loser bonus needs not to be depend on fiefdoms… Maybe it should depend on alliance ranking during conquest. Because no alliances will kick players or reduce trophies during conquest

I m sure 1 vs 1 will mean PL will always win
Its my bet, ofc others may have their own, but mine is based on sp average and perfomance.

And i dont think its good for game

I think the loses are very good for teams.
Also i think the mid teams should have chances to win.

Anyway loser bonus should stay i think, but shiuld be rebalanced

Fiefdom counts doesn’t show actual strength of teams… Lb gained by alliances should not depend on fiefs anymore…

I doubt its right.

But fiefs should be a rewards and not pain

Reach 100? Take extra troop boost as example

But need to rebalance the multiplicatir at my opinion

I think all special war boosts should be made ‘open’ and tied to fiefdom. Every 15 fiefdom, an alliance can activate it anytime they want (using gold of course).

There’s hardly any special war boost that is overpowered. They have been tested throughout so many wars for the past few years.

Special war boosts will automatically balance some things which are absolutely useless too, but would be different if they can be activated anytime.

For example, eagle tower for arrow tower (let’s be real, even with the new arrow tower rune, it’s going to be useless without the eagle tower boost), and also the special war boost for the Frost tower.

15 is just an example, but this would mean that a full 120 fiefdom alliance can activate any 8 special war boosts at any given time.

When higher fiefdom alliances have more boosts, then the handicap via loser bonus would’ve made more sense.

1 Like

This is 1 of many solutions… But god knows why fg itself doesn’t want to make war more balanced. Many alliances dumping fiefs in pyro war. Fg knows it very well but still doing nothing to prevent it…

I’ll add on as to why I believe my proposal will work.

  1. The most important thing is, it doesn’t involve too much work from Flare’s side. The special war boosts are already in the game, so not much extra coding or artwork. Just need to code them so that they are tied to fiefdom.

  2. It gives ‘flavour’ to alliances because there are so many special war boosts in the game, and an alliance can choose to be super offensive or super defensive, or balanced. This will make alliances different from one another instead of all top alliances currently just activating everything that they can activate.

Think about it, if an alliance has members who complain about difficulty in raiding, you can choose powerful special boosts like the insta archer or insta gargoyle.

Or you can have alliances who pride themselves of being the best raiders in the game, so all special boosts lean towards defensive boosts like stargazer and the special long range mortar boost or so.

So, if you only have about 60 fiefdom, and you can only choose 4, how would the setup be? 2 offensive special boosts and 2 defensive? All 4 defensive? This is interesting right?

  1. The longevity of the game will be prolonged due to the amount of mix and match that alliances can play around with. There’s also ‘counter-play’ involved when it comes to special war boosts. Imagine if your rival alliance is known for activating insta gargoyle, then you’ll be thinking how to mix and match boosts to counter, i.e. maybe war boost froster + flotha froster or war boost arblaster + the super long range special war boost arblaster or the rapid ice fire bomb tower etc. The amount of mix and match + strategy in terms of counter play would be MASSIVE.

Yeah this will be interesting and will force alliances to increase fiefs but still loser bonus in its current form is not fair… It needs to rebalanced

They could just end the current rotation of the same 2x3 warboosts too. And only show after the season which boosts are won for 1st, 2nd, 3rd. That way no alliance would have a reason to skip one season out of two anymore. Cause the ‘good’ warboost could be in any war. And maybe stop all prolongable warboosts at the start of season, then everyone would have the same chances of winning.

1 Like