because, usually wars of 3 alliance or 4 usually have usually always has 2 vs 1 or even 3 vs1 always have these things or benefit certain alliance or harms who plays well more always have 2 vs1 so you have to improve this I think wars with 1vs1so you have to make it better I think wars with 1vs1 would be a lot more fun by the rank of each alliance would be much more beneficial for everyone. having many alliances getting together to always make 2vs1 this makes the war very boring and difficult to continue with that game. Please fix this, please wait for me to return.
The counterpoint is that there is no in-game cap on alliance strength, and nothing to prevent mega-merge teams. The check on teams that consolidate power is that weaker teams can work together to take them down.
There is already a bias towards the strongest, biggest alliances as 2 of the war formats are 1vs1 and benefit the strongest alliances the most.
The problem is gaining back the lost torches after a 2/3 vs 1 war in the 1vs1 wars.
The multiple team wars are too long and too decisive.
This is also the case for the teams being relegated in the TL - a bad matchup in first war for a weaker team is (almost) the same as being relegated. We saw this for Warcry and Spartan in the latest season.
It’s not really surprising that the two newest alliances to be promoted to Titan League are also relegated quickly, though, right? Warcry had the lowest VP on the season and SF the 3rd lowest. Warcry ended -12. There aren’t many changes you could propose that would have prevented them from being relegated.
Of course it’s not strange to see low VP being relegated but in this case it was obviously because of bad matchups.
The reason PhlanxTexas ended 8th and wasn’t relegated was they had allies in the multiple team wars. First war they teamed up with Spartan Wars who let them pass through to reach GoW (wouldn’t be possible in a shorter war). 3rd war they were on the map with Texas and DPed Wartide, while CCCP and Nova did the same to the Spartans.
In the other end of the league GoW (as mentioned above) got a 3vs1 and next war we met Texas and as you know we could only take one of your island.
1vs1 shouldn’t be longer imo it’d be too boring but maybe more 1💀 islands so we could have taken all of them. This solution would be bad for weak teams meeting strong teams so not a viable solution.
The multiple team wars are just too long, cutting one day is an easy solution.
TBH had Heroes and SW 3rd war. We fought Warcry in the first war and split strikes between them and Nova.
I’m not sure what good matchups would have done for Warcry. They have some nice players but I think overall they really struggled to score against Titan League opponents. They lost a 5 skull to Romanian Boom, who I would consider one of the “good” matchups for them in the league, especially last season when they had a lot of their best players in GOW or Heroes.
SF probably could have avoided relegation if they had better matchups or if Gladitori/Boom had worse matchups, but that’s the game. It’s still not a surprise they got relegated. It’s certainly not a conspiracy. I’m sure they’ll be back up in Titan League soon.
My team being 2nd strongest team, got cornered by 3 teams and stood in the 4th position … one team gave way to the other team … So it’s like 3 vs 1. Is this fair ??? developers have to think about it and remove the campaign mode or change it to 3 team war, because 2 vs 1 is acceptable. 3 vs 1 is not good for the game
So I gave some suggestions in another thread to make the system more representative of ‘true’ alliance strength in wars. But after yet another fake war, exchange of free islands to gang another 3v1 I’m of the opinion that none of my previous suggestions would really work; given for some reason alliances will give way islands to get quickly across the war map.
Basically OR must adapt the battle management system that RR2 uses during multi-alliance wars, namely that each island/strike has an independent fury generation, as every war in the top league (and I hear 2nd league has strong cartel ways now) is simply agreements as to who will give what to the other.
If this system of war was present in RR2 there would be an uproar and the game would fail. We have become accustomed to unrepresentative wars, which destroy morale and alliances disband and players quit; This game is geared towards the war aspect as there are no events, and yet war has become unbelievably nonsensical. Some of the regular trollers (currently blocked so won’t reply) will say this is sour grapes and I’m a bad loser, bla,bla, but I don’t mind losing or being relegated if the war was at least enjoyable, and as ‘fair’ and accurate as a war can be. But simply put there is no game mechanisms under the current system to stop a 2v1 or even a 3v1 war. There are not enough furies or % being applied to overcome the odds against. Basically separate fury generation for each strike is needed for multi-alliance wars.
So how would this work:
In a 4v4 typical war alliance A attacks alliance B, at this time each player gains a single fury per hero and gains a single fury per hero again dependant on hero lvl once every 3h55m for lvl 20 hero, so for an 18h strike each player would have 5 sets of fury per hero for that strike alone.
If alliance B attacks alliance A again a different set of furies are generated accordingly.
The only things to really consider are the lowering of skull % to probably around 5 % for 2 skull,10% for 3 skull/20% for 4 skull and 30% for 5 skull or numbers along these lines as every alliance has equal furies so the % ration can’t be high for obvious reasons. GK killing can be quite important in this scenario.
The other factor to consider is that alliance that are attacked more often have the potential to gain greater war spoil chests than alliances that receive no attacks, the reason being is that more battles are fought. This is what occurs in RR2, some chests are attainable some wars and not possible (due to being attacked less) in others.
For single alliance wars nothing needs to change, the ‘pool fury’ of the player is a fair element with only one enemy to contend with.
Again one other way of dealing with league score is on VP’s rather than torches as VP’s are exact and every alliance can have equal amounts, whereas torches are islands and enhancements won, this would also be a good alternative.
Image below shows start of day 2 - 7 strikes active at this time against 3 separate alliances who exchanged islands with minimum furies to arrive at the far side with max furies to unload. You cant apply 50 players fury against 150.
Many player are sick of ‘puppet wars’ or ‘clash or cartels’.
I’d also recommend taking away the top 3 titan chests for prizes in TL (while this farcical system is still in place) after all they get the blessings get 8k gems and I don’t think they need an extra 3k gems and a unique item as it’s proving too tempting a reason to fix the whole league just to win…sad but true.
This is a great solution or possibly a direction to how a new TL war system should work. Being involved in many TL wars, something definitely needs to be fixed in the amount of 3v1 battles that are reoccurring. If not, I’m sure alliances will begin to disband and even worse have many new warriors and reviews of the game begin to kill this game. So many have already left just from this last update, so FG, let’s be proactive in salvaging all the players who still have passion and enjoy being a part of this community and game by hearing our voices.
@CaptainMorgan any thoughts about this idea?? TL is definitely struggling to remain competitive or fun in anways
@Philstar … Thank you for explaining, i like your idea. Seriously developers have to think about how to implement fair play, because wars are the main reason ppl are active in this game.
This is the current situation of our team in war (we orange color), the red dragons have given way to green and they have used all of their VP on us. They both are sharing the islands, Even the 4* islands without fight. Violet is strong team, they too focused on us … They trying to completely wash out our map
Another simple solution could be reduce the length of the wars to avoid 3vs1 battles.
Right now we are playing 3 days war which is too long time period and makes war tedious and tiring process.(gives ample time to teams to do 3vs 1 wars)
If FG can reduce the length of 3days war to one day or maybe two day then 3 vs 1 scenarios can be avoided.
You can still get hit on the 2nd day by 3 alliances, and even the endless 2v1 is garbage.
Right now each team can strike 6 times and in 3 strikes the team can bypass and reach the other team. So with less damage to the carrier team, the attacking team can destroy the team at other end. To avoid this:
- As you said decreasing the strike length so there is like 3 or 4 strikes per team, then the max damage is done to the carrier.
- Strike cooldown can be increased, so strikes are reduced to 3 or 4. But this becomes boring, first option is better.
- War map design can be changed without changing other things, like diamond design 1-2-4-2-1 pattern. So to bypass the team it has to conquer 5 islands minimum, so max damage is done to carrier team.
But what if wars lasts only one day?
In one day war formats it will be very hard to do 2vs1 or 3vs1.
You would still get a 2 v1 in any cartel scenario which we have today, so that’s 100 v 50 players. Whatever the 2 teams in the league against the strongest team, the ganging teams will always win. Even if this were just a 2 v 1 war, we’d prob be about -3 or -4 for the war despite being the strongest alliance in the war. Even with fighting just 2 alliances we’d still have 6- open strikes at one time, on this particular war we had 8 strikes open at one point vs the 3 others.
But how is this ‘war’ or strategy. It isn’t.
The multi alliance wars are clearly ‘clan based’ as @Breaktex pointed out in another thread. So either make them clan based and acknowledge that clans/cartels are rampart in the game or change the mechanism for other alliances to not directly interfere. One of the biggest complaints that I can recall from an early days playing this game were the ganging in the 4v4 war. Nothing has changed, except it’s gotten worse.
I actually don’t believe this was any fun for either SW nor Texas Phalanx, we had no spare furies to test the latter defences at all. Had furies been independently generated per strike, we would all be a lot more entertained I’m certain.
I know from conversation from Gladitori who suffered an exact fate to the same cartel, they had considered abandoning the war to give -10 torches out of protest. We considered this in boom also to just forfeit the war, but wanted to give the final realistic picture, as can be seen above.
Ken shiro, general gladiatori!
Gladiators don t accept this dirty game, full of plots between cccp, Texas, nova and others! Before the Purpose of this game was: “get the victory with strategy and demonstrating to be the stronger”. Instead now it is “who has more friendly ally, win and decide the results of everybody!!”. It s becoming a garbage. A lot of alliances are unhappy of these things. Immediately You have to change something because in this way the game is not funny. We hope in your good faith and that you will do something to save this situation as soon as possible. At the moment this game full of plots and agreements is lousy.
CAPITAN MORGAN this is not a diplomacy, this is a insane system for fix every league by a cartel and this kill the fun and the game, let we know if you are a free person or you are agree whit this garbage, anf if you are whit free people you have change this very soon, wr cannot wait some months, you have yo remove this cancer soon or tell us clearly “i’m whit cartel”
I deleted because it included insults to the programmers and the mediators of this forum who have active accounts in the game and play in the cccp. Can’t find a conflict of interest? point number two. How does a system make draws that are always the same? it is as if the same numbers always came out of the lottery. Do you not ask yourself two questions or are you complicit in all this? If you are complicit what are you gaining?
I think CM already said he’s open to suggestions that would discourage this.
Unfortunately what appears in most wars that there is a basic strategy to win the usual alliances and that the randomness of the clashes seems to be piloted and not random, my comment does not want to be an attack but it is only my impression and pen I know I’m not the only person to interpret it that way