Shame of wars, shame of seassons, boring wars

In this war, we face 2 alliances from the top 4. And this is the result. I can’t understand how people have fun playing like that, everyone playing for the weakest. In this case Nova could try to snatch position 3 from Texas, considering that they will not lose the category. Texas is very hard and it would be difficult, but they don’t even try. We have been suffering these situations war after war for several seasons and we continue to maintain the category of Titan, so it is not impossible to try to reach the maximum. I hope that FG will take action on the matter if the people will not get bored and the game will die slowly … greetings!

2 Likes

It’s ridiculous. They should put a limit of half+1 attack on the same alliance, so 4 out of 6 and 3 out of 4. That would make a big difference already

4 Likes

I like that idea! ty for coment @Zhadess!

2 Likes

Let’s be honest for once: if you were in the Nova’s position, and want to have a shot for 3rd position, would you attack TH or Boom?

1 Like

Well, being as honest as possible I will say what, if I have no chance of losing the category and if I have chances of reaching third position, I would attack Texas since Boom in that scenario would attack Texas almost certainly. And if there is an alliance that can handle a 2vs1 situation, Texas is one of them, because of the resources they have, the experience and the participation they have. I’d rather fight for something than wipe out the weak for nothing.

4 Likes

Agreed. What does nova have to gain staying in 4th place?

1 Like

You do have a point! But it’s not over yet. Everything is possible.

As they have started the war, and at the point where we are, they have settled for the fourth place before the war began and midway through the season. That says a lot about the current war system. No one takes risks for the benefit of fun.

1 Like

If we look at the points they have taken so far, they are more than capable of standing up to Texas and any alliance. I don’t understand the benefit of playing like this.Screenshot_2019-09-06-12-07-01

1 Like

Texas is probably saving up fury, while NOVA is spending all of theirs tho

2 Likes

Agreed, but with a little beat of help from Boom, Texas will play hard to keep it in first place :)))

1 Like

I hope that happens :grin:

Its too difficult to change the war outcomes…

I think it was a mistake to make the alliance have 50 members. It was 40, and it seems to me, that 25 would be enough to have 8 strong teams in the league, instead of 4 teams for example. But then people say, less people are part of the TL. Then you have to make room for more alliances in the TL league, and then other problems start. You can make the leagues in a sort of Champions League groups (EU soccer), but that will require longer seasons maybe. Knock out phases, were always the winner progress, and the loser will also progress in the losers bracket… but it also takes longer…

There are so many possibilities. I think the devs haven’t found the right one. We are stuck with this, but as you can see, a lot of strategy gets involved. Unfortunately the weaker teams, aren’t able to compete… that’s the sad part.

The biggest problem, is that older players aren’t so many, so they top 200-300 players are concentrated in the top teams.

2 Likes

One of the suggestions a while back to have each league be a round robin tournament was a good one, it would just be a complete overhaul of war seasons and not a tweak or adjustment. More leagues with fewer alliances per league (the TL 12 alliance league is a good size. Make them all that size and there will tend to be better groupings of same-strength alliances). Each alliance plays each other alliance once per season 1vs1 in short duration contests. Perhaps several 24h contests per week. Simplified rules (no skulls, maybe no strikes, just one 24h strike with a set amount of fury at the start.) Alliance with the most wins at the end advances.

It would be a major overhaul, though. There would be 3 or 4 times more leagues, rewards would need to be restructured, everything would need to be restructured. There would need to be a satisfactory mechanism for dealing with alliances who drop out mid season. And this format would exclusively favor alliances who can consolidate the most power so caps on that would be mandatory. Otherwise it would be no more fair or satisfying than the current war seasons, just different.

I also trust that the devs have ideas that are cool coming up that nobody’s thought of yet.

2 Likes

Completely agree with you. Less players per alliance and more alliances in TL would be a possible solution to gain competitiveness.

As for the Champions League format, I don’t dislike the idea. In fact, if it took longer to finish each season, with increasing rewards we would have covered it.

I know that in wars there are alliances but for the sake of the game in general, I think it is something that should be completely eliminated and the fact of making “tweezers” of 2vs1 or 3vs1 should be penalized in some way, such as removing torches, increasing the recharge time of heroes in wars, lowering the% increase on towers, troops or powers, etc.

1 Like

I remember when the change came I was probably in my old alliance, I didn’t like it. But I didn’t come on the forum to whine about it. And we rarely talk about the number of the members, but its obvious the best players are concentrated in the top teams. They are invaded with invites, they are “wanted”, they feel good, and the go where ever they want.

On the other hand, I really like my blind map idea a lot… because the whole idea is backed up with the element of surprise, no team-up AT ALL, and minimum side-affects. But like all ideas of this sort, hardly anything goes live or changes. Which is why sometimes, we counter the ideas, because we know they wont get implemented. It’s just conversation.

For example, the longer season, its not good… people are fueled by the prizes, both for their game and for the sense of accomplishment. It could be that the prize is given partially in the middle of the season and at the end, making it exactly as it is now to fix this, but it may not seem right. But its also getting boring when its slow. So a lot of people don’t have the patience to wait out 10-12 weeks for a season to end (now its 6 and already people don’t like it when 2 weeks go with bad results).

I would love any sort of change to be honest… but in the end, the top alliances will find a way to be top. The real test would be if a team faces off all the teams in the league 1v1. That would make all these excuses stop… Im tired of them. Some true, others are exaggerated, but there is no point. Most of it depends on the actions of the players… and I wont say more on that.

1 Like

The only way that 2vs1 can be avoided in a 3 team war is by having each alliance only attack left or only attack right, which involves way more coordination to pull off than what you’re complaining about and still gets messed up if one team is able to successfully defend. 2vs1 is natural and intended in this format and the 4 team format. It’s almost impossible to avoid in 3 alliance war and any mechanism put in place to try and force alliances to attack one way or another (or penalize them for playing the game the natural way) would make wars worse.

It is quite obvious why Nova won’t fight against Texas. They belong to the same cartel and their purpose is only to give away free islands to the major member of that cartel. In this case,3rd alliance is very unfortunate.
So sorry,but you are the victims of the great intrigues of these alliances (like many players in the same situation).

2 Likes

Wars play out like this at all levels with or without coordination. Weaker teams avoid fighting stronger teams when possible. It’s not a grand conspiracy.

The 3 alliance war makes a pure 2v1 impossible unless the “1” is the strongest of the 3 and winning islands.

We’ve said this for some time, and we see it season after season. It is very predictable which is itself junk. Then coupled with the zero chance of any form of salvage it’s a little demoralising for many alliances - (we are used to fighting against the 8 cartels teams every season so we actually know it’s going to happen before it does. We finish just outside relegation every season, but we’d go down with a tiny bit of bad ‘cartel match draw’.

I mentioned to @CaptainMorgan this is the main aspect of the game that needs fixing right now, as it gives totally distorted league tables, which they supposedly want to avoid.

As for top 3 alliances, there is no challenging the top 3. At the end of things if you get 50 of the top 300 players in any one alliance you’ll pretty much get a winning team. GoW has this as does CCCP. Texas has this to an extent and fill the holes with several users who use multi-player accounts. So they make a difficult side to beat for the rest. Add in that 2 of these have 6 zombie alliance to count on for free enhancements/torches there’s very little left to chance.

But there’s probably more needed to be done.

4 Likes