Strategy! Strategy! Strategy!

Mid-level player here, 3400 trophies, lvl 76. When I was a lower level I often switched spells and troops based on the enemy base. Now I almost never switch, but just use brute force (sonic, bladestorm, sworddrain), canons, boosted arbs, boosted mummies. The game is too cookie cutter at higher levels. Bases  the same, same layouts, same preponderance of towers, similar waves. Please developers, INCREASE the amount of strategy required. Create more viable options so the cookie cutter/brute-force approach becomes a liability. Make brains a bigger part of the game. If you see the majority of high lvl players all using the same strategy, then this strongly hints that there are not enough viable alternative strategies. You may be trying to do this with the various new boosts, but the vast majority of alliances don’t run 24/7 boosts and certainly not multiple 24/7 boosts. You’ve done a good job on strategies that work on earlier parts of the game being less effective later in the game.


  1. Make it essential to have to switch out troops and spells based on enemy base if you want optimal results.


  1. With this in mind, maybe give extra gold based on how “efficient” an attack is, so brute force players won’t get as much gold even if they win (which they shouldn’t). A relatively simple algorithm could be used to calculate “efficiency.”


  1. The vast majority of troops, spells and towers should not ever become obsolete. This is a core cause of lack of strategy and results in a loss of viable options and game diversity. Give high lvl players a reason to use Frost Towers, Toxic Cloud etc etc. Increase the unique qualities of troops/spells/towers. For example, paladins are spectacular in the early and mid-level part of the games, but their use plummets in high-lvl bases. One option would be to stop paladins from going obsolete by giving it a offensive/defensive bonus against the boosted/mummy&knight monopoly. Or if a base has frost towers, then any frosters in that base get a sizeable boost in the frost tower radius etc. Ie the frost tower fuels the froster.


The specifics are not important, the important thing is to create more viable strategies, which if successful would result in more diverse bases and more fun for the players to find the perfect balance.




Not sure about point 2 - it’s not that easy to properly judge what spells would be “efficient” / best, and also not sure it’d be even necessary to have that. A good choice would also increase your chances to win, and your time needed to beat a base, which should be enough of a reward and less exploitable than an algorithm judging the matching (e.g. trophy and medal counts are also exploitable/manipulatable easily). 


Apart from that, I agree whole-heartedly, the higher you go the less viable options remain, which shouldn’t be the case… 

I really like the idea! For the last couple of monts I only used five different spells (Hammer, Blizzard, Shield, Sonic and Swordrain (before Hammer and Blizzard were maxed) and only five different troops (knight, archer, cannon (rarely, only in war against really weak players), mummy and wolf). In these months, I guess 90% of the bases I faced were N- or L-shaped and 99% of them were Mummy heavy. I would really like to be able to raid with different strategy, but mostly I’d like to face different bases that require other units and strategy’s than currently used.


I have high hopes for the dragon update including the gargoyle tower boost, but actually I would love to have new units or spells which won’t require an alliance boost or alliance gold, but just have to be upgraded from scratch.

Time to beat the base could be a major part of an efficiency algorithm. And it could also include some quantitation of the amount of leadership points spent versus amount of leadership points remaining. If 80% of the leadership points you spend on your army are gone by the time you win (ie the troops died) with 10 seconds left, then this is less efficient than a player who wins with 10 seconds left, but has 50% of the leadership points expended still remaining (ie fewer troops died, more of the army remains). The total amount of troops killed (leadership points lost) would also have to be a component to ensure the player gets penalized for excessive casualties and can’t offset the loses just by spawning more troops because they have a higher leadership ability.


The reward could be extra gold or even a faster spawn rate in the next battle (to reflect the availability of “reinforcements” because your whole army didn’t die in the previous battle). Depending on how efficiency was implemented and reported, perfectionist type of players might really obsess over this. This could be one mechanism to encourage strategic play over brute force. Players who don’t want to “think” would be free to ignore it and continue with their brute force ways. It would run in the background for the most part and not over complicate the game for newer players.

Now, that I don’t like that much… players would start hunting down much-weaker opponents with heal+shield spell and nearly no losses, then get rewarded by more gold or even better stats for their next battle by the system. And generally, those being stronger and having more leadership can easier take out hostile troops/structures with fewer losses. 

Also what about a raging wolf (16 morale points) with very few health (let’s say 5% health) left but still alive - that’d be 100% alive. Compare to that 16 knights, where 8 died and 8 are still alive - that’s 50% alive only despite 50% of total health remain. Would you want to punish players for using certain troop types? 

Another thing: Time to beat includes possible scrolling - if a heavy scroller gets rewarded for beating a base faster than someone else that beats it without any scrolls, then that is wrong (imho). Same applies to losses - just use a blessing scroll and more troops will survive. If that then gets you additional strength for the next raid, it will create only problems instead of solving them. 

Also, “efficiency” can just as well be seen as “winning as quickly as possible” and not “to win with as few losses as possible”. (And also for losses, if you win a base e.g. with 30s left, all those troops that would/could have been spawned after that point, will “survive” as they’e not even needed.) So how will you balance time left vs troops surviving or dying?

And what about e.g. area damage from the doom gate or skull towers? The more troops you have, the more damage they deal. So having more troops with you will cause more damage to your army, and receiving damage is not very efficient, is it? 

And do you want to punish those brave and skilled players that manage to beat a considerably stronger base (or just a random, unknown base from match maker) with only few troops remaining, while rewarding those who farm the same easy bases again and again? 

great, another mid lvl player wanna change the gameplay… smh

Heroesflorian, All excellent caveats that need to be considered. It would be critical for the programmers to come up with an algorithm that cannot be gamed by opportunistic players, does not penalize anyone who doesn’t deserve to be penalized or reward someone who doesn’t deserve reward. If you attack weaker players then you get less gold, not worth the food costs and no bonus of any kind. The game already has a mechanism to determine that player A is roughly equal to player B.  Attack a weaker player get a penalty, attack a stronger player get a bonus. If you can beat a player equal to you, while using less resources than used by a brute force player of equal strength to beat the same player, then you must be doing something right (i.e. you have implemented a superior strategy). Perhaps the most difficult aspect to overcome would be not penalizing scroll use, as that is part of their revenue model. The point is to reward strategy and create  opportunities so that strategic play offers an advantage over brute force. While at the same time creating more diverse high lvl attack/defend options. Not to go off on a tangent from the main point (increase strategic options), but what would be so bad about more of your army not dying through the use of appropriate strategies? In the real world, excess losses are not easily absorbed and no society has unlimited resources. If speed to victory is the only criteria for efficiency (instead of one of several) and totally ignores resource management or cost, then this does not necessarily reward strategy over brute force UNLESS the game is already designed so that the fasted path to victory absolutely requires strategy, not brute force. If there is only one viable option and every high lvl player is using it, then that doesn’t involve much strategizing.


But regardless of how one might choose to implement this, the goal is to increase the amount of strategy required in the game and create a greater diversity of options at the higher levels.


And yes Killerbee, I’m just a grunt and paying customer with an opinion. Personally I value strategic games and think with some modest tweaking RR2 could be more strategic.

Yes, killerbee, another mid-level player wanting to make a good suggestion for the improvement of the game, high level players should know they’re not the only ones in the game, in fact, there are more low and mid level players than high or top players, but we all have the same right to enjoy the game and make suggestions.

Improvements are good, but if the ground for your “suggestion” is the cookie cutter on high level bases, nothing will really change…

you do realize, that players will always move toward the most time waster base (atm those are N and L design). i’ve been through a lot of changing in base trends (poison tower trend, ogre trend, blockade trend etc…), the second flare change something and upgrade some units/towers, almost all will follow the trend and create a new cookie cutter (yup almost all, there are still some players stubborn enough to be different and don’t mind people constantly winning on their bases). Creating many new boosts won’t solve it, players will realize soon enough which boosts and designs giving the best results (both in offense and defense), and all will follow creating the new cookie cutter. It’s an endless circle… 


now about zillah’s “suggestions”


  1. what is optimal result? optimal medals? trophies? golds? most players already know, to get more medals, get into top 500 or 100 or even top 10, and find the enemy using MM. Trophies? drop your own trophies so you can bully higher trophies players and also from MM. Golds? use gold gears and join alliance with high bonus… it has nothing to do with the “cookie cutter” design… they won’t care about changing the spells or troops …


  1. extra gold? how much extra? will it be more than using gold gears? if yes, who will buy gold items? FG will lose some money because people won’t spend gems to buy gold gears anymore… joining top alli also help with the bonus, and for many high level players, they won’t care about golds anymore, no place to spend them… this will lead to a new problem, high lvl players won’t have to follow efficiency and can do the brute force, and many player will then start complaining again because this will benefits the high lvl players only…


  1. Flare can give as many unique and high quality boost as possible, but as i mention before, players will always move toward the most effective boosts/units/spell and creating a new trend and uniformity… Unless you meant this in only for alli that can’t afford many boost (maybe alli under rank 40?), so they have to be creative and selective with their choice, but it won’t affect alli in top 40 and especially won’t affect the top 10… top 15 alli can activate/prolong any boosts they want, and when this happen, lower rank alli will start complaining again accusing the unfairness and special treatment for top alli…


in conclusion, yes, new boost/spells will trigger new strategy, but not the variety… and most of the idea probably bring more disadvantages for mid-low tier players… fyi, i’d be happy if all of your suggestions are implemented by FG, they will bring more advantages for high level players/alliances :slight_smile:


maybe play a bit longer until you reach the top tier, then you’ll see clearly what is happening in the game…


They need to balance. 

Make all the units (useful) all the towers should be useful (not just when boosted).

It’s sad. 

I’m at level 80 and the game just gets more and more predictable. 

Quote isn’t working for me.


Killerbee, I doubt my perspective is due to lack of experience. Some of the “legendary” RR2 players have stated the game is more fun at lower/mid-levels than high lvls and how refreshing it was to use a greater diversity of stuff. Previously I had a character in a high lvl alliance, but dropped out of the game for months because it was taking too much time and had become less fun. What keeps me in the game now is our alliance, but I’m now again starting to notice a marked decrease in the amount of strategizing required and a decrease in the “fun” factor.


I think Flare is aware of this and has been working on it. Their addition of new boosts may be an attempt to generate additional gameplay options. Like improving shield, which changed it from an ignored spell to a heavily used one. No doubt getting game balance perfect is tricky, but they might be able to increase variety at high lvls by simply looking at the stats of what higher players use and if they notice 90% of high lvl players are using mummy/knight combo then that is a clear sign they need a counter. If they see virtually no high lvl plyrs are using a certain tower or spells, then they can ask for example  “what can we do to encourage the use of stun.” Or Flare: "99% of players with over 3500 tropies do not use toxic cloud. How do we increase its use?)


If the high lvl players had a reason to have a more equal utilization of the various troops, towers and spells (and don’t all just use a handful of the available options aka skull towers, surprise mummies, raging wolf) then it is a near certainty strategic gameplay would greatly increase.


Flare could go through each underutilized spell/troop/tower one by one asking “what can we do to increase utilization?”


Stun for example. How about at lvl 5-6 of stun you unlock the ability for the lightning bolt to jump from the closest tower to an immediately adjacent tower and do 90% of the damage it did to the first tower? Then each lvl up lets it jump to one more immediately adjacent tower, 80% of original damage to the 3rd tower, 70% to the 4th etc. Then at lvl 10 you unlock the ability for it to jump across a lane (like towers flanking a barricade). Among other things, this might nerf the ubiquitous L and N bases and force towers not to be in a row. Maybe the only tower the lightning wont jump to is the all wood arrow tower. So arrow towers would find new life. Or instead of making this retroactive they could add new levels to stun that would add such abilities.


Or have the ice tower heal or boost any froster within 2 squares. Ditto for fire towers and pyromancers. This would make players maximize the surface area exposed to such towers, favoring “island” type of base squares surrounded  on all sides by paths and also decreasing use of N & L bases, while encouraging use of lesser used units and towers.


The goal is to create multiple viable options for high lvl play, leading to increased diversification and strategy. Not to boost any one item (ie shield) to where it becomes the new monopoly. No “one ring to rule them all” option anymore.

@Zillah, (i don’t want to quote too long paragraphs) …


If you had tasted top allis, then you must have seen the difference in how the game is played on high vs mid-low level… i kinda agree to your statement “the game is more fun at lower/mid-levels than high lvl and how refreshing it was to use a greater diversity of stuff”… because i made a baby acc few weeks ago just to rekindle some memories, it really is fun raiding with other spells/troops compared to the cookie cutter blizz/sonic/shield and mummy/wolf/knight/archer…

And as i mentioned before, your suggestion to prevent cookie cutter style in defense and offense will only affect the mid-low tier, because they will have to be creative and selective with their boost and troops choice, so there are variety of boosts activated in each mid-low allis. These mid-low allis will also occasionally get nice new elite war boosts but won’t be able to prolong it… so they are ‘forced’ to be creative and tweak something in their base and raiding style every now and then and won’t be able to keep following the trend/cookie cutter design…

On the other hand, top allis will be able to activate all the boost (including the new ones) and keep prolonging them…these allis will soon enough find the most effective raiding combo (units and spells) and which design make the enemy failed the most. They don’t have any restriction with the boosts, and won’t have to adjust their base every now and then, they only do it when a new trend appear… so the cookie cutter style will always be there…

From these two situations, yes, mid-low tier game will be more fun, but they won’t be able competing with the top allis… top allis will have the strongest new combo (in defense and offense) and will keep on using them, while the mid-low will be forced to adjust accordingly…

so who will get the most benefit? from in-game point of view, top allis will get stonger and advanced way further while the mid-low allis will be kinda stuck at their initial state… But from player point of view, more variety in mid-low that bring lots of fun while top allis are kinda boring because you will be forced to use the cookie cutter combo (both in defense and offense).


Why do top allis stay with cookie cutter style?

  1. Because they can, no boost restriction, adjustment only needed when new updates in spell/units/boosts/towers arrived…

  2. They want to win the war and collect as much fiefdoms as they can

  3. Either follow the cookie cutter, or get farmed hard during war, which will hurt your alli members… because then you and your fellow members will have to grind harder to cover the loss

  4. To beat the cookie cutter base, you have to use the cookie cutter troops and spells combo.


Now back to your statement:

“If the high lvl players had a reason to have a more equal utilization of the various troops, towers and spells (and don’t all just use a handful of the available options aka skull towers, surprise mummies, raging wolf) then it is a near certainty strategic gameplay would greatly increase.”


Can this reason compete with the 4 point i mentioned above?? remember, the gameplay in top allis is very different than the mid-low ones, top allis are more focus on war… Now the skull won in a season is more than 3M skulls, the standard for each war is 200k+ skulls, and often nearing or more than 300k… who create this ?? FG  :stuck_out_tongue:   Can FG prevent the cookie cutter on the top 10-20 or even up to top 40, yes, if they change the whole system   


And back to your statement again:

If “the goal is to create multiple viable options for high lvl play, leading to increased diversification and strategy. Not to boost any one item (ie shield) to where it becomes the new monopoly. No “one ring to rule them all” option anymore”… by giving them new unique quality to the boosts/troops/spells/towers, you can forget it… it will create 1-2 new trend, but it won’t be multiple… Be thankful that L and N bases are in trend, if only L or N is exist, i imagine it might drive you catatonic :wink:  


But since the mid-low allis are way more than the top ones (like karman told me …), i guess your idea is good, as long as the mid-low allis won’t complain again about the cookie cutter style in top allis, just enjoy the fun variety your mid-low tier…


Preach it Brother!

Bad KillerBee!  Bad!

I’m only stating the fact, you can cross check it with top 10-20 Allis… :stuck_out_tongue:

Personally, I like when the gameplay is consistent. I don’t want to have to remember what spells I have equipped… v_v Can’t act on instinct then

Good point. Though, when you only “train” one combo, you just aren’t used to other combos. If using several different combos is your daily rr2 life, you will get used to several combos and be able to use them all “on instinct”. 

Isn’t it difficult enough to get d 3 spells u use to max level n then brute force? U want to keep upgrading several different spells which is going to tkae u forever to do. Cmon even with the availability of not having to change spells I find it difficult to max out my spells n am nowhere ever close to winning the diamond league with peeps scoring 100kish.

Already with the new update I have to start upgrading Pyro n froster n gargoyle towers without maxing out my Knights archers n cannons. If I need to use different combinations Im gonna have to upgrade too much which is gna take me years…

@SP Don’t higher lvl plyrs tend to have way more than 3 spells raised to high lvls, including all the ones that were once useful, but now obsolete? And brute force plyrs could keep playing the same way they always have. One could use the same 3 troops and spell combo for everything. It just might not be quite as effective as a player who is using strategy. And having to prioritize use of one’s resources is also strategy. Having unlimited resources at high lvls has been the downfall of many many strategy games.

Yes, true once everything is maxed out changing as per base wouldn’t be a bad idea. But at my level if I have upgrade n change as per base I am not going to get anywhere soon. There has to be a same 3 spell/troop combo till d odrs reach decent levels or I am never gna catch up wid d uber peeps.