Suggestions for the Forthcoming Improvements in War Season

wars-ninja
#1

Dear members of the forum,

It has been more than a year now since Flaregames has made their latest modifications to their skull bonus algorithm for war season.

Truth is, these changes never succeeded at encouraging fair play and alliances are exploiting its shortcomings (in combination with fiefdom system) more than ever. War season is no longer a show of true strength and still there are situations on maps where a superior alliance can’t even protect themselves, let alone competing for a title. It has become the regular to see a 120 fief mega-alliance attack one with as low as 80, only to help them come up with a higher LB and kill a rival.

You no longer see alliances fighting on the war map, because all there is to the current war system is the art of whispering in the dark. People keep plotting, and forming extended alliances to control how anything on the map happens! No more fighting, Long live plotting. This has been hurting real fighters for long now, it discourages use of gems and decreases game’s revenue and professionally speaking, it seems Ugly!

Let’s continue here with reviewing some of the facts about the current skull bonus system. One can argue that skull bonus system was originally put in place with mainly 3 goals:

  • To encourage war participation
  • To give weaker alliances a chance to protect themselves
  • To act as a tie-breaker when 2 alliances are nearly as strong

Although the aforementioned modifications have been partially able to meet these goals, they also discourage any intention of winning wars as you’d probably lose more than what you get, merely if you decide to win the season (where’s the fun in that?).

On the other hand, latest changes also fail to give strong alliances a way to protect themselves on war maps, simply because as soon as a weak alliance gets to its target value of LB after losing for a few times, they suddenly become unstoppable, with stronger alliance having no chance of striking back for the rest of a season. In fact, this is always the case currently as gaining a huge LB is only a matter of secret negotiations.

We at Roaring Lions have been working together, trying to come up with a list of easily implementable fixes for this, as follows here:

  • Lost wars against each alliance should be taken into account separately.  Let’s say that alliance A has lost 5 wars so far. 2 of which against alliance B. If alliance A decides to attack alliance B, then a multiplier of 2/5 must be included in calculation of their Loser Bonus.
  • Different set of modifiers for losing offensives.  Losing an offensive shouldn’t be granting losers a considerable LB. On the other hand, losing a defensive must be granting losers a huge LB. Like this, weak alliances won’t sacrifice their presence on the map only to take a fiefdom or two from a title contender by repeatedly attacking them. they will learn to fight for their own sake.
  • Current value for LB multipliers can be even slightly increased to the extent needed to help weaker alliances fight back as soon as possible since now with the implementation of these fixes, they’re on their own in winning a title

With these changes implemented, all alliances will be encouraged to climb the fiefdom ladder and be truly strong instead of forming monopolistic extended alliances.

PS: This list of suggestions was originally handed to Madlen and subsequently submitted as a letter to the developers. As per her request, we’re putting up this post here so that all minds can equally contribute to improving it. Of course, this list of suggestions is not supposed to end up in any forthcoming version of the game as it is considered no more than mere user feedback to the esteemed developers.

#2

There is no encouragement to gain fiefs, everyone just high tails it and runs to lower fief alliances for a while to lick their wounds, till they gain too many fiefs, rinse, repeat.  Playing as a high fief alliance means losing over and over so other alliances don’t get any loser bonus (as 33% Skull Perk is pretty much standard and easily obtainable these days), if a mistake is made such as a late declare, or, god forbid, win a tile against the wrong opposition, then war is over.

1% loser bonus difference is usually more than enough to overcome any skull perk advantages of an opposing alliance.

#3

Could someone point me to a post or explain why the skull bonus doesn’t work properly over the course of a 5-day War? With an example or two. Or how gaining fiefdoms works against you? I’m in an alliance with rank 300-340 (depending on the week) with low 50s fiefdoms and not sure why you wouldn’t want to win the boosts (by getting the most fiefdoms in the War).

#4

hi some problems also strong alli get help each other and attack the weak ones  and I think also no all alliances have to get all rewards will be best for alliance get what they got ant last time points no matter if they did get hight points  we get depending how many poins we got at the end

#5

I inderstand what are you talking here.

but mainly loser bonus is a system which allow middle alliances to win vs top and prevent the domination of top at the maps.

@neilr81 not many alliances who want to fight vs tops even wiyh 1-2-3% loser bonuses

also mid alliances should havr chance to win at the map and do not guve up immidiatly

 

mostly this system works very well.

We need changes, but the main problem here is:

mid alliances do not trust on tbeir power.

mid alliances should kill all 120 every map.

game need more tops.

 

I do not like idea to make the system where top alliance will win map from start and every other mid alliance will have no chance to win.

 

#6

1% will not help Neilr for most of alliances.

 

#7

And the thing i do not understand ehy 120 fiefs alliances have nothing for this 120 fiefs? They should have advantage! Like extra boost as example

#8

 

Lol not only nothing extra, actually less than what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia says 120 fiefdom gives gargoyle towers 4 gargoyles each, but in reality, only 3 like others.

#9

I disagree. suppose a neighbor country invading a world power in real life. are they supposed to win that war? 

on the other hand, assume a world power invades some 3rd world country in an adventurous war oceans away. the defending country probably stands a chance and can at least [try to] protect their territorial integrity.

#10

Yes i was wrong

mid allies should have a chance to beat top

 

i can say, when RL, apo,HK, AK killed VL every map it was okey. Now its a problem

 

this game is a social game. Top allliances SHOULD have an allies and share places. 

Idea to be alone and just be the most powerful here is bad for Flare. What a point to play maps, if none have a chance to beat top?

 

i liked this new system since start. Its pushing alliances to make deals and give middle alliances the chance to win maps.

and i prefer to have 10 strong mid alliance instead 2 top alliences. 

The main problem is not the lb system.

its a fake mid alliances who have no balls and making deals.

 

also its matter question. And i prefer to discuss it patiently

i understand RL reasons, i think RL did it themselfes.

VL doing a lot if mistakes now, soon they will be in same situation

But i think war system should be changed, need to find the way of it

 

#11

Keenflare and Flaregames should rebalance the base skull. Actually it’s capped at king level 95, but we aren’t in 2014-2015, when the maximum level was at 120 and the maximum throne room level was at 9. We are in 2019, where the maximum king level is at 130 and the maximum throne room level is at 12. In 2019, players at level 95 generally have neither maxed offense nor maxed defense. I have 4 ideas to rebalance the base skull (2 of them have the cap at level 100 and the other 2 haven’t cap).

Option 1: eliminate the cap of 1015 skulls.

Option 2: base skull = 300 + 7 * target hero level and fix the cap at 1000 skulls.

Option 3: base skull = 100 + 7 * target hero level (no cap).

Option 4: fix the cap at 1050 skulls.

In addition, rewards in war season need improvements.

  1. If an alliance wins a war, it will receive a super chest, a pal chest and a guardian chest.

  2. If an alliance loses a war, it will receive a legendary chest and a voucher chest.

  3. Add guardian chest after pal chest, but before pro chest.

In this war season, rewards are distributed in this way:

  • at 1000 skulls -> common chest;

  • at 2000 skulls -> common chest;

  • at 3000 skulls -> enchanted chest;

  • at 4000 skulls -> enchanted chest;

  • at 5000 skulls -> rare chest;

  • at 6000 skulls -> rare chest;

  • at 7500 skulls -> epic chest;

  • at 10000 skulls -> epic chest;

  • at 12500 skulls -> legendary chest;

  • at 15000 skulls -> legendary chest;

  • at 20000 skulls -> super chest;

  • at 25000 skulls -> super chest;

  • at 30000 skulls -> super chest;

  • at 40000 skulls -> pal chest;

  • at 50000 skulls -> golden super chest;

  • at 60000 skulls -> pal chest;

  • at 75000 skulls -> pro chest.

With my idea of guardian chest, rewards could be distributed in the following way:

  • at 1000 skulls -> common chest;

  • at 2000 skulls -> common chest;

  • at 3000 skulls -> enchanted chest;

  • at 4000 skulls -> enchanted chest;

  • at 5000 skulls -> rare chest;

  • at 6000 skulls -> rare chest;

  • at 7500 skulls -> epic chest;

  • at 10000 skulls -> epic chest;

  • at 12500 skulls -> legendary chest;

  • at 15000 skulls -> legendary chest;

  • at 20000 skulls -> super chest;

  • at 25000 skulls -> super chest;

  • at 30000 skulls -> super chest;

  • at 35000 skulls -> pal chest;

  • at 40000 skulls -> pal chest;

  • at 45000 skulls -> golden super chest;

  • at 50000 skulls -> golden super chest;

  • at 55000 skulls -> guardian chest;

  • at 60000 skulls -> guardian chest;

  • at 75000 skulls -> pro chest.

 

What are middle alliances?

#12

Sorry if I’m going off-topic here…

You saw that on the Gargoyle Tower page right Lacuna?

I’ll change the 120 fiefdom value to 3 gargoyles then. Thanks for mentioning it.

#13

I agree with you. Mid alliances should have no chance against top alliances.

But I think what Cromka meant by “mid” alliances are actually rank5-15 alliances and by “top” are the rank1-5 alliances.

 

Right now it’s possible for most rank5-15 alliances to actually win in a top map, but it’s too expensive on their players (the majority don’t even buy gems) and requires good alliance deals.

#14

I posted the question in the bug section, waiting for developers to reply. It could be a bug, or it could be intended. No one knows.

#15

Ok then. Please tell me the outcome when they answer you.

PS: My guess is that value is probably from a few years ago… like 2015 or so…  :ph34r:

#16

IF they answer me ** 

 

?

#17

Alliances should have ability to win map

not easy ability, but…

yes im talking about 10 mid and some top alliances

 

other alliances are just a victims. But if you arw in top 10, im sure its mean you should fight vs RL VL or every other alliance

#18

It’s probably best to keep this on one topic (loser bonuses) rather than throw all the ideas from other threads in here.

Initial balance was the top 3 alliances (by fiefdom count) could dominate the map, now top 3 alliances are lucky to place on a map, and spend most days purposefully losing wars, and we see breakout “just below top” level alliances with low fiefs designed to take advantage, mainly because having a boost at level 3 is many many times better than not having a boost at level 4.

#19

well I think this is fine as long as top alliances are forced to take the risk of taking fiefs from mid alliances and endanger their eventual position. changes mentioned in the initial posting are supposed to bring up on a war map scenarios such as this. and let’s not forget the fact that we already have super strong alliances which can neither be classified as a mid alliance nor a top alliance and can rip the benefits of being either. we can never say that the current war system is doing its job of encouraging competition well enough and people will continue to find ways to go around it.

on the other hand we’re obviously lacking a proper formal definitions for the strength of alliances. could it be trophies ranking, # of fiefs, or overall sp? I’d say we must honor the already established fiefdom system and ask flare to improve and emphasize on this factor in their coming updates. winning fiefdoms and preserving them is no easy task and takes a considerable amount of perseverance from an alliance.

#20

I think too much negotiations are already hurting flare’s revenue. when alliances reach a deal, players are free to use easy combos and not use gems. and it goes on for 3-4 days on a war map. with alliances forced to fight for real and take their matters on their own hands, they’ll be spending more as well.