The wars are unbalanced

The wars are very unbalanced.  It’s impossible for a clan with 15 members win clans with 25+ members.

I think the admins should change the wars rules  for one of these  two options :

Average : Number of skulls that one clan obtain in the war is divided by the number of clan members who have participated in the war (not for the number of clan members only by participated members) but minimum number for divide is 10 (or a number calculated by the number of members that have the clan with less member, but not all members and minimum 10).

Limited number : Number of members of the clan that can participated on a war are equal for the six clans that are making the war.

First I want to explain why we need a minimum number for divide, if don’t make that, only the best player make the battle and obtain the best possible result. We need to divide for a minimum number to force at least to 10 members to participate. The number could be calculated by the clan with less members, but I think that it shouldn’t be all their members, if not, they are in disadvantage because if all of them don’t participate, sure they’ll lose.

These two form make more balanced the wars between the clans with more members and the clans with less members. But personally I prefer  first option , because the  second method  in my opinion have a little problems:

• how to balance the clan with more active players.

• how to decide who members go to a war? more throphies? more level? what happend if the players choosen automatically for the war can’t play… I think that it should be selected by the leader (or general) of the clan like in for example clash of clans, because the clan could be speak for decide who could play and who couldn’t.

The first method don’t have this problems, I think that is more just and for a programmer is more more easy to do.

In my opinion. They will always be unbalanced. When a -10% is made to Arblasters, they will be to weak against another item in the game. If the boosted gate is too weak, they will up it and some troops will be too weak. I think the best practice is to find what works best against what by pulling averages (I put them in a spread sheet).

I think they should follow this order: fiefdoms, alliance level and alliance trophy count, I guess it is pretty similar to how it is now, but it’s the best way.

That is a great idea!

I think what a lot of people are saying is, people need to give it some time to feather out. Tournaments are the same way. I am in Diamond and there is somebody in there with 5000+ trophies. I do not have that many and would not stand a chance collecting as many medals as this one could. Should there be a difference in measuring this? Should they create additional leagues?

I agree with the Average method, but with one stipulation.

Alliance Wars should be about Teamwork and Activity above all else. I don’t believe that this “participants only” rule really reflects that. Like, if half of your alliance just sits out, then why should you win and not me? And not only that, but what if one of my members /tries/ to participate, but only gets 5% on a base and gets 20 skulls? Should they weigh my average down, while my opponents’ inactives shouldn’t weigh them down?

This is why I believe that we should just go all-out average. Make it so that it’s based purely on activity and ability to actually raid.

I like it!

So, there needs to be a different measuring system based on all members not just the individual. Okay, will add that to my improvements list I am creating

Maybe, it is not a solution for the general problem, but it would help if the boosts last only until the next war starts. Otherwise the winner of the last war starts with an advantage during the first two days. Off course alliances can still prolong their boosts, but than they will have to pay for it, and that is fine for me. Besides the top alliances no one can afford so many boosts.

But in general a fresh war would mean a fresh chance for all, if boosts end with the start of the new war. Possibility one would be to shorten the duration of the boost or  to lengthen the time between the wars.

Average is bad, it will pull down participation even more, everyone will expect others to do it.

Limited number will have the same effect as average.

I think it should be no food cost no gold reward no scroll/no revive (or limited number, ex.: 1 scroll for free per raid, after that, you cannot use it), only top 3 battles counts (no more %)

Well, Flare will not like this though.

This is another option, maybe 4 days boosts with 4 days inter-war period.

The way it is setup is very smart. This forces alliances to trim up and find active players. All the inactive players will be booted and if Flare implements a track program into the game. The players will show their true colors and not be allowed in an alliance. This will motivate people to be more active.

I’m not sure, but when 5 alliances with level 1000-1600 are matched up with an alliance that is level 365 that has 10 more members than anyone else - AND they are smack dab in the middle of the map - this is very unfair. The other alliances have no chance whatsoever.

This really needs to be fixed. It is very disheartening, and players become unmotivated and leave the game.