There is a problem

Flare, I hope you remember about this problem? What do you think about it? Is this a strategy or will it be fixed? :grinning:  or you do not care about the suffering of not the best players?

@GalaMorgane

There are many alliances that do this. I’m not sure what you do about it. Many older players on forum may know. @Dena4 @oPelle are two that may know

I just want that the rule of 8 players would act not only at the beginning of the war, but also on its duration. <8 players = flew off the season

I already suggested that when a team came under 4 players, that those teams should automatically not be able to champ or shield. This prevents this kind of unfair play. I would also remove the limitation of three raids max against a player and count highest three raids 100% against them.

That those teams lose gold by champing and shielding I don’t mind, they chose for this foul play, so let them suffer the consequences. Another way would be to declare those fiefdoms neutral zones, fiefdoms that can be taken by declaring war. The team that does come under 4 players are automatically not playing the next two war seasons. That way they don’t get rewarded for this way of playing. 

I think you don’t need any drastic measures. It might happen by accident or also by a “revolution” of the soldiers against their leader: they can leave an alliance without problems, the leader can’t without losing access to the alliance and its levels, gold and beasts.

Still, it is absolutely correct that less than 8 players is against the rules of a war season. So I think a very easy rule would do: Any alliance that has less than 8 players at the start of a war (active or passive), or if the alliance falls below 8 players during a war, the war is tainted. It will complete normally, but regardless of the skull result, the alliance loses the war. That is, such an alliance can never gain a fiefdom, and will lose any fiefdom attacked. That would keep the spirit of war season, practically eliminate any advantage from such a behavior, and does not impact other alliances that are neighbors on the war map.

And btw, that would be implemented in just a few lines of code.

That’s also a good solution, let those players get their skulls, but add a rule that a team below 8 always loses the war. Brings me to the point of what about 2 teams fighting each other, both lower than 8 players. What will happen then?  There an additional rule is required. Will the rule be that when teams in war both have less than 8 players, that the defender wins? Or does the skull total scored determine the outcome in that special occasion?

My idea would follow the rule: Such an alliance can never win (gain) a fiefdom. In this case, it means that the defender “wins” regardless of skull result, in other words, nothing changes in regards to fiefdoms.

Hello, we will release a solution for this in the future version of the game :slight_smile:

Very good to read some action is taken against this. 

…future version, meaning when? This needs to come out before the next war, that way this doesn’t happen again. 

While you are at it: This dropping of members to get rid of unneeded Fiefs on the last day of war is not a nice thing in this game and should be changed too.

We are not kicking anyone out of respect for our players. But groups which do so clearly have an advantage. This results many last war days in ending with a miserable feeling. Not eliminating the skulls for a player leaving the alliance would clearly be a good thing.

I hope this can be can be considered…

while I agree something should be done about alliances dropping members to drop skulls, I think it is just a ‘band aid’ to the bigger issue that alliances are trying to lose wars and drop fiefs in the first place.

Obviously the band aid would probably be easier to implement, however making having more fiefs more rewarding or some other change so alliances have reason to fight all the way into the last day would also solve alliances trying to lose wars on purpose.