Wacky solutions to all of our problems!!!

Here are some compromise solutions to the problems we’ve been seeing lately:


Raid Issues:

Scream nerf issue: Change from 4 seconds to 3 seconds minimum no-scream time, except that over 100% scream boost chips away at time further, but only marginally.


War Season Issues:


Skull count limit: Make lvl 100 new skull count limit; add king level differential (straight subtraction, so 104-95 = 9) to apply to skull count if raiding king is lower level than defending king. It’s less severe of a skull count than old system, but allows for some incentive to attack higher level kings.  

Loser Bonus: replace it with “Loser Points”. Loser Points are based on the skulls gained like current system (more skulls the better), but are accumulated over LONGER periods of time to cash in for war champion, war shield, or extra fights in war. Loser Skulls can even activate a war boost for a limited time. This way, any alliance can save up their LPs for bigger battles down the road, but each and every War Season doesn’t have the issue of the Loser Bonus. Some alliances have been shut out of Alliance Wars or placed 4th or 5th too often, and have had a difficult time getting any war boosts; this allows for an alternate path to get them or win a war in a surprising fashion.


Grinding: This is a tough one and I need some help on this one. Maybe allow a “Grind Option”, where an alliance gives the option to engage in grinding. The incentive to grinding will be to break a tiebreaker by earning many, many more skulls during a Grind War. But a weaker alliance can opt out of grinding (making it also less appealing to go after easy alliances). Default: Off, can be changed up to 1 hr before each new battle. Adds an element of skill, because an alliance that’s about to be ganged up on can turn on “No Grinding” as a last resort.


COF Skulls: This is also tough, so like Grind Option, give an option to ban COF skulls from team skull count, but still apply to personal skull count. If one alliance doesn’t allow it before being attacked in a war, COF skulls don’t count in head-to-head competition. Default: Off.


I’m sure there are many issues with each of the above solutions, so chime in! Just BE CONSTRUCTIVE so Flare hears us out, and doesn’t just see us bickering!



Thank you!


Being creative and productive does help me much more.

The challenge to find ideas that are actually reasonable and possible - and that really isn’t an easy task.

solutions are simple…you put in …you can take it out


I agree with LP that can be exchanged with war champion/shield cost, but disagree with extra fights (what’s the diff. with the loser bonus then?? both will give the loser more skulls while the other side will still be limited to 10/20 attacks), and still kinda undecided about LP to activate a war boost for a limited time, depends on which boost i guess…


There are already soooo many constructive criticism from players, i think there was even one topic special for that, but i can’t be sure that we still have it now… After every update there are always some criticism posted on the topic, i admit there are lots bickering too, but still several post are good and constructive. But did FG really hear us?

Let me ask you this, how many of the constructive idea were really implemented by FG? then compare it to the “new things” that FG keep on giving us that ruined the game, which one will be way more?


You might be right, but I haven’t seen a rep from Flare (Jack) this interested in feedback in a long time. So why not put some more ideas out there? :slight_smile:

I’ve had an idea for the Grinding issue. 


Each member is currently allocated 2% on each of their raids above their top 3.  This equates a total of n x 2%, eg. 120% for a 60-member alliance. 


Suggestion : Why don’t you allow the leader/generals to allocate this 120% amongst the members? 


This then effectively removes the grinding from those who would really rather just do their top three raids and leave it at that. 

For example, I’m quite the lazy lounge lizard, so Leader gives me 0%, and 10% to twelve eager and capable members.  Or 50% to some super keen dude and smaller allocations to everyone else. The possibilities are endless! The percentage available to be allocated cannot exceed n x 2%. Shields and champs can be allocated as usual on top of this. As with shields/champs, this can be allocated anytime after the war has been declared. If not allocated then everyone gets 0% and it’s time to find a new alliance with more diligent leaders lololol. 


What do you think? It provides for a lazy war when members are busy, and many, many chests for those who are really keen and put the effort in.  


And then you can remove the 10 attack limit, because only those who nominated themselves would go above and beyond their top three attacks. 

Ohhh Meg you’re doing the thinking like a veteran king now ohhhh ohhh ohhhhhhh


That is SO fascinating! Wow. Impressed.


I’m sure the idea will require a few tweaks, but the math, the math!!! And during the off-war season, the Leader and generals can decide who gets what bonus. Additionally, players can lock in their 2% bonus up to 6 hours before war. Any bonus not locked in, which shows inactivity, can then be allocated elsewhere. The “lock-in” box can be accessed right next to the title of the War that shows up 48 hrs before the war starts. Any player who leaves or gets kicked during a war forfeits their bonus and it can reapplied to another player–very helpful for alliance who have to constantly deal with jumpers.


This can be a way for a Leader/general to say, “If you’re participating in this war, lock in your bonus. Show us that you’re ready do war.”


I could imagine alliances concentrating the bonus on their best players, though. I have no problem with that. Why not allow the best players to have a little more leverage during war?


I think this idea requires tweaking couz I see few ways to exploit it.  


  1. If leaders and generals have an option to distribute %skull bonus, they will just distribute it among its highest scoring members and won’t give a chance to other members who wants to grind. The variance between how much a member can score skull directly affects the % skull bonus too.  For e.g. if strongest member of alliance can score 800 skull base and lowest member can score 600 skull, it kinda forces leaders and generals to allocate more skull bonus to highest scoring members.


  1. Alliance will always allocate max %skull bonus to a members who can beat highest skull giving enemy king.  But this also means that those selected members will be forced to grind more.  So if an alliance has high level members who cannot grind and mid-level members who can grind, that alliance will be at disadvantage.  


  1. Mid-level alliances can hire mercenary high level kings who can grind like crazy and beat enemy bases easily and allocate 120% bonus to that king and let him loose. He can single handedly win the war by himself.


Some tweaking is necessary. Let me ask you this: why not let those who don’t mind grinding go ahead and grind? You can even make a grind limit, but higher than it is now, and based on the 120%. Some alliances like the company we keep, but don’t like to ask everyone to grind who might be busy, on holiday, or just twiddling their fingers. :slight_smile:

Boom! Nice ideas


Why can’t people just manage their own affairs? Why shouldn’t the best fight for the best for their alliance? It makes a lot of sense. It’s for the alliance’s good, not for the individual good.


You want skull bonus for everyone. But how much better would be for the alliance to get war boosts than just some silly 2% skull bonus for a few mid level players, who might not even use it?


If we base the war’s outcome based on efforts of a single person fighting for alliance, then we can just have the best player of each alliance fight and decide the winner.  




Yes there are pros and cons to the idea.  But if Flare gives more power to the people to make choices, and those choices backfire, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. (High level kings get burnt out and quit the alliance etc). There is no way that Flare are ever going to be able to please everyone, so let the alliance decide the settings for themselves.



And I don’t know about hiring mercenary high level kings… what could mid level alliances offer them? Virtual dancing girls?  Maybe if they can afford to hire one, then they deserve to win. All is fair in love and war after all :grinning:


And yeah in real life we send the strongest warriors out to fight for our countries… not a skinny little thing like me - kaboom, dead  lol. 

I love the idea of ladder type matches!! Bring it on   :wink: