War Improvement Revisited

Basically wanted to show a worked example of a suggestion I made about 4-5 months ago, specifically in relation to the multi-alliance maps (4v4, 3v3).
The suggestion was that for every defensive strike open the resistance of any further strikes upon the same alliance increases resistance % by a certain factor (between 5-8% is reasonable, I will use 6% in the example below).
This post ISNT about cartels directly, as the example below shows that really no alliance on the current map could take any islands from CCCP, so the neighbouring alliances were effectively ‘forced’ on to us.

The image show we (purple dragon) have 5 defensive strikes open to 3 different alliances. It is obviously impossible to defend more than 2 of these at any one time, and normally against the same alliance. With the calculation above if 6% resistance was used with every attack to the same alliance for example a new 2 skull island would generate (20% + 5 x 6% = 50% resistance) 50% resistance. Sure it might still get attacked as often alliances aren’t playing for position in the league. We’ll finish having fought well, but have -4 or 5 torches as usual under the system, as will others in various leagues.

Resistance could also scale up, for example 2nd defensive strike 5%, 3rd defensive strike 15% 4th 35%.

On 3v3 map % would probably have to be higher than 6% per defensive strike, as 2v1 happens pretty much all the time.

Ideas I also would like to consider again are:

  1. 100% clearance time bonus (anywhere from 15s to 1m+ spare at the end with 15s increments or more) This would keep the keen forgers going, as many players can beat any base for 100% with much time spare.

  2. Honoured war hero - rotated each season, rewards maybe 10-15% bonus for using that honoured hero. For players that say, its too hard, and needs too much time; we can all make super CD rings now, and that helps massively for ALL heroes, so stop moaning!

interesting proposal Phil! I voted!

1 Like

I do find your ideas interesting. However, for this specific point I see a problem. It’s simple: if we have clearance time bonus then trust me, you will never, ever, see an attack on your base during war. The best GKs like yours are sure beatable, but they take a lot of time to go down compare to others.

2 Likes

Yeah, that would make attacking the worst defenses more valuable than attacking the good defenses.

For the first proposition, we had a very good system to manage 2vs1 in alliance wars v. 1.0. The more fury was used against an alliance, the faster their fury would generate. It was even structured where it was hard, sometimes impossible, to get all war spoils without fast fury regen.

It’s been asked for a bazillion times, but scrap the skulls, bring back fast fury. The code should already be there.

1 Like

You can beat me by a clear minute, and you probably have improvements to be made, also you are ten lvls lower, so there is no excuse for anyone.

Weaker bases generally do get attacked more, and the wise player unsure of victory would do that exact thing. Better the 100% of a player 15 levels lower than a max lvl player for 90%.

1 Like

Most players aren’t Marinien!

I think that we need a (bonus) cap, e.g. cap at 1mn left, i.e. 1mn left or 1mn30s left the bonuses are the same. Otherwise, even if I can break your gate at 1mn left I’d still ignore you and go for the next guy if I can break his gate with 1mn30s left.

It can also put some heroes at disadvantage. Ajax, for example, is double handicapped: naturally slow and doesn’t have Bia. If we only consider the GK beat-down time, he’d be my strongest hero, slightly stronger than Heracles. But due to his heavy amor and shield, he takes about 20s more than Heracles to clear a base.

4 Likes

I agree with this. I think in general the heroes who clear defenses the fastest are the ones who least need any kind of a boost. Maybe that’s self-evident, though.

Sort of a tangent, I guess, but if the point of a speed bonus is that defenses aren’t challenging enough and we need something else to differentiate alliances in war, the proper solution might be to make defenses more difficult. And I’m not talking at all about just bumping up levels again, but I think a new defensive structure that’s as impactful as Nyx towers or Helios was when they were introduced (but especially Nyx) would be appropriate.

1 Like

A 2nd Helios would be sick

The problem is that solo heroes already have clear advantage over those who rely on troops. A 2nd Helios would further widen the gap.

We need a structure that is very painful to solo, and the help of the troops should be much appreciated.

I think that we had such structure a few months ago. But let’s stay on the war-related improvement discussion.

Instead of clearance time bonus (which might be very difficult to balance), we can start with VP penalty for the amount of gems used for invocations. Of course many players can 100% any base, but that will force them to make at least 3 heroes who can do so. Then of course there’s the honoured war hero ideas which further goes in that direction, which I find to be a very nice idea.

I agree with your assessment and I think that at the end of the day clear time or invos used are sort of arbitrary figures. You have x seconds to beat any given map, any way you choose. Fast is one way, but not the only way, and some heroes are thorough but not fast. Number of deaths, invos used, full ap, etc… are all other secondary data points to % complete, and not necessarily more or less interesting than clear time. Throw them all together and maybe something interesting comes out (mega multiball jackpot for fast—full ap—no death—no invo run), or maybe you just have a hot mess.

That’s what I fear. I thought of invocations (amount of gems) because it’s kind of “fair”. You must build strong heroes, no matter the styles. The GK is “worth” 150 VP in average. Make it 5 VP penalty per gem spent for invos. That’d be fun. And again, I really like the idea of honoured war hero. There is luck involved, and that adds some spice.

We are here to discuss this because offense is stronger than defense, which is fine imo. If it weren’t the case, then there would be unbreakable bases/GKs, that no one could beat. And since it takes no skill to build a base, it’d be far worse as situation.

1 Like

I had my say on the honored war hero last time it came up. I think players like me and you would appreciate the challenge of it, but the majority of players struggle against same level defenses with their best hero. I think most players would hate it. It’s a huge investment to make some heroes war-ready. So the players who may already be struggling in war would be further penalized.

These are all tricky propositions! It’s intersting discussion though!

Of course, between you and me we tend to discuss about the top-end things. But if we look at all the proposed ideas in this thread, the interests are for everybody. Faster fury generation for more strikes received, more “resistance” for any further strike against you, etc. Weaker alliances can benefit hugely from that (so as strong alliances, since they will be less gang-banged). It can’t be worse than what we have currently now, imo. The “more resistance for any further strike against you” idea of @Philstar is very nice, I think. It will make it more complicated to make arrangements between the friendly alliances about who attacks what and when.

Since what I state about rather helps weaker alliances, we should also think about the top end. One doesn’t need a Master in mathematics to realize that the average VP/member of the top 3 teams in last war was almost 100K! That without fight 5-skull or having to fight 1-skull. For these teams it’s just a question of participation. So for more fun we can consider VP-penalty for invocations or honoured hero. I agree with you that the idea of honoured hero can be frustrating for many since all they see is misopportunities. But frankly if you have to re-iterate a low level guy why would you complain about honoured hero? We already has this concept in Odyssey and it makes a massive difference in the long run if you can do 12-skull with any hero or with just Heracles. Only a few complains about it. Sometimes people just need to get used to the change!

2 Likes

The biggest difference, though, is that players don’t get kicked from their alliance for not maxing out odyssey every week. Lots of contributing players, even in high end teams but certainly lower alliances, might only do 4 or 5 skull adventures. Players do get kicked for poor war performance, and many (most?) struggle to take 3 high quality heroes to war. I think it’s a delicate balance.

The answer to all of these problems might be coming with the next version, though. GKs nerfed, defenses buffed. It might make the game more competitive if done well.

isnt it what a nyx does? i mean it is not painful to the hero but it might be painful to players using solo heroes (not for everybody ofc.).
what are you thinging about… maybe a “mirror” tower that reflects a good amount of a certain kind of damage (not every damage, maybe just raw damage?). but if so, we can maybe just leave it untouched by the solo to be finished up by the troops.

I think a Nyx blessing that revived enemies like a phoenix would be a great addition.

1 Like

i dont use nyx.

You certainly have the option to, though.