War Improvements

DUE TO POPULAR REQUEST ON THE LINE CHAT, I’M BUMPING THIS OLD THREAD TO BE A PLACE FOR EVERYONE TO  MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO IMPROVE WAR.

Inspired by Robertus’ interesting thread on a Duel war (http://forums.flaregames.com/topic/40281-duel/), I wanted to make a general thread to catch suggestions on how to improve war. Here are some of mine: 1) Make the war season have a start and an end. At the end of the tournament (however long it is, 6 weeks or 6 months or 6 years), alliances can receive a  prize for where they place, and then the tournament is re-seeded based upon whatever metric you choose. The first and only time it was based on trophies, but maybe now it could be trophies + total fame.

  1. Give teams the option to forfeit a war (without kicking the entire crew). If you’re stuck between two teams that are clearly better than you, and they both decide they want to wipe you out, why give them an easy victory. Forfeit and make them fight each other.

  2. Do something to tweak matchmaking. We’ve all seen the limitations of the current system that uses torches + a random element. Torches don’t always pair up equal strength teams, though. Torches and trophies tells a better story, but trophies can be manipulated easily, so there was always a hesitation to use them. But now that we have fame as a metric, which is almost impossible to manipulate, it should be used to grade teams for war. Make a Fame hall of the gods and develop a formula that combines torches, fame and maybe also trophies to determine matches. Zombie teams with 10 players floating around are a real problem that can be avoided. This should be a priority.

  3. Trophies can be manipulated prior to war, so they shouldnt be heavily relied upon for matchmaking. But once war starts, there’s no longer an opportunity to manipulate trophies. Trophies (or trophies and fame) should be used to POSITION alliances on the war map. When the two strongest teams are positioned on opposite sides of the map, the two weaker teams often find themselves with no agency.  A 72 hour war with no consequential choices isn’t fun or good game design. The two strongest teams should be adjacent, and the 2 weakest teams should be adjacent.

 

To clarify one more point: I understand that the rules for dormant teams and losing torches, etc… was changed because it was frustrating for many players to see a team with 4 active players and 200 torches taking the top spot forever, with no way of unseating them. That’s not a good system.

The solution has been worse, because it incentivizes teams having just enough players to participate in war so they will lose slightly fewer torches than if they were ineligible. It messes up wars for everyone else involved, and there are a lot of zombie teams out there.

I think there’s a different solution here.

There was some good chat on Line over the weekend for ways to improve war. I’ll recap a few of them, and it would be great if everyone could chime in also. I know @choka had some thoughts.

  • I think all of my posts from last September are still very true. The number 1 problem with war is that the season has no end. Teams merge, die, get strong, get weak…but they never get re-seeded. Crown a winner, give them a prize, re-seed for the next war season. I’m using “war season” in a different way than it’s used in RR 2. I mean it more like a season in a professional sport.
  • Matchmaking can be improved by using a different, better mechanic than just torches. Each player can be ranked by a number of different metrics (level, fame, trophies, total VP earned in war, defensive victories, etc…) to give each player a Power Ranking. The PR will be difficult to manipulate because it contains some fixed values, unlike just a trophy ranking. Individual Power Rankings combine to give Team Power Rankings. Wars can then be matched based on a combination of torches and team PR. Between improved matchmaking and the war standing re-seeding at the end of fixed Seasons, you can greatly reduce the impact of high-powered alliances diving to get easy wars and low powered alliances getting stranded because of high torches.
  • Incentivize playing high level wars. Currently, there is an incentive for high powered teams to dive and fight bad competition. You can win full War Spoils and War Blessings every week with out breaking a sweat or spending a gem. It would be like choosing to only play 1 skull odyssey quests but still getting 3 titan sea chests as the prize. Create different leagues that you can graduate into that have better rewards at the top. It should not be possible to get 3 titan battle chests (or the new equivalent top prize) in war unless you compete at the highest levels.
  • I don’t know if the whole fury system is getting scrapped or kept, but cut the amount of fury down. You could cut it in half and it would give the exact same experience, only better. It’s not healthy to make us all stare at our phones for 48 hours straight. You’re going to give someone a stroke.
  • Put a “Salary Cap” in place. Create a maximum Alliance Power Ranking. Teams that are over the PR cap during the war prep phase will receive a message that they are not in compliance with the Power Cap and will be eligible for war (in that league). Maybe give alliances the option to move up to the next league or cut players to fight at that “weight class”. In the top-level league, alliances must stay under the “salary cap” or they will not be allowed to fight in war. This will create parity and might also create some interesting choices – would you rather have a team of 50 with lower power rankings, or fewer, stronger players?

Those are long term suggestions. This next suggestion should be looked at right now:

  • The war schedule should be CAMPAIGN->SKIRMISH->NO WAR, not Skirmish->Campaign->no war. Skirmish is an awful, stressful, terrible format, and to have the next war start 4 days later is not a long enough break. Please change this before the next cycle starts up!
  • Alternately, just get rid of skirmish. it’s bad, bad, bad.  Campaign->Campaign->no war would be better.

 

 

hummm… 

i agree with almost everything. 

except this: “It should not be possible to get 3 titan battle chests (or the new equivalent top prize) in war unless you compete at the highest levels.”

this wouldn’t bring even more difficulties to good, but still low-level players, who still can not integrate the top alliances?

Another important: war must not allow same alliance attacking same alliance again and again. 1vs1 can be handled ok. But 2 alliance attacking you all weekend so boring. Need insane concantration. Very much for a mobile game. 

 

It would be an incentive for those players to join higher ranked teams. If they’re good and they can play, they should play in a higher league. Create Leagues of alliances based on Alliance Power Rankings. As alliances increase/decrease their Power Ranking, they move up or down into different leagues. The rewards in higher leagues are better than in lower leagues. Maybe the mechanism isn’t to reduce the quality of war spoils (as they currently are) for lower Leagues, but to add additional prizes for playing in higher leagues. If matchmaking is adjusted to include metrics besides Torches, it’s going to piss off a lot of players who dive to get easy wars. There needs to be a strong incentive to play at the top in order to keep War competitive and to reward players for playing this insanely stressful game every weekend. And not to single you out, but since it came up on LINE, you’re in an alliance that people go to to escape the frustrating top level wars. If that happened under the “new system”, it would push you into a higher, more challenging league. You’d want some kind of reward for that to make it worthwhile, right?

That’s a skirmish problem. It’s better in Campaign because the high skull islands come into play. Skirmish should go. Please @CaptainMorgan, get rid of skirmish.

i understand what you’re saying, @dumpster

I’m just more concerned about other players that I have in alliance, from levels between 80/90 that they really strive hard to reach the best war chests.
it would not be fair for them to receive even less …
 

I agree nice suggestions!!!

yeah i agree we really need a change in war systems, what got my attention above all, are these 2 things :

 

1- wars are rewarded the same, practically even low ranked wars are rewarded even better, use no gems get lotta gems all war chests in full etc, while in top 10 teams it’s hard still you get the same reward it’s like saying division 4 salary and prize is equal to division 1, why would anyone play in top division? losing sanity? lol

,it’s clearly wrong no need to even think honestly ?

2- we see they make new teams in low ranks, max alliance and fill it with big players and what happens in wars? well they face low ranked alliances and ram through their hard earned torches for nothing, in a long run this kills the game kills the lower teams winning spirit and is not fair by any means,

 changing war system like suggested in main post in topic based on lvl and pheme to have a overall power for each team and then matchmaking based on that fair power is really needed, 

these 2 i described are in fact cheating in gaming terms let’s be honest,  if a high lvl player wants all prizes must play for it and earn it, with current system i can get all war chest with closed eyes in a low ranked war? isn’t this booooooooring? and the other thing that big teams stealing easy torches from small teams due to wrong war matchmaking systems  it’s worse than cheating in my idea. ? it will ruin the whole game if has not by now. 

ign: HADES

The major loophole / cheat in the war is that teams are removing all but their top 5 players and then shielding 4 of them making it almost impossible to beat them. Teams who drop below 8 players should lose all perks such as shielding. I know this is causing a lot of disappointment with the game

If a team drops below 8 then they are eliminated is not happening. I have fought in many wars where Alliances start with 8 + players and then kicked all but one or two players. Perhaps you need to check the algorithm/ script that supposed to do this

If an alliance drops below 8 players in war they’re eliminated. “Shielded” players are no longer in the team, and can’t fight. Also, any VP they earned on open strikes is taken away.

To begin with, I want to thank @dumpster for bumping this up. I also thought about doing something of this irk but couldn’t come up with a way that suits all of the plans I have regarding this forum, so great that the issue was solved. Now, allow me to proceed to my growing tendency of doing a small diploma paper kind of post on the topic above.

I see multiple issues the current system has, especially as a new player who made his way from the bottom of the… well, something that meant to be called a ladder. First of all, as dumpster mentioned above, it is the matchmaking. For every single war except two for the past five months, my team had the following war MM composition: A very weak team, us, a moderately weak/perfectly matched team and a very freaking strong team. Now, the results you may predict: we either have been completely demolished from one side and had to advance on whoever happened to be on the other or have been ganked by the two remaining teams. Cause why would you fight someone having extra 30 members and 140k trophies more than you are? With this kind of scenario, there are numerous other issues we naturally encounter along the way, some of which are readily translocated to the other teams, lower or higher regarding ranking.

 

With the narrative hopefully being laid, here’s what my suggestions would be:

  1. In compliance with the dumpsters suggestion, give us leagues. People called for it long before the rant about allies was raging, and I concur with that now - quantize the experience! Make sure there is no longer this huge swamp at around 54-64 torches due to this weird MM “balancer.” I disagree entirely with_  reducing  rewards for the lower leagues though; this would be precisely what ruins the game as it would technically rob away what many of us are used to, forcing players like my general, I or many of my allies to leave merely because our team is unable to keep up. Instead, why don’t you  add _ something on top of regular rewards for high leagues? Reduced building times, for instance, something many would entirely go for. Extra hero xp, higher production caps… Immunity to heroes being sent to Mt Olympus, there are plenty of rewards that can make being at the top desirable and meaningful. And yes, please use something other than torches to find opponents.Torches are as easily manipulated as trophies are and don’t really reflect a wing about an alliance until it is the top 75 and even then the allied backdoor diplomacy takes its toll.

  2. Make it easier for the officers to manage stuff. Being a general/officer in OR pretty much means having: no sleep, no life on weekends or an unhealthy combination of both, given that you care to win. This is a significant problem indeed, and I cannot get why is it even a thing, to be honest. A simple suggestion here would be to allow us to store strikes, let’s say, up to three. This would ultimately remove the kind of scenarios when we have to be present at 3 am, 4 am, 5 am… you get the idea, while also allowing us to execute highly tactical maneuvers. The sheer versatility and unprecedented ubiquity we would thus achieve is enough to brighten the otherwise dull and easily predictable war we have at the moment. Also, please do follow @Kortizons’ advice on adding an island marker and someones (maybe mine, although unlikely) idea of having a box with server time somewhere on the war screen, as this would significantly enhance our ability to coordinate strikes. Furthermore, it would be convenient if you can make a live score for attacked islands, so that I don’t have to refresh it every few seconds during ambushes and some sort of indication when the island in question is attacked by enemies or allies (make alliances icons flash or something). All for the very same purpose of ambush/defense coordination.

  3. How about something to make participation meaningful? This has been suggested a couple of times before by @Hellslord as far as I remember and I want to bring it up again. Please, give us a way to reward players that have done exceptionally well during wars. At the moment, we have to come up with all sorts of intra-alliance ratings to promote healthy competition and the best kind of prize we can give is choosing the alliance icon or merely giving an honorable mention in chat… isn’t this pure, and please excuse my french here, bullshit though? I understand that anything gem or reward-related can be abused and this was the primary concern back then, but what if it was framed differently. What if every alliance was getting specific buffs based on their place in wars (1 for last and 4 for first?) that would decrease building time, increase resource income, increase hero xp gained or reduce ambrosia costs for things. The strength of the said buffs can depend on the number of torches to discourage low-level diving, and the distribution should be up to the officers/general of the alliance. Overall, this would encourage participation and diversify the teams. Some would have a dkp system for those, others will be boosting lower members to catch up with the majority of the team members and in many places there would simply be a rotation and there are many more ways to distribute those. Furthermore, there wont really be a way to abuse those, as one would have to have enormous amount of alts or slaves willing to be playing for someone to get all the boosts (highly unlikely).

  4. The current war format is very dull and predictable indeed. Except for minor fluctuations, I know exactly what is going to happen and when since the first few hours, be it Campaign or Skirmish (thanks for no Clash, love!!! it!!!), which kind of takes all the fun out and only makes it a grind. Why don’t we get something new to ameliorate the process? For instance, we can have a format where the alliance builds a single defensive pattern with each member buffing a tower or unit of his choice for the parameter of his decision. To equalize alliances with lower member count to the higher ones, the buff strength should be divided among the members, allowing for higher customization for alliances with more members. This pattern then would be the only thing other alliance can fight, and the ultimate goal can be to destroy the gate as an alliance, with progress done by every attacker being saved and used by other attackers. This would be the quintessence of team play and coordination and I would be enormously interested in the things other alliances would come up with. And this is a single example! Things like alliance base (of which I have a post already) would also aide the process. The goal here is to maybe have something in the pattern Campaign-Skirmish-No War, ideally turning it into just the Campaign-Something-Campaign if the said “something” doesn’t require our attention for entire weekends. Do that and its a win for those who want more free time AND those who want more action.

P.s.

Each of my suggestion hedge-off-text has something minor and easily implementable and something major, which may be too hard to implement at the given point. Nevertheless, I do believe every suggestion to be capable of influencing the format for the better independently of the others being worked into the update or not. I also believe many issues OR currently has interlinked. For instance, there are not many options to communicate, which in my honest opinion should be a viable improvement area to deal with the “allied alliances” formed through backdoor communication methodologies, instead of in-game “on spot” deals and policies - something that probably was in mind while the current system was designed. And this is yet again only one out of many examples we can find. With this said, I do not expect a single update to spit out a perfect system miraculously, but firmly believe in setting the things up for a productive third year of many fixes, improvements and implementations to indeed make this a great game for as many kinds of players as humanly possible.

P.s.s.

Thanks for hacking through this volume of words and ideas. I know it is not crystal clear and I will probably end up rewriting this at some point, yet for now, it should give an idea of my vision of better war system. Sorry for a headache!

 

point taken, but none of these things would currently be desirable at higher levels of the game except maybe the resources (not exciting), unless we get more things to build.  My workers sit idle and my heroes don’t return to Olympus. 

I think there needs to be a strong penalty for diving to lower rankings, but if you’re going with carrot and not stick, it should be a pretty good carrot. 

and if the rewards are good enough, you and your general will still have an incentive to ditch your alliance to play in higher leagues. Those top rewards become the new norm. Top talent should want to play at the top.

I’m very thankful for the time you guys take to make these threads. Leagues are something which would dramatically increase the development time of any version which includes them, however, (!) they are not off the table as seasons and leagues are the direction we have often discussed to take.

Is there any kind of a real ballpark estimate for when the new version comes out? And it it’s longer away than like a month, can we get rid of skirmish in the meantime?

Getting conflicting replies on the minimum number of players required to participate in a war in RR2 teams are starting with 8 players and then kicking four or so players, shielding the other three or four players making them impossible to beat. Is this a loophole in the game or are these teams conforming to the rules. If this is a designed strategy of the game then it is really spoiling the war for the team on the receiving end and players are just not trying to compete after day one. And could loose interest in the war altogether. Surely at least if a team drops below 8 players they should lose all perks such as shielding

OR and RR2 are very different in a lot of ways. I wouldn’t try to compare the two. In OR, if a player leaves the alliance during war, they can’t be attacked (they’re not on the team anymore!). You’ll still see them listed until the strike closes, but you’ll get the message that “The Gods are protecting this island”. You also get that message if you have a disconnect before a battle starts, so it’s confusing. If an alliance falls below 8 eligible players during war, they are eliminated from war and all of their current islands are distributed to the other alliances. I’ve only seen this happen once and it was super weird. So there is no shielding of players like there is in RR2, I guess. I don’t play RR2. With all that said, it’s entirely possible and within the rules for a team with a handful of very strong players at the top and very weak players at the bottom to kick all the weak players during war and only give you hard af guys to fight. They can’t dip below 8 players, and they better be so good that they don’t need the scoring from their weaker members, but there’s nothing even unfair about that. If they had done it before war, you still would have been matched with them, it really doesn’t change a thing.

Wonder so much what will devs announce about wars next? I hope to see much alliances on map maybe 6. I hope to see when an alliance taking  attaks from both side, they must have a fury cooldown bonus.  I hope to see an alliance  must not attack one alliance more than 2 times repedeately. I hope to see new war blessings. I hope to see war blessings are free. I wonder if any of these will be announced???

I really hate this idea. What if you’re in between one alliance you can attack without going broke, and another alliance that more than half your team can’t score against? You’d be forced to attack the unbeatable alliance.