War ? What War ? - Make war won by highest total fief not just fief in this war

Suggestion to make war won by the alliance with highest total fief (as in fiefs shown in your alliance info) rather than just he fief count during the war.
yes, some will have slight advantage going into war, and some disadvantage, but over time this will even out.

Removes incentive to drop fiefs, and to fight wars until the last day.
Presumably not too hard to code / change, just have the war leaderboard show total fief, and then rank by total skull count if same fief.

The top wars might be a no win situation for the lower guys, but they usually don’t have much a chance in current system either.
but for most grouped with roughly similar fief alliance, there should always be a chance to win, but some harder / easier.

Some could not fight this war due to bug, many many more cannot fight due to alliance instructions not to fight / drop fief. For many alliances this occurs every 2nd war.

My current map again, alliances are sort of fighting, but basically no one trying to win. I currently have around 3x more skull points than the entire top 50 alliance we are fighting against. The last pyro war we faced 4 top 15 alliances we had no hope of winning, and were cornered by alliance that didn’t bother to take our fief so we couldn’t even drop.

By the next war it will be nearly 2 months since I have fought properly in a war to try win, my guess with high fief still we will be in another un-winnable pyro war. Followed by another pointless froster war, so most likely 3months at least without having fought a proper war. Winning boosts or not, this is just not fun at all when I don’t get to try fight to win.

please _consider _changing something about war to make stop alliances wanting to drop fiefs on purpose. Note here I’m not even asking for this change, I am just hoping flare will at least acknowledge there is a problem here, and that they are looking at changing something.

If the matchmaker didn’t place teams together with very close amounts of fiefs, some teams would be at a pretty unfair disadvantage.

If the matchmaker did, your idea would be moot because the team with the most fiefs at the end of the war would usually win (like normal).

Trying to understand the system you proposed, does that mean that if a top 4 team such as VL comes into the map, if there isn’t another top 4, they automatically win? They have like 120 fiefdoms now, against any other non top 4 at about 70+ at best.


Not sure if this is a good thing then…


currently matchmaker places teams together with close fiefs,  this would not change. Over time you will have some slight adv, some slight disadvantage and it will even out. But it will make it far more even than currently where ti matches on fief, but teams are heavily manipulating fiefs to gain unfair advantage already.

my idea is to make it so 1) ppl stop manipulating fiefs so we can get more even matchmaking 2) people will not want to drop fief. I don’t know what rank you alliance is at, but up being in ~50-60 rank team, my wars he team with most fiefs at end doesn’t usually win. For pyro war the team that has dropped the most fiefs, and managed to get matched with weaker alliances win. For froster war, basically whoever wants to win will win, since no one else wants to win. The battle I have today is vs a higher ranked alliance, with higher fief, as i mentioned, My current skull score is 3x more than their whole team combined. There is no question even though they are much stronger, more fief, they will lose - contrary to your statement the team with most fiefs usually wins

yes short term this is what would happen. Longer term if my change went ahead, I am not sure, but i think there would not be a such a large gap (if at all) to the rest. Currently most (if not all) alliances that could challenge the top four, or get 100+ fief, do not do so, as to get boosts they all drop fiefs on purpose.

Once there is no reason to drop fiefs, the other teams will actually start getting more.

From what i understand, other than top 4, very few are trying to get more fief. Current system punishes teams for trying to win fief, as they get matched up with the top 4 more, and when they get matched vs lower guys they are punished with the other teams getting more LB. The rest are trying to lose fief so they don’t get matched vs the big 4, and hope to stomp lower alliances.

under my change, those that try to get more fief (say the ones currently 80 or so) will auto lose vs top 4, but also auto win vs the rest at 70 and below. Over time I expect the other top 20 alliances with under 70 fief will stop trying to drop fief, and move higher. When they move higher it will be easier for the ones at 80 to move higher, and so on until the gap closes.

Unless of course i am wrong, and all of the top 20 alliance with 70 and below fiefs are trying their hardest and can’t get any more. Does your alliance fight every war 100% to try win every last fief? or do you try keep yours lower in the hope to match up against easier opponents to win pyro war?


First of all, there is a chance for a top 20  to still win a top 4 in the current system, using the loser bonus strategy.


Secondly, with your system, I don’t know how it will ever get to that situation in the long term. Try and imagine, that a team gets to 70+, it can no longer climb further because when it reaches there, it will bump into a top 4 and automatically lose, dropping back to 60+. Hence, the 60+ and 70+ fiefdom alliances will just rotate and take turns to lose automatically whenever they bump into a top 4 alliance. With your system, a 70+ fiefdom alliance will never ever reach the minimum of 115 fiefdom, to not “automatically” lose to a top 4 alliance.


I understand the frustration, but I disagree that your proposed system will work. I have suggested in another thread on a much simpler solution, which is to award alliance gold for war and make all current war boost into elite boost instead. In a nutshell, it is worthwhile for alliances to win every war to get as much alliance gold as possible. If the alliance gold reward is scaled correctly, it will be an amount where it is also worth the risk for spending on champ and extra boost to get 1st place.

you can only lose max 3 per war with top 4, max win 5 when you fight lower guys.

it also contradicts your statement here, if there is a chance for top 20 win a top 4 in the current system using the loser bonus strategy, then they will not automatically lose in my suggestion. It would actually make the loser bonus strategy more useful as more teams will try to make use of it. My understanding is that currently most top 20 automatically lose as there is no incentive for them to win as they would rather drop the fief.

Also consider the top 20, there is the big 4, given there is only 4 big 4, and 16 others, I don’t think its mathematically possible for the big 4 to keep them all down. Also once you look outside the top 20, more alliances than not in the top 100 are dropping fief / not trying to win everything. Its a chain effect, if 50-100 stop dropping fief, it will be easier for 20-50 to go higher fief, when 20-50 go higher it will be easier for top 20 to go higher.

your suggestion would require a lot more code / changes, and complicated if not impossible to scale in a way that will get alliances to not want to lose. If you make much bigger gold rewards for 1st, 2nd etc, then you have the same problem now where alliances will drop to make it easier to win 1st the next war. if you make it so more total fief based, you might as well just up the fief gold bonus.

not to mention if the top alliances have too much gold already, whats the point of going to war if they can just buy any boost they want anyway.


This doesn’t negate what I said, in fact, it prolongs it. For example, a 60+ alliance wins 2 war and gets to 70+, they will then encounter top 4 alliances and will have to do so MORE times now, because it takes longer for them to drop out of the rotation.


I’m not sure if I am misunderstanding you, or the other way round. With the current system, a top 20 CAN beat a top 4 if the correct strategy is implemented with the loser bonus skull. But in your system, no matter what the top 20 does, it cannot win, because when the war starts, there is no way it can go above the top 4 alliance’s fiefdom. So no, it is not an automatic loss in the current system when a top 20 meets a top 4, but in your system, it is. If the situation allows, a top 20 WILL try to win a top 4.


The current loser bonus system makes it possible for a weaker team to beat a much stronger team. What’s more, skull perk is scaled downwards at higher level. Hence, every time there is a BS event, the gap is actually shortened between top 20 and top 4. For example, it is much easier to go from 30% to 31% skull perk, as compared to going from even 33% to 33.5%.


Say for example, top 4 has EVERY player at minimum 33% skull perk, and a top 20 has a minimum of 30% skull perk every player. If you have a loser bonus of 5%, you will have a REAL chance to actually beat the top 4 already.


The above example applies to top 100 as well. When I was at a top 100 alliance, having 50 fiefdom, it is very possible to face an alliance that has 60 fiefdoms. With your system, it is an automatic loss. However, the current system still allows for a REAL chance to beat each other.


Pardon me, as I didn’t explain in depth since it was in another thread. The solution to this is simple, the gold reward is a fix sum, with the fiefdom as a multiplier. Hence, lower alliances won’t be jumping levels immediately. They will get a proportionate amount of gold multiplied by the fiefdom they have. I am not a programmer, but I have learnt some basic coding. I stand to be corrected, but I don’t think it is difficult to code this change at all.

First of all, tt takes more gold to sustain every single boosts (more so if every single war boost is now elite boost) if activated than the max donation an alliance can collect even if every single player is at 1.5 million.


Secondly, and more importantly, the fiefdom isn’t just about gold. It also determines the strength of some important units. The most popular unit for defense right now is still boosted arbs, which relies heavily on fiefdom. Hence, there is and will always be an incentive for top 4 to maintain their fiefdom count the way it is.


you totally misunderstand. If a current top 20 can beat a top 4 now with LB, it means they will not automatically lose 3 fiefs. Which is what you are claiming. If they do not automatically lose 3 fief, they will slowly get more fiefs to close the gap.

Again, its not mathematically possible, if say all other 16 alliances other than top 4 are all trying to gain fief, its not mathematically possible for them to all meet the top 4 every week for them lose 3 fiefs, let alone all of them meet the top 4 even more times.

you would need to change the reward system. As you say the gold reward may not be hard to calculate, but you need more coding to remove the current reward system, then set up your new one. With my suggestion, maybe all they need to change the calculation for placing. Much simpler.

under your suggestion, you are on day 2 of 5. Can already see no hope of getting any 1st, 2nd or 3rd to get gold rewards. Do you look at losing on purpose to get easier opponents next war? (or war after) or would you still fight your best just get 4th, maybe lose -1 fief no rewards. What i want is to motivate people to fight to win even on last day of war.

You had suggested 1st place get 3x boost cost, 2nd 2x boost, 3rd 1x boost. So rather than struggling to 3rd 3 times, maybe getting 4th and 5th 3 times. Would it not be easier just aim to lose 3 fief 4 times win first once against easy opponents and then any other placing to be ahead.

The core issue remains with your suggestion, people will still be trying to manipulate the system losing fief to win easier.

Quite rare, and if they could make a system where people stop manipulating fief, it would be easier for the matchmaker to match closer alliances together.
Also as i mentioned multiple times, yes maybe sometimes you get unlucky and get matched where you cant win, but you will also sometimes get lucky and be that 60 fief alliance. But what remains constant throughout it all, is that there is no real benefit on day 5 to tell your members not to attack, or kick them out to reduce skulls to lose on purpose. which is what I am hoping for with this or any suggestion, that no alliance on the map on day 5 tells their guys not to fight.

Sure there are some alliances that really want the boosts, I don’t really care as you noted in the overpowered combo’s you don’t need to win wars for them. But I assume universally most players if they had a choice, would not want to play to lose on purpose.

Hmm… aren’t you justifying my point then? That the current system is better in this aspect than yours, since the current system still offers a chance for top 20 to win, as opposed to yours where the top 20 automatically loses.



Math isn’t really my strong suit, but since it’s yours, correct me if I’m wrong as I attempt to take this beyond concept. If let’s say the reward is 1 mil alliance gold for 1st place, 700k for 2nd, and 500k for 3rd, and multiplied by the amount of fiefdom you have, it will, to a large extent, motivate every team to fight. Even if you get into a map where you know 1st place is not possible, getting 3rd place will still get you 500k.


Mathematically speaking, you get more alliance gold getting 3rd place twice, than losing an entire war and get 1st place next week, since the 3rd place you “won” will be multiplied by more fiefdom as opposed to the 1st place that you won.  (Plus, losing one war intentionally doesn’t mean you will get 1st place for next war, making it possible to even lose out more gold alliance for trying to drop fiefdom)


Thus, I think this will, to a large extent, resolve the core issue you are trying to address in this thread.


  1. since the main aim of my system is that everyone wants to fight even until the last day. The current system obviously does not offer that

  2. over time the top 20 will also have a chance to win as the gap closes. And if you wanted a quick fix to close gap, make the fief max 80 (or 70), as with ninja adjust max fief as required so if there are too many at 80 increase etc.

Easy math for you, say there is 3 top 10 alliance on your map, and you are ranked 50th with no hope of winning 3rd. So from day 1, do you get your team to fight try for 4th? or aim to drop 3 fief to make the next war easier to win? if you get 4th and only lose 1 fief, you could well fight top 10 again. This is the core issue again, situations where it can be beneficial to drop fief.

even the fight for 1st place under your system, they will want to get first with the minimum fief won. Eg, they are ahead +3 fief, and can’t be beat, they wont want to fight to win the next one. If 50 fief, 50mil reward vs 52mil is not much. But 52mil and then fight much harder opponents next war? Would you try win +3 fief with $50mil, or would you try get +5fief and win $52 mil?

simplistic view taking 1st + 3 fief, 2nd +2 fief, 3rd +1 fief, 4th -1 fief, 5th -2 fief, 6th -3 fief and your suggested reward.
assuming around 50 fief to end neutral no +/- fief. You can get 1st twice, 6th twice, get ~50 * 2 * 1mil = 100mil
or 3rd three times, 6th once, get ~50 * 3 * 0.5mil = 75mil.
or 3rd twice, 4th twice, get ~50 * 2 * 0.5mil = 50mil.

obviously this is very simplistic view, since as you say you cant be certain you will win 1st (or any placing) next war, but overall the picture is correct, you will end roughly fief neutral over time, and where ever you can, you want to lose fief to win more.

The key issue remains, if you can’t get 3rd even you want to lose as many fief as possible. If you win you want to win with as little fief as possible. Both of which are still the core issue, not wanting to win every war.

You can try adjust these numbers all you want, but you will never get a suitable value. I see you already ‘reduced’ the 1st place to not win 3x as much as 3rd like your original suggestion, but still have issue. You can make them even closer in spread then it starts being not worth it to come first with too many fief, might as well just get 2nd or 3rd, and not bother for first. You should want to win everything and come first! there is a reason why the rewards for 1st are so much higher, because thats where the most excitement comes from, trying your hardest to win 1st, not meandering a half hearted 3rd place.

in my suggestion maybe you wont try to champ to try win 5th place from 6th place. But at least you might try fight 5th place to see if you can win, rather than currently attacking 1st place (or whoever you think wont drop) to make sure you lose.




I believe this is a situation that is rare. I don’t have actual statistics for the purpose of this discussion, but in my experience of playing this game for 2 and a half years, rarely have I been in a map where 3rd place is not something that is beyond reach.


The reason why many alliances would rather lose than to get 3rd place now is because it is not worth it, i.e. who cares about 3rd place if all you get is a gargoyle tower boost (unless you’re at the top 4 and you need it).


Hence, the system I propose can fix that. The number can be adjusted to be more attractive, i.e. 2 mil for 1st place, 1.5 mil for second and 1 mil for 3rd place. I would like to think that 50 mil is a lot for alliances with 50 fiefdoms, as opposed to not winning anything at all.


Like I said, math isn’t my strong suit, but this calculation seem to ignore the factor of having extra fiefdoms, i.e. an alliance getting 1st at 60 fiefdom with 2 mil as a base amount, will get 120 mil, as opposed to an alliance getting 1st at 50 fiefdom, with 100 mil as reward. If 20 mil difference in reward is too small, then increasing the base amount will significantly increase the importance of having fiefdoms as multiplier.





Well, ultimately, this is a discussion with the same goal in mind. We may disagree on what the solution is, but we both agree that it needs to be changed. Let’s see what Flare does in the future =)

join an alliance that doesn’t drop fiefs, you will fight wars you cannot win all the time.

that isn’t the end goal as far as i know, the reason they lose is to make it easier to win pyro / arbs.
but its not about 3rd, even 1st place tries to get 1st with as few fief as possible. 4th place would rather be last to lose all three fief. Everyones aim is to have as few fief as possible which isn’t right.

the issue is that you can win (later on) more by losing more now. Theres so many scenarios here in your system - eg if you fight hard for 3rd place, and you lose out with 4th, you might get nothing and lose no fief. With your suggested rewards, there is not enough incentive fight hard to come first, most will rather just 2nd if it means they don’t get too many fief. It shouldn’t be a mathematical or fief question for alliance to want to win or not, they should always want to win!

extra fief complicate the maths adding no real value. If we compare same alliance at 50 fief, they go +/- 3 fief, add +/- 3mil, doesn’t make the end result much different when it is 25 or 50mil difference.

at 60 fief, yes they would get more than vs 50 fief, and it might work if people didn’t abuse the fief system. But in practice it will get manipulated as it is currently. Your 60 fief alliance if they do not lose on purpose will end up fighting more often teams that do drop fief the best, and win less. Everyone will lose at some point, and your suggestion it is still better to lose by more fief when you can’t get 3rd, and win by the least amount of fief.

As you say, we both agree something needs to be done, but I am hoping for a change when you always want to win.

I do not think my solution is foolproof, i think it might still have people manipulating it, but hopefully less and not as big a penalty for trying to win. Was partly thinking that it would at least be something - and easy to implement without changing too much.

After thinking about it some more, I don’t think this will work, it can still be manipulated / beneficial for alliances to drop fiefs to win wars easier later on. Maybe less exploitable, since you can drop some and then be disadvantaged when facing equal strength opponents starting higher fiefs, but the long run you will probably still be better off if you drop fief hoping to be matched with lower opponents if the goal is to win boosts. 

War boosts are useless guys,

thats the problem now(

No, its not the main problem. Main problem is battles / wars where alliance don’t want to win.
I (and probably many players), don’t really care so much for winning war boosts. as you say they are not really that good, but I would like to be able to fight for it (or something) anyway.

War is the end game that you strive for in the game, why you level up get stronger etc. Where you can try come up with strategy with the team, who to attack, champs etc.
Instead most of the wars are deciding if we should attack or not, who to attack that won’t drop fief on purposes.

I think many players can have fun trying their best to win and still lose. But trying their best to lose or told not to fight,  not very enjoyable.

Oh, Hell No!

This literally is coding in a tenancy for winners to just stay winners.

Each War Season must be about that War Season!

I wish each war season was just about that war season, but obviously in the current system its not - hence why alliances keep dropping fiefs to make future ones easier.

But anyway chill out Maerique i already mentioned it wouldn’t work to stop people dropping fief.
And If you have a think about it, you would (might) understand why winners wouldn’t just stay winners in this suggestion. If not oh well, we’ll just leave it, not worth upsetting you with details.

I’m not arguing with you; you don’t relate to reason; so it’s just a waste of time.

I’ll argue with anybody else who wants to argue on this topic.

Chill out. As you rightly pointed out before I was bullying and you were hurting so I stopped.
Its ok, people tend to feel that way when bombarded with logic, facts and reason they cannot understand.

The last time you tried goading me in forums and i did not respond I got a bunch of failed attacks again from you - you can do that again now if it makes you feel better.