Why the 'Loser' Bonus is a Good Thing

We are wrapping up our fourth battle in my alliance’s war season. So far we’ve won one (shortly two) and lost one (shortly two).

The way the grid worked out we are about to be completely cut off by the alliance we will have lost against twice.

Given that wars are matched by fiefdom the loser bonus is the one good reason we have to keep fighting against a ridiculously strong enemy alliance. Every skull earn while losing gives us a slightly higher edge next time. It gives us hope that by the time this war ends we may have won one battle against the only alliance we have the ability to attack (or defend against).

Instead of losing all our fiefdoms we may just end up on three or four.

Essentially the loser bonus is Flare’s mechanic of evening out the unintended problems associated with matching by fiefdom.

For those who start off evenly matched (top alliances) it seems annoying because you can’t just buy boosts and dominate. But for the rest of us the loser bonus is a small step in the right direction.

Also in lower levels, even/fair matches do exist, so it’s not just a couple top alliances that can be screwed by the current loser bonus system, it’s basically anyone who is matched well that is affected. (Besides, “just buy boosts and dominate” isn’t possible at the top anyway, because it’s rather “buy all the boosts to stay competitive”, let alone the war-exclusive boosts which depend on last few seasons rather than current season’s performance or decisions…) 

For all fair matches, the loser bonus is a terrible idea that basically just punishes effort and rewards a lack of effort… 

Anyway, so the loser bonus that should remedy unfair matches actually CREATES unfair matches from initially fair matches. 

 

Besides, for all those being matched poorly (no matter whether near top or far down, or somewhere in between), pay2win mechanics and member counts by far outweigh the effect of the loser bonus, so you will hardly have a chance against a considerably stronger alliance even with the loser bonus. And the stronger your opponents are, the LESS bonus you will get, instead of the more, because you will score less skulls against a stronger opponent. Thus, not too helpful there either.

 

Furthermore, you only get a considerable loser bonus “over time” after losing several times, even when it is clear from the start that you are far weaker (badly matched), so when you are eliminated early on the loser bonus can’t even start helping you before it’s too late. And even if you survive long enough against stronger teams (then mostly “luck” because they chose to attack someone else), the loser bonus will not save you, or maybe saves 1 fiefdom at most - not really helpful considering each additional fiefdom brings you harder opponents, while 1 fiefdom still is usually too few to gain any war reward boosts. 

 

The loser bonus still CAN help you, if on the same map with you there are not just the stronger-than-you alliance, but also some equally strong or weaker alliances. But then again, you have a loser bonus against those despite not actually having lost to them, nor being weaker than them, so your loser bonus against those is unfair as well, as from their perspective you are stronger than them but still YOU get a loser bonus while fighting them, which is completely illogical. And of course, it worsens the situation for them, so on average again not helpful at all. 

Well written heroes, seems ‘the rest of us’ is a very limited minority!

well I find my alliance often gets the loser bonus because we suck. But we don’t win, at best we don’t get eliminated. So no advantage really It obviously plays out differently at the top but flare designs around the macro scale what is it 250,000 players.

 

we can keep it or get rid of it it makes no difference to me.

… it was 500,000 not too long ago :slightly_frowning_face:

flare designs around flare…its usually disguised as an update…but we beleive its their pay raise…the loser bonus is there to offset champions and shields.thats a 3 way payoff in fflares favor.

What rank is your alliance weebo?

I disagree. It rewards you for winning a lot of skulls against an alliance that is far too strong to beat. The more skulls you earn even while losing the better. That keeps alliances members engaged in the war which is good for the alliance as we are more likely to salvage a few fiefdoms rather than all giving up day one when faces with a ridiculous opponent.

Every war there is someone too strong for the rest of the alliances. Sometimes we are lucky and are situated far away next to easy alliances but mostly we get hit like everyone else. I have never seen a war where everyone was evenly matched. I don’t believe it is even possible until you get right close to the top where players have maxed out (including alliance member count).

Because of the way the map works I may never get a chance to attack that easy alliance on the other side so the loser bonus keeps us in the war with a chance.

Can give us a 20% boost it wont make a difference given how dominant the strong ones are

loser bonus is just what its name implies…a way to win by losing…it doesnt mean a thing to win a war…the best team does not win…its the team that loses the most…so if thats the only way you can win,that makes us losers too…no need to work on your base or your attack skills anymore.only flare could design a game in which it pays to suck

If I can weigh in again, Flare changed it so that if you beat the top player of a team you get 100 skulls in the CoF and lets face it there’s a very high chance of that. So there are at least 6 players that are around 10+ levels above me and one 24 levels higher that can all beat me easily with sonic blast and airblasters to say the least THEN they all get 100 each in the CoF and however much for beating the second and third best so they can rake in so much more than the “Loser Bonus” can, so really the “bonus” is s fraction compared to what they can get. I think all but maybe 5-6 of there team can beat me. That’s alot of 100’s and it all adds up. MY opinion.

well lvl up your king and improve your base…thats how they got better than you.why do you think you should beat them after they have done so much.you want to be top dog after playing a few months.they have put a year into this game,working to improve.now its wasted effort most of the time.

You missed the point

Im sorry gypsy, i dont agree with the majority.

I like the fact that the loser bonus makes war season a bit more tactical. Often alliances like cia and a.r are in wars with the big five. We know were outclassed.against them but with using your placement on the field and getting skullbonus you can often win that last day against a equal alliance. Which otherwise would be a coin flip

Actually no. Alliances don’t win first place because of loser bonus. It’s not strong enough for that. Alliances that fight very hard despite overwhelming odds just manage to salvage fiefdoms with the loser bonus as it is.

if your team is not as good it should not win…this has become like a handicapped bowling team.sure you can use strategy with your loser bonus and win or retain your fiefs but you r still a loser…have to be a loser to get the bonus

The issue is that alliances are matched by fiefdoms which results in imbalanced wars from the start. If Flare fixed that then loser bonus would be obsolete.

 

Exactly.

 

Because of this Loser bonus alliances never reach a balanced point and face similar ranked alliances.

If you have the Bonus you will use it. Flare is forcing alliances to never meet similar ranked alliances because they are not going to ignore the Loser bonus. Who would? No one.

 

And because of this Loser bonus and the unbalance the top 3 alliances have no choice but to throw away 15 fiefdoms each war and further ruin the balance.

 

First of all, when you face a ridiculously strong opponent that you have no chance to beat, then that obviously isn’t a fair match, so the things you mention here have nothing to do with the sentence you quoted there. 

 

Second, if an alliance is way too strong to compete, then the following applies:  

So, in these cases, the loser bonus will not and can not save you. You will still lose all fiefdoms, except…  

…for those cases where on the same map, there’s another unfair match that is “you against a considerably weaker alliance”, in which case the loser bonus is neither needed, nor fair, nor logical. 

 

 

 

  1. If there rarely ever is a fair map, then that is NO argument for the loser bonus, but if at all an argument against the crappy match making (which is even more crappy at the top, where not fiefdoms matter, but random dice rolls, which can situate you on a map with 3 alliances that all have double your fiefdoms). 

  2. Why would maps be more fair or balanced at the top? If you think that everyone in any of the top 20 alliances has a maxed out base and maxed out offense, then you completely miss reality. If you think all top 20 alliance members are similarly active and similarly money spending, then you also miss reality.

Also, 60 member slots not means 60 members - you may always have an empty slot, or some members who are away on vacation and thus not active for a war or a full season, you may have those who just can’t or don’t want to join a big race of who can spend the most time and money (which applies to many more than you may think^^), etc etc… 

Anyway, apart from the general stuff, what if I told you a concrete example of a top5 alliance where over 50% members struggled and failed to even get their top3 attacks done against the bases of another top5 alliance, which in turn had no problems at all with getting their top3 successful attacks done? Doesn’t really look like everyone is maxed out, eh? 

  1. Indeed, fair maps aren’t too abundant, but they are definitely possible further down. 

  2. For another example to proof the statement “top is more fair and balanced” wrong… I have seen top lvl war maps where 4th and 5th place had 0 fiefs but 800k skulls each, while 3rd place had 10k skulls. If that is fair for you, then go ahead and lose with 80 times the effort of someone else who gets free rewards for doing nothing, and then let’s see if you still think this is well balanced and fair… 

 

If you never get to attack the easy alliance and are stuck next to the hard one, then loser bonus does not help you at all, the strong alliance will keep on beating you while you can’t gain fiefdoms elsewhere (out of reach of the easy alliance), so either you lose all fiefdoms, or the stronger alliance just goes for another victim and spares you independent of the loser bonus. 

 

 

Anyway, you can wrap up the loser bonus this way: It makes you win against equally strong or weaker opponents with less effort, being unfair, and it doesn’t help you win against stronger opponents, being useless. 

In other words… those cases where it’d be justified, it is useless, and in those cases where it is NOT justified, it decides battles in favour of those with less effort in previous battles. 

 

 

Please note I am not a all against balancing war matching, and not even against the very idea of having something to even out uneven matchings, but the current system simply sucks. 

I agree it helps you win against equally strong or weaker opponents but only towards the end of a season and only if you can reach them. By then you will have lost one or more fiefdoms to get the loser bonus in the first place so it isn’t an automatic placing.

It does help you win against much stronger opponents preventing them from a clean sweep. It does help you keep some of your ranking and fiefdoms when placed in an unbalanced war setting.

The loser bonus is calculated based on the skulls you earn when you lose. To get a high % your alliance must already be fighting as hard as possible against a much stronger opponent. The total skulls in the loser bonus calculation reflect that your alliance deserves some credit for hard work despite the losses.

The point of this thread is that war seasons are not balanced on a regular basis and the loser bonus is one small way to counter that.