Another thing that came to mind is that paladin EB should pay a static 14 mith, as stated in op needs tweaking slightly from current.
@ Commando Let's not make this personal, argue the points, not the player. I've made a whole other thread about tracking, I suggest you read it. In short, I do not feel it is cheating, especially if it is done in the way Jas999 describes. However I DO feel that tracking makes for a boring war. Real war is not so mathematical; it has an element of chance and randomness to it, not just numbers in a computer. Either way, the devs have already said on another thread they will experiment with ways to eliminate tracking, so the point is mute. Owen covered Prestige? He didn't do a good job of it. Yes, I have done several wars. Beleive it or not I have MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS! :lol: Ever heard of a guy with multiple accounts. As for the rest of your ramblings, either argue the points stated or leave. Knit picking at the OP's build is a waste of time.
You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about plunder. And if you want the dts/dtw system to be carried over, it will cause a TON of no matches because devs would have to look at build distribution even closer. In current match ups, some clans have like 5 more GH than the other clan, that means at the start, the clan with the lower number of GH will get their GH taken out quickly. Same goes with bigs. That would create war brackets within wars. Lopsided brackets. Mix that up with all your other bad ideas, you would have a slaughter fest. People would be crying for days.
I don't mind slaughter fest or people crying. All part of a war game. We have slaughter fests in OSW and people LIKE it when they get crying. I am not particularly pushing for the DTS/DTW system to be brought into the fix. I prefer a min stat approach. As for all the Lopsided mismatches or no you forsee, I think we will adapt quickly to that. We always do. What I most like to see is prestige being brought into the picture so these 950 clans are not constanly matched with these 1050 clans. That's not much fun for either side.
I would like to add to this list a cleaner, albeit radical, solution to the majority of the complaints we've read this Rancor Season. What does the Community think about scaling available Crystals by build? By this I mean the HLBC Kingdoms would be allowed to use six Crystals in a two hour War. This sounds insane but hear me out. As builds decrease in strength fewer Crystals would be alotted per War. The nefarious Guild Hansels only getting two for example. What this would do is force like-sized Kingdoms to band together for Wars. HLBC Kingdoms of means would gravitate to each other and have two hours of madcap brawling every War. A Guild Hansel in this type of War would be a gnat. That being said, Clans of Guild Hansels and other smaller builds could have smaller, less explosive Wars where two Crystals would be the cap. Mid-sized builds in turn can get four Crystals per War, giving us a type of unwritten League System. Sure smaller builds can join strong Clans under these rules but they would no longer be an obvious asset. Filler is the word I've seen used. And yes, I realize this proposition screams expensive but wanted to put it out there for discussion nonetheless. Perhaps if War Crystals were subsidized by the Developers some...
This was a whole separate thread. Basically there are 4 all star clans that fight each other. Players that apply are placed randomly in one of these clans. These down on their luck kingdoms would then have a 50-50 chance of winning instead of fighting Rising Hawks over and over again.
Quite complex and interesting. I will have to take a moment or two to think about how i feel about it.
i think iprophet said it best that the devs should just scrap this ee and give us the mith straight up. Let us get on with our Kaw lives.
You want to *fix* gh? While on EE the plunder you make make it land base not CS base. For example you make 50m againts everyone with 45 lands, and you make 20m againts everyone with 30 lands.
Gamehendges idea is interesting, could cause problems with implementing it tho, stat cutoff points for next xtal etc.
I support 4, 5 and 6. As a guild hansel, I do agree the advantages for such a cheap build are too big and need some balancing. A stat minimum is a bit harsh because it would exclude a lot of players. I'd suggest making the payout of hitting a ghansel more in line what u get when u hit them. @ 3 - Including prestige is in my view a bad idea. Many clans consist of 90-plus members of which each war only about 30 participate. Rosters are never the same and the prestige won reflects previous teams warring, not the current one being matched. And if you look at the current prestige board, matching based on prestige will get matches between (for instance) Warlor Hellhounds and Rising Hawks. the match-up could very well be WHH being in the top 5 strongest and Rising Hawks maybe 20. Those matches would be completely unfair and no fun at all. The number of participants and the builds (with bfa) of the team participating in that certain match should be the deciding factors, not the prestige won in previous wars. @ 1 - Tracking is a skill. Anyone can learn but it takes time and dedication and not just luck or RL money. Since it ads skill I don't support taking it away and making wars more luck-based and random. @ 2 - About spy actions, they become less important with the tower builds emerging in EE. People can change build to counter it, if you dont want to spend the gold don't complain. No need to change the mechanics. Making KO's pay less is something worth considering tho. The difference between an SKO and a KO is big while it is often just luck which one it is. @ 7 A- the last 15 minutes can turn a war, because of xtal usage in the first part. Not sure I support this, would like to try it out first. B - I obviously dont support because it would make tracking very difficult plus again takes away skill. Preparation for a war after matchup is half the work to getting a win. C - support. Other suggestions I've seen and support: don't lose rancor levels in last two weeks; give the winning clan the plunder made on top of the mith (wars are very expensive); reduce no matches by devs dropping people from rosters to get clans together; let everyone in clan hit the Vanashied Paladin eb, only the warrios get end payout in mith; cheaper War xtals
Most of your suggestions attempt to create a system with no teamwork required at all--no pre-war planning, no tracking, and forcing high prestige to fight high prestige. Lets just eliminate team work and make this a free for all. The matchups are sketchy as they are, but forcing prestige based matchups will make the strength even more off. If there were 1000 clans warring your prestige system would work but there aren't enough clans to make this work. Basing it on size is the proper way to match.
Hm. Seems well thought out but I have to disagree with most of it 1 and 2. Tracking and Self KOing are the two most important and skilled things in a war. To call SKOing luck is not true. Yes sometimes it may be but it also requires good timing. Both of these suggestions would make tracking and SKOs less significant and turn it into more button mashing. 3. Including prestige makes no sense because then a clan like Sotra ranked in the 300s for strength could get matched with Hellhounds. No need to guess how that ends. But having a 1 week grace period where new to EE clans only fight each other may not be a bad idea. 4. Fun idea but I wonder if its reserved for its own future use. 5. Not going to go into this too much but GHs are losing their advantage already. 6. Time zones aren't equal because player distribution isn't equal. 7. A. Would be cool to see how this effects things.
Lol trackers good trackers write it down and say in cc a minute before they come out it not a cheat just good tracking and also In real war it was similar ways all I'm saying is that ya can't diss trackers because ya get hardcore hits people wait for ya to be up then bombard ya it basically makes war better trying to fight from ko and sometimes fail massively just cause u don't like ghs and tracking don't diss it gh is a strategy not an exploit
Not often I agree with 90% of a post. So congratulations I do agree with most of your ideas. I placed some of this on a feedback forum but here it is again with a bit more added for consideration A lot of the take on BFE not factored in from what I've seen is same clans repeatably matched against each other with similar tactics at start or not and one progressively gaining a bigger advantage over the other through the wins and resulting BFE. Now some would call it better tactics and some could be right. Clan a may be perfect. But then clan b will never win in constant match ups no matter the change of tactics if clan a continually get stronger at clan b's expense. Result clan a gets a relatively free mith ride. Clan b is constantly in no mans land I can understand why people want the equipment advantage. Heck we all do. As you pointed out this is why many clans quit warring. Non stop mismatches with no real chance of a win. I can see why people say BFE should be included. It basically puts the best against the best with the highest mith earners warring similar. Prestige system others have proposed. Short of creating leagues it makes sense. Are there enough warring clans for a league system? Probably not. So where does that leave us? Big changes and no idea? We always used to get complaints of miss matches Personally my take on it is unless we want non stop wars between 2-4 clans and if 1-2 miss a war then a no match results which is becoming the norm then we only have one scenario left a near total random system. Screw matches if its uneven or not what the hey let the chips fall where they may. At least if its random you have a good shot that half your wars are possible wins ( yes more for top clans) and the non random part is system does not match the same two clans say twice in a week. Most leagues every team plays every other team twice would be good but with some clans changing rosters impossible without locking clans together which in some cases would do more harm than good. No matches suck more than an uneven war and would instantly be wiped out. Losers have the red paladin eb so there is always a payout. Clans will never be even so why not just chuck the rule book out. The one adjustment I would add as a balance purely for ee wars is that all builds pay a minimum of 1 mil per land unlocked ( most builds pay more or about there anyway ) just to level out all builds making everyone more competitive in the system. And as stated before. If players want non stop action ( god knows I do in a war ) full regen when you are ko'd and half regen when you self ko The only to downsides are could servers cope. I doubt it. Would devs get money from xtals no which is why they wouldn't do it. But a version softened up to allow xtal expenditure and the servers to maintain a balance would certainly liven things up. Also if players have more actions available ie they regen attack troops at double the pace or even only regened attack troops on ko or sko this would encourage plunder based actions and give players far more activity in wars. Earnings go up in wars encouraging more to war. Slightly we all know wars expensive so why not reduce the costs a bit. And totally fair matches. I'd rather know I won't get the same opponents non stop than have a "fair" match up. Boring to say the least.