When we look at wars, we realize one MAJOR issue is simply not enough clans. Imagine only 4 clans participated, and each was 20% stronger than the next. We get 2 very lopsided wars. The odds of fair match-ups increase with the total number of participating clans...how many clans are actually IN each war? 12? The issue of fair match-ups is largely due to this. I like the idea of a "world war" where those same 12 clans, instead of being matched into 6 1v1 wars...get matched into 2 6v6 wars. Going back to that original "4 clans each 20% stronger" instead of "60 vs 80" and "100 vs 120"... we get 100+80 vs 60+120. A far better match. Yes, it will mean warring WITH another clan, and YES, they might be morons. But at least you'll be less likely to lose due to a truly uneven match.
@ CaliburnGreywolf Participation wouldn't be as much of a problem if the matchup system itself is fixed and rid of abuse. I kbow of many clans, including my own, which have simply stopped participating in EE wars because of the abused system. Good start devs!
What about if you made a "raw" ee war, where bfa/bfe don't add/count just raw stats against raw stats, only problem I can see with that though would be the tower builds coming back, but food for thought
Kaw_admin have you started to think really outside the box for getting these wars back on track? I see the plunder changes are a step in the right direction though it is perhaps not enough to get rid of the sh plague. Unless you go so far as to make sh pay out what they make, at the very least, you will still have sh being the majority build. If you read forums you can see a plethora of current sh still crowing about how the changes really haven't affected them, and I certainly agree that the changes so far will have little to no deterrent effect. Regarding totally unconventional thinking, I have 2 proposals for consideration. First, with the 1 hour wars ascendant, strategy is taking a backseat in many wars. Have you considered reducing the regen times so that more regens are available to hit and to be hit in the 1 hour time frame? Having 150 second regen times would make 1 hour wars in effect 2 hours worth of hitting. It's possible that the community would accept using 2 crystals for these wars - especially if you figure a way to implement a war crystal function. Second, regarding BFA capping, there have been a lot of assumptions but I don't think this aspect of your changes has been even partially spelled out. I think the single biggest problem with locking BFA is that where and when do you draw the line? For many bigger players it's quite possible to have allies in the 1T+ range sell at any time. If your ally gets bought and you can't replace it in time before lockup that's a very significant loss of gold if you need to bank in pots or bars. To solve this, have kaw_admin ever considered locking up gold loss? By this I mean that for the duration starting when matches are made until the end of war, a kingdom cannot lose any gold when being hit. You could lock in the BFA stats at match and if an ally gets sold or bought for the duration of the war, that initial BFA is what a kingdom has to use for the war. The advantages I see to this are that you won't need to lock ally sales across kaw and that it will be much more difficult to massage the dtw/dts system. I'll reiterate my (sadly neglected) other suggestions: make each kingdom signing up for war have at least 1 soldier and 1 spy build thus completely eliminating the ps phenomenon; at the same time throw the poor hansels a bone and allow sdp to be used for scout defense.
Sdp for scout defense? Wtf :| um lets not. Dedicated person would zero all your pots bc you can scout when enemy is pinned. Hansels are forever banned from EE as of now. Theres no way tht i see them being useful unless theyre towered out the ass
Say hello to the dumb reply. Ty eclipso for proving exclusion again. And as for pumms idea As usual well thought out and similar to my own ideas so gotta say support and another trial at least devs should implement.
4hour wars again and you will see hansels. Unfortunately im not setting through 4 hours of spamfest on stupid out times like 5-15
:roll: the rest of the idea was great. Ive played many accounts throughout 3-4years most being spies, and i know wht im talking about when i say sdp being used against scouts is absolutely dumb. An attk build could pot burn the hansel and then after tht its easy for most to then get thru with their full pots
You just said pot burning would help rid ee of sh. :| you realize sh dont use any sdp right.. if anything tht would help sh bc they could sb a ps to get rid of its pots thereby making it easier for bigs to dump their spies on them..
They used to but now with no dtw/dts and the sudden increase in ps, sdp is practically useless and makes you pay more per steal if enemy is turtling
Facepalm. The idea of sdp blocking scouts is not for Sh. It's so that the mids they target have a better chance of not being ko'd by a little runt scout bomber. They may survive a little longer initially but they would burn their spies on towers and sdp neutering the build.
And im pointing out tht by doing tht, enough sb will run their pots out therefor making it easier to ass/stl and ko. Most warrers buy enough pots to last the war and your making the highest successful attk option use up your pots.
@ Eclipso. The above listed ideas are just for EE war. Obviously they would be terrible for normal game play. However during the limited time of EE wars you wouldn't want to waste valuable resources (your spies) on SB opponents once they are zs. The thought was that scouting in EE only should use sdp to give hansels a fighting chance. As it is now, two 104k spy attack builds can scout down a 10M single spy hansel to zs no problems whatsoever.
Your Friday idea brought me out of retirement by the way thanks I will quit if I face gh/sh in it tho