Is Estotic give u better rate. When I had lvl 3. I got bars once over a 7 day span. Now have lvl 5. 0 for 4. I thought I read it gives u a boost. I am always in top 10. Maybe I was on crack when I read that. Just kidding crack is bad. Seriously Devs please explain and clarify Thanks. And fix war to opt in. And make it so small files don't kill so many troops on big files. Besides that war system is great. Thanks
I agree with people who say your veil spell is not well thought out. No doubt you have a long series of irate players who thought they were safe but ended up harming their clan. I have a suggestion for a new opt-in series of spells. There would be 3 spells, 1 for each war. You need to cast the specific spell to be eligible to enter a war. The spell could be cast anytime prior to the war matchup. In addition to signing you up for that particular war, the spell would confer some limited benefits. I had two ideas. First a small carrot for joining such as 1 nob or 1 bronze bar to be given if that player is active during the war. You can use the same criteria you used to make your asw active/inactive list. Secondly and perhaps more importantly you could offer people the ability to redeem bronze bars at par value for a limited time. My thought would be a 12 hour effect which would offer this ability starting 4 hours prior to war beginning and ending 4 hours after the war's nominal ending time. With this second ability people could still war and grow at the same time.
Like the idea pumm. A bronze bar incentive as long as actions are made in war would benefit massively to growth. The system would encourage players that would normally bank gold in bars to participate in estocs to benefit from that bonus time limit. Not all may like that but it would certainly be a boost to war incentive for all. Def worth discussion and thoughts from kaw.
The matchup also seems awkward as many people reported we have gotten matched pretty regularly with clans with extra active players 10-20 more accounts will tell in the end. I wonder, it can't be that the matchup is made based on clan strength accounting for mithed out accounts also (can it?), so perhaps the matching algorithm needs tweaking in setting a maximum difference in # of participants between clans. Who knows
I agree with ashvar one war we were in they had 15 more ppl they were small. But they used the files to do suicide missions. Did not matter if they won r not. Like I stated before little files should not be able to bring down a big file by doing suicide runs. And if there is 10-15 they can easily keep a clans top 5 down. Huge flaw. And I am sure these small files have no weight in matchup. And by attacking them u get no plunder. So only way is to create them for ur clan to counter theirs. All we need is ppl to have more crappy alts in kaw. Anyhow. Fix matchup. And fix the ability of a small file being able to take out so many troops in a loss. R give plunder for when someone losses an action against u. Wrote on iPhone don't give a crap about spelling r grammar. Ciao
@Panic and kingCarrot I agree 100% and made similar comments on the feedback thread. The matching algorithm seems to match CS without an accounting for account numbers, so you can get 45 big accounts vs 95 smaller accounts. Now 99 out of 100 times the new system is structured to give attacker pot advantage on hits, as there are more Att then def pots, and on sheer volume of actions. Scouts are a major problem as a small account can use a full massive static pot bonus to get successful scouts on any account and the defender can't use pots to defend. You should either be able to defend with pots vs scouts or the attacker can't pot scouts. Also you are 100% right that small kingdoms 1/4 the size of large kingdoms swarming larger kingdoms into KO because while a larger kingdom may have a much higher amount of units and unit stats, action count does not increase per unload the larger u get. Now changing that would unbalance the game,however, there needs to some way to make a fair balance between stats and damage. An interesting idea would be something like this: use a formula where unit size per unit and total amount of units is taken into account when determining the amount of units an attacker or defender loses. Let's be honest, it's silly if a build with a low spy stat as an example uses 3-400 of weak units and kills 10-12,000 units on a T5 lvl 3 spy account per action. How about regulating unit loses in a more comparable fashion, u have low stat, low total spies and Stl/ass/sc a big spy, u kill close to the same number of units per successful actions vs a large stat/large unit account. So maybe per action 300 spies can kill 3-500 spies. This would be adjusted based on the strength of each individual units strength and the static pots/BFa/myth bonuses on both accounts. This would be a fairly radical change to current game mechanics, but would more accurately reflect a "realistic" way of recording loses and fix the small vs large account problem in these wars. Finally, I'm extremely happy that war specific equipment is being released. HOWEVER, releasing equipment that gives huge heavy attack bonuses makes this discrepancy even worse. So added to the pot imbalance, the defense with 0 pots vs full pots scouting and the imbalance in troop loss between big to small accounts, we don't really need to increase small accounts abilities to hit larger accounts. If anything, more spy def bonus would be more welcome.
Need to work on matchups. We were completely out matched at every position in the war. Completely unfair, even though we knew what we were doing