Dollar for dollar, ATA gets more participation from Indi Wars vs any other format as there is no barrier to entry (ie Finding an EE clan) - you can see it in your revenue stream ATA. That said, as several other players have mentioned this in the thread. DO NOT let players lose 1 medallion for losses; history S1-3 showed you in S4 when you eliminated the punitive nature of participation (ie no losing medallions with a loss) you saw a sharp increase in player activity/participation thus more revenues via xstall usage. Those that don't study history (even in KAW) are doomed to make the same mistakes. Don't undue a problem you identified and already corrected in S4. At risk of sounding like a broken record. ATA should be incentivizing not punishing player participation (win/lose) - sends the wrong message to your player base. Shady
I couldn't resist taking another dig at this. You want 'fair' wars or a 'skill test'. Cuz, a 100 man Indy statistically is the fairest but a poor skill test. A 10-15 roster Indy is 'less' fair statistically. There's more chances of finding a war commander, a tracker and better odds of evening out the disadvantage of leaky builds when the roster size goes up.
Oh!! And more chances for an experienced build to drop builds and get into the smaller tiers and rule the roost with smaller roster sizes
I enjoy the 100 person wars. Whisky is correct regarding 2 points: 1. Greater chance for, at least, 1 wc and tracker. 2. Lower overall war skill sets. Devs, I don't care how many are on a roster...15, 20, 25, 30, etc. Many have stayed the course of the two threads and given great ideas as well as those that have emailed them to you. Now compile these ideas in to a viable S5 (blueprint), develop it, beta test it, address the bugs via feedback, beta test it once more, announce it and release it (basic SDLC). Bring it on! ️
20-25 man roster its fine and people inactive in war (first offense) gets 1 week broken sword(second offense) ban for the season
You enjoy them because you are a huge tank who gets to tower above the rest of the roster & it makes you feel big & gives you massive advantages. People enjoy indi wars because it lets them be competitive against people their size. 100man indi wars go against the very aspect that makes them good. I don't do indi wars to have someone 100m cs hitting me. That's not fun to me. That's not fun to most people (read through the thousands of posts/pages about people asking hit ranges to be fixed).
Sora, way to pick 1 sentence out of a group of them. Childish behavior. In any case, if you happened to read closely to my post, I DON'T CARE what the roster sizes are (if you need help, that's the paragraph under the numbered items). My advice to you is to have a and chill out on this day. It's the 4th sora, go enjoy it. ️
If I had an opinion to share on the rest of it I would have quoted it all. Since I didn't, there was no point in quoting it. You keep insinuating that I am not "chill" because you disagree with what I have to say. I am actually quite chill; always am. I can only assume that you are not chill & are trying to project that onto me.
What you don't understand is that anyone big enough to pay us anywhere near 100m is so big that we'd struggle a lot to hit them - a 60m CS tank would pay 90m per attack to us, but we only get maybe 1/20 attacks through on them, so it balances out that we pay 10m to them as they won't fail any attacks. Now for your earlier argument (can't find it to quote it) that people our size can't hit us - people you consider our size (namely other SH) are not our size, they are smaller than us. 10-25m mids are our size and they pay us 50-60m per attack and we pay them maybe 30-50m. Now, that makes sense as our static stats are smaller than their variable stats - someone with 5/7 atk stats has 7m defence when they are full whereas one of us who has 4/4 static attack/def stats cannot attack them successfully til they are lower, even if we are full, but they can win on us when they are high whether we are low or not. We paid a lot more for our (lower) static stats than they did for their variable stats, so it makes sense that there are a couple of perks, but as can be seen in indi wars, SH are not a game changer. Learn how to make a roster to combat an all ssh roster (hint: a roster of all 5/13/1/8 hybrids might just be small enough to match us, and only very few SH exist that can assn that much sdt. And you might say it's not worth it to beat us, but our bfa cost more than those towers would so suck it up lol.), we built like this to combat all other common rosters in round wars, maybe you should all think of a way to beat us rather than complaining about it like whiny little kids? No one deserves to have everything handed to them on a silver platter. Don't know how to build a roster to beat ssh? Keep trying til you do, I guarantee you haven't tried everything cause I've had several ideas myself and I've never once come up against them.
Pointless for me to even respond & say the same thing that already been said 1000 times over by too many people to count. The time of your exploit roster is over. Period. Round wars are dead. No one does them. You've exploited easy wins for long enough & no one is interested anymore. Move on.
Learn your mechs if attack build zero gold we cannot steal if hyb or hansel zero gold and zero spies we cannot steal.
Okay guys.. Explain me the difference between Exploit and Strategy. I personally think this is a strategy game so let everyone use their own strategy. Devs can fix few things here and there. But has every war in history been won fair and square? Who wins? The more prepared. And losers in real wars dont get the chance to say "enemy had static or dynamic" Not referring to anyone. Not even supporting sh or BFA. Change for good but don't take the strat part out of the game. Strategy in my knowledge is using knowledge and experience to carve out victory. Now either u build huge static and ur plunder is cut. Or u do ebs and save (takes time and/or RL cash) to build BFA. I just say don't do to sh what u did to GH. Instead calc plunder leaked on basis of BFA. Like add 70% of BFA to cs when calcing plunder. Let plunder gained be the same though. Calculating bfe for plunder I.e the new PvP/war plunder ammendment is a good move to counter statless and somewhat sh too.
He has never been in big wars where they r like that. He doesnt feel like warring cause he gets owned. Best to stay his size so he can statistically get noobies who r as bad as him.
Learn to read, I never once said otherwise. Typical cantonesewhineball taking any chance she can get to cry about me.
Lol, you ignored literally 90% of what I said. Read it and respond accordingly rather than falling back to your exploit build argument, making yourself sound like a broken record.
guys get back on track with the subject of this thread please nobody cares about SH, hence we have this proposal so stop bickering
Actually i tested this yesterday i hit a sh for 18m and he hit me for 91m so thanks but your math is off
Come on devs, 104 pages (most on topic) of opinions and more suggestions. Anytime would b nice to respond, make a lame joke, etc.. If iwars r the only way to make "S5" fair, so b it, but warring with friends is the last part of this game I enjoy and care to spend a majority of time on. If u (devs) r unwilling to make the necessary adjustments needed in a clan war format fine, but PLS DO NOT COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT KIND OF CLAN WAR THAT U WILL ONLY MESS UP. Want more turnout...increase the damn rewards. Paying for rewards better than earning them in a season is absolutely ridiculous and a slap in the face to all the warriors who spent hundreds of hours warring all these past seasons. Still looking for at least 2 ppl who have ever beta tested your warring system.