Wars like these are the reason these need to go. There are too many inactives and they are too chaotic. Halfway through the war, my clan was so demoralized that we just gave up. I'm not faulting the matching; the clans were very equal stat-wise. However, there are too many variables to be able to accurately match clans when the roster limit is 100. Our clan had a few more inactives than they did and we got beaten down because of it. If we would just keep roster limit at 15 during weekends, I'm sure a lot more players would war than are right now. It just seems unnecessary to up the roster limit to 100 to "spice things up" if you will. TL;DR Weekend Indy Wars with 100 vs. 100 need to stop UPDATE FROM RESPONSES: Yes, I am aware that indy wars are a lottery and I know what I am signing up for. However, on weekends I am forced to sign up for 100 roster limit wars instead 15 roster limit wars. So, if I really want to war, I sign up for these weekend wars even though I have reservations about the giant rosters. Also, I realize I am butthurt. You don't need to tell me I am, and yes, I most likely would not have made this thread had I been on the opposite end of the ass whooping. However, losing in this fashion has called to my attention that there needs to be alternatives to these 100 man wars. Offering 15 man wars would promote users to war, and the people that want the giant wars can sign up for them. Then everyone can be happy.
Mixed feelings. I like these wars myself, alas I understand the issues your mentioning perfectly. From my standpoint, participation isn't as high as it used to be. I feel that currently incentives to war are basically aligned with fun and estoc edge. Need more to push more players for war. Do players even desire the new gear from the alchemist tho?
Are the purpose of these 100 member limit wars to promote more warring? Because if it is I believe it is driving away people rather than pushing people to war.
From my recollection, they were added in the past to create a bit of variety in the war schedule. That and I'm pretty sure they were desired by popular demand in forums in the past.
100vs 100 I think would make teams more evened out stat wise more to work with but inactive aren't something that can b told b4 hand
That's my point. If there is no way to be able to predict inactives then why even do these wars in the first place?
Report the inactives to ATA. That's what they asked to be done so they could begin banning common inactives.
Students who have classes thoughout the week can't hardly to the 15v15's but when they have a break on the weekends they have to deal with 100v100's instead? It really changes everything.
1 inactive in a war of 15 is just as bad as 6 inactives in a war of 100 so odds are one side isn't gonna have 20 inactives and other have 1
Varying times would give veriety, there is never a slot I can war in, ALWAYS too early, or too late. The war times are always the same.
Don't blame the war mechanics, we all knew about them before signing up. We had a superior roster as well. Our outrageous loss was from the combination of an exceptionally good enemy WC, an exceptionally bad ally WC (PS1 in indi, all-sb open, people unassigned, threats allowed free reign, come on bruh), and mass inactivity in our bottom roster. Without Vadue we'd have lost by 40 bil.
Your missing the point. Theres too much bull****. If something isnt changed players loose because someone else threw in a alt or decided to watch a movie during the war.
Valid points. However, if we want to indy war on the weekends, we have to sign up for these chaotic 100 member limit wars. We don't have an option to war with only 15. I feel like this is discouraging people from joining. And then when people do join they get their asses whooped like we did and don't do them from that point on.