Are there any plans to increase clan sizes? I guess peeps will start to flock to the more powerful clans and stay once this update is released. I really would like some feedback on this one please. (both dev's n community)
I'm sorry if this suggestion has already been made, as I can't find the time to read through all previous posts. Okay, since this is Kingdoms at WAR not Kingdoms at EBs, I think every clan should be involved in a war at least once a week. 1) The system should fix every clan for a war with another clan of matching strength automatically every weekend. That is if they haven't already found a clan to war with within a certain deadline. 2) After a couple of weeks everybody will get used to it. This will actually get everyone really playing the game the way it's supposed to be.
Many people play the game in many different ways. There should be no reason to force a system of play on anyone. I could easily go into several reasons on why a forced system war isn't a good idea but I'm too lazy at the moment to type it all out.
@citizen offload on a bigger target kill your troops with fails et voila your pinned no probs if that's what you really want to do.
What would the reward be? Because normally players use max mith (18 for 24 hours) and the mith payout is 5 mith on average. And players spend tons of $ on pots so either $ reward or maybe give winners of each war some special pots?
I haven't been able to make it through all the post without falling asleep, but a majority of what I've read has been butt kissing and/or utter stupidity. So allow me to shed some light on many things that are wrong with this update based on the information at hand. Chances are this will be a bit of a read so all you TLR peeps can just skip over this one. I want to start out by saying this, the more you complicate something, the easier it becomes to exploit. It's a fact of gaming that applies to any game, and KaW is no exception. Our community has a lot of highly intelligent players that will find exploits of this new system. There's not been one update that we haven't been able to exploit in one way or another and this one will be no different. That being said, lets move on to the issues I see with the up and coming changes to the warring system. Lets start with Estoc's Edges. I talked to many players about this reward and nobody really seems to understand how it's going to work. Say a clan decides to war and wins, receives this reward. Said winning clan only has 50 players. With the only 30% of the clan roster being able to be changed, where does that 30% apply? Does it mean that only 30% of the 50 members that took place in the war can leave the clan or is it 30% change to the overall roster? If it's 30% to the whole roster, you're now saying that clans of 100 that do not have 100 members available to commit to a 12 hour war (we do have lives outside of KaW, ATA) will be punished and have to split the clan in order to war and will not be able to reunite as one after war without losing thier bonus. If it's a smaller clan of 50 that is actively growing and recruiting you are also limiting their abilities to grow into a stronger clan by only allowing them to accept 15 new members throughout the course of time the bonus from the reward lasts If the % applies only to the members that were on the war roster, you now a have very easily exploited option that I won't go into detail on. I like the idea of it, but either way it seems flawed. Now let's really get into the meat of the potato here and talk about strategy. Disabling the ablitity to pin on quest, sweeping your roster checking for people that are leaking, having outside allied clans pin inactives, xstal usage; You wish to remove all of these things, but they are all STRATEGIES of the current war system. This stuff doesn't just happen on its own. It takes a lot of planning and coordinating to properly pull off all the above mentioned strategies. These aren't even close to the only strategies available, the current system is full of strategy just as is. You're not adding strategy, it's already there, you are making a new system that will require totally different strategies than what your game has been based off of for the last couple years. As of late, a lot of people of have been complaining about system wars being nothing more than turtle wars. A large part of this has to do with the fact that the summer war tournament forces all players active at the start of war. By doing so, you are also forcing players to make sure they are self pinned prior to the war clicker starting so the enemy can't bum rush them and take a huge lead right off the jump. Not to mention that how a clan enters its players into a war is one of the most vital strategies of war and you completely take that aspect away with the auto join feature. Turtle wars have been around for a long time, and it's a very important strategy to implement when a weaker clan is going up a clan that has merc'd heavily or just flat out is way stronger. Toe to toe they don't have a chance trying to match the larger clan hit for hit so they use this strategy to give them a fighting chance. You claim you want to let clans prove themselves in war not based on stats but on their ability to war and come up with strategy for it, yet you're taking away one of the most important strategies for any smaller clan that faces a larger one. Turtling, as good of a tactic as it is, is NOT the best tactic to win a war. The "pin and sit" method is far superior, but many clans don't have the understanding of system war to be able to successfully pull off this strategy. I've led countless wars to victory under this method, and have only been forced into using the turtling strategy when the opposing side was much stronger and our side did not have the man power or stats to be able to go head to head with them and come out ahead. Time to touch on something they want to add: the ablitity to bring an opponent to 0 troops and spies. From what is written by ATA, an opponent can be attacked all the way down to 0 troops and spies, at which time they will go dtw until they reach 25% troops. Does this mean that if a player attacks someone until they have 15% troops that they are NOT pinned and other side can hit them down to 0 troops? If so, you just elimanated a whole group of builds out there called hansels from being able to take part in wars. Hansels would no longer be able to self pin their troops and since most have allies they can not drop their attack builds for war otherwise they are an easy strip target that will cost their side the war. Now I mean no disrepect to ATA by this, but are you sure you understand how your game works? You want to allow players to take other players to 0 troops and spies, which will cause the player 0'd to lose plunder made. Are you aware how hard it is to take an opponent to 0? If I were to take someone to 0 troops in war, I would have to use all of my troops attacking them, and a majority, if not all, of my spies assassinating them to finish of thier troops. And they still have spies left. So at the cost of all my troops and spies I can't even 0 a target out completely on my own, but attempting to do so has now killed all my troops and spies, leaving me as an easy target for the remaining duration of war to be taken to 0 by the enemy. Maybe you are trying to get us to use more teamwork. Well, in order for any clan, even with the current system, to win a war they have to use teamwork to try and pin the opposing side. Even if you do work in teams to 0 out opponets, all you do is create a seesaw type effect . You take one player down to 0 troops and spies and now you have multiple players that are at much lower troop and spy level and the enemy does the same to those players. Eventually all the players are back to being pinned, sucking away the others plunder earned. Limiting our xstal usage to only one doesn't help this plan at all either. Defenders have always had the advantage. There's no way in my right mind I would considering wasting troops on trying 0 an opponent so that I can become an easy target to be 0'd myself, losing the plunder which I just earned. I see wars becoming like wack-a-mole, even like the old pwars days, 2 hits and regen so that nobody sacrifices their troops and spies to become an easy target that causes their clan to lose plunder earned. I just don't see any strategy in a system like that. And what happens when a stronger clan takes on a weaker one? Too bad, better luck next time? Not only will the larger clan be able to make more plunder due to their builds, but they can also 0 out the weaker clan much more easily. That kind of takes away from the letting clans show who is better in war based of strategy and teamwork aspects and says no matter your strategy, stats will prevail. NO FUN. The best thing I see about this whole thread, is that ATA is listening to its players for a change, sadly most of them haven't a clue what they are talking about. But I do commend ATA for reaching out to their players and letting us voice our concerns. Now you have heard mine. - iProphet
My concern is that if you DO fight hard and use most of your troops you will be easy to pin and thus lose all the plunder you just won. Or are we distributing war tax and that is the plunder lost? I like most of the other ideas, the edge thing seems complicated to retain, but a raised plunder cap is AWESOME! There is another game out there that uses hit points. Implementing hit points would separate attack and def capabilities. Ie if you run out of hit points you are pinned and cant attack or be attacked until you regen hp. I suggested implementing this as 'defensive troops' a while back.
@iprophet: I agree with some of your concerns, but ill make a small observation. System Wars r broken in the fact that nobody wants to participate. Changing it to get war going again has my support. Tactics will change and adapt, call them exploits it u will, but clever players will always rise to the top. Clan matching on strength will help change the need to start war pinned. So i support ur concerns, but think your being a little negative. Kaw waring must be an improvement, even if its not perfect.
Luthor- The reason system wars are not in use anymore isn't because it's a broken system. The sudden stop in system war stems from two things: Devs adding new item drops to eb every few weeks, causing everyone to spend their time chasing the items(that in the long run mean nothing as everyone eventually ends up with them), and when ATA decided to add mithril to KaW and changed the way a clan is rewarded for winning a system war. As it stands now, the reward simply isn't worth it. You lose more gold than you make. Mithril isn't much of an incentive either being that ATA likes to put it on sale often and most players have it stocked piled up. Up until ATA changed how the war system rewards player, it flourished throughout all of KaW. Those are the reason system wars have died out, it has nothing to do with anything else. A simple fix to bring system wars back, add Item drops there. That's been requested for a long time. ADD SOMETHING, because it really is not worth the effort and waste of gold to do a system war anymore. They nerfed payout in system war, taxing 40% of the gold out of it and replacing it with a few mithril instead. There's just no incentive to war anymore, players have been saying this for a while. ADD SOMETHING. Nobody has said CHANGE EVERYTHING. The idea of Estoc's Edge is great if they can figure out a way to properly introduce it. I will guarantee you that if all the did was add Estoc's Edge as a reward to the current system in play, it would flourish as it did prior to them nerfing payout. Changing tactics and adapting to them has nothing to do with why I brought up players always find a way to exploit updates. Those wouldn't even be exploit, so I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying. Read my paragraph about how a Estoc's Edge will be reward again. If they go with the latter of the options I disgust there, you now have a very exploitable aspect of the game. Stuff like that is what me bring up exploits has to do with. You claim to support any changes to get system wars back up and running, so let me ask you this. Outside of the recent summer war tournaments, when is the last time you take part in a war? Why are you taking part in more wars? I would also like to add, for someone that wants to support increasing the amount of wars around, you seem to have a small understanding of the current war system. I've refrained from tooting my horn as much as possible on this thread to keep it as serious as I can, but to get my point across I shall boast a bit. Many throughout KaW have dubbed me one of the best war commanders this game has, I've yet to meet a challenge upon the system war battlefields. I understand very much so the ins and outs of how it works, and not just how the war system works, but the game itself. The changes that are spoken of in the Op's original post take out a lot of strategy and isn't going to be add very much at all. Like I said in my first post, you will end up with two types of war under a system like this: the wak-a-mole type where players on both sides just do 2-3 hits and regen to prevent getting low on troops and possibly losing plunder, or, the type where both sides seesaw back and forth 0ing out each other till the war ends up as a fight from pin style anyways. I spoke out heavily against ATA when they changed the reward payouts of system war, telling them it would kill off system wars. It certainly did. Mithril is cool and all, but when they put it on sale all the time and allow us to buy up tons of it, it really doesn't become all that special to have. Not to mention that it isn't something people are dying to have. Fact of the matter is, Mithril didn't have the impact on players ATA thought it would, largely to do with the fact that what Mithril offers are in game necessities. When your car breaks down you don't take it to the junk yard and go out and get another car. You bring it to the shop and let them fix the issues with it so your car can run smoothly again. Same concept applies to the system wars. Fix the rewarding aspect of system wars to where it actually gives people a reason to want to war and everywhere you look, you will find system wars in play. - iProphet
my idea on how we can keep more ppl involved in cc. I hate dead chatrooms n it's so easy just to hit eb and run. what if the longer u stay logged on to the game, the faster your troops replenish? that way more ppl get involved in cc while they wait, it'd also be more rewarding
I do not agree with your thinking Prophet. The Developers offered all the possible "carrots" to War in this Summer Tournament and still the participation was dismal. This is a game after all, and System Wars are just not fun under the current mechanics. From your posts I can tell you enjoy them as they are, but trust you are part of the minority. I will table a new mechanics discussion for now. My two reasons why System Wars nearly halted, in contrast to yours, are being addressed by the Developers in this next update: Clan Loyalty and Outside Interference. Building team camaraderie will lead to healthy competition amongst the Clans. Folks have no motivation to fight together if they can just leave the Clan for greener pastures. Look at every accomplished War Clan in this game, they all wear their Clan flag with pride. They decorate their banners, use Forum signatures, have an actual sense of unity. We want Clans like this, these Clans will fight for honour in spite of the cost or rewards. You want War in this game, build these Clans. The Developers are now trying to do so. Recruiting mercenaries and outside hits have been a mainstay of System Wars now for years. Problem with this is that when pairing Clans for a "fair" fight these x-factors spoil the numbers. Clan A and Clan B may be equal on paper, but when Clan B is part of a 10-Clan Family and calls for help Clan A is screwed. In War, especially Tournament play, it is paramount that outsiders are left outside. The Developers realize this now also, and are finally leveling the playing field. As the landscape here adapts to these changes, and it will, more folks will give System Wars a chance. And new strategies for you to master will surely follow. I am personally excited about these changes and should ATA actually make the tough decisions and roll this out as envisioned I plan on participating. These changes to the War System hold much potential, I am looking forward to this.