Jump to content

Photo

Alliance Wars - Potential Overhaul

alliance wars targets

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
108 replies to this topic

#1
Sev

Sev
  • 553 posts

alliancewar-overhaul.jpg

 

For a while now there has been a lot of complaints about the lack of targets in the alliance wars.  Whilst some of this can be attributed to a lack of participation, I believe that the greater issue lies more with the way that we limit potential targets to those in a similar ranked alliance.

 

I have an idea for a solution that I am considering implementing, but I wanted to post it here for feedback before I started to work on it.

 

 

Automated Match-making System

 

The basic idea would be to remove the current system of limiting you to people in alliances that are ranked closely to yours and replace it with a more automated match-making system.

 

Basically, I would be looking to create a pool of all the eligible players that are in the wars, then present you with a cut down list of targets that you can attack.  My hope would be to return a  list of players that are of similar rank to you, that haven't been attacked recently and that are currently not online.

 

The scoring system would obviously have to change.  My idea at the moment would be have a base score for every successful raid.  To this I would add to this a bonus for raiding people slightly above you, as well as perhaps a bonus for taking out people that have a reputation for being good defenders / harder targets.

 

 

The pros of this system are:

- More targets (technically you couldn't get more than this)

- Less time spent searching for targets

- Almost no chance of exploitation / flag swapping

- No griefing / harassment

- No "holding" of targets

- No "hiding" in lower ranked alliances

 

The cons are:

- You can't attack whoever you want.

- The retaliation system would have to be go / be reworked.

- It will take some time to implement.

 

Overall I believe that this will open up a lot more targets.  It is still limited by the number of people actually participating though, so it may have a limited effect on the smaller services.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Other possible changes:

- Lowering the number of players that can be in an alliance

- Decreasing the chance of being hurt in defence

- Increasing the strength of buildings

- Awarding points for successfully defending against a raid

- Losing some points for losing a flag

- Refreshing the alliances / personal rewards

- Bonus points for downing attackers, even if you lose the flag

- Participation points - eg: 5 pts for attacking / being attacked.

- Defence bonus - get points when your buildings are destroyed (trashing would give points away)

 

Things we have ruled out:
- Removing the white flag.

- Changing the return time to a rest time

 

Let me know what you think below.  Stay on topic. Avoid attacking each other because I tend to stop reading when people do that.

 

Cheers,

Sev

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Minor Edit

 

I was thinking that we may also be able to add some extra features to the way that recruiting works

 

- The ability to set your alliance as 'open' so that anyone can join whenever they want

- The ability to open you alliance to 'applications' so people can apply to be part of your alliance, and the owner can review / accept / discard

- The ability for existing members to 'sponsor' applications - kind of like sending an alliance invite, but it has to be approved by the owner

- Adding in a 'recruiting' chat room - specifically for people recruiting, like how the trade rooms are for trading... :-|



#2
DirewolfTravis

DirewolfTravis
  • 29 posts

Thank you for reading the posts, I love the idea of a new targeting system!

 

Cutting alliance to 20 may be rough, maybe in half to 25? but I love the idea of points for defense, or participation points, and points for downing attackers. One thing that wasn't brought up was if the alliances are made smaller, can the prize pool be expanded? Maybe top 10?

 

The main thing is to reduce the time searching for targets, Thank you again for looking into it.

 

-Trav


  • 0

#3
ag_17

ag_17
  • 11 posts

Other possible changes:

- Lowering the number of players that can be in an alliance - down to perhaps 20, maybe 10 on kong / yahoo.

- Decreasing the chance of being hurt in defence

- Increasing the strength of buildings

- Awarding points for successfully defending against a raid

- Losing some points for losing a flag

- Refreshing the alliances / personal rewards

- Bonus points for downing attackers, even if you lose the flag

- Participation points - eg: 5 pts for attacking / being attacked.

- Defence bonus - get points when your buildings are destroyed (trashing would give points away)

 

would love to have these changes implemented soon.. thumbs up Sev! :)


  • 1

#4
zsoleszdc

zsoleszdc
  • 380 posts

That 3rd guy from the left looks like Messi, LOL


  • 1

#5
kijhvitc

kijhvitc
  • 282 posts

This would end my already limited participation in wars, I like to raid but only in my own solo alliance. Being a target for top alliances does not really interest me as I am not a hardcore raider and put nowhere near enough time into setting up a defense to compete with them


  • 1

#6
chris1017

chris1017
  • 14 posts

*
POPULAR

I would like to tell my view about rhw possible changes. Other possible changes:- Lowering the number of players that can be in an alliance - down to perhaps 20, maybe 10 on kong / yahoo. First of all, this changes cannot help completely for getting more war targets. In most alliance, which even have around 30 to 40 members, it is rarely see 5 members online at the same because we all are playing from different time zones and different free time.  (Which is not include top very active alliances).  So, reducing the number of members may even lead to dead alliance activities and alliance chat. In my view, alliance mean team work and not a single player game. Moreover, in some non-raiding alliance, people are playing to have fun in alliance chat to enjoy the game and this reduced member number may even lead to be boring in playing and quit the game. In short, this update may cause less participation in alliance and war activities in both looting and raiding alliances.  As conclusion, I would like to suggest even there is no plan to increase number of members to active alliance activities more, it will not be good idea to reduce the number of members.

 

- Chris


  • 11

#7
aigamhsou

aigamhsou
  • 4 posts

*
POPULAR

I would like to tell my view about rhw possible changes. Other possible changes:- Lowering the number of players that can be in an alliance - down to perhaps 20, maybe 10 on kong / yahoo. First of all, this changes cannot help completely for getting more war targets. In most alliance, which even have around 30 to 40 members, it is rarely see 5 members online at the same because we all are playing from different time zones and different free time.  (Which is not include top very active alliances).  So, reducing the number of members may even lead to dead alliance activities and alliance chat. In my view, alliance mean team work and not a single player game. Moreover, in some non-raiding alliance, people are playing to have fun in alliance chat to enjoy the game and this reduced member number may even lead to be boring in playing and quit the game. In short, this update may cause less participation in alliance and war activities in both looting and raiding alliances.  As conclusion, I would like to suggest even there is no plan to increase number of members to active alliance activities more, it will not be good idea to reduce the number of members.

 

- Chris

i agree Chris, reducing the number of members will not do any good, even now i find few online because we are all from other countries and time zones, if the number of members drop i will find nobody or maybe one, we need more people in.


  • 10

#8
sunstrike

sunstrike
  • 19 posts

what about buildings blown up by using grenades to get to the flag ,some people consider that as trashing as well,also sometimes towers have to be destroyed  to kill the player inside ,would you consider that as trashing too? 

btw nice  idea to get more targets ,cant wait to get more targets  


  • 0

#9
Ivan

Ivan
  • 571 posts

New system suggests : "creating a pool of players that are in the wars"

 

What does that mean exactly? Only players that have scored any WP would be available as a target?

 

If that is so. I think it could be great for AG/FB, but on Kong it wouldnt. Kong wars are so weak that we often scavenge points even from players who probably havent scored anything but happen to be in an alliance that did.


  • 1

#10
Con

Con
  • 4,248 posts

Lowering the number of players that can be in an alliance - down to perhaps 20, maybe 10 on kong / yahoo.

 

Just to make this clear, the idea behind this is to spread out the players who are in Alliances. With an automated matchmaking system, if everyone is in a small number of alliances, it makes the target options much smaller. But, if they're more distributed, there's more viable targets available because they're not all stacked into one alliance. 



#11
djobcek

djobcek
  • 6 posts

just dont lower number of ppl in the aliances. already now there is like 7-8 pages of aliances which makes ppl browsing so much. 

 

-let ppl to attack average lvls +- not just those who are participation on the raids. this will increase number of targets

-u can also lower max duration of  shield u get after raid

-points for defending are also nice idea, even they should be less that points u get for raid as its passive defense while raid is active

 

p.s. trashing is surely stupid, it makes ppl to get disgusted and potentially to leave the game.


Edited by djobcek, 05 October 2015 - 10:21 AM.

  • 3

#12
Cybertraxx

Cybertraxx
  • 266 posts

Here's what i think.

 

- Add a brand new tab of only targets you can actually attack, this would resolve countless hours of searching for targets. 

- Less protection time.

- i know you said no removal of WF, but possibly make it so top alliances can't use WF, that is the true problem, this will suck for taskers i know, but fact is, if you are in a war alliance you should also probably be a target, just a thought.

 

- I don't really love the idea of making alliances small, half the reason old players even stick around is the chat, yes we can pm and chat in public, but it's not the same as being in a chat with people you know, if it's a must, then don't go under 25 or 30, it'll seriously impact lots of people if you make it down to 20.

- Giving points for defending isn't such a bad idea, it'd encourage people to build a stronger defense and possibly make them feel more comfortable about not staying online 24/7 

 

I don't play anymore, but i have been there from the start of alliance wars, (i remember those pre-rounds) and i still know how it works now, perhaps it isn't such a bad idea to go look at what the prototype alliance war system was like, in the pre rounds when top alliances could get tens of thousands of points and have everyone be a target, there's obvious reasons why that didn't work out (exploitation griefing ect.) but maybe you could figure it out.

 

Just my 2 cents as a longtime raider.      (also sorry if it's hard to read, typing on a PS4 browser isn't so easy)

 

- Cyber


  • 3

#13
Andre F S R

Andre F S R
  • 282 posts

That 3rd guy from the left looks like Messi, LOL

No Cristiano Ronaldo but a guy that looks like that messi...


  • 0

#14
billgfjhghghghgh

billgfjhghghghgh
  • 148 posts

Con   on FB/AG  every round there are like 100 alliances scoring.but if you are in top  spot you can only attack like 50  or so of those alliances...Why dont you just  let us attack all the alliances that just score points ? wouldnt that be easy for you and helpfull for us ...?if not all the alliances that score points at least most of them? just wondering :)


  • 5

#15
Lefty_Grimes

Lefty_Grimes
  • 290 posts

Con   on FB/AG  every round there are like 100 alliances scoring.but if you are in top  spot you can only attack like 50  or so of those alliances...Why dont you just  let us attack all the alliances that just score points ? wouldnt that be easy for you and helpfull for us ...?if not all the alliances that score points at least most of them? just wondering :)

 

I think that's the idea...

 

 

Basically, I would be looking to create a pool of all the eligible players that are in the wars, then present you with a cut down list of targets that you can attack.


  • 0

#16
joeIII

joeIII
  • 429 posts

- Decreasing the chance of being hurt in defence

- Increasing the strength of buildings

 

I think these will do more than all the rest.  Making the total pool of raiders larger will help no mater what scoring system is in place.  And these are complaints that non-raiders say are keeping them from becoming raiders.

 

The other, larger concern is still PvP balance of course.  But I appreciate that's to big a problem to try and address head on right now.


  • 1

#17
BodaTajson

BodaTajson
  • 11 posts

Things we have ruled out:
- Removing the white flag.

 Why would you  move WF, there is a lot of players who dont want to raid or be raided... They collect fuels for that book, even keys :)
But other ideas are great


  • 2

#18
EPICboss007

EPICboss007
  • 41 posts

I dont like the idea of having smaller alliances. The chances of being raided will be bigger then less ppl will join allinces. i find "hiding" in lower ranked allinces better because u can donate without having to raid or get raided


  • 1

#19
DirewolfTravis

DirewolfTravis
  • 29 posts

I remember the start of war rounds, and I'm sure this change will have a few glitches to be ironed out, which is to be expected - but will be WELL worth it and make raiding FUN again.  Just curious, what happens if someone is losing a raid and refreshes or otherwise just disconnected?  I know for Infected bounty that doesn't matter, as I've been disconnected, but points (kills) were added as I went along, so no big deal.  Anyway to do that with this?

 

Also, I love points for other stuff besides just flag.  EX: There's occasional times when the flag gets smoked and taken, and few if any defenders need to be killed.  Can they be like a point each or something? like a point for each guy you kill raiding, and you lose a point for every couple of your guys killed?  I think the idea would be to keep a running total, but not Lose points if you fail a raid - would prob be discouraging for those still learning.

 

Hopefully defending points may even encourage White Flaggers to take it off every now and then, as they can earn points without ever leaving the compound - and with DMU there are ALWAYS 10 guys home being attacked by only 5. Might even add a new strategy part to the game.

 

But love the ideas and can't wait!

 

PS - I also think it would be Exciting to log on in the morning and see you earned 10 or 15 points for your alliance by defending while you were asleep! :)


Edited by DirewolfTravis, 05 October 2015 - 03:35 PM.

  • 2

#20
I_P

I_P
  • 3 posts

What if instead of alliances, the war target's list will show you all active players in your range (lvl 50-55 for a lvl 55 palyer) and war points will be given according the scored war points or stats like flag taken / flag defended?


  • 2



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: alliance, wars, targets