Jump to content

Photo

Unfair Raiding In Alliance Wars? Thoughts?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1
Oblique_Spheroid

Oblique_Spheroid
  • 7 posts

It maybe just me, but I find it excruciatingly annoying when I cannot raid someone in regular lists below my level, but in alliance wars I get attacked by those who are 3-4 levels above me. If the raiding lists have the restriction, but not the alliances then what the hell is the point of having the restriction in regular raiding? I personally think this is the most broken aspect of alliances. Anyone else?


  • 0

#2
Zingman

Zingman
  • 3,168 posts

It's a balancing act.

 

Under "normal" raiding mechanics, you can't raid someone lower level then you unless they attack you first.   This is because (in theory) the higher level player should have an (unfair) advantage (again, in theory).   Looking at this rule irrespective of alliance wars it makes a lot of sense for that reason.

 

The object of alliance wars is however different from just pure raiding. The main objective of the alliance war is to score points, and to help insure that players have sufficient targets (especially max level players), the raiding mechanics are loosened while the war is active.   You've probably noticed that the targeting requirements default to "normal" during the break between rounds.   

 

So you have two things in opposition -- inherent unfairness of raiding players lower level than you, vs. players not having enough targets for their level in alliance wars.

 

Con has attempted to balance this by loosening the raiding rules -- within the confines of alliance war.   So you'll see targets up to five levels lower than you on your targets list.   You can't score points by attacking players on your compound list, as that exists outside the confines of the alliance war, so it defaults to "normal" raiding conditions.


  • 1

#3
Oblique_Spheroid

Oblique_Spheroid
  • 7 posts

Ah that explains a lot, didn't know there were issues in terms of finding targets. That clears it up a bit mate


  • 0