A Thought On War

[Helmsman]

With all the bad match ups in war, maybe it's time to change how war is done. First off let's cut everything in half starting with war time amount, 12 hours apiece for preparation and for war attacks. Next cut down the war attacks from 2 to 1 attack so then every attack is important, which could cut down on the sandbaging. Now for something new, when an attack is made there are 5 stars at stake, so if you only earn a 3 star attack the other alliance will earn 2 stars that are left over. It's time that good defense is rewarded. Finally have war leagues like we do with metal leagues, with just 3 leagues and you move up or down depending upon your glory, and being in a higher league you would earn a much better reward for winning the war.

 

[joelegiao]

I like the idea, the matchmaking is really not working well, lets try something new.

 

[Uhuru]

One attack instead of two is something that is definitely worth trying.
Shortening the time can also help, as the number of players has been greatly reduced. Twice as short a cycle == twice as many players.

 

[Centurion96]

Please, just let the leader choose if we prefer perfect match with unlimited search time, or if we prefer quick search with no so perfect match (i.e. current scenario). This simple thing would solve a lot of problems with matchmaking.

 

[Zaxillaxifrage]

So you want to dramatically reduce everyone's window for getting a war attack in, take away alliance mates' ability to make up for a poor or missed attack, and make poor or missed attacks hurt twice as much. And you think any of this will improve matchmaking? Terrible ideas all around, which would benefit only those alliances full of players who have nothing else to do during the day but play this game. You're asking to make wars so demanding, inflexible, and unforgiving that it would drive off huge numbers of players out of frustration, making the matchmaking issues far worse for those few who stick around. No thanks.

 

[Black tiger]

You're asking to make wars so demanding, inflexible, and unforgiving that it would drive off huge numbers of players out of frustration, making the matchmaking issues far worse for those few who stick around. No thanks.

I’m gonna assume the poster intended these to be options during war setup. Run a quick war, set the number of attacks. Configurable. Allowing those that like the status quo to maintain the current grind into oblivion, while those looking for fresh changes can experiment. Great ideas overall.

Personally I would advocate even shorter wars. How about a 1-hour war? Both sides need to have war bases set up BEFORE the war starts, all players need to be online to start and there is a live matchmaking screen that shows all the teams in the queue with their details. Review the ready teams for a good match and invite a team to war. Set options like time, number of players, number of attacks, stronghold troops, coalitions, etc. Sounds like a lot more fun than the what’s currently going on.

The best part is that if the matchup is bad, it’ll be over soon

 

[Zaxillaxifrage]

He said nothing in the original post suggesting that his ideas should be configurable options, so I didn't assume he meant that. While that does allow alliances to avoid these unforgiving options if they wish, it defeats its intended purpose by fragmenting alliances into smaller pools for the matchmaking system to draw from. This is why BHG removed almost half of the matchup sizes some time back (15 v 15, 25 v 25, etc.), because they couldn't make fair and timely matches with so many different niches. Now you want to put in half a dozen configurable options, and will naturally want to be matched up with an alliance of equal size and strength who has also specified exactly the same options you have. Good luck.

 

[Black tiger]

I think your point is that if everyone likes configurable wars the status quo pool will shrink, thereby lowering the enjoyment factor from the current level of misery all the way down to unplayable, in catastrophic fashion.

 

[Zaxillaxifrage]

I think your point is that if everyone likes configurable wars the status quo pool will shrink, thereby lowering the enjoyment factor from the current level of misery all the way down to unplayable, in catastrophic fashion.

If you were responding to me, yes that's essentially correct. I don't know about catastrophic, but fragmenting the alliance pool into many sub-niches where every alliance wants a fair match with an alliance who has chosen the exact same options as themselves is going to make matchmaking worse, not better.