June 2017 Design Spotlight

[T4TiFooS]

I think 3 levels (2,7,8) of this benefits are completely useless!
The only benefits for wars can only effect those who playing in war team at the moment, while the benefits for alliances must effect all of members not only war members!
Besides , as it obviously easy predictable that same lvl of alliances will face to face each other in the future, then how it can be a BENEFIT if both side have it? how?


Plus, increasing the lvl of donations to based on ages (Industrial, Global) is a obvious mistake! by this decision you just trying to creating fake alliances with only 1 member active, and many many multi accounts that can be created for this mistake!

Also, you should to know there is not any attract from war loot rewards for war participants, loot rewards are under average of our loot routine in battles!


I can't see any thinking behind your most of recently decisions!
I deeply Suggest you change your work team!

 

[Ypergamias]

1)I think these options will create even bigger gap among alliances and players. An example Korean army alliance has reached level 8 axp count and the other alliance level 5. That means KA will have a boost from lvls 7 and 8. How the weak team will deal with that;

2)Τhere are a lot of strong players in weak alliances and they want to stay there for their own reasons why will they have a handicap from other strong players who belong to stronger alliances when they are facing each other;;;

3)In low weight(when the first numbers are gunpowder or Enlightenment) alliances and some of them reach lvl 4(industrial troops) or lvl 10 axp(global age troops) , isn't it will create chaos among these alliances; with the opposites teams which for some reason didn't reach these lvls.

4) Tsamu , 5 iron age 20lvl sandbaggers are enough for 25 global age players face a 30 IA players team. That means if they win(50 more axp) the war the sandbagging team will earn more axp. Lets say an average GA base is 170lvl and an IA 150lvl. (25*170 + 5*20)/30=145 lvl = the average lvl of the sandbagging team.

 

[Green Bird]

The question I have is whether these AXPs will be taken into account for the purposes of war matchups. My concern is that if they are not counted, we shall have indeed a situation when the capability gap between alliances can widen even more than it is today with coalitions, stronghold etc. If they are counted, we are risking overburdening the matchmaking system (which is apparently struggling already) with an additional factor to consider.

Honestly, I would limit all alliance benefits to just economic features at this stage. They are something that everyone would welcome as a nice bonus and it would not be as contentious as what is seen at this page.

 

[GailWho]

It says first successful attack.... that could still mean for attacker not necessarily base attacked.

 

[GailWho]

You make some good points... the rich get richer.

 

[SebQuattro]

@Bobortvogel

It doesn't matter. Getting 40% of all possible stars only nets you 15AXP

 

[SebQuattro]

I think 3 levels (2,7,8) of this benefits are completely useless!
The only benefits for wars can only effect those who playing in war team at the moment, while the benefits for alliances must effect all of members not only war members!
Besides , as it obviously easy predictable that same lvl of alliances will face to face each other in the future, then how it can be a BENEFIT if both side have it? how?


Plus, increasing the lvl of donations to based on ages (Industrial, Global) is a obvious mistake! by this decision you just trying to creating fake alliances with only 1 member active, and many many multi accounts that can be created for this mistake!

Also, you should to know there is not any attract from war loot rewards for war participants, loot rewards are under average of our loot routine in battles!


I can't see any thinking behind your most of recently decisions!
I deeply Suggest you change your work team!

The more I think about it, the more I think most if not all of the perks are useless. There's no incentive to war at all. If anything, it provides an ever bigger incentive to opt out. If you don't war, you don't need mercs, event troops, NTGs, saves you tons of res and now you won't need AXP.

We have 50 members in our alliance, so many are fed up with war that we struggle to have enough players opted in for a 15 person war.

The perks are all useless.

The 10% increase in road income: the University already added 25% but that doesn't apply to the base value, so it adds next to nothing. Each additional building connected to your roads/ TC increases road income by 10%, so the perk is the same as connecting one additional building to your roads.

The 3 10% war buffs: I already opt of war, so they don't effect me.

The increased alliance gate capacity: At Global Age I have 27 capacity = 3 Howlizters, why could I care about an extra 3 capacity?

NTG bonus: I don't need NTGs if I opt out of war.

Receive 25% of the cost back when donating troops: I don't care about the food cost, it's the training time I care about.

Global Age Promotion: I'm guessing it will take most players less time to get to global age, than it will take for them to get their alliance to level 10.

If those 10% war buffs applied to all battles, i'd immediately opt in to war as i'd be at such a huge disadvantage if my alliance didn't get those perks. As it stands, whether or not my alliances has those perks will have little effect on me. There's so many perks that could have been chosen, 1 that added a single extra citizen would have been awesome, a perk could have reduce the number of citizens it takes to farm trees/ mines etc there's so many they could have chosen. If the alliance size also increased by 1 for each level, that would provided some incentive to war too.

BHG can add all the war perk buffs/ coalitions/ event troops they want, but if people have no incentive to war, it doesn't matter does it?

 

[Wakkomg]

I think that AXP would be higher if you defeat a higher opponent.
For example: If a Industrial Age defeat a Global Age base, the AXP earned would be 10 + 1 = 11. And if a Global Age defeat a Industrial Ade Base, the AXP earned would be 9 - 1 = 8.

 

[JNation]

I think part of it is that there should be more than just bragging rights to glory. Im curious how a system like the medals system would work for glory. Like: Higher medal gives you more dock goods and rewards from battles you won. Of course this doesn't fix sandbagging but as it stands, exactly what is it that glory gives you?! Im also curious how a system that looks at specific battles for each person in war and whether they attacked someone truly harder would work too. So glory isn't based off the relative distance that is between your alliance and theirs but also their strength as individual bases to yours. So it wouldn't be a set number as a glory gained or loss but a range. So attacking the strongest opponent and gaining the most stars against that opponent yields the highest potential glory gained. Maybe I'm making this more complexed then it needs to be but regardless something needs to encourage more people to war.

 

[T4TiFooS]

The more I think about it, the more I think most if not all of the perks are useless. There's no incentive to war at all. If anything, it provides an ever bigger incentive to opt out. If you don't war, you don't need mercs, event troops, NTGs, saves you tons of res and now you won't need AXP.

We have 50 members in our alliance, so many are fed up with war that we struggle to have enough players opted in for a 15 person war.

The perks are all useless.

The 10% increase in road income: the University already added 25% but that doesn't apply to the base value, so it adds next to nothing. Each additional building connected to your roads/ TC increases road income by 10%, so the perk is the same as connecting one additional building to your roads.

The 3 10% war buffs: I already opt of war, so they don't effect me.

The increased alliance gate capacity: At Global Age I have 27 capacity = 3 Howlizters, why could I care about an extra 3 capacity?

NTG bonus: I don't need NTGs if I opt out of war.

Receive 25% of the cost back when donating troops: I don't care about the food cost, it's the training time I care about.

Global Age Promotion: I'm guessing it will take most players less time to get to global age, than it will take for them to get their alliance to level 10.

If those 10% war buffs applied to all battles, i'd immediately opt in to war as i'd be at such a huge disadvantage if my alliance didn't get those perks. As it stands, whether or not my alliances has those perks will have little effect on me. There's so many perks that could have been chosen, 1 that added a single extra citizen would have been awesome, a perk could have reduce the number of citizens it takes to farm trees/ mines etc there's so many they could have chosen. If the alliance size also increased by 1 for each level, that would provided some incentive to war too.

BHG can add all the war perk buffs/ coalitions/ event troops they want, but if people have no incentive to war, it doesn't matter does it?

Yea, agree bout perks road income, increasing alliance gate capacity and wars.

@TinSoldier

In general this is a great idea to determine various level of alliances, but decisions bout perks picked very superficially! most of these perks not only are useless but they hurting the game after alliances!

These are my thoughts that can be replaced instead them;

Level	Name	Effect
1	Trade Agreements	Your Road network produces an additional 20% gold per hour and stores 20% more gold. This is useless when we can access to this feature by connecting only two buildings to the roads! all of war participants looking forward to increasing war loot rewards, increasing this must be replaced instead that!
2	Operations Research	Your War Base's buildings and traps have 10% more hitpoints and damage. It's completely useless if these only effects on war!
3	Soldier Exchange Program	Alliance Gate Capacity increased by 3. Its useless for higher level players especially for atomic! most of atomic players don't use their allies troops! Increasing the number of capacity donation(its on 6 now) must replaced instead that!
4	Industrial Age Promotion	Donated troops are automatically upgraded to Industrial Age if they're below Industrial Age rank. this perks ignored industrial, global and atomic players! also It will be a disaster for the game, many fake and multi accounts will be created! instead that upgrading +1 level of donation must be replaced!
5	Allied Plunder	When you earn national trade goods in a 5-star battle, you always earn 2. it's a good perks, but increasing chance of earning national trade goods in a 4* and 5* is better! coz personally I'm bad lucky and can find them very rarely even in 5* ! : (
6	War Bonds	Receive 25% of the cost back when donating troops. its good one! It will cause to encouraging players to more cooperate on donations!
7	Coordinated Offensive	During War attacks your troops have 10% more hitpoints and damage. It's completely useless if these only effects on war!
8	Their Finest Hour	Your War Base's defenders have 10% more hitpoints and damage. It's completely useless if these only effects on war!
9	Lend-Lease Program	Receive an additional 25% of the cost back when donating troops (total: 50%). not very good but not bad!
10	Global Age Promotion	Donated troops are automatically upgraded to Global Age if they're below Global Age rank. this perks ignored global and atomic players! also It will be a disaster for the game, many fake and multi accounts will be created! instead that, increasing +2 level of donation must be replaced!

 

[S_How]

It's taken me a little time to let this whole thing sink in. I'm not gonna complain about earning something extra for our efforts. While I'm all for alliance perks, it's what this new addition means in regard to promoting sandbagging that really bothers me. Here's another slap in the face to alliances who have resisted the temptation to sandbag in an effort to promote skill over opportunity.

You say "Our intention here is to provide the largest AXP reward from war participation, instead of providing the greatest AXP reward to the winner of the war."

Tell me where the incentive is for participation? ...

Not only is it further incentive to sandbag....but it also further punishes non sandbagging teams who meet teams that do sandbag. If you were to meet a team with 22 atomics/globals, and 8 iron ages....you get almost no AXP from those iron ages bases, on top of the horrible mismatch to begin with. While the sandbagging team gets loads of AXP up and down your roster with an easy matchup.

 

[Equal]

well the only things, that i am afraid are two. 1.New update will be bugged and not working again.
2.Nexon will not read this thread and will not change anything, that determines how AXP is earned, because as it is now, it will only increase sandbagging.. ://
with the perks itself i am happy, it is better than nothing anyway.