June 2017 Design Spotlight

[Marknadamsjr]

My alliance recently went thru a failed merger. There had been two top-50 alliances. They merged under one alliance and changed the name of that alliance to something new that reflected the merger. Than the merger failed - most of the players from one of the alliances pulled out and restarted an alliance. And the previously merged alliance changed its name again. How would the Alliance Levels have moved with these changes? Do Alliance levels disappear if the Alliance changes its name?

 

[Hurtzilla]

Will this next update include the Factory upgrade and other things mentioned in the June state of nations?

 

[SebQuattro]

They don't need to acquire stars. Pretty much everyone else is aware that each player has 2 attacks, so 50% of an alliance doesn't need to attack. Most alliances will pad up their war rooster with alts/ low age accs so they can do the maximum war size.

 

[SebQuattro]

Each alliance has unique hidden identifier, changing the name of an alliance won't effect perk levels.

 

[Imaera]

This is what will happen in alliances:

Players will be under orders of their leaders to create their own alt Iron Age account. They will use that Iron Age account to spam donate Global Age units to themselves, they'll also put them in war.

....

But those iron age players won't earn stars in war, therefore less AXP.

 

[SebQuattro]

But those iron age players won't earn stars in war, therefore less AXP.

Again, why would they need to earn stars when only the first successful attack on each war base rewards AXP? Each war base only rewards AXP once.

It isn't difficult to comprehend, if each player has 2 attacks then only half of the alliance needs to attack to get the maximum amount of AXP. Therefore, it makes sense to pad up your war rooster to increase your number of targets. The design spotlight is explicit:

larger wars have a higher potential for AXP

It's possible the top 5% alliance may reduce the number sandbags so they get a stronger war match up and so more AXP, provided they can replace those sandbags with high age active players who war. The last thing a sandbagging alliance will want is to be matched up against another sandbagging alliance. Alliances ranked lower though can't be so picky, they will have to accept low age players to increase their war size or will have to use large numbers of alts.

 

[Imaera]

I missed that one! I thought every star counts.In which case it would have been a big step against sandbagging and inactive accounts in general.

 

[SebQuattro]

The whole thing is poorly thought out. If you lose the war, you can get almost as much AXP as if you won. All you need to is get 1* star on each war base and average 3* on each overall.

That doesn't give much incentive for players to buy event troops...

But suppose you come up against an alliance with 15 Iron Age sandbags. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, those sandbags will cost you a huge amount of AXP.

 

[Motaz Tarek]

upgrading to GA troops (which is only available at the maximum level of perks) is insignificant for wars.
honestly i thought these perks would be much more valuable.
but that's okay, the only thing I don't get is why ur adding counter bonuses, 10% hp dmg to defenses then 10% hp dmg to attackers, wth is this for? the end result is nill, this is really one of the worst aspects of the game, and it's not the first time happening, library and university bonuses basically the same too, consume time and resource for almost a nill result

there should have been a skill tree where alliances choose either become more defensive or become more offensive, diversity make more sense than this waste

 

[Manifesto]

I agree. It's strange that people find the negative in something that hasn't even happened instead of finding the positive in, or commenting on, the 'thing' that HAS happened!

 

[Chadwicke]

Question #1 why in the blank blank blankety blank is the blanking design team doing more blank before fixing the broken game , war seach times flipped glory bad matches all the other blank that need to be fixed first before more blanking blank should be introduced no more blanking updates no more events no more anything fix the blanking game before there are no blanking players to play this game

 

[Chadwicke]

What next the fruit trees and gold mines will have attack powers come on seriously now

 

[Blacknife686]

Having a +10 attack/ defense ability will be major if facing an alliance that DOESN'T have the counter ability. I agree it's a null effect if both teams have the bonus, but if one does and the other doesn't that could be the deciding factor in war.

 

[Blacknife686]

My question is how will the level of an Alliance be represented? Will it be a small number next to the name in war, or will we have to scout each alliance we face to find out?. If so, alliances with Asian characters will be almost undetectable without a keyboard format. This update needs to add links to alliances on the war screen, or it's going to add another level of frustration within the community.

 

[GailWho]

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? Now if you flip it and apply the axp based on the attacker and not the base being attacked as it has been explained here, then that may be worth celebrating. That will discourage sandbagging and encourage all to attack. Iron Age players have no chance at staring the higher bases and even if they do they only add 4 axp to the war effort. I'm hoping the above explanation was just communicated poorly and this is actually the true way things will play out. Call me an optimist Nb4powerup TinSoldier please can you clarify?

 

[Player Killer]

Unfortunately it will not solve the problem as each attacker can attack twice. If I was to exploit the system I would bring 50% of my warring team max AA and the other half iron sandbags. I will most. Likely smash the the other team and win getting maximum Axp. Even if the other team stalemate they will get much lower Axp cause half team will get 1 Axp for iron bases.

 

[Bobortvogel]

...Earning 40% of all possible Stars in the war...

I like your optimistic view. The language is open to interpretation. Is it the alliance total stars in the war or total stars from all attacks in the war? The answer will make a big difference. They still have time to pick the better option.

 

[Motaz Tarek]

Blacknife686 yes of course but eventually most of the alliances will have both rendering these bonuses useless, should have been optional, even if alliance have both they have to choose to activate one of them in wars, this will create more diversity, the only value would be against maxed players smurfs who create new alliances to cause more glory loss to other alliances, yet I don't think the 10% would make much difference for such maxed players this is why i demanded this to be higher to repell korea army and other korean alliances players from doing such a dirty move

 

[Tsamu]

I'm happy that the perks are somewhat significant and not throwaways, but it's disappointing that smaller wars are penalized. We barely have enough active players to do 20 v 20.

Good observation. This will motivate smaller alliances to merge, and all we will have are full 50 member groups.

 

[Tsamu]

With one change to how AXP is earned, this could really address sandbagging. if instead of awarding AXP for the first attack with at least 1 star, award it for each player's best successful attack. Sandbag bases won't be able to earn any AXP, and real bases will only get AXP from one of their attacks.

For example, an alliance of 15 global and 15 iron age against an alliance of 30 industrial. The sandbagging alliance will earn 15 * 8 = 120, plus the 40%, 60%, and winning bonuses for a total of 215 AXP. The all IA alliance, assuming they can all get 1 star on one of the global bases, will earn 30 * 10 = 300.