Stronghold Donations

[GRANDPOOBA]

I realy enjoy both using.....and battling against enemies that use stronghold troops. Both the unknown factor, challenge and even watching replays of succesfull defends all thrill me.
I was thinking about doing things to encourage the use of this option.
One thought that I had is the idea that if during a war......a base has defended until the end of the war....or is not attacked at the end of the war Donated Stronghold Troops remain in the Stronghold for the next war.
I believe this will both add excitement to the game and encourage the use of Stronghold troops.

 

[IShrugged]

I also would like to see the stronghold donations made viable. But I believe the reality of how ww works saps the life out of the idea. My experience so far with 3-4 ww’s a week for about 6 months now is that wars are matched in such a way to almost always be impossible to win, so why waste the troops, or so easy they are just not needed at all and so a waste to use them.

if nexon can ever find a way to balance the matching for ww it would, I bet, change the dynamics so much that they would profit greatly from all the new activity around ww. I believe ww is a great concept but mightily flawed in its execution. I just hope it’s a work in progress for nexon and over the months and years and upgrades ahead it will begin to live up to its potential.

Maybe a solution would be to not have alliances choose the lineup of members for ww but instead the matching system would pick the lineup based on players who have the war option checked. Then the system could build a match that was much more competitive. Also I would like to see scoring changed where only one battle per player counted.

But there are are a lot of flaws that need addressing... I hope to be a player for some years so will watch it evolve, or devolve I guess if cheaters cannot be minimized and other growing negatives brought under control.

I like the game and the concept for sure, keep adding ways to let me choose a strategic path for game play and I’ll stay around even with the flaws.

 

[GRANDPOOBA]

Yeah I agree....still love thw strongholds the fun factor outweighs the common sense of it all....so I still do it.
I think matchups are slowly getting better.
As far as match ups something I would like to see is the possibility of "invite league play" then competitive Alliances could compete. OR.... I believe I have seen it requested somewhere before where an Alliance could challenge or "declare war" on another Alliance then the Alliance that was challenged can decide to fight or flee
This would accomplish what I believe challenges pretty much every Alliance (even matchups)
....and it would encourage the use of Stronghold troops as well as Donated troops will become a much larger part of winning or losing wars.The team stackers will also suffer as they will find themselves able only to war against someone that choses that playstyle as well (I dont believe it is cheating it is a playstyle and a good one at that)
Those of us that chose not to play this way are more social and dont run the game as a "business" Kind of like the difference between Pro and recreational hockey (lol I Am Canadian)a possible option is leagues for teams kind of like for the individual.IDK just throwing the ideas out there!

Seems most players have little more or their mind then what age they are at....the game is so much more than that. I AM HAVING A BLAST WITH IT ALL!
I have tons of Uni Research done It is amazing as to how having that research done changes the game...but it realy in the end does not matter the game to me is more of an adventure than a win lose thing anyway.
Another option is a tournoument type of fotmat where you can sign up with a selected group ...10, 20, 30....teams as a suggestion can battle (and earn points)in a format...round robin for example...get creative from there

 

[mkm1g15]

Not a bad suggestion! But *cough*revenue*cough*

 

[IShrugged]

We just finished a ww where the opponent has every base crammed full of elephant archers, very strong ones too. Maybe level 6-7 or higher.. bases that supported 4 troop tactics had 4 troop tactics of elephant archers. In all there were over 50 troop tactics cards deployed in this ww. Oh and the ww was a poor match based on glory odds. 900 /30. They would have easily won the ww without them. What possible motive could they have had to waste 50 high end troop tactics in this manner? My instinct says cheating big time, but I’m still confused why they didn’t wait for a better match ww or one with reversed odd where they would have pulled off a shocking victory.

All in all all an amazing waste of troop tactics.

 

[Manifesto]

We just finished a ww where the opponent has every base crammed full of elephant archers, very strong ones too. Maybe level 6-7 or higher.. bases that supported 4 troop tactics had 4 troop tactics of elephant archers. In all there were over 50 troop tactics cards deployed in this ww. Oh and the ww was a poor match based on glory odds. 900 /30. They would have easily won the ww without them. What possible motive could they have had to waste 50 high end troop tactics in this manner? My instinct says cheating big time, but I’m still confused why they didn’t wait for a better match ww or one with reversed odd where they would have pulled off a shocking victory.

All in all all an amazing waste of troop tactics.

People who spend don’t care about the cost.
People who cheat don’t need to care about the cost.
Basically, people who only care about winning at all costs really only care about ‘’winning at all costs’’.

 

[Saruman the White]

And what happens if someone CWA donates a CWA unit to a Classical Age Stronghold? It remains there forever making that base invincible? Unless a much more advanced opponent is "forced" to spend an attack to bring this down. No, I don't think so

 

[GRANDPOOBA]

We just finished a war that was a complete blow out without stronghold troops....thrilling Victory!