The state of commonsense (WW edition)

[Fable]

Hello leaders,,casual players,,robots,,trolls...

Here r my thoughts on making WW great!

1) Reset the Glory lb (for u who will instantly feel your blood pressure rise and feel u have to object...cool, but if u r on the lb, won't u b again...)

2) Make "seasons" last 3 months and then reset the Glory pts. again. This is commonsense, clans that r out of the top 100 by an ridiculous amount will again have a chance to make the lb. It's commonsense really.

3) Reduce the # of participants in war to ONLY 10's,,20's & 30's. This will create more matchups, does anyone really run 50 ppl wars...really?

4) Sandbagging fix. Here's my take on it; for a 10ppl war the lvl diff. from #1 to #10 can b no greater than 25lvls...20ppl war 50 lvls...30ppl war 75 lvls. Commonsense, right?

5) Stalemates...the fact that this is still happening would have ppl fired if I was an owner of a company...but I am not. There have been countless suggestions on the matter and while all were great, I really liked least atts. used wins. In case of a tie there...ave. amount of time used (the quickest) @Nexon u keep track of both already...commonsense pls.

6) Troop cards...limit it to 1,,2,,3 whatever, but LIMIT IT! I didn't type get rid of them, making $ is beneficial, but LIMIT THEM USED IN WAR! WW already r a joke because someone signed off on this...FIX IT! Commonsense.

7) The stronghold...before u even put it out, LIMIT THE TROOP CARDS U CAN DONATE TO IT! Commonsense.

8) Cheaters/Hackers caught in WW...permanent ban!

9) Better incentives to war...increase the loot pls. Your basis of loot payout is severely flawed. U want more participants in wars? Double the payout, unless u actually do pay for the loot in the game and if u did...really?

10) Make the lb actually mean something! At the end of each season award the top team with bonus loot, crowns to b divided up, a spotlight on Facebook, a trophy next to their clan name (or something cool). Reward the top 100 as well. I am not suggesting something crazy, but why have a lb with no incentives to b on it. Do u actually think ppl go on social media and brag "My clan is #21 on DomiNations lb!"? No, no they don't (i am confident a troll will disagree though), they also don't put it on their resumes either. The lb should b significant, commonsense pls.

Well those r my top 10 (not specific order, just off the top of my head). I am sure I missed some other pts. so anyone who wants to contribute pls do :0)

 

[ColdestRage]

I would disagree with #3 as it means I'd have to sit out of war 7, or 8 ppl if I have 37-38 ready for war instead of siting out 2-3 of them

And about #10 - when my alliance was on top of lb (before sandbagging was so widespread ) I had written in my resume "great teamwork skills -my alliance is placed ... at Dominations leaderboards"
Sadly needed to erase it after sandbags took leaderboards as hostage

 

[Riyad604]

Fantastic post! Someone at Nexon please give Fable a consultant contract to fix this game before it completely goes down the crapper.....

 

[Fable]

#3 is just an example, I really think the less war sizes the better matchups/variety of matchups.

#10 if u r serious...my bad :0 (

 

[Fable]

Ty, I don't hold back on my opinions that's for sure lol, but I also try to give some ideas/suggestions as well. So many ppl have tried to help only to quit the game and leave this forum.

Communication is key @Nexon...oops that's commonsense, my bad.

 

[snowleopard]

Hello leaders,,casual players,,robots,,trolls...
Ok. Which one are you?


Here r my thoughts on making WW great!

1) Reset the Glory lb (for u who will instantly feel your blood pressure rise and feel u have to object...cool, but if u r on the lb, won't u b again...)
Great point and it should be implemented

2) Make "seasons" last 3 months and then reset the Glory pts. again. This is commonsense, clans that r out of the top 100 by an ridiculous amount will again have a chance to make the lb. It's commonsense really.
3 months is a short period. It may discourage alliance to obtain glory points and some might exploit it. 6 months or 1 year is a good period

3) Reduce the # of participants in war to ONLY 10's,,20's & 30's. This will create more matchups, does anyone really run 50 ppl wars...really?
50 ppl wars are rare but awesome. Not many alliances do 40+ war.

4) Sandbagging fix. Here's my take on it; for a 10ppl war the lvl diff. from #1 to #10 can b no greater than 25lvls...20ppl war 50 lvls...30ppl war 75 lvls. Commonsense, right?
Doesn't make sense to me. Number of players in war shouldn't be calculated with levels. (For ex: A big alliance has all right to play an Atomic age base as well an Englightment age)

5) Stalemates...the fact that this is still happening would have ppl fired if I was an owner of a company...but I am not. There have been countless suggestions on the matter and while all were great, I really liked least atts. used wins. In case of a tie there...ave. amount of time used (the quickest) @Nexon u keep track of both already...commonsense pls.
Solving stalemate shouldn't be a difficult task and can be done in different acceptable ways like what you suggested

6) Troop cards...limit it to 1,,2,,3 whatever, but LIMIT IT! I didn't type get rid of them, making $ is beneficial, but LIMIT THEM USED IN WAR! WW already r a joke because someone signed off on this...FIX IT! Commonsense.
I believe this feature is coming in the next update

7) The stronghold...before u even put it out, LIMIT THE TROOP CARDS U CAN DONATE TO IT! Commonsense.
I believe the update is not too far

8) Cheaters/Hackers caught in WW...permanent ban!
Absolutely

9) Better incentives to war...increase the loot pls. Your basis of loot payout is severely flawed. U want more participants in wars? Double the payout, unless u actually do pay for the loot in the game and if u did...really?
Yes, the loot should be increased. It will attract more players to play WW, creating more alliances and matchups.

10) Make the lb actually mean something! At the end of each season award the top team with bonus loot, crowns to b divided up, a spotlight on Facebook, a trophy next to their clan name (or something cool). Reward the top 100 as well. I am not suggesting something crazy, but why have a lb with no incentives to b on it. Do u actually think ppl go on social media and brag "My clan is #21 on DomiNations lb!"? No, no they don't (i am confident a troll will disagree though), they also don't put it on their resumes either. The lb should b significant, commonsense pls.
Great idea. Can be just a mention in FB account or some reward.

Well those r my top 10 (not specific order, just off the top of my head). I am sure I missed some other pts. so anyone who wants to contribute pls do :0)
Ok.

 

[Mountainking]

Warloot is absolutely horrible. It should be a minimum of 3 to 4X of what it is currently. It's garbage rewards as it costs 8-10x tactics, 8-10x mercs, coalitions and full blown army + the cost of donating troops to allies and war bases. It should be 4X really. Then there is an incentive to win wars.....

 

[aquawind]

While I generally agree on most of the points mentioned by Fable, I do not agree with the suggested fix for sandbagging.

Besides the point mentioned by snowleopard, a player's level does not necessarily show how strong a player is, in terms of military power, which is the sole factor that is used to match alliances in WW(at least that's what Nexon/BGH claimed it to be). There are many non military factors, ie economic infrastructures and upgrades, that could tremendously increase the player level; likewise, there are also many military factors, ie Wall level and University researches, that has no impact on the player's level.

Instead of setting a rigid level range that restricts players of certain levels that can participate in their alliance's WW, it might be a better idea to restrict or even forbid inactive players(aka abandoned bases) from being added to "be participated" in WW.

Alternatively, if the top and bottom 10% to 20% of the participants(depending on the number of participants) on the war rooster is not being included for war matching, it might decrease the effectiveness of sandbagging, leading to discourage the act of sandbagging

 

[S_How]

removing the bottom 25% from the matchmaking equation sounds like one of many ideas that could help this problem.

Removing inactive players probably wouldnt work. Its easy to log on to an undeveloped sandbag base daily to show activity.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I also agree about war loot. I'm mid IA and the 807/807/5100 I can get from wars is just barely more than I can get from a single extremely lucky raid with a loot blessing.

​​We should be able to do intra-alliance wars or 'training exercises' as well.

Maybe give an option for larger alliances to run two wars at once since they take so long. As well as a 'surrender' option that only the leader can use.

 

[Fable]

I am a leader...and maybe a little trollish. ;0)

6 months might be better than a year imo.

War sizes...just trying to make it more interesting, yes some ppl won't like the sizes, but it would mean more matchups vs. clans you've never faced before as well.

Sandbagging...just throwing out an idea, what would u suggest? :0)

Ty for responding, most likely this (as well as countless other posts ppl have took time to make) will not get any traction, but I am still trying.

 

[Fable]

True, i just wanted to throw something different out there (if it was mentioned before I apologize). With the level restrictions clans couldn't use iron age acc. with Atomic.

 

[Fable]

Excellent pts., that would b interesting, especially inter alliance wars.

 

[Player Killer]

#3. Why not allow 5 ppl war. There so many 1-2 ppl alliance and it is hard to find 10 players to form an alliance from scratch. We need to increase the number of warring alliances. Allow a small entry to participate in WW, give people an incentive to increase their war size through greater rewards for larger wars and increase alliance pool as small alliance will try to merge and form bigger alliances.

 

[Vixen]

Letting wars start at five might get more alliances started ... great idea

 

[Vixen]

Great ideas Fable

 

[Fable]

Ty :0 ) ......

 

[Fable]

5 ppl wars is a good idea.