DomiNationsVigiles
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 199
Many people would like to see Alliance Wars implemented. What does that look like to you? Capturing objectives? Group battles? Pooling resources?
Weekly Feedback: How do you imagine an Alliance War might look?
- Thread starter DomiNationsVigiles
- Start date
- Status
Redgar
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Messages
- 1,394
First, it should be end-game-changer. Break-through idea of course is to make alliance location with buildings built by leader/advisors based on donated resources which would affect all alliance members in multiple aspects. Of course, there should be wars and smart medal system. Can be a great feature and CoC clans killer 
1) group battle vs tough general(different difficulties can have, big chariot boss for early age, big tank boss for later ages) Alternately this could be a solo player daily challenge 2) alliance vs alliance battles. Where alliance members donate resources so the guild leader can use the resources to build an alliance super castle. Then each member gets to attack the opponent castle once. Because of the power of the defending castle u would do damage to lets say the walls and a couple defense structures. With all 50 members ur able to kill the tc vs a tough well built castle.
Aussie guy
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Messages
- 368
I think pooling resources would be great. I'd love to send extra loot, trade goods, even unused citizens to other players who are building their bases. The capacity to build a shared alliance capital, where players could trade and donate things would be interesting. I have real concerns about group battles, as there are some alliances full of maxed up bases (yes, the hackers) and these alliances would have even greater advantages during alliance wars. My advice...don't proceed with alliance wars until you address widespread hacking. Alliance wars filled with hackers could kill this game. Alliance wars without hackers could make this game number 1 in this gaming genre.
firedancer
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 818
I don't want this game to be another Clash of Clans if possible. Something that allow the Alliance members to achieve together as a team without trying to go to war with other Alliances would be nice. All those clan wars are too stress, too tedious to manage and breaks friendship.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment. Releasing alliance wars and industrial age now would just lead to fully maxed hackers once again dominating everyone else with unlimited trade goods, max walls, unlimited max level generals, whatever. Not competitive or fun for anyone trying to do an alliance war that by its nature should be competitive and fun.
What I suggest is each alliance should be able to work together to create a super base, with the alliance leader having final say on the layout. This base has no limitations on the amount of stuff you can put in, however it must have at least one tc, 3 mills/markets, and 5 farms/caravans. Aside from that, anything goes, you can have 10 mortars if you please, or 2 tc to delay victories, it doesn't matter. This super base will then become the alliance capital during wars.
Wars can consist of 1v1 within a country map, 1v1v1v1 within a continent map, or a 10 alliance free for all within a world map. No matter the situation, when the war starts, each alliance is assigned their capitol territory within the map that will hold their alliance capital. the spawns will try to place your territory as far away from other alliances as possible. Once every alliance has their capitol territory the war starts, in a country map war spans 2 days, in a continent a week, for the world map a month
When war commences each player within the alliance has 5 attacks that recharge over time. Players can only attack territories that are adjacent to their alliance territory, when someone attacks a territory no one else can until the player is done with the attack. Similarly to boom beach, if the person fails to completely take the territory, whatever is destroyed stays destroyed. A territory is conquered if and only if the base is 5 stared, meaning its completely destroyed. Once that happens the territory belongs to the alliance
Certain territories will also have buffs that reward the alliance that conquers it, there are two types of buffs, war time and peace time. War time are buffs that help during the current war, ie troops do more damage or have more health, peace time are buffs that are rewarded at the end of war, ie food gold increased production etc. However, only the winning alliance can reap the benefits of peace time buffs ( or top 3 depending on the map)
Victory during war can be achieved by getting the most amount of points, points are earned through the amount of land conquered and by how many enemy alliance capitols your alliance controls. Whoever has the most wins the war
This is just my idea, feel free to leave feedback
Wars can consist of 1v1 within a country map, 1v1v1v1 within a continent map, or a 10 alliance free for all within a world map. No matter the situation, when the war starts, each alliance is assigned their capitol territory within the map that will hold their alliance capital. the spawns will try to place your territory as far away from other alliances as possible. Once every alliance has their capitol territory the war starts, in a country map war spans 2 days, in a continent a week, for the world map a month
When war commences each player within the alliance has 5 attacks that recharge over time. Players can only attack territories that are adjacent to their alliance territory, when someone attacks a territory no one else can until the player is done with the attack. Similarly to boom beach, if the person fails to completely take the territory, whatever is destroyed stays destroyed. A territory is conquered if and only if the base is 5 stared, meaning its completely destroyed. Once that happens the territory belongs to the alliance
Certain territories will also have buffs that reward the alliance that conquers it, there are two types of buffs, war time and peace time. War time are buffs that help during the current war, ie troops do more damage or have more health, peace time are buffs that are rewarded at the end of war, ie food gold increased production etc. However, only the winning alliance can reap the benefits of peace time buffs ( or top 3 depending on the map)
Victory during war can be achieved by getting the most amount of points, points are earned through the amount of land conquered and by how many enemy alliance capitols your alliance controls. Whoever has the most wins the war
This is just my idea, feel free to leave feedback
Last edited:
Nice this thread is worth the time to write a couple words
First of all I have to adress my concern that the last thing me and a lot of players want is this game turning into "the new CoC"...
Find a new way for us alliance-fighters to compete rather than a "copy-paste" from that crappy game
Why not have 3-4 different ways to make wars in war search for us leaders?
1 - Loot more than your opponent in 12-24 hours. Each member have 3 attacks maybe?
2 - Most stars collected in 12-24 hours (important to matchmake against alliances with the same count in realtime)
3 - Donate more troops than your opponent in 12-24 hours
4 - Hunt more animals than your opponent in 12-24 hours - Blessings should be anactive during this war!
5 - "single player" bases with hard difficult level where you get 10-50 attacks (depending on members in the war) and collecting stars and loot you keep if you win perhaps?
This way we can have a lots of war even if our alliances is in looting mode, medalhunting mode and so on...
I don't mean to sound arrogant but the "Super-base" sounds so fairytale
this thread is worth the time to write a couple words First of all I have to adress my concern that the last thing me and a lot of players want is this game turning into "the new CoC"...
Find a new way for us alliance-fighters to compete rather than a "copy-paste" from that crappy game
Why not have 3-4 different ways to make wars in war search for us leaders?
1 - Loot more than your opponent in 12-24 hours. Each member have 3 attacks maybe?
2 - Most stars collected in 12-24 hours (important to matchmake against alliances with the same count in realtime)
3 - Donate more troops than your opponent in 12-24 hours
4 - Hunt more animals than your opponent in 12-24 hours - Blessings should be anactive during this war!
5 - "single player" bases with hard difficult level where you get 10-50 attacks (depending on members in the war) and collecting stars and loot you keep if you win perhaps?
This way we can have a lots of war even if our alliances is in looting mode, medalhunting mode and so on...
I don't mean to sound arrogant but the "Super-base" sounds so fairytale
Well, I guess my choice of words were kinda wrong. What I meant is that together an alliance can create a new base that will be the capital base that represents the core province that the alliance can then stem out towards other provinces. After all throughout history the capital of any civilization/country was the most important place, generally in war if the capital fell, it meant defeat. So the capital had to be well defended. Besides, having the alliance create their capital base promotes cooperation. But that's my idea , maybe it does sound fairy tale but its something that I would like
, maybe it does sound fairy tale but its something that I would likeLots of good ideas.
How about alliance members being able to contribute toward the training of a champion? Diversity within an alliance would be beneficial here, so an alliance of all greeks wouldn't do as well as an alliance with a mix of nations.
So in addition to the things mentioned above you can also choose to pit your champion against the champion of another alliance.
I like the super city idea where things are pooled, but the "players-that dare-not be-named" should banned first.
How about alliance members being able to contribute toward the training of a champion? Diversity within an alliance would be beneficial here, so an alliance of all greeks wouldn't do as well as an alliance with a mix of nations.
So in addition to the things mentioned above you can also choose to pit your champion against the champion of another alliance.
I like the super city idea where things are pooled, but the "players-that dare-not be-named" should banned first.
Redgar
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Messages
- 1,394
Offtopic: Some notes on nations rebalance.
I play British and start from them. Probably I can't be 100% objective, but I still feel that my nation keeps the bottom even with the recent buff. May be devs will look at this too.
Why I think British are not competitive? Because they loose in all aspects to other nations.
If you target a lot of attack/loot, France is still the way better option with 20% army speed up. Even on training blessing, I am more than sure that 20% army speed up will bring you more resources than 10% more loot. In addition, France has better alliance gates.
If you compare economical aspect, Greeks still save you more resources than British extra loot, while they also have another perk.
Unique range unit which was disqualified with bigger towers range is worse than Chinese on damage.
And on top of that, ranged uniques are still the worst uniques and their value was even reduced with introduction of gatling unit.
My suggestions to make this nation interesting and unique would be:
- buff heavy tanks as the second unique british unit (it is logical based on history)
- or reduce tactics building times twice
- or give ranged units also bonus attack against HC (it would balance the necessity of ranged units imo)
- or this loot bonus should be somewhere at 25% level, but it's kinda boring option and it is better to add more different perks
Regarding other nations, my thoughts are:
- Japan may need economy buff, so it fits turtle gameplay more, e.g. higher gold or gold and farm production
- Chinese may also benefit from ranged units buff, but I think they could have stronger walls too, what is natural
- France could have HC AI improved or may be they could buff back HC attack a bit too, caz with new AI they'd hardly be OP. At least EA upgrade which is too weak.
- Greece could have e.g. stronger unique healer or also benefit from EA HC buff. Also, they could have ability to take a credit in TC or resources gifts from alliance members. This nation is so good at it.
- Germans need something besides rally. May be they may have unique tactics which adds extra speed to units.
- Romans are still OP, but if other nations get some perks, they should get something new too. I think they could get -1 costs on mercs (besides crystals)
In general, I'd like to see approach of exclusive library researches and tactics per each nation.
I play British and start from them. Probably I can't be 100% objective, but I still feel that my nation keeps the bottom even with the recent buff. May be devs will look at this too.
Why I think British are not competitive? Because they loose in all aspects to other nations.
If you target a lot of attack/loot, France is still the way better option with 20% army speed up. Even on training blessing, I am more than sure that 20% army speed up will bring you more resources than 10% more loot. In addition, France has better alliance gates.
If you compare economical aspect, Greeks still save you more resources than British extra loot, while they also have another perk.
Unique range unit which was disqualified with bigger towers range is worse than Chinese on damage.
And on top of that, ranged uniques are still the worst uniques and their value was even reduced with introduction of gatling unit.
My suggestions to make this nation interesting and unique would be:
- buff heavy tanks as the second unique british unit (it is logical based on history)
- or reduce tactics building times twice
- or give ranged units also bonus attack against HC (it would balance the necessity of ranged units imo)
- or this loot bonus should be somewhere at 25% level, but it's kinda boring option and it is better to add more different perks
Regarding other nations, my thoughts are:
- Japan may need economy buff, so it fits turtle gameplay more, e.g. higher gold or gold and farm production
- Chinese may also benefit from ranged units buff, but I think they could have stronger walls too, what is natural
- France could have HC AI improved
or may be they could buff back HC attack a bit too, caz with new AI they'd hardly be OP. At least EA upgrade which is too weak.- Greece could have e.g. stronger unique healer or also benefit from EA HC buff. Also, they could have ability to take a credit in TC or resources gifts from alliance members. This nation is so good at it.
- Germans need something besides rally. May be they may have unique tactics which adds extra speed to units.
- Romans are still OP, but if other nations get some perks, they should get something new too. I think they could get -1 costs on mercs (besides crystals)
In general, I'd like to see approach of exclusive library researches and tactics per each nation.
Leqendarybasher
Approved user
- Joined
- May 3, 2015
- Messages
- 15
I dont get it. Why Nexon or Big Huge Games cant release a next Update? Im am annoyed and pissed because so many bugs and problems. Where is Industrial Age? It should be possible to release one Update in a Month or not. Dont ask us about Feedback just work faster and better. Sorry but thats it.
Nathan Win
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2015
- Messages
- 842
No, most of us want BHG to fix all the bugs and cheats first before releasing Industrial Age. You said you hate all the bugs and problems, and yet you want them to rush out the Industrial Age. You don't make sense.
Damascus
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
- Messages
- 114
Domivigile, it really is nice to see a dev rep involved. I want to see wonders improved and alliance wars brought into the game. But its frustrating to think that you might have resources going into these things when you have other issues that have persisted in this game for to long.
The games battle AI has been a problem for far to long now. Why hasn't this issue been fixed yet? Why can't you roll the AI back to a previous model until you have the issue worked out?
I admit, I don't understand the technicalities of what I am asking for but you guys could at least tell us you can't just do any of that but you are working on it. Maybe you can give us an idea of when this issue with be fixed because its really frustrating to us.
The games battle AI has been a problem for far to long now. Why hasn't this issue been fixed yet? Why can't you roll the AI back to a previous model until you have the issue worked out?
I admit, I don't understand the technicalities of what I am asking for but you guys could at least tell us you can't just do any of that but you are working on it. Maybe you can give us an idea of when this issue with be fixed because its really frustrating to us.
Need to consider basics like player bases in the process of upgrading when an alliance war starts. If an alliance wants to actively war, its members will be disincented from starting multi-day upgrades if that puts them at a disadvantage. Peace treaties and players being online should not prevent opponents from attacking (otherwise we will have the same issue we currently have with revenge), and then there is the question of loot. If bases are unprotected from alliance war opponents, taking loot from storehouses in an AW matchup might be unfair. Should AW battles yield medals? Yes if we ever want to populate the top three leagues. Should one member losing an AW battle create negative progress for the entire alliance? Not if we want to encourage everybody in the alliance to participate in the war...
- Status
