Alliance Wars Needs Improvement 2.0

Since the prior one got closed, but I honestly feel like we were having a good conversation.

One of my current biggest beef with Alliance War is the length of the War. A typical war will last from Monday and ends on Friday. That’s a 5 day commitment with 3 wars in a season. So if we look at it from a monthly standpoint, that’s 15 days out of 30, compared to the 6 days of bounty push. I don’t know how everyone else feels, but after a year plus of playing this, it’s getting repetitive and feels more like a chore than a game.

My suggestion would be to slash the length of each war down a day or 2, but increase the daily bp to 30 or 40, depending on the length of war days slashed. Most wars are decided early on, so extending it this long is only delaying the inevitable. By increasing the allowed BP usage per day, you will also be forcing individuals that is currently min maxing rosters for war to upgrade more of their rosters, unless they’re willing to reset with gold daily.

11 Likes

Dude, i’m not sure but i think somebody is not going to like this

2 Likes

I’m not being disrespectful. I’m expressing my feeling of playing war and made a suggestion on how it can be remedied. I’m not expecting any major changes immediately. I work for a tech company that gets feature request constantly and I understand that the release is planned months out. However, if the end customer does not make these feature request, no new features would ever be added.

7 Likes

This is a conversation that needs to be had and expressed, Muninn had no right closing the conversation and in my opinion it shows disrespect to the people who spent time doing exactly what he asked for in the form of emotive responses to what is bothering us. His argument with other community members gives no right to close and entire thread that is 99% what he is asking for.

In my opinion war is the right length but the frequency is too high to branch off from what Pilfer is saying. 2 wars a month same as bounty would reduce the repetitiveness, that way it stays more fresh. Rewards should be increased to the respective amount for the missing war however, having a war, bounty, war, bounty would be more useful rather than jumping from war right into bounty without the chance of any roster changes or break

11 Likes

Asian players like myself have a tough time catching up due to the time zone difference. War starts at 3am here and by the time we are up and ready to attack, half the map is already conquered. So the length per war is just nice for us to play catch up from no6 to no2 or no3. We can almost forget about getting top spot due to this circumstance. Aside from that, war is alright.

@Pilfer So, let me ask you. With the current war length, you say it makes you feel like it’s a chore? What do you mean?

Let’s remember wars were on the weekends and they were higher in frequency before.

I ask, not because I’m questioning your take. I ask, because my experience is the opposite. I feel it’s a healthy balance currently. Wars do take a lot of energy, but I’d rather be doing some war than nothing at all.

When we have no events or too much time in between events, what happens is the forums slow, VIP dies, Discord is a ghost town. I quite like the fast paced, constant conversations happening when events are taking place. It makes me feel like the community is engaged.

Shorter wars and with less frequency would make me feel a bit sad at the loss of something to do and loss of rewards. I want more rewards, not less. I feel like we are all trying to grow and less wars and less frequency of them would inevitably mean even less rewards. It’s happened before.

1 Like

Muninn has every right to monitor the forums. The conversation was escalating beyond control. It was not a conversation anymore, it had become about spreading anger, unsubstantive claims, and false words mistaken as truths.

Granted, I definitely didn’t want it to be closed. I loved how it was evolving. Let’s continue that here.

@forums: We are in day 3 of war now and I’m gathering my own form of note taking as wars are continuing to be able to add something to the conversation other than ‘jeeeeez, this suckssssss.’ I should have something substantial by the end of the week. I suggest everyone else continue to do the same to help aid this topic further along :slight_smile: Remember, describe how you’re feeling when certain things are happening!

3 Likes

Agreed Some parts were getting out of hand but closing posts outright and deleting others off the forums for nobody to see is just as disrespectful as the people saying they want X or Y to happen and complaining. Agreed as a dev he has the right to do what he wants but that does not mean that he SHOULD always exercise that power. Restraint and selectively responding would have been more appropriate imo

2 Likes

You posted a really good thread, not too long ago, on your feelings/thoughts on war and the burnout that many in top alliances feel from it. Can you link me to it? I’d actually like to reread it, because I wasn’t in a top alliance then, so I remember having a different viewpoint of it than I do now lol.

3 Likes

Okay. But that’s another topic. Let’s continue this one about why Alliance Wars may need ‘something’ else. And what we all are currently feeling about Wars now, even if that differs.

1 Like

@Raz There’s a huge difference in the amount of work put in as a War Coordinator versus a Contributing War member. You should know this as you’ve also done both. One of your prior post said so as much.

Your current experience is as a single contributor at Extac. Being main war planner is vastly different. Like Ghastly said previously, we need time to reload rosters and take a mental break from constantly staring at a map looking for sneak attacks, thinking of what your enemy is going to do next and what your counter will be.

There are other things that can take place of WAR such as the new co-op pvp, or alliance versus alliance co-op pvp tourney.

4 Likes

I believe this is the post you are looking for but I am not entirely sure

2 Likes

I’ll continue my feelings from my last post then, war has become the same routine of Airstrikes on day 1 and that decides if you win or lose. This has been the same for nearly 7 seasons now and needs to be shook up like how adding improvements for the first time where

It is vastly different commanding a war versus only playing in one. It’s shocking how diverse the roles are. In EXTAC, there are multiple war planners, so it aids us all. Day shift, night shift, that sort of thing. We have a couple at the top who are THE war commanders, but many of us pitch in. Usually our suggestions are met with discussion. The same could be said for REAVE in its current state.

I say this because I have been lucky to be in alliances with some form of balance within leadership. Letting it fall on one person creates the burnout I think Ghastly has referred to in the past. I’ve seen this firsthand in some other alliances. But Ghastly can only speak for his own experience…

I agree with you, pilfer, on many points that you have mentioned.

First off, I wanna say sorry for causing drama on the last post, as well as getting it closed. I wanted my opinion to be heard but took it too far and it got out of hand. I didn’t intend for that to happen, I spoke before thinking. ( @xUsMarinex )

With that out of the way, I wanted to say my own opinions about war. In most alliances I’ve been in this past few months, including my own, I’ve been leading war. I’ve never been much of a contributor, I’ve always enjoyed leading war. But it does frustrate me and many others for several reasons, and I wanted to point out one of those.

Surprise Attacks - This is probably the biggest complaint people have had about war. When war first came out, it was always fun racing to the middle to capture all the sectors before other alliances can. But with SA, other alliances can block you off from certain sectors, preventing you from capturing them. This honestly causes more frustration than the fun we used to have. To resolve this issue, I think there should either be a delay where you can’t use SA on the first day, or players shouldn’t be able to rush upgrades on the first day. Let me know what you think…

11 Likes

@OfficialGodlante 100 agreed with Sneak Attack taking the fun out of war. It’s why i proposed blocking ‘build rush’ the first hour of war or even limit it to only certain characters being able to participate in sneak attack. Limit Sneak Attacks to only characters that can go stealth such as Prophet, Mandrake, etc…

4 Likes

Never thought of only letting certain heroes be able to SA. That would be neat :).

3 Likes

In a real war, can you imagine sending in butter, dreadnaught or savage behind enemy lines for a sneak attack? They would fail miserably, lol.

3 Likes

I definitely agree that something should be tweaked about Surprise Attack. When you are blocked from moving really anywhere on Day 1, it can be extremely frustrating, and almost guarantees your ending rank, in my opinion. It becomes very tiring and exhausting to complete in wars when this happens continuously. I don’t have a problem with Surprise Attack. I think it’s a good feature, with its pros and cons, like everything. The first couple minutes of Alliance War are always my favorite. Watching my alliance rush to the center and 2*s brings me joy and satisfaction. But what ruins that feeling, is when we reach the center only to see that a neighboring alliance has blocked us in. That joy and satisfaction turns to frustration and anger. Then the alliance has the gut to ask for a truce, it’s rather annoying. :wink:

8 Likes

I feel like if Sneak Attack were removed completely, something would have to take its place. And I was wondering about the implementation of a system that could allow even the lowest ranking alliance of the day being able to somehow gain some ground, points, or become formidable?

Too many times I’ve seen an alliance simply give up and stop doing anything when their base becomes overrun on day 2-3. The frustration is very real. I would entertain the thought of scaling power the longer an alliance is at the lowest rank? I have no idea how this could work or if it’s feasible or if it would create more issues than not.

But what I’m entertaining is allowing even the lowest ranked alliances a glimmer of hope to be able to come back. Everyone loves an underdog!

4 Likes