Suggestions to make War more Dynamic

General Hero Hunters Discussion
#1

Following the recent topic complaining about people knowing the maps and it giving an advantage, this could be an opportunity to change the maps around, time for some new maps perhaps?

But instead of just generating new maps, why not offer some new things inside these maps such as a new layout, a massive map that is a pentagon with 1 alliance in the middle and alliances on the corners, 2* sectors at the mid points running in lines between the alliances, have a real frontline trench fighting over the bonus sectors. There is no way to fight alliances teaming up and giving away everything, that is impossible to counter, but randomness can be introduced to make it more dynamic. KLG suddenly want their sectors back? More than 6 alliances on a map? Bots? Random sectors that give buffs or random chance which could hurt as much as benefit? Maybe something that has the chance of giving more BP but the risk is you can lose half your BP? Adding dynamism to the maps would make each war more prominent and rememberable, they won’t all be the same. Of course these are things that probably won’t be easy to introduce and maybe impossible, but based on boredom I am seeing in most alliances and especially with alliances just giving up and letting alliances take turns winning, what would it hurt to try and change things up.

The problem war is facing is it is the same every week and it bores people, this is just one of many things that could maybe change that, opinions?

6 Likes
#2

I don’t think there is anything that can be done about alliances taking turns winning by exchanging wars in which they give their base to the alliance that is supposed to “win this week”. The only thing I can think of that could make it difficult for them is to make AW anonymous as in absolutely no alliance identifiers are shown on the maps or in the standings until the final results are tabulated. Perhaps not even show alliance standings at all during a war as that could be used to identify other alliances. And no war chat. War chat is used to talk to other alliances in the war you are in and if this was gone it would be even harder to identify who you are fighting.
Random maps would be good. Supposedly the maps are random now yet some alliances have figured out how to use probability to make a really good guess at the upcoming map. It does not appear AW maps are completely randomly chosen or we would have had instances of seeing the same map twice or three times in a row by now (I think).

The idea of having the KLG randomly fight back is an astounding idea, love that.

Much larger maps where you might not run into another alliance until day 2 could create more excitement because there would be a much larger battlefront for your enemies to choose where to cut into you from. Defenses would be thin and need to be mobilized and moved to react to attacks instead of just piling up heavy defenses in a line because you know the enemy has to push through to you from only one or two directions.

3 Likes
#3

The way I thought of approaching this was based on old RTS games like Age of Empires, you have an absolutely huge map with set paths you can go down, but you run the risk of being cut and your base attacked if you choose to go in 1 direction only. Anything to make it more dynamic and random would be great! Having more to defend makes it harder to defend, currently the front lines are too small to be meaningful in terms of defence

1 Like
#4

What if an alliance that takes a sector down to 1 hero to give away gets penalized some how.

#5

I believe current war system is soo awesome & fair and maps too…only problem is US… And nothing can fix wars’ issues cuz, we can’t change people’s mindset.

If map got bigger then, truce will make this issue even bigger… Small map is necessary… So that all 6 alliances can collide with each alliances in map soon & fight.
But, again… Small maps & fights means more frustration then, players will give up from wars soon… So, only solution is… Changing mindset of players.

#6

Good idea about being more dynamic. It would keep me on my toes and the sectors would be defended more. If KLG comes and takes over a sector, I would have to use more BP and that is unfavorable. Unless we can have 25 or 30 BP…

#7

One of the main challenges is that things have to remain fairly balanced. If we put your Alliance in the middle twice in a row, beset on all sides by other Alliances, you wouldn’t think it was fair. If another War session got random effects that weren’t so bad, and you ended up with ones that you feel caused you to lose, you would rage.

New maps are possible, but we need to carefully tune them, and that takes time. I’m not sold on asymmetrical maps or randomized experiences, especially when 7* Hero prizes are at stake. You should see the kind of mail we get about War already, with symmetrical maps and improved matchmaking to keep things as fair as possible.

There’s always room for improvement, but it comes down to time and resources. I’ll pass the thought along to the rest of the team. Thanks.

5 Likes
#8

It would also be useful if there was any improvement or a wait to transfer Bp among crew mates, with the transfer power lying with officers and above. Would be helpful for crews from different time zones.

1 Like
#9

I suggested that earlier where you no alliances know who the other alliances are til the end so that no truces or ganging up can happen.

#10

Everything is fair in love and war, so it’s not just about hitting and defending, but it is about strategy. So teaming up is also a strategy to do better in war. No way to restrict doing that.

#11

it’s fun until you get doubled or tripled team. My suggestion as well as Darrel, to spice thing up is to hide everyone on the map.

This will make war more interesting to avoid the ‘truce all’ and getting doubled or tripled team. People are going to go after the high sector a lot more.

3 Likes
#12

Well you are suggesting removing scouting option altogether, doubt that will happen. And there are 6 crews if 3 come together, you have the option to work with other 2 and form a 3 party as well.

#13

No, no one said remove the scout option. Simply that all player and alliance information would remain a ? on screen.

1 Like
#14

Scouting is a vital part of war now, I agree saying it should stay. But agreed perhaps complete anonymity would help make things harder for collusion. However it would in effect be impossible due to the rankings on the leader board, war chat would also need to be completely removed so there is no chance of you contacting or even knowing who to contact. This would make wars more interesting with the lack of group work and make it more like the early seasons where truces never happened, it relies on only skill and teamwork.

1 Like
#15

Agreed. I talked about eliminating war chat in an above entry and also keeping current ranking/standings unviewable until each war is finalized. There’s no need for a war chat really, and there’s no need to see where you stand until it’s over because you should be trying your hardest at all times.

And yes, I already know there is a way around anonymity, but at least it would be harder to collude and conspire.

#16

Alliance name should not be revealed till the final results and may be if possible should open up map from the beginning to track progress of others for Strategising if not possible then atleast reveal the final standing of war map at final result

Just an opinion, but should show final standing of whole map after results

1 Like
#17

Alliances would just say their name in war chat lol or give code words to allies in war chat. You’d have to get rid of war chat if alliances were to be kept secret. Even then, Discord exists for map sharing.

#18

@EricWayne true about war chat. My suggestions were to follow after yours failed to mention that