We was only controlling our zone and we was first and with a margin of points. We did not attack them or anything. We tried to stay on our territory as we knew that pushing from left to right then middle is super hard. So we thought we just keep our base this time and see what happens. Somehow we was first and with lots of points from the second place. And why should they team up 3 to take us down. It should not be fighting on our zone but get the middle and fight there. The rewards or rank is not calculated from being first or second on your map but is a big leaderboard for everyone. Basically the think is that top alliances will split the center and not attack each other then fight with the low ones. And thatâs what I feel it should not be like that.
I hope and wish you do. But I hope you will explain to them how you actually did it. So everyone can learn that should be called TEAM UP WARS and NOT ALLIANCE WARS
If someone is stronger then you team up with someone lower it can be a bit more competitive and probably more of a thing. Which I donât agree as well. But the power wise strongest alliances teaming up to split the center then fight another which lower then them it donât work like that. And thatâs why I am asking for HH to cut this off and use tag names so none knows who you going against. Is a game mode where 80-90% of it is based on power. Let alone 3 that have more power attack you and you have 3x less battle points. How you suppose to do it?
Best to have some ice for that burn. See what happens in a game of war. Find a common enemy that is full of himself and take him down.
Learn to adapt in this beta. Then maybe on the next one it will be differentâŚmaybe
Your replying to one.
(You know who)
What is funny to me is that 3 stronger alliances teamed up but it took them until last day to get above us. Actually 3rd alliance was still below us last time I checked. Not sure if everyone who allied got the best deal lol.
I am not sure teaming up with more than one other other alliance gets you anywhere but top 50, which we are in anyways. I feel its a bad strategy and people are just thinking within the map. Pretty sure rewards will be for overall war rank and not just on your map.
HahahahaâŚtell it Matt_Smith.
Why would I have talked about what Iâve said if it was as normal as you saying. Nonsense. Basically 3 alliances teamed up and then I talked. Donât make your self out that out of nowhere I started to have it with those alliances or your alliance as it looks like youâre part of it. And then youâve teamed up mate. No is not like that. Basically 3 alliances teamed up then Iâve said what Iâve said. And why you are all dealing with me man. Please let go as I am very scared. Letâs just talk to the topic. I havenât called anyone out in here but what you actually feeling is that what I am saying is only the truth. Is not just this war but the last two. The first none teamed up we were 4th on leaderboard ranking. And that what should matter. I am not worried because this alliance or that alliance came first on our map. Thatâs a joke
I am sure that developers even they canât do nothing for now they are thinking of what can be done. And how can they make everyone happy. Not just top alliances. Whatâs happening now Is that top alliances in the same map team up. Split the center and then attack weak ones. If the unhappy alliances are about 10-20% now later on whilst the top alliances will do the same the percentages will raise to 20-30% and so on. All I am saying and KET4N explained very good is to tag names of the alliance and players. Thatâs all. Hopefully @Huginn and his team can do that.
There are some good debates going on here, and itâs great to see so much early interest in Alliance Wars! We are carefully evaluating all feedback and are taking all of your suggestions into consideration. We are committed to making Alliance Wars as fun and fair for everyone as possible. As @Vintermyst pointed out, this is a BETA, and we will be making many more adjustments and improvements as we go. Some of these changes can be done quickly, while others take more time and will be part of future version updates. We greatly appreciate your patience and understanding, and welcome your continued feedback and support to help us make Alliance Wars an awesome cooperative and competitive experience. We will do our best to keep you all informed of the changes coming to Alliance Wars over the coming weeks!
The light for my eyes. Thatâs a lot mate and very deeply appreciated. I do really like alliance wars and with some small changes to be fair for everyone would be a great game mode on this game. Thanks again.
Thank you for bringing in your side. The picture I had of was 3 alliance bringing in guns together on one formidable alliance at top. I am glad that it wasnât the case.
I was concerned and wanted to hear your side when you said you would. DM in current thread said that they were offered to ally up and since they didnât take it - they have no right to whine. I felt it went out of line since it all just painted it darker.
I am all for 1 on 1 or if one alliance wants to get more sectors, they themselves can choose to get into fight with more than one alliance. I only had concern if multiple alliances bring their might in higher tally of BP against one particular alliance.
TBH I never heard any of these alliance names except 25R for their dominance as PvP alliance and TACH for recruiting players on global or discord. I intend to bring forth a point that they arenât a weak alliance and if they really wanted to, they would have thrashed TACH back in way they wonât have known. There are obviously no rewards for Beta for winning so lot of alliances are skipping to invest time into it. They probably just wanted feel of map and how it works before real thing.
I have read in many discussions that it is happening, that alliances are allying and unlike this scenario, 3 on 1 is probably happening or will happen, even to me or you just because at one point someone will want to take leader down. Even the skillfull alliances may fall for brutish use of their points against finest 25 players there could be.
It isnât a problem if they dominated an alliance which isnât playing to win like they did with 25R. It was 1 on 1 just like your Commanderâs strategy to make deal with other alliance for sector was in fair region since it was in between you two - didnât concern anyone else. Itâs a move worth applause since it opened gates for your alliance.
I would still hope they make all alliances participating in map anon. Lot of alliances will abuse it because their seem no end to what awful it can do to competition. Cheerio!
I donât see him calling you cheater here and I am not sure why are you taking out personal grudge here when he is trying to make a valid point and has a very good suggestion. I am in the same alliance as gent, you did not capture most of our territory, red (KKND) did, same alliance who offered to ally with us when you and MOIN ganged up on them. You can look at the screenshot from gent and see colors in our territory and count who has the most, also, attack was coming from 3 of you and you were clearly not attacking each other so I would call that 3 vs 1. I think Gent and Ket4N have made a brilliant point here that lets not make it game of who allies first, there is really not as much strategy in that.
Also like I posted above you think this strategy might be best but it is not and no offense to you or your strategy. What you should look at is that though you ended up top on the map and barely did beat others, you were not in top 10 or 15 and if you ally with the strongest alliances sure you can chew/choke weaker ones but you will have to divide points with your ally and it will not get you in top 10. That is what we were aiming for and did not ally.
Fact that you have got totally wrong is that we attacked a weaker alliance. You should really look at the power of the one we were attacking, they have impressive power definitely way more than my alliance.
Also, I donât think you are cheater and something everyone should understand is English is not everyoneâs first language and clearing things out personally is better than holding grudges, after all we are all here for fun.
I hope for a manual combat system. The ai generated just seems off to me. And it doesnt leave much window. Like you will need 95 k to beat 89kâŚ
I would have said same but war is long and to ask players to coordinate is hard already like attacking together and stuff. Had there been less sectors and less BP it would have worked well but right now it would actually be counterintuitive.
To state fun example: Imagine running into boundaries of 25 Ronin teams. Itâs clear that not all 25 players can have good win rate against such combination. And lot of people already are annoyed of Ronin 
Maybe there can be a King of Hill kind of arena at center. All alliances who made it to center can have a PvP battle map for conquering a 3* sector.
I will reiterate what I said earlier. I donât feel this is the right place for taking out what happened on VIP chat. He is trying to present an idea here which if implemented none of this would have happened. We have PVP for personal grudges.
Also, from screenshot it seems like it was after 3 of you attacked on us and not before as per your description. I still donât see him using the word cheater here either, seems like you took his words way too personally from our last war.
It could be a manual vs ai. Similar to the gauntlet concept. It still presents with a challenge there on. You dont have to just drag the highest numbers and input there.