New Forums are now up!

Greetings Dragon Lords! Please visit our new forums at! We're leaving this old forum up for a period of time to allow players to migrate over any important posts, but will eventually close them out. Please note that you will need to log in using your PocketID over on the new forum. You can also access them through the game by tapping on Settings > Forums!
See more
See less

War and backing

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War and backing

    Dear forum,

    I would like to start a discussion on how to make WARS more fun and equal.
    Equal in the terms of having fun and making a difference because you can fly a dragon and/or build a base.(Which doesnt matter now.)

    I am aware that the situation is probably different for all teams and less so for Top Tier Teams, but the scenario with a level 40, attacking a level 180, backed by a level 250+ is not uncommon.
    Wars for lower tiered teams comes down to having one or more monster(s) on the roster that is active, and willing to back most of the attacks made.

    Is there a way to make Wars more "equal"?

    Would it work if there was a +/- 25% level difference cap on the target you attack? (Example. If attacker is level 100, attacker can attack in the range of level 75-125)
    Could it be +/- 50% ? (If you are a level 100 you can attack in the range of Level 50-150)
    Above should count for all that are invited for the attack.(Ideal scenario would be that the invite only pops up for those who are in range)

    I'd like to hear suggestions to fix the scenario of that lone highlevelled player who is the deciding factor for the outcome of a war.(I know the team as a whole has to be active)

    Is there a fix? Is there a better suggestion ?


  • #2
    That's just part of how it goes. I don't think there's any solution that isn't worse than the problem. It's a heavy burden to be a high level carrying an entire team, so there's that.


    • #3
      No that would fuck over teams that dont have 300+ levels and only have players in the mid hundreds.... i'm only 196 myself but I can solo bases up to the mid 300s, this would limit me greatly in bases I can attack


      • gaza8143
        gaza8143 commented
        Editing a comment
        Same here but can only drop bases at around 300 if defended :/

    • #4
      If you are against a team where one player has to back every attack, then just hit 250 first and win by defense points easily!
      Love Red,

      Leader of Rulith
      Lover of Spreadsheets

      Helpful Threads:
      How to Build YOUR Ultimate Breeding Path
      Red's Breeding Paths: Sapphire to Emerald

      Rulith's Website:
      All Breeding Paths
      Red's Guide to Flying Hunters
      Dragon's, etc.

      Twitter - @TheRedDelilah


      • Mr. Nuffle
        Mr. Nuffle commented
        Editing a comment
        I recognize that strategy. It comes down to activity.

        But the scenario i am describing is unfortunately not an issue for you guys in the High end of the Tiers.

        Example. The League i'm in - Our highest is a level 202.
        Our opponent had one level 302 with a 165mil defens base.
        It wasn't possible for us to ever go beyond 245 points.

        Unfortunately this is not an uncommon strategy either.

    • #5
      agree this tactic is kind overpowered if you're in a low league. A team using this tactic will quickly get pushed up into a higher level league where there's tons of high level players on the team... and get smashed


      • #6
        Your only fix would be not to allow level 300's in the same team as level 40's. Not to allow level 40's in Sapphire, not to allow level 300's below Diamond. etc.

        It's not possible, nor is it practical to prevent players from helping their team mates hit targets when they have to go up against teams with such a diverse range of player levels within the team.

        It is a well known and used tactic to get low level players hitting higher with high back up early in the war, so that those who come on later regardless of their level are more easily able to solo a base, reducing additional defences etc.

        Currently you've also got a lot more wars happening while teams with these higher level players are trying to get back into the higher leagues.

        Most of this should sort itself out over time. Other than that, it is a strategy, if everyone keeps trying to reduce the game so it's fair for everyone there will be no strategy left, and we've already seen too much strategy be removed from the game already.


        • #7
          Can someone at PG address the flame-losing situation where if another player attacks the same target, the previous player loses flames/participation in war? Example: player 1 attacks enemy player 10. Player 2 attacks enemy player 10 and player 1 loses the 5 flames he/she earned and the total team flame count doesn't change (since player 1 lost the flame count). Can PG make it so that the other players can not attack the same enemy player? (I know what you're thinking..why are players attacking the same target?!?) This can happen when the team is active and starts attacking with their own group of pre-arranged backups. When it happens (not all the time obviously), it's pretty annoying. Anyway....that's my ask.


          • Fairyknight
            Fairyknight commented
            Editing a comment
            My old team solved this by having a war chat where the target were called and back up organised. Likewise you could asign target beforehand.

          • GodofNoobz
            GodofNoobz commented
            Editing a comment
            That's more of a team structure and communication issue. I've only experienced that when I first started playing and was learning the ropes. Once you get on a team that has structure and good communication that will never happen.

          • Cybrawl
            Cybrawl commented
            Editing a comment
            "Never" is a pretty strong word...yes, you have a point but it can happen and all I'm saying is that it would be good if it couldn't happen.

        • #8
          I'll drop this here again, it's an old idea I had before the defense counter was put in and while everyone was still debating how to fix wars.

          My idea has always been a limit on the total attacks each player can do in a war. The most common numbers those who agreed with me suggested was either 3 or 5 (5 is my preference). No defense counter. This is total attacks. Your own war attack and assists combined.

          It is not perfect and teams with great dragons (and players who can fly them) will win more often than those with big bases I think. But I think it's the fairest solution and would bring a new level of strategy and fun back to wars.
          Last edited by CaptainC; 06-19-2017, 10:52 PM.
          What, me worry?


          • Mr. Nuffle
            Mr. Nuffle commented
            Editing a comment
            I like it.
            Not saying that 5 is the optimal solution, but it's certainly better than the 35-50 runs we experience now.

            Even 10 would be better than now.

          • Dravoz
            Dravoz commented
            Editing a comment
            I like the sound of that idea. Would certainly bring a new level of strategy into wars.

        • #9
          The way to break a team with a few monsters and the rest pions is to continually war them. That monster will get tired fast carrying the team.


          • Mr. Nuffle
            Mr. Nuffle commented
            Editing a comment
            That carries the risk of continually losing, which is not a viable strategy for most teams.

            I can see your strategy work if the League as a whole used this strategy. Our team would move a League down after 2-3 tries.

        • #10
          One successful attack per player, one backup per player.
          1 Dragon used ( Primary Attacker solo = 5 flames
          2 Dragons used ( Primary and Backup = 4 Flames
          3 Dragon used = 3 Flames
          4 Dragons used = 2 flames
          5 dragons = 1 flame

          Throw defenses out the damn window, the team with the best flyers and smartest attack strategy wins. Using this format. ties will be highly unlikely and stops a single player from being the entire team. In the event of a tie, then and and then will defenses matter.


          • CoffeePop
            CoffeePop commented
            Editing a comment
            Think this would be a great update. Have assisters dragons count as dragons used for flame calculations. this would make teams think about matchups and woud get like levels attacking like levels.

        • #11
          Originally posted by IncaususOsinaa View Post
          One successful attack per player, one backup per player.
          1 Dragon used ( Primary Attacker solo = 5 flames
          2 Dragons used ( Primary and Backup = 4 Flames
          3 Dragon used = 3 Flames
          4 Dragons used = 2 flames
          5 dragons = 1 flame

          Throw defenses out the damn window, the team with the best flyers and smartest attack strategy wins. Using this format. ties will be highly unlikely and stops a single player from being the entire team. In the event of a tie, then and and then will defenses matter.
          we've proposed that before, and regardless of the debate now on the value of that system, the reality of the war system now is that very simply put, it makes PG money. once the defense counter was implemented, top teams started burning thru hammers left and right in diamond, and had to start speeding up making them in the forge to get more, that used up rubies, and still uses up rubies. changing the system to anything else at this point would result in a noticeable decrease in revenue (I'm guessing) that PG wouldn't like.

          look at what happened to this season's divines. it took all of 1-1.5 weeks for them to notice a considerable drop in spending because of their poorly designed skillsets on the new seasonal divines, so they announce several changes and the upcoming obsidian tier to make sure they keep making money...

          plus, any changes to the war system would require considerable work and testing, especially compared to relatively simple other changes (such as adding more tower levels to a database/spreadsheet for the next fort event)


          • Mr. Nuffle
            Mr. Nuffle commented
            Editing a comment
            Clay, I am aware of the situation regarding spendings and how that can possibly affect the outcome of PG actions or lack of same.
            But this was just a plea for a debate and suggestions toward Wars and how to improve the current situation for many many teams.(especially the lower teams).

            So - How can we improve that situation in a perfect world. Where we do not shoot down the question because we have a gut feeling that a drop in spendings may or may not prevent a future change.

        • #12
          If someone wants a recap of how we ended up has defense counter as the tie-breaker, you can read a really long post i wrote about the subject here:


          • CaptainC
            CaptainC commented
            Editing a comment
            I remember all the debates and discussions, and don't want to start all that again frankly. And the defense counter is a big improvement over what we had before.

            I just hope that PG keeps an open mind and looks at some of these other ideas again or some of the new ones. The system is still broken and since wars are a major part of a war game we just want to try and fix it.

          • ITIL
            ITIL commented
            Editing a comment
            Thanks again for the insight, always interesting to learn about the history behind some decisions.

        • #13
          In my opinion the fix for this is fairly simple...
          Instead of determining which league you are in by points, this should be determined by level. This way the lower level leagues ONLY have lower level players in them, there are no high level players to skew the wars. Once they reach Sapphire, then you can start going by points to determine who gets into diamond.


          • NUM1PHAT
            NUM1PHAT commented
            Editing a comment
            I don't quite follow this logic. I am currently a 142. By no means a high level. At any point in time I can start a new team, or join a lower level team. Or what if there is an over-achiever on a low level team, drops some coin, and levels up in the 200's while the rest of the team in sub 100?

          • hostage67
            hostage67 commented
            Editing a comment
            - You can start or join a new team within your league, you wouldn't be able to join a Bronze league for example where all the level 50's are hanging out. You would have to join a different guild within the Platinum League (or whatever league your level places you in).
            - As players level up they are promoted to new leagues. So instead of the entire team moving to the next league, only the players who have leveled past the league boundaries would be moved up.
            - When attacking you would only see the players in your league. So assuming you're a level 300 player, then you might be seeing bases that range from 250-350.
            - Alternately I suppose instead of forcing players into moving leagues, you could simply state that anyone who attacks outside of their expected league bracket gets no rewards. This means a level 300 couldn't back a level 50 in war. This means that a level 300 gets zero RSS when attacking someone outside their range (ie level 250's and lower). This means when a level 50 runs a base, and gets backed by a level 300, NO ONE in that run gets RSS if the base is below the 300's range.

            The whole point is to stop these level 300+ players from abusing the lower level players. the entire game revolves around this functionality right now and frankly it makes for shitty gameplay.

        • #14
          Originally posted by INFOWARS1776 View Post
          You should NOT get max flames on a base unless you can get 100% with one dragon without backup. Max 6 flames?

          6 Flames = 100% w/ 1 dragon
          5 = 100% w/ 1 backer
          4 = 100% w/ 2 dragons
          3 = 100% w/ 2 backers
          2 = 100% w/ 3 dragons
          1 = 70-99%

          That would make wars where the best overall team would win rather than a mediocre team with one lvl 400 that backs every attack
          Slight variation of the suggestion above
          Last edited by INFOWARS1776; 06-20-2017, 11:23 AM.


          • #15
            In our past 2 wars our level 300+ guy has had to hit a level 50 player as a final war hit due to his schedule. We took down bases from the highest down to the lowest so i don't think that a minimum should be included at all.

            Nor do i think that we should adjust it to 6 flames as mentioned directly above. That is simply ridiculous.

            I like the limitation of COMPLETED war runs a person can do, aka a person may only collect up to 25 flames per war. After that they will not be able to join attacks, or that attack won't count. Not sure how this would look but it would strong TEAMS win more consistently instead of a single player backing all the runs.