No announcement yet.

5 flame penalty in wars - really needed?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5 flame penalty in wars - really needed?


    since there is an interesting topic going on I thought about adding something similar without hi-jacking the other thread.

    Since the very first day I am asking myself why does the other team automatically get 5 flames for any spot missing below 50 members?

    I always thought wars are about activity - in the higher leagues for sure they are... but I´d assume till platinum that team with 20 inactives spotholders will win any war against a team with only 30 -but very active- members.


    The 5 flame penalty actually feels like a 10 flame penalty. Because the opponent automatically gets 5 flames (means one person less attacking is needed to win) while you are automatically missing one attacker bringing you 5 flames - that makes the gap between both teams 10 flames with one missing person.

    Many rules in war make sense - like you cant attack in a war if you entered after being declared. For this one I can´t see the benefit so far.

    So my proposal would be:
    DO NOT give the opponent automatically 5 flames for any missing member. That way the core of both guilds show who is the more active and finally a tight group of friends with 30-40 People can actually compete with others. The team with less members is having disadvantage enough by lacking attackers.

    What I havent thought fully through yet is how to treat members leaving during war. I guess then losing 5 flames would be necessary otherwise you could win a war simply by leaving and the opponent can´t attack you anymore for 5 flames.

  • #2
    what you are suggestion is not going to work, because in this case, a team of 5 with high lvl members can beat any team with lower lvls. It is just the way how war is designed in the game, it makes the leader and officers work hard to get a full clan, this topic has been going on many times for a long time. It wont change. Also giving 5 flames to opposite team when somebody leaves is necessary otherwise any team can remove 1 person and bring on a crazy high lvl to help with war.


    • XDragonizer
      XDragonizer commented
      Editing a comment
      You can already do that. If one of your teammates has attacked and been attacked. You can swap him out with the crazy high level dude to help with war.

    • SuperSax
      SuperSax commented
      Editing a comment
      That is exactly my Point!
      A team of 5 friends who want to stick to themselves ... all lvl50 will NEVER win a war against a Team with 20 Players who accidentially clicked on a join button but in fact only one active Player is in that clan!

      Well thats just one extreme Scenario. More likely it´s like this:
      you are a platinum or sapphire Team with 50 members. One member leaves, other member gets kicked by autokick and one joins another clan... boom! You are down to 47 members. Immediatly you will get challanged by Teams much lower then you simply because you can´t catch up those 15 flames.

      My vote is: give the rest of the 47 members the chance to beat the others and not make 47 lose automatically because 3 people messed it up!

    • Sabin76
      Sabin76 commented
      Editing a comment
      In my experience, a team that is "much lower" than you will be hard-pressed to beat your team even when you are down 3 members. Unless a team has just moved into your league from below, they are generally "low" because their own activity isn't so great.

      EDIT: Clearly, this is set up to encourage filling out your team and discourage having a small team of just friends playing with each other. Like it or not, the intent is obvious.
      Last edited by Sabin76; 4 days ago. Reason: Added an additional point.

  • #3
    Here's the issue, you have 45 members and the other team has 50. With your idea the most flames the full team could achieve is 225. That would result in a tie. How does that make sense?


    • Sabin76
      Sabin76 commented
      Editing a comment
      To expand on this post... which is more difficult: getting a team of 20 players to all attack in a war or a team of 50 players? As pointed out here, in this case, there is a war tie and the fact that you might have 30 more active players than the other team does nothing for you despite all the extra effort required in getting 30 more active players.

    • Cameron90
      Cameron90 commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks. Made my point better than I could 😅😂

  • #4
    Hmmm... that´s actually a very valid point! you can´t punish the other team by not having any "attackable" opponent. Without tweaking a 1 man clan could declare war on a 50 members and tie!
    Thanks for that insight!

    Yet Im not giving up yet. There got to be a way to reward higher activity of one team without automatically punisihing the other team with 5 lost flames per missing member?! Any other ideas?


    • cbwolfe
      cbwolfe commented
      Editing a comment
      The only tweak I would add to the issue you're looking to address is that you should have up until the war begins to fill out your roster. Other than that, the 5 flame thing is more or less fine with me.

    • Sabin76
      Sabin76 commented
      Editing a comment
      But that introduces the problem of people dropping low levels and picking up high level mercenaries for the war. I don't really see another way to do this that doesn't introduce larger problems.

  • #5
    It has to be that way and it is good that way.... A team who calls themself active and good will find players, for sure. I had that situation often when i fall from 50 to 38 or other teams will know aswell... There the leader has to invite people . And if they are a good team they will find.

    The situation isnt event that 50 half active will win... Some teams just get 150-160 flames, even with 50 players... so if you are just a few less you can win anyway. We are not talking about saphire... teams where that often is , is at the bottom of platin or deeper!

    Just 1 funny thing... 1 extreme player vs 50... he pics up a lowlevel and beat in seconds... so he cant loose ? There is no logic... its stupid!
    If its a pain for you that enemys get 10-20 flames more... then do something against it, instead of blaming the system...

    This system works more fair! Honestly i was leader since bronze league and know all steps to come high... So nobody can just blame others for such a obvisiously better handling.

    Advise: If you need help and dont know how to solve it better... we like to help you !
    Last edited by EmrahT; 3 days ago.


    • #6


      • #7
        The purpose was to start a discussion and to heare opinions. Obviously the System is - as it is - accepted and that´s a good insight.
        The more I read here and the more I think about it, there might be other pptions to avoid the 5 flame penalty... but they all would be probably a lot more complicated!

        My assumption is, that this is no issue of Diamond League. My intentions were simply to help smaller teams avoid the transition phase from filling clan and then cleaning out inactives step by step from bronze to platinum. The other Intention was to end the typical sapphire league behaviour where so many teams are simply equally strong and everyone is just waiting for another Team to drop to 49 and gets declared war right away (the war system seems to work, that Situation is nevertheless boring and demotivating).

        EmrahT you did already help me with your opinion - thanks for that!


        • EmrahT
          EmrahT commented
          Editing a comment
          I thank you for this discussion, wrong or right, it helps us together !
          Well for that PG had creat the inactivity system... that people who are inactive inside a time, fly out the team...

          The games have rules, and every person play with them... at least if the rules change, then for everybody, and then it will still have room for advantages
          So i am fine with that, maybe you can ask in a different topic for help about your team if need, so there we can discuss about aswell.

        • Cameron90
          Cameron90 commented
          Editing a comment
          The only other thing you could do is leave the empty spot as attackable, and the player would have to "attack" the empty spot to get five flames. I personally think the system works fine as it stands.