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

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; 02-16-2017, 12:32 PM. 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; 02-17-2017, 06:21 AM.


    • #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.

      • #8
        I thought about the whole Topic again ... feeling remains: we warred a Team which was 2 members down and therefore we won (although the other Team was stronger and should have actually lost): We would have won the war with 3 inactives OR even 4 inactives if we lead the defense... compared to 2 not filled member spots it feels unfair. Yet the Point of not giving 5 flames for any untaken spot doenst work...

        So the new idea is if at least the fact of losing a member during war (e.g. autokick) can be soothed a little? At the Moment it´s like this: if a member leaves during war ...
        ... it can´t attack anymore (so the former Team has automcatically 5 flames less)
        ... the Team loses 5 flames automatically IF by the time the member is gone no one attacked him/her before.

        How about this: if someone is leaving a war, the war roster is kinda "locked". Simply leave the name on the roster and make him/her still attackable (dont cross the Name off with "left Team").
        That way the opponent still has to have the activity to gain those 5 Points and the other Team has no disadvantage.

        Yes, there might be the issue of leaving a member and swapping it out for a bigger one... but seriously. Who does that? And the Teams who would like to do that can do that TODAY already without the 5 flame penalty (simply swap a member which was attacked and did the run already).


        • Jess
          Jess commented
          Editing a comment
          Nope. It seriously doesn't, make any difference at all. There is a reason the system is the way it is.

          I might be in Diamond now and have been, well for quite some time but I did work my way up in various teams from bronze all the way up, like many of us did despite what the player base seems to think. If you are down a player you don't have to just roll over and bare your collective throats to the other team.

          If you are a good, active team you'll find players. If you loose a war or two just because you are down a couple, well go recruit a couple of players then prove it.

          If you think it's boring because you are in a league where teams are evenly matched and 'just waiting for a team to loose a player' then perhaps it's time to start being competitive and just plain get better than the other teams. Use it as an opportunity to learn.

          A team with '30 active players!' Doesn't and shouldn't get a free pass for the 20 players they don't have on their team. The opposing team shouldn't be penalised just because the other team only has 30 to their 50.

      • #9
        I'm calling it. Time of death 23:57. 😜


        • #10
          Your wrong!

          Extreme Example

          50 - very active - level 40 players lose to 1 - low active - person.

          The 1 low active person is a level 400 player who got tired with Diamond.
          Than created his own team which he name "Retired".
          Only comes on to talk smack to people & war.

          No Penalty.
          What you going to do?


          • Goober
            Goober commented
            Editing a comment
            They are going to lose and they should find a new team. Done.

        • #11
          MareZ ~ lvl20X ~ Garnet Tier Dragons

          Important Threads to find everything you need


          • #12
            For the record, I am on board with the current system - it IS a team game, and penalizing for not having a full team kind of promotes that.

            That said, I kind of see where the OP is coming from. The free five flames is a double penalty, as the shorthanded team automatically loses flames on top of the fact that those empty slots are not able to earn any flames: 2 empty slots is 10 flames for the opponent PLUS 10 flames they can't earn = 20 flame deficit..

            Perhaps if the system were to stay exactly the same as it is currently, except no team gets 'free' flames for warring with a team that isn't full - the empty spaces would still need to be 'attacked' (Presumably just by clicking 'Attack') in order to claim the flames. Still no extra attacks for the short handed team or anything like that - still a 1 person gets to be primary attacker against 1 base/slot. No changes to the rules on if a player leaves or joins during war, etc.

            For example: A team with 50 players declares war on a team with 48 players. The way the system is now, the team with 50 players starts the war with 10 flames. What if both teams started off with zero flames? If both teams have 100% participation, the full team will win (250 - 240), which is as it should be. But if the full team has 2 players that sit the war out - the playing field is then equal, so why shouldn't the outcome be (240 - 240, therefore dependant on defense to break the tie - assuming for a second that the defense counter is working)? And if the full team has 3 or more sit it out, but the shorthanded team has 100% participation, the short handed team wins - they have more 'fighting' members, so realistically, they should win (235 - 240).

            I can see both sides of the argument, and ultimately I don't really care either way. Just presenting it from a different and more simple angle than I have seen (although I admit I haven't read the whole thread).
            Last edited by itsjustjoe; 04-21-2017, 12:41 PM.


            • TheRedDelilah
              TheRedDelilah commented
              Editing a comment
              If a 50 person team declares on a 48 person team and the 10 flames aren't given to the full team, both teams could only get 240. The full team would be two target short and thus unable to hit 250 flames. Thus, the full team would be unable to have 100% participation in wars.

            • itsjustjoe
              itsjustjoe commented
              Editing a comment
              Ah, I forgot to incorporate the need for players to 'attack' the empty slot - fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out .
              Last edited by itsjustjoe; 04-21-2017, 12:47 PM.

            • gaza8143
              gaza8143 commented
              Editing a comment
              Empty slot could just be a copy of the weakest base on the team and no ability to defend it would be fair.

          • #13
            Just throwing this out here...

            What if the total number of war attacks possible were set based on the number of players on the defending team. So, if a team with 50 players attacked a team with 38 players, there can only be 38 attacks. No bonus flames would be given, and the attacking team has to choose 12 players who will sit out the war entirely. If a player involved in the war drops out from either team once the war is declared, then the other team gets 5 flames (unless they have already been attacked, of course.) That would then be a war won by the strength of the participating players, and not simply because of overwhelming numbers.

            However, if it is the other way around, and the team with 38 declares war on a team with 50, then all things remain the same as they are now. The defending team would start out with a 60 flame bonus, and all 50 players would be eligible to attack (until they ran out of targets.) That would prevent the hypothetical one-man-super-team from moving up in the ranks.

            Wars would STILL encourage teams to recruit because you'd want a full team in order to declare a war, but teams wouldn't be punished for losing players and having to rebuild/recruit.

            i suspect that PG would have to revamp their war coding to incorporate players who are chosen to be inactive, but maybe they can put the guy who came up with that rediculous chest-opening animation on it.


            • Jess
              Jess commented
              Editing a comment
              Nope. Its a war game get a full team.

            • PogTheWarrior
              PogTheWarrior commented
              Editing a comment
              Well, THAT was certainly helpful and constructive...

          • #14
            I think you need to fire/demote your recruiting officer.
            I honestly don't see why you are having such a huge problem with filling up your team.

            Put your Katy Perry Avatar on, Than go out in League Chat and put on a recruiting concert.
            They will join by the hundreds.


            • #15
              Can see it being hard for those who want to build a team or need to recover after a blow... still, I am with Jess here.

              From a different angle, I think this issue wouldn't be as present if Red's league re-structural proposal would come through. There are too many teams out there, with too many of them sandbagging leagues they shouldn't be in in the first place (with still too many teams in leagues they shouldn't be in even without sandbagging).

              With league tier and position becoming of the essence once again, player/team density in appropriate leagues will do their part naturally.