25 attacks is “too many”

First off let me say, yes I wrote the title right, and no I don’t want less attacks.

The main issue with 25 attacks is that it takes out much of the strategy for low to mid level guilds. For high level player guilds, the following discussion will be a non issue.

My reasoning is this. With 5 players at 25 attacks each, there is a total of 125 attacks per battle. This means that all 4 bonus sectors and 11 regular sectors could be completely cleared with a few attacks left over. So the entire “A” line and “B” line can be cleared which are attacks up to RSL+6. The point is for any guilds with a majority of players that aren’t fighting at RSL+7 or higher, there is really no strategy involved. Previously, with only 100 attacks per battle, there were more available targets compared to attacks which would mean a little coordination would be required to decide if you want to go down the A line or skip to the B line, for example. Now, it’s just a matter of making sure you have a high power player on the team to clean up after all the grunt work has been finished.

Ultimately, I think NG did a great job balancing attacks to the map in the first beta. I definitely prefer having 25 attacks though. The solution? I believe the map needs to be adjusted a bit to accommodate the greater number of attacks. Maybe add a 6th column, or an extra target per sector. I believe this will emphasize more of an element of strategy back for the lower powered guilds.
maku11PasteNezokmrBurmeliinisDirtyB696HershalmirRickMSAGENERALR20BRDrhooKatz_Killers18Buckzz

Comments

  • NovellNovell Member Posts: 361
    Agree!

    20 attaks are enough. But 3-4 sign ups would be awesome. With more sign ups there will be less wars with 3-4 players.
    Proud member of WEIRDnDEADLY
    GENERALR20BRDrhoo
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 829
    Let's settle on 22.5 ;)
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
    GovernatorSCBMADrhooJoeBob
  • FirekidFirekid Member Posts: 3,157
    Strangely after campaigning for 30 attacks last war I think I may be in agreement, apart from the extra RP which is lovely our guild found we ran out of maps to suit the players skill levels, I mean whose going to risk losing out on rp attempting a level 43 mission? This meant that some of our players had to take on the really easy maps which let’s face it aren’t really “fun”. Will see how the rest of the war goes before giving more feedback though.
    TCBRITO
  • BurmeliinisBurmeliinis Member Posts: 1,163
    Agreed, there is less strategizing now. I was quite happy with 20 attacks.
    Ingame username: Jubjab
    TCBRITONezo
  • tjhookrtjhookr Member Posts: 72
    20 was better, the map is clearly tailored for that, and now that wars can start with 3 people 25 attack gives even more advantage
    TCBRITO
  • VaneVane Community Manager Posts: 228
    edited February 2020
    Thanks for the feedback guys, as you pointed out earlier, the current map was indeed designed with 20 per player / 100 per battle attack count in mind. We'll continue collecting your feedback, and, if necessary, we can still expand and adjust the map a bit more to accommodate for the change from 20 to 25 attacks (not during this war, though ;) ).
    Stalker20mir
  • 3vilrine3vilrine Member Posts: 259
    24 is a good number in my opinion, you are able to clear 2 maps and a bonus map
  • RiotZappaRiotZappa Member Posts: 171
    Not everyone takes it serious enough ‘strategise battles’. Our guild just wants to play ,with 25 attacks we have 5 more chances now of getting RPs. Our leader got 2700+ last week and he’s happy as long as we’re happy! Everything in this game is already for the end gamers, it needs balancing out.
    Katz_Killers18
  • ReeconnReeconn Member Posts: 540
    More sign ups please , at least 4
  • rogueDSrogueDS Member Posts: 616
    I think 25 is almost. Need 126 attacks so can reach 5f. Also then has some If messed up can try again.
  • BillbamBillbam Member Posts: 1,214
    25 seems perfect from my stand point. We are using same strategy as the first war but now we can claim the most useful bonus and can push a little and play a higher level without as much fear of losing a battle.
    Katz_Killers18RealClareB
  • GalexGalex Member Posts: 37
    вы ввели войны, но при этом , чтобы новички могли хоть что - то сделать, кроме линии А и Б, не дали инструментов, я предлагаю сделать ремесленника 2 уровня, сразу на том же уровне , как можно принимать участие в войне.вы слишком зациклены на игроках высоких уровней ,а для новичков развитие затягивается на долгие годы. ######
    you introduced wars, but at the same time, so that beginners could at least do something, except for line A and B, do not give tools, I propose to make a craftsman of level 2, immediately at the same level as you can take part in the war. you are too fixated on players of high levels, and for beginners, development is delayed for many years.
    Katz_Killers18
  • CallasCallas Member Posts: 48
    Whatever NW chooses as the number of attacks, can we make it divisible by 3?
    First level is 6 successful attacks to clear. Subsequent levels are 9 successful attacks to clear. It's a bit pointless having a single attack left. My Guild isn't committed enough to organise any strategy, and are spread out across many time zones, so synchronising a time to play is difficult.
    Raven2318NezorogueDSRiotZappaKatz_Killers18TCBRITO
  • rogueDSrogueDS Member Posts: 616
    It is still possible @Callas my guild has I think 4 different time zones. Without talking with a message app like line or in game chat it is very hard. It is totally doable with different time zones
    TCBRITO
  • GENERALR20BRGENERALR20BR Member Posts: 25
    I would still prefer 30 attacks and 3 plays per war for more excitement I think a little yet 25 more already improved more can be better ...
    TCBRITO
  • Katz_Killers18Katz_Killers18 Member Posts: 295
    I like the 25 missions, 20 just seemed like it was over too quickly. But I do wish they could increase the number of battles allowed to at least 3 per player. 2 just isn't enough for stand alone Guilds who may be short on players and can't fill the sign ups.


    RiotZappa
  • rogueDSrogueDS Member Posts: 616
    @Katz_Killers18 if have smaller guild need to stop at 3 players per battle. If have 12 people can do all 8 battles with 3 each.
  • BurmeliinisBurmeliinis Member Posts: 1,163
    For this beta GW there really is no benefit in doing all battles. In the real GW the victory points help you go up the tiers and get better rewards, but in the beta GW the rewards are already set so you don't get anything other than fame in getting a lot of VP. And a victory doubles your points so one won battle equals two lost battles.

    Sure you could get really lucky and win with 3 players, but I would say most opponents will have at least 4 and aganst 5 it's more or less impossible to win.
    Ingame username: Jubjab
Sign In or Register to comment.