xbox. There was still 6 hours left before reset
Hmmm… A part of me thinks those would be good things to bake in. Almost a good incentive to not automatically choose a certain alliance. But another part of me agrees that it should probably NOT be considered on the plus side. heh.
On the third hand, as they say, is there a perfect solution to the problem? I’m not sure there is. Even if you randomly assign players to alliances, that could shove more casuals into one and more ptws all in another.
Maybe they should have limited the number of citadels any alliance could win per week. The big alliance would still get more. But it wouldn’t get all? I don’t know. The whole thing was not thought through. To which I say, “I’m SHOCKED!” 
1 Like
I still like the stat differences. It makes it easier for the other alliances to win battles, giving them better scores in their pvp brackets and global. It depends on the fix for gold marks and how we acquire them after we win a citadel. If I have to chase that mark around the different kingdoms until it lands on one of the conquered citadels, having the extra stats just makes it easier to farm it. Some players don’t want to bother with that, but instead get their 15 gold marks for doing their 5 battles daily. IT would benefit them not to be in the popular alliance.
1 Like
Yes, time travel back a year and encourage whoever came up with the design to rather try their hand at something simpler, like writing shopping lists.
There’s just too much broken with Alliances to repair. There’s no sense of identity, it’s just a huge mob of random players. There is no point in communicating, because most don’t even speak your language. There’s no reason to coordinate, because individual contribution is entirely irrelevant. The issue isn’t scoring and how this could be balanced, the issue is that there is scoring at all. Trying to normalize scores in any way will just make it worse, to the extent that any Citadel War will feel decided by the roll of a die, with no way to even understand the result.
Talking game design, a symmetric system like this with 5 parties doesn’t work. It will automatically collapse into 1 surviving party, because 4 of the parties are entirely redundant. What would work is an asymmetric system with 2 parties. Have 100 players pose as “Citadel Defenders” for a week, they set up defenses for their citadel, possibly having access to some special troops and perks for that game mode only. All other players fight those defenders, by attacking the citadel, the 100 best scoring ones get to be the new defenders the next week. Hand out some minor extra rewards, to defenders only, based on how well they fared. Make sure that this isn’t entirely P2W, e.g. by only counting the first 6 battles against the same citadel for scoring purposes.
8 Likes
Hahaha. Well yes. I agree. Unfortunately, I have given up on the idea that anyone on the dev team (or anyone, PERIOD) will ever again admit to having had a bad idea, or being wrong. So we are stuck with how can we apply lipstick to this particular porcine?
Your defender idea sounds good and interesting. I’d play that! It also sounds too too far away from what we were given. I don’t see them totally reinventing it for at least 4 years heh.
1 Like
Or, add matchups between individual Alliances?
(aka. Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock)
2 Likes
Still not a word from @Jeto or @Kafka so my guess is their response is going to be, “working as intented…”
3 Likes
I don’t think they have any incentive to balance the alliances at this point. It would take work, upset players, and introduce bugs.
Right now players have a choice between joining the winning alliance if they want to farm more gold marks, or joining a small alliance for +20% stats. A lot of people are happy on both sides of the equation. Sure, it’s not competitive, but i wonder how many people actually want it to be.
4 Likes
Imo the whole thing is pointless, anyway. There was nothing wrong with pvp it should have been left alone.
Also, that’s hilarious… i chose purple but i didn’t even check chat to talk to anyone else about it. I feel like that one just had a better caption thas why i picked it
The alliances were a bad idea, and the developers spent too much time trying to solve the wrong problems with the rules.
An OP alliance was a guarantee as long as we got to choose our alliance and you nailed the pros and cons.
As for the rest, I do not have enough total VP to use the chat and with things as they are, it’s for the best as I have nothing I need to say there.
I’ll just keep nailing the PVP goals as I was doing before and ignore alliances once I get my 10 sentinels. Problem solved. 
2 Likes
I miss old pvp, when there was no level matching, only trophy matching, and that was all
1 Like
I think balance should be achieved by different rewards not any level of direct control.
The perks could be different for each order
The rewards for defeating the citadel guardians could be different for each order
I don’t think you should lose loyalty for switching orders, but maybe a weeklong cooldown period.
1 Like
Professional sports teams limit the number of players for a reason. Please do so for the Alliances. If a color is ‘full’ then folks should have no choice but to join one that is not. And they should get to keep their 10 free loyalty days if you force this issue to even Alliance scoring out a bit.
And, there should be a way to kick players who don’t play them. Like, the AI should automatically do so if no Alliance play for 1 or 2 weeks.
1 Like
This isn’t some professional sports event though, this is a mostly casual game that some players want to enjoy together. Forcing them into different alliances based on some hidden metrics probably wouldn’t go down well. Just make alliances an optional skin choice and let us all wail on citadels together, issue solved.
11 Likes
Thank you for the update and fix. We noticed on Saturday, when we were doing Central Spire that the other alliances do have enough players that if they chose to target 1 specific citadel, they can take it from the bigger alliance, which spreads evenly, especially today, where there are 3 citadels instead of 2
Could put everyone on auto rotation that lasts as long as say campain…and never the same alliance twice until player had been placed in all five…put players in random alliances rather than people choosing the same one
Why should there be any balancing? Choose the alliance you want to be in and play there. If it’s because of the gold marks… switch. Or simply wait until the devs come up with another brilliant system to get your money.
10 Likes
This is becoming unbearable and very annoying. The Dark Order commercial promotion is everywhere in global chat and guild chat everyday.
Players went crazy and gold marks reward priority. No loyalty no friendship so scary. I stop purchase anything in GoW (VIP level 18) until the developer fix these alliances issues as soon as possible.
Hero level 1561 at the moment
1 Like
What would you want to be loyal to, an arbitrary alliance name on your PvP profile? There is nothing special about any of the alliances. They are entirely replaceable, they might as well be named “One”, “Two”, Three", “Four” and “Five”. Grab your friends and move over to the only one that has benefits attached, due to players coordinating.
13 Likes
I’m in gold. Got my trophies completed yesterday. Don’t really need gold marks. So actually I’m fine with 20% buff to all stats and normal mark accumulation. Makes PVP mins go by quicker.
6 Likes