War Teams Just Staying Under Shield
This needs to be addressed, getting tired of teams staying under shield for hours when leading, we’ve lost a few wars because of this bug in the game. Suggestion teams start losing points depending...
Forum Discussion
That’s not the problem though, the problem is when I team of 10 players goes up against a team of 25. The team of 10 do as much damage as possible and get their score up while waiting to be taken out. The team of 25 can only earn significantly less points because they only have 10 targets. The team of 10 have 25 players to hit and so earn considerably more points. Once they r ahead they all remain under the bubble until the end of the war and take the win when the other team could have done better but there was no one to attack. If the team of ten need to to edge out in front more, one or 2 players rebuild , use umbrellas so they can’t be hit and jackpots to earn maximum points while the rest of the team stay under shields.when they have enough of a lead they let the umbrellas go but the larger team can’t make up the difference because there is only 2 players to hit. Where the small team has so many targets. I am in a war like this now and nothing has happened for 24 hrs so we could win but we can’t play if they won’t come out and why would they, they r ahead. This happens a lot now. It’s no coincidence that 8 of the top 10 teams only have 10 players each. Maybe that is the minimum amount to be able to joint a war but there is probably 3 active players in those teams and the rest r feeders to get the initial lead. We r being set up to fail.
In a close war I totally think turning turtle is a valid strategy.
What I really can't stand though is teams that are LOSING doing it.
In our current war, we are evenly matched 10 cities to their 11. We are ahead by 50,000 points and they have turned turtle for 12 hours. Like they seriously think they have a shot here?
I did the math, and if they opened one guy, scored 6400 points per city. and we did Nothing.... they'd still only be 1200 points ahead and we'd crush that one guy.
If you are LOSING a war, it makes zero logical sense to stay covered up. Get some cheap war items and chests for next time!!!!
Worse still in our last war it was super close for the first few hours.
Finally we Gave up. we opened up five cities and just quit. Again they pulled ahead by 70k points and then just sat there.
You already have the win. Why not take the win AND a bunch of upgrade prizes????
It's out of hand. In the recent speed wars, we made 1/3 the upgrades we should have, and that with me speed boosting the enemy and putting a jackpot on my own dang team to try to HELP the putzes make some points just so I could make some points too.
I seriously think cities should self-repair maybe 1 shield an hour. You should at least get ONE shot at making some points.
aaronl01,
I’m sure you had a great point but you lost me with your first line....valid strategy, what an oxymoron! There is no validity in this “strategy” it’s simply an attempt to justify this course of action. When you sacrifice the competitive nature of a contest for a win and in the process deny a level of entertainment or “fun” for the participants...something is just wrong with this picture and a business that allows this to continue on their watch is simply mind boggling.
I’m absolutely not accusing you of anything, but conceding this as valid gives a level of confirmation that it is acceptable...it is not. I know they are all trying to make the Top whatever list and good luck to them all...but in the process they are making a mockery of a simple game, and before someone shares that I simply don’t understand...you’re right I don’t. At least when I was a young man and folks would implement this “strategy” in a basketball game we each had 5 fouls and made every single one count....
- Dear PinnacleValley, even if I have a different point of view from yours, I'm respectful about you, so let me tell you with full respect that in this argument sometimes I think you act like a child: You have the right to complain about something you don't like, and I don't have the right to tell you what to say, but I think that naming these matters like you always do means not facing the reality as it is.
I'm not always with what superpraesi uses to say, but there's one thing absolutely correct in what he says: this is not a shooter game, this is a strategy game. And until someone is not using cheats, every strategy is a legit one and have the right to being called "strategy".
Is the dome a funny strategy? No, it isn't, that's for sure. But the way the game is designed permit it, so it's legit. One of the nice things of strategy games is that you can read the game in a lot of different ways, and have fun in the way you like better. Someone have fun without fighting (as sim city historically wasn't a fighting game), someother fighting like there's no tomorrow, someother winning wars. Everyone is a legit way to live this game (while not cheating). And IMO every legit way must be respected, even when you don't like it.
Winning a war is important for a club who likes wars; the majority of players plays for free, so they gotta find a way to gain every single thing: items, simoleons, etc.; winning a war means gaining winners chests, that contains a lot of war simoleons, useful to buy jackpots & co.; when you loose a war, the next one is a little harder, 'cause you didn't had war simoleons to buy that upgrades. If you loose the second one too, winning the third becomes even more harder, and so on, as a vicious circle. So yes, if needed, using the dome trying to cut this circle is nothing wrong.
Other clubs just want to appear on the top 20, just to say "look I'm in the coolest club", so they don't mind about the way they win. I don't like them, but it's simply another way to live this game.
It's bad and boring to loose versus a club who domed, but at the end they won and you have lost, so your club hasn't been smart enough to beat them. What about clubs who domes while loosing? Even more boring, but probably they simply do wars to manage COM missions.
Finding a club who domes is a bad thing. Finding a club who cheats AND domes is even worse. But IMO the problem is the cheaters, not the domers, even if I don't like them too.
Somoeone suggested to introduce a "timed bubble", with an autorepair after that time. Let me ask a question about it: You're playing a war, you're playing well; they domed you, but you're repairing the last damages and you're almost ready to go out and shoot. Then something happens and you're forced logging out of the game, and you aren't able logging in before the war ends (choose everything you like better, like "I ran out of gas! I got a flat tire! I didn't have change for cab fare! I lost my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!" [cit.]): Would you be happy finding that they doomed you several times because of the "timed bubble" and you club lost the war because of that? Of course you wouldn't. Normal people owns a real life, timing the bubble would mean live to play SCBI. I already see people living for it, but I guess they're insane...
Before ending this post, just some data: my club rebooted from 1500 on january. After the first win, we were ranked about #126000. That means at least 130/135000 club ranked. So there's at least 1350000 accounts considering 10 an average of 10 accounts/club. This number could easely increase considering higher accounts/club averages, but lot of players shift from club to club to collect war items, so let's use a lower, reasonable one. I'm using the word "accounts" and not "players" 'cause I know it exists lot of feeder cities, but we can't say how many of its are feeders. Nor EA can, so every registered account rules as a player. Now, how many people complained about the dome question in this forum? Let's say 200? Believe me, they're far less than 200, but let's keep this number. It means that 0,015% of players officially complained about this matter. Take these numbers as a cheaper estimation, but this percentage won't significantly change with a more accurate one.
So, if you were EA, would you change a thing 'cause 0,015% of registered accounts complains about it? Of course you wouldn't.
Then if you're really hoping EA will change it, you'd better give up and start playing another game. But I hope you won't, accepting the way this game works. Then, if I'm wrong and EA will decide changing war rules, I'll be the first to be happy!
Best regards.Hi Meesfeet, well written for English as a 2nd language...my last recollection of our communicating was in September in the thread “Please change the rules in a war for shields” where I played moderator between you and Hope U Have Kevlar in a discussion that became way too personal and I was concerned that EA might give you both a time out...all I know is a lot of text was removed from both participants posts when the Community Manager made their way through. Now you wish to accuse me of acting like a child and not facing reality...at least you set the stage respectfully.
I do not wish to be disrespectful to you so I will pick my words carefully in an effort not to be...you mention Superpraesi and I agree with him (on these points only) that this is not a shooting game and it is a strategy game, but there’s the rub...my claim is that it’s not a strategy but a developmental glitch that found it’s way into the game because the beta testing was not robust enough, I truly believe a developer would never intentionally introduce a variable that would discourage participation and more importantly spending money.
You mention naming and I assume you are referring to the term cowardly...I could have used the term afraid, chicken-hearted, having the willies, spineless, weak kneed, yellow bellied, or dastardly (all identified by Thesaurus.com as synonyms) but I feel the term I selected sent the clear and concise message I intended. I disdain the “strategy” and have seen personally what it has caused...don’t mistake that for me not understanding the reality of the day and why some teams that disdain the strategy as much as I are forced to use it...it simply means that I may be thinking on a different plane and recognize the long term impact this course is taking and if you consider that child like, so be it.
I’m not going to get into the redundant point you were offering except to say I am somewhat offended by the phrase “I swear to God” which more often than not is proceeded by a lie...I simply give him praise and thanks each day. But we’ll write that off to language...no harm / no foul.
Your statistics are interesting but only takes into consideration how many accounts, not how many dead clubs are floating out there...perhaps EA updates and purges annually, but I doubt it. Your estimate of 200 clubs is extremely low but even so it’s 20 to 1 opposed. The % you offer is incomplete because it does not consider how many folks participate in the forum that actually play the game.
i appreciate you sharing your opinion and respect your right to do so, I am somewhat confused however because previously you have shared your unhappiness with the “strategy” ...I guess that’s the reality of the day. Take care.
