We have received quite an extensive feedback from all corners of the community! We thank you very much for your active participation, and will now gladly share with you our answers to your feedback.
War declarations
- War declarations provide nothing to the game at the moment
Yes, we are planning to go this route, with wars having a real impact on alliances. A suggestion came to us before and this is something we’d like to consider for special servers.
- Maybe bringing back morale for all, and remove when at war
This is something we actually did remove from the game, as it caused more comprehension issues than really helped with anything.
Coalition should be public
- Many players would like to have more transparency about which alliance is in conf with which
This is something we could probably activate to be shown automatically on the alliance profiles. This is a suggestion that was shared with us in the past which has already been approved by Game Design.
Cooldown & mobility
- Apply a cooldown to alliance federation change, should be higher than the cooldown of alliance leave/kick
- The possibility of changing alliances within the confederation, currently, it is only possible to abandon alliances (causes the total loss of the bonus), the correct thing should be the following: Change of alliance, still being penalized for a few hours without enjoying a new bonus, however, it would continue to use that of the previous alliance, as it only changed within the confederation. (Players were moving in/out alliances to push resources, bonuses, reinforce .. etc. There are certain limitations are made to decrease the effect of such movement on fair play, like preventing players from changing alliances until 24 hours have passed from their last move, and sending reinforcement back in 1 hour after a player changes his alliance. These limitations do not apply on federations and people may link and remove confederation links to pass on that limitation. I think the federation should be cooled down for even 72 hours to avoid such acts.)
- Make it easy for the confederacy players to move among the confederacy alliances without the need to leave an alliance then get an invitation then accept it.
- Alliance switch within the same confederation, keeping routes for artifacts, villages, and previous bonuses.
- Direct mobilization of players between alliances of the same confederation, even with a 24-hour waiting period to change againю
- Possibility of alliance switch only between alliances of the same confederation and with invitation from the new alliance
In regards to this series of ideas and remarks on the topic, it appears to be a rather large one. While we are planning to make sure that the rules are clearly accessible and known by all, several elements here would probably considered after we submitted them directly to the community for a consultation. We probably can split the topic in several changes and improvements, which would be submitted to you to vote on and help us decide on which to apply. We will be getting back to you on this specific chapter.
Sharing report and statistics within confederacy
We received the request from every community
- Sharing report within confederacy. There should be an option to share the report. For example, there are 3 alliances in the confederacy. Alliance 1 is the main alliance where alliance 2 and 3 are wings. With this option, alliance 1 asks their wings alliances 2 and 3 to share reports only to alliance 1. Thus 1 can see 2’s and 3’s while 2 and 3 can only see their own reports.
- It doesn’t make sense for allied alliances not to be able to view the reports of attacks / Spies / Defenses, not even in WW they can see it, it doesn’t make any sense since they are allies.
- Players would like to have a tab for Overview of the whole confederation
Yes, a suggestion was brought to us for this and we set it aside to be implemented later. You should expect to hear from this again in the future.
- View of the reports of the members of the confederation when clicking on enemy village
- Allow the leader of a confederacy to know the offensive/defensive values of members (without being able to see the troops count only the values) which makes the inspection process easier.
Generally about this section, we are intent on keeping strong differences between a Confederacy and an Alliance. This means that statistics, reports, online statuses are specific to alliance life. We question whether it makes sense for the confederacy to become an alliance but on a larger scale. The game could be made easier by simply removing confederacies from the game, which is something we are considering for an Annual Special as a start.
Number of confederacies:
- Many players are against extending the number of players in the confederacy, however there are players who wish the extension. The arguments are listed below. More likely the view depends on server size.
- Number of alliances in confederation should be decreased in speed servers from 3 confederation links in x1 server(4 alliances), down to 0 federation links in x10 servers
We currently have a suggestion to go from 4 alliances to 3 alliances per confederacy, which was already approved by Game Design. The dynamic aspect described above is something we would like to also consult the community for. We are a bit cautious on this change as there will be some extra complexity implied which we need to assess properly before.
- Alliances in confederation should function as an alliance, which does not currently happen.
Here we would appreciate more details to make sure we understand what was meant. Please submit more details on the matter if you find the time, we’d appreciate that.
- Majority of the players think that the current number of confederacies are more than enough
We agree with this as we believe if there shall be a change it would be towards “less” rather than “more” from the current limit.
- Many players think that the confederacy members should be more transparent and the current setup gives room for cheating with tech accounts.
Yes, similar to a previous feedback from this same round, we agree there should be more transparency to prevent abuses.
- Players feel that the end game is about which confederacy has the most players and not about real tactics. In practice, tech accounts and big confederacies led to 500 vs 500 accounts against each other like on Finals
Our stand on this is that, while confederacies made sense in the game at a certain point, we consider that now, the focus should be on allowing strong alliances to fight each other rather than growing confederacies which tend to simply unbalance PvP. So, yes, we can say that we agree with this feedback and will be looking into this.
- Players would like to have a server with a lower number of alliance members to make the gameplay more interesting and move away from the metas. Alliances would have higher deff bonus depending on the amount of members in the alliance. Details of the game mechanic could be adjusted to make it fair.
Yes we can consider such servers/specials. We could introduce the removal of confederacies and adjusting alliances sizes on specific servers, such as Annual Specials. It would be a live test on one or a few servers, but this is something we are willing to try.
- Players count in alliances should be more than 60 members and/or the confederacy branches that can be reinforced should be more than 3.
We do believe that bigger alliances reduce the need for confederacies, while the opposite doesn’t necessarily apply – smaller alliances do not necessarily justify bigger confederacies as it triggers many undesirable unbalances.
- Keeping the members count in alliances at 60 members but increasing alliances count within the confederacy to 6 alliances. Due to the limit of creating Trade Routes to artefacts villages within the confederacy, we need to send resources manually via the Marketplace without any limits within the same confederacy, and allow raids within the confederacy when the artefacts spawn and as a suggestion in this regard, we want to give every player the choice to accept if his village/s can be raided or not just like accepting to lower the loyalty by the confederacy members for a specific village, we can do this by adding an option to a tab in the Rally Point in every village in which allows a player to decide to get raided or not and to be under the name “allowing raids” and this is for every village just like the one that’s located in the Residence or Palace in the loyalty tab.
Unfortunately we are in disagreement here: we consider big confederacies to be a “game killer” and would like to go the opposite direction: smaller or no confeds eventually for a more engaging and fair alliance play. As per the choice of having villages raided or not, we would prefer to move away from private farming rather than encouraging it or making it more of what it currently is.
- The Confederacy’s alliances count should be 6 alliances.
For the same reason exposed just above, we are in disagreement here.
Messages
We received the request from every community
- Players would like to have an option/button to send messages to all confederation members so they do not have to pass it onto an alliance leaders.
We are considering this.
- Allowing the confederacy leader to have additional rights, such as sending messages to all alliances within the confederacy and from the main alliance that formed the confederacy.
Our position would be to extend the current roles of the alliance leaders for the extra needs.
- Giving the leader of a confederacy the rights to send a collective message within all the confederacy alliances.
Same as above.
- Removing the red and yellow marks for the members that has no rights within the alliance, only leaders can see this (there are spies who can benefit from this).
This is a good idea. Please submit it on Discord in the Suggestions section.
- Adjust the collective message system in an easy way that allows to know who got the message and who opened it, in the dedicated page, it’s hard to see and check for 60 members.
- Getting notified when activating farmlists for a player within the confederacy just like the normal attack.
For performance reasons, it is difficult to add more checks when launching a farmlist. Unfortunately it’s not possible to do this. We already considered it many times in the past.
Overview
- Players would like to see when was a member of their alliance online (how many hrs/min ago) e.g. by hovering over the blue/green button.
At this point we are not entirely convinced that this change would be very beneficial. It would bring more policing between players, and create more frictions in alliances.
- Players would also like to see on regular servers when alliance member is under attack with red swords.
The reason why this is not a “universal” feature is because its reception in the community is not really clear: currently around 50% of players would want while the other 50% wouldn’t. We need to investigate this with the community further to be able to decide.
- Adding the “Forwarding troops & Alliance member attack notifications” features to the WW servers.
- Allow forwarding troops among villages directly without the need to go back to the original village, and this is within the same account, forwarding troops to another village directly.
We grouped these two together as our answer applies to both. Forwarding troops does not come without merging. One affects the defence side of things while the other the offense side. They work hand in hand, and we are aware that many players do not want merging to be activated on regular servers.
Contribution statistics
- Update in the overall contribution statistics to show all players in the alliance, not just the top 5
Unfortunately displaying the extensive contribution information to the alliance triggers frictions between players. We would rather not follow up with this idea.
Other
- Gold award for top alliances performance at the end of server
This is not an option that we are currently considering.
Thank you very much. We are looking forward to hearing from you again very soon!
