Announcement Module
No announcement yet.

Alliance battles season 1

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alliance battles season 1

    Alliance battles season 1

    Alliance battles season 1 was a new mode which made GU game much better & more attractive for most of GU players. Alliance battles was became very competitive between alliances that some players spent hours & hours to collect as many points as they could, some players spent money & gold for faster way to catch up & take #1 rank. From the first week of battles; IMMORTALS; who were very high levels & active players, was going to win the season 1. However, there was a lot of things going on in the season that affected many players & were not happy about it such as unknown opponents, the way of counting the points, & 200 dog tags problem.

    First, this game is considered a strategy game that let a player to think how to attack their opponent based on opponent’s base which is known to attackers in order to bring the right card attacks which can be different from base to another base. Many of us were surprised by their opponents when they see the name of the base & get more upset when they realize the card attacks are not really helpful in this case. In fact, unknown opponents is very big problem to most of us while too many bases’ setup are like truck killer or a walk-around to confuse units & running out the time for attackers.

    Second, since alliance battles was selected randomly & out of attackers’ options; I & most players don't think that the way of counting the points for successfully attacks is fair enough. High levels players feel so bad about counting alliance points because opponents always 2, 3 red skulls, difficult & hard to win 3 stars most of the time. In the other hand, low levels players can finish their opponents with 3 stars easily & get 30 points!. One of my alley said that he won around 100 matches for 10 points each battle!. Basically, his alliance lost 2k points because he wasn't lucky with his opponents. In my opinion, I would consider each alliance battle 1 point for successfully attack doesn't matter if it was 1, 2 or 3 stars win. Therefore, this solution will help & make balance between high & low levels for getting alliance points equally & no one will worry about how many stars will be at the end of the battle.

    Third, it was a good idea to unlock an extra alliance battles for 200 dog tags for those who are not able to unlock by gold. However, it will be more interesting, more attractive & more competitive if a little change is made to this option just to adjust it. Collecting 200 dog tags for high levels players is not that hard but it does take time, so we ask to keep remaining tag dogs for next battles (of course not for next day). After finishing the 3 free alliance battles we start PVP battles to make 200 dog tags to unlock more alliance battles, we feel ​very bad when we make more than 200 & then will not counted the remaining tag dogs for next battles. At least with this change if was made, many players will have opportunity to catch up those who using gold.

    Finally, I would suggest to reduce alliance members from 35 to 25 for more & more competition and to create tens more of alliances. This is my feedback & opinion about season 1. Looking forward to hearing from GU team & players about what is mentioned above & what do you think about season 1.
    Last edited by MO8E5795; 03-26-2017, 04:07 PM.

  • #2
    1) Hmm personally I like that fact that you don't know what perks, units, or buildings your opponent has, as it adds an extra challenge into the battle. Although you have most likely a basic attack card set up, being able to adapt to the enemies base whether you should aggressive attack, slow play, or use your specials in a unique way is fun and a lot more challenging then if you already know your enemies setup. Considering that fact that the alliance battles are the most competitive part of the game I think that it should remain how it is.

    ​2) Secondly I think that the 10/20/30 points in respect to the stars earned should also stay the same or I would just go in and HQ KO every base, however there should be a reward for defending against attackers and points for your alliance should be able to be earned this way as well. What is the point of having a good base defense if it offers nothing towards the whole alliance war.

    ​3) Rolling over dog tags seems like a good idea considering the fact that after you win your last attack on an alliance battle it already gives you the 60 dt's towards your next battle (3 star req). It does make it harder for higher lvl players to get more rewarded battles, especially if you consider the fact that a player such as myself doesn't have 2x or 3x red skull bases anymore. Is the balance here suppose to be experience vs lower lvl rewarded dt's. I can see how this was good in theory but lower lvl players are also fighting against much easier players. I can think of 2 propositions for fixing this issue.
    -1) You can make all players have the option of all difficulty bases (once they are unlocked) and do not take away 2x and 3x red skull bases so everyone is on an equal playing field.
    ​-2) As you continue to earn more points for your alliance you continue to go against harder and harder bases until you are in the highest tier bracket.

    ​I propose that both of these ideas become implemented into the next season as it would even out the playing field and if defensive wins also gained points those bases that were very difficult to beat would become more relevant instead of a att vs def 95%-5% balance is somewhat currently the meta.

    ​The alliance member cap is a subject that I am unsure of. I would not like to see the amounts of members into a single alliance increased and I am not sure if I would like to see it decreased but not an increase...definitely not an increase.

    - Mr Yuck
    Last edited by Mr__Yuck__; 03-26-2017, 01:14 PM.


    • MO8E5795
      MO8E5795 commented
      Editing a comment
      #1- we ask a little bit info about the base u r going to attack such as # of building & what r they, type of units.

      #2- talking about low lvls how they get 30pts easily and high lvls how they struggle to get 30pts. So, counting# of wins instead of 10/20/30 pts is much better bcz high lvls can't make it 30pts each attack which means losing points. Not all cases u can go in HQ KO.

      I like yr idea:
      Originally posted by Mr__Yuck__ View Post
      ​-2) As you continue to earn more points for your alliance you continue to go against harder and harder bases until you are in the highest tier bracket.

    • cusman
      cusman commented
      Editing a comment
      It took lot of extra time spent outside of the game recruiting and building up alliance to 35 participating members (even if the participation from many is still minimal). There is no going back. If anything there is some cause to increase the cap because some are wanting friends to join but we no longer have free slots which leaves the unpleasant task of possibly removing people that have contributed but are no longer active. For my Alliance, I decided I will not be removing anyone that participated until season ends (even if they are being inactive). So I don't have slots available for new people that want to come in now.

      Making it smaller will promote more elitism within Alliances and making it bigger will give bigger advantage to those Alliances that are able to manage recruiting and motivating larger Alliances (no easy task).

      I think for better or worse, Alliance Member cap should be left alone. They should instead work on improving how to detect inactive players or even entirely inactive Alliances and remove those.
      Last edited by cusman; 03-27-2017, 08:39 AM.

  • #3
    Enough has been said but what I really think is important is some kind of duel between alliance members where one side win alliance points and the other lose some points. Stars could help for that. Win count as 30 and each star count as 10. Win by 3 stars and take 60 points and the loser drop 30 points. As far as win by one and take 40 and tha loser take 20.

    I would love to see this kind of duel between alliances. Today we win dog tags and rewards even when we lost but get one or two stars, why alliance battles couldn't be the same.


    • Punk26704
      Punk26704 commented
      Editing a comment
      You definitely want BD4W and Immortals to go to war. Lol

    • marcochila
      marcochila commented
      Editing a comment
      Not at all. Just some way more challenging. When you lose you lost points. That would be good. Don't you think?

    • Punk26704
      Punk26704 commented
      Editing a comment
      I think it would be cool and worth a try.

  • #4
    I agree on removing the 100 gold pay for an alliance battle. I hope that the 200 dog tag still remains thou.


    • cusman
      cusman commented
      Editing a comment
      Why should more time be an advantage and not more money? Isn't free to play by principal all about spend time or spend money?

  • #5
    I think what they started with is good, and it can only be improved going forward. Some thoughts for the developers to consider as they think about season 2.

    a) Gold or Time for additional fights. Well both of these give people with more $$$ or time than normal an advantage over others that can only play enough for 3-4 Alliance Battles per day. Being a Free-2-Play game, I think either both options should stay in, or both should be removed leaving just 3 Alliance Battles per day.

    b) The 30G to Retry option on Alliance Battle (which I have used) should also be considered for removal if the Gold for additional option is being removed

    c) Alliance Battles should only be against other Alliances

    d) There should be minus-point consequences for losing Alliance Battles as a defender. You can recover losses by successfully Retaliating.

    e) Should definitely keep the Star system for how many points are earned

    f) Gold Tier should be revised to top 5% since top 3% doesn't even cover top 50 Alliances

    I think biggest area they should focus on for season 2 is making the successful defends relevant and keep motivation to spend time on retaliations.
    Alliance: Helldivers
    YouTube Channel:


    • Mr__Yuck__
      Mr__Yuck__ commented
      Editing a comment
      a) gold removed, 200 dog tag for an earned battle stays
      b) stay if d is implemented
      c) yes
      d) yes
      e) yes
      f) no, eventually more alliances and more will be created expanding this number past 50 in the future
      your last point, yes yes yes

  • #6
    I know a lot of people that don't like to fight white skulls. Most of them are top players and that's ok, everyone play what like.

    So gold or just money are not wrong. Maybe another ways to get another battle. What if another chance for battle is given if 5 or more allies play in the same hour? So this five would receive one extra each. I don't know it's a good idea but it's late and now it's just that came on my mind to help alliance and the game.

    What if we earn another chance of battle if we win two normal fights? Or maybe three? That would stop gold complaining.

    But one great thing that just come out of my mind now are the missions. Why not missions start to give battle chances? And not only during seasons, also between seasons? That would make people play to get something that they really want and it's not random.


    • cusman
      cusman commented
      Editing a comment
      I like the idea that Missions can give additional Alliance Battles. I have had to ignore missions almost completely during Alliance War Season 1 because I just don't have time for any of the Defend related missions that pop-up and some of the others I got wouldn't count during Alliance Battles (like Rockstar wanting 20 3 Star Wins against 3 White Skull or higher opponents).

  • #7
    For me, any suggestions with back up explanations is always an excellent suggestion. Good job my friend Moe!