Comments

5 comments

  • Avatar
    Apises

    Even your opponent is flaretide? :)

  • Avatar
    largefries

    sure, even if your choices are between flaretide and flaretide, while you're in flaretide!

  • Avatar
    Littlestrike

    There are many other strategical considerations other than being on time for war when 2 equal-power alliances (e.g. Flaretide vs Flaretide) meet. The current war system is designed to benefit alliances who can maximise points gain throughout 24 hours, not just the first 30minutes of war.

  • Avatar
    largefries

    sure, but I was actually referring to being the one to pick the opponent seeing as everyone just picks the weaker opponent, like in siege, arena.

    If you're always picking the war, you'll never have to face flaretide or an equal/stronger power alliance hence always have a power advantage and will always win, like what most people are doing anyway. The thing about Apises comment is that it only mentions one possible war option instead of the second which would be a weaker choice. People looking for game tips aren't going to get the option of picking flaretide.

    I was more poking fun at how the matchmaking is still not that great (eg,my alliance only having 10 active people and getting wars with full alliances who capture all the nodes in the first hour and thus we're only losing because no-one was on to declare a war against an equal opponent to avoid that situation), not giving noob war tips to teams who have been around since beta who get the option of picking the top teams. 

  • Avatar
    Littlestrike

    Largefries, now I understand where you are coming from. I agree with you that the alliance that gets to pick the “perceived weaker” alliance would have an advantage in war. If matchmaking is like a soccer league (pre-matched in advance), then perhaps we could avoid this situation.

Please sign in to leave a comment.