After new updated: Alliance War has became unbalanced & there's bugs/tricks

alliance_wars

#104

And… the same again. We got unwinable war. They got 7 players over 45 lvl, we got 2 over 40. The war ended before it started. From the start of new balance we didn’t get any equal opponent by power of team. Why matchmaking couldn’t be sorted by lvl’s of players of teams+ titans. It’s not our problem if someone from opponents team doesn’t participate in war. It’s part of the game. If you have good alliance discipline- you win. Bad- lose. Why we have to get much stronger opponent every time because all our players participate in war?


#105

Unless you have won quite a few wars in a row, I think it appears to be much stronger while in reality it does not have to be. Why not? Continue reading about player level.

  1. The level of players is not a great indicator of the hero-bench they have ready for war. I have been playing since april last year, I’m level 35 and have almost 6 teams ready for war. Our alliance leader is level 40, started playing more than a year ago and has 4 teams ready for war. See how player-level does not relate to individual war-strength?

  2. Titan-score is easily manipulated, which then leads to unfair war-matching. You can choose to let titans escape and by doing so you will create a lower titan-score.


Balanced match-making needs some time to really achieve a balanced result for all of us. Also, a couple of individual alliance cases do not show that match-making is unbalanced. Just because we read quite some players telling us that wars are not balanced yet, doesn’t mean that in reality it also is not for the majority of war-matchups. Our wars have been very well balanced until now. More likely players will write here about unbalanced match-ups than about how fair and balanced their match-ups are.


#106

I think, that biggest problem now is that win and lose rows. Before those started we had lose 3 wars in row, all close calls with around 100 point difference. After that we got maybe two or three easy opponents. They war defence teams, where much weaker than ours. And we won those with huge point difference and I felt sorry for those opponents. Then we got couple wars with pretty perfect match, battle was pretty close and fun. We won those by little difference from points. :slight_smile: We also could have lose those. And after that we got opponent much stronger than us. They crushed us big time! I don’t care, that we lose. :wink: But I think, there should be some balance between those, since war wins can be also manipulated. Lose couple of wars and you get much more easier opponent.


#107

But still the question is: why we have to get stronger opponents if we just have good organization? We have a good win rate. Roughly 3/2. But every time we get opponents that have stronger defense team, higher lvl of players. We win some of them because 100% of our team participate in it, we have good tactics, perfect communication. Play as a team. But every 2-3 we get opponents, that just unreal for us to win. Zero chances. One more time. Why opponents team gets easy win from the start and our team gets lose from the start just because we play well?


#108

Having the same issues after the past few upgrades the opposion even though stringer get all the advantages! Even more stressful is being unable to access the serves and then being kicked off it when waiting for it to load up! This results in losing your combat token, your main team and being unable to participate in any reasonable combat, apart from being totally slaughtered!


#109

One of the match-making parameters is your alliance it’s win/lose ratio, called history. If you win (a couple of times?), you will be matched against another alliance who has won (a couple of times?).

With good organization you will be able to beat a real stronger alliance, which does not have a good organisation.

Logically the match-making system will choose a stronger alliance every time you win, because your alliance progresses upwards on the virtual leaderboard. At some point the general strength of an alliance will be too strong to beat even with good organization. You simply reached the breaking point of your alliance it’s capability.

Wether or not this should be inside the match-making system is debatable. I think it should, because it helps creating a better balance.


#110

I agree there should win and lose balance there, but I also think, that there should be some limit on those. :wink: Because when your team is fighting wars with even matches and happens to win those and then get so strong opponent, that there are almost no point for trying. It kills those wars! Same with another way, when you lose couple in row, then you get opponent, which really don’t have chance. And I bet there are soon alliances, which are losing in purpose! Like, when you have war chest 24/25. Lose next one and you can start collecting points to next one with easy teams.


#111

Yes, that’s a good idea. We need some kind of barrier not to get in such situation that we get. It’s ok if your opponent becomes stronger, but it’s bad when you have no chances to win. I mean, as already said, when we used 100% energy of all players, they used 70 (till the end). The have really bad positioning in their teams, and so on. But we lost 500 points just because their defensive team on averedge is 3700-3800, our 3300-3400. And lvl of players our 25-42, their 35-52. Of course the players of 40 and higher lvl have 6 full teams. They got 9 players 40+, we got 4. Not winnable.
So maybe it’s idea to make such barrier according to defensive team from previous war? So that average defensive team should not be higher than 100 points.


#112

Or, you can try hard together and create a chance for yourself to open the war chest after your current war. If you try hard and fail it will result into the same outcome as if you lose on purpose: a loss and get a less stronger opponent during your next war.

Unless, the actual score of your current war has influence on your next war. But that I do not know, it is not included in the published parameters of war-matching as far as I know.

There is a limit at this moment and it is a natural limit.

The limit is based on the capability of your alliance to fight together towards a highest possible result. I understand it is annoying if it clearly is a pointless war, but eventually you will only reach those type of wars if you have already beaten stronger opponents.

This means that your alliance is above average level when it comes to alliance wars. The other way around, there’s a natural limit for alliances who either do not focus on wars or are simply bad at wars. It is just how the system works. They use this in other situations, such as sports also.

It’s just not possible to implement a ‘‘barrier’’, which avoids match-making with a much stronger opponent when one of the parameters is loss/win history. It would take away the fact you are able to grow on the leaderboard, until you have reached your natural breaking point. This would be possible if alliance wars would take place in ‘‘leagues’’, such as our raiding system is based on.

The reason I don’t think this ‘‘barrier’’ is needed for wars is related to rewarding your cooperation and teamwork. With good teamwork you will have longer streaks of war-wins. Longer streaks of war-wins will let you open your War Chest sooner. With bad or no teamwork you will have longer streaks of war-loses. Longer streaks of war-loses will delay opening your War Chest. The hard-working/good alliances should be and actually are being better rewarded compared to the ‘‘lazy’’/worse alliances.

I don’t think this will work out well. The set defense teams are not a great parameter to base the strength of an alliance on.

It refers to 5 heroes only. Someone with 3400 TP could have 10 maxed other 4* heroes, while someone else with 3800 TP could only have 4 maxed other 4* heroes. That is why match-making takes in count:

  • The best 30 heroes in hero roster of each Alliance member
  • Out of the 30 heroes, the most weight is put on the best five heroes of each Alliance member
  • Player count of the Alliance
  • Alliance Wars matchmaking now takes the best troop of each element into account.
  • Alliance Wars matchmaking now takes previous wars into account. It may take a few wars to see the biggest benefits.

#113

Yes, maybe it can become one more space to avoid strong opponents, so barrier based on defensive team is bad idea.
But I don’t think that barrier is bad idea. Just we have to think the way it could work. As I told- that’s great when you get stronger opponent even if you already won stronger opponent the previous war. But you should have a chance to win. And sometimes there are some oblivious indexes (players lvl, defensive team) that says that you won’t win if at least half of their players will participate. And that’s unfair that bad dissiplined team gets free win just because they are lucky in matchmaking and their teams are more powerful. That’s why, I think, the barrier is good idea.


#114

Tom, our alliance use all our attacks, we time our attack. We really do everything we can! :wink: We are top200-300. I don’t mind losing, but before update almost every war close match. We won some and lose some. Now we getting opponents with much stronger alliances sometimes and sometimes alliances, which don’t have chance with us and that isn’t right. And of course the current war effects second one. Our alliance war score decreases after, that defeat even that we got new member.


#115

After reading all messages, is it best to use only 3 attacks instead of 6 when you’re winning? Better to score 200pts than 500pts?


#116

So for you this would be different:

  1. Matching with a bad disciplined alliance of which only half of their members participate. They reached the bottom of their capabililty and will now win, because a few of their players will slaughter your alliance.

  2. Matching with a mediocre ‘‘better’’ alliance which has had a couple of their members go ‘‘inactive’’ due to vacation and struggled to beat their current level of opponents. They lost while trying and will now face your alliance which is of an equal - or slightly worse - level.

Rewards are based on in-game results. They are not completely based on effort. Only individual rewards from the War Chest are based on effort. This makes it kind of fair, instead of unfair, for people who are disciplined and use all their flags to try and win.

The other way arround, those ‘‘bad disciplined’’ members might just be in the way of the other members who are actually trying hard. Matching with your alliance who has been climbing up the ladder, will now give those few hard-trying members the opportunity to reward themselves. Not every player opts-out when they don’t plan to use all their flags (unfortunately), this happens in my alliance also. I find it very fair if you look at it from their perspective.

I’m sorry to hear and I hope that after a few wars the system will better balance your match-making. The fact that it might take a few wars has been announced by SGG. The maintenance breaks, which temporary stop wars from happening, have been delaying this balancing process unfortunately! :frowning_face:

The Alliance War Score is made up of the most powerful heroes and troops of each member participating in wars, adjusted based on the past performance (win/lose) of the alliance. In short.

Let me rephrase myself. I know the current war influences the match-making of the next war, because the past performance of the alliance adjusts the Alliance War Score.

What I do wonder about is if the actual SCORES of the wars are being taking into account for the next war-matches. For example, you have lost with 3100 points against 3200 points. Is the difference of -100 taken into account? Or will only the +1 loss be taken into account?

If the difference of -100 is actually taken into account then losing on purpose with a very big difference OR winning on purpose with a minor difference, will influence your next match-making.

Losing with a big difference will then give you a weaker opponent in your next war, compared to losing with a minor difference. Winning with a minor difference will then give you a slightly stronger opponent in your next war, compared to winning with a big difference.

If the difference between scores is taken into account then it should be looked into, because an alliance could manipulate their win/lose streaks. By taking simply a win/lose ratio into account, it will be less ‘‘better’’ manipulable.


#117

That’s what I also wonder.

Does the ‘‘past performance’’ of an alliance it’s wars include win/lose ratio + score differences or only a win/lose ratio?

Could someone confirm it one way or another?

@Kerridoc @JonahTheBard @Brobb


#118

I think it is win/loss ratio only, but better informed people than me should confirm this.


#119

I agreed with you. The leader and co-leader are there to discipline the Alliance. If they decide to keep the inactive members, then other active members should switch the Alliance. During vacation, there’s a button to not participate the war so they will not be counted in the war Score for the matchmaking.


#120

They do not have to leave their alliance and find a more ‘‘war active’’ alliance, because the current system will eventually provide them with a beatable opponent. It’s perfect for those who love their alliance and love wars, but who are in an alliance with other members who are less disciplined towards wars. Eventually they will be matched with a beatable opponent if they keep losing.

I like it that the entire alliance eventually will not be punished any longer (after a few loses in a row), simply because a couple of members do participate without using all their flags. Some alliances like to keep this ‘‘low level of engagement’’, because it suits their playing style.


#121

You can leave the alliance while you on vacation or just tap “not participate in wars”. That shouldn’t be a problem of disciplined alliance, that should be a problem of undesciplened. If your alliance is bad and you want rewards from the war chest, just switch the allians. Game shouldn’t help unddesciplined alliance. War chest is team work. If your team is bad, you shouldn’t get any reward, you should never win. If you are not happy with that, find alliance that plays as active as you. It’s not a big problem in this game.


#122

Why should an alliance not get rewarded, because they have no discipline in war attacks?

Some players enjoy the game, but do not like to commit themselves as much as some of us do. They enjoy playing the game for maybe 30 minutes to 1 hour a day, while some of us spend about 6 to 7 hours a day.

The ones who commit themselves already get rewarded by opening their War Chest sooner and receiving more often better loot because they win more wars. The ones who have less committment will have to wait much longer to open the War Chest. They also do not receive great loot from war losses. Isn’t that already fair enough? :thinking:


#123

I do understand that it’s annoying to fight, while knowing you will lose. Especially if your alliance fully commits to wars.

Imagine we would have War Leagues as Raid Leagues:

Diamond
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze

Let’s say that after a certain period of time, the first 10 alliances will be promoted to the next league and the last 10 will be downgraded to the previous league. With exceptions of the top of Platinum and bottom of Bronze, of course. We now have our ‘‘barriers’’. We can’t grow beyond our strength for a while and we can’t face lower opponents at some point.

This system has one big disadvantage and it’s exactly the one this discussion is about;

More alliances will have longer win and lose streaks, because they won’t be facing stronger or weaker opponents after a while. The weaker alliances will keep losing and have NO POINT AT ALL to participate anymore. The stronger alliances will get rewarded continuously. Only the alliances in the middle will have a natural flow of matching-making along with their capabilities.

Now, if we agree that only strong or disciplined alliances should be rewarded then this league system will be great. But that does not sound fair to me.