Hi,
my alliance just won an alliance war 3446 to 3444…so we get 5 points, they get nothing…same as if we had won 3446 to 1444…how about making war less binary? If you win war by 400+ points, winning alliance gets 5 points, loser zip, but 301-400, winner 4 pts, loser one. 201-300, winner 3, loser 2, 201-300. 101-200, winner 2, loser 1…less than 100 points win is a draw, 2 each …or something like that.
2 Likes
Losers still get 1 point no matter what
Personally i feel like your suggestion would lead the war point system too close to the cup system, i hate the cup system. Probably cause I always thought sports and other non-video games got it right where a win is a win and a loss is a loss regardless of how either opponent performed or how they were matched up
But that is just my 2 cents and is completely biased to my personal feelings and not really about what could be best for the game but i can’t see pass my own biased at this moment
4 Likes
Ah, there are exceptions to that. Ratings/rankings. The most obviously parallel to the cups system is the Elo system, as used most notably in the FIDE world rankings of chess, but also in other sports and games, since 2018 including the FIFA world rankings. Tennis has two such systems – UTR (based on Elo) and the better known ATP, which rates not on matches but on performance in a weighted selection of tournaments.
But usually, within a tournament, whether chess, tennis, football, or whatever, every result it still win/draw/loss. How such a win/draw/loss affects rankings, might depend on other factors, but in the tournament, that’s it: Win/loss/draw.
The only exception I know of to that, is bridge team scoring: Bridge scoring - Wikipedia
… but I agree; I don’t particularly want to see that kind of scoring in alliance wars. 
1 Like
Yes I’m aware of ELO systems
Thanks for the info though
And for what it’s worth, alliance wars already use such a system but they just don’t use it in the war chests
It’s in the alliance scores
A win = +2k
A loss = -2k
But it caps. Obviously the -2k has to hit 0 at some point.
I’m not sure of the cap of the +2k. I know some alliances do win at their capped scores though so i know it caps since their scores stop going up after wins until they have a loss.
I aslo know that when we lost last war before our recent win, our score went down 2k. After our recent win, our score went up 2k.
So the elo matching is there as far as trying to take evenly strength/skilled opponents(roster part of the score) and match them with relative performance opponents(wins/losses part of the score)
Still working on further breaking down the war scoring sytem but that’s the basis of it, not new info though unfortunately. I still need to take the time and spreadsheet all the changes i took note of with roster changes and break down the rest of the score components to see the different values of heroes and troops, honestly just havin doubts it would be worth anything and if it is worth anything, would it just lead to exploits…
And 2k could be a %, i haven’t dataed enough to know if the 2k is consistent or if it’s a % based off our alliance’s strength score
2 Likes
That’s good info @Rigs. I wasn’t sure how that worked out after each win, my alliance is in that weird place where we have some vets and many new players. The matchmaking seems to give us tougher opponents either way, win or lose, whatever the outcome of our previous matchup.
It’s good for the middling/new players to face down the tough teams, but some were full of 2+ year players with deep rosters.
*Amazingly the newer players turned out to be beasts and we have won more than we lost, albeit by 1-30pts. But learning that using every flag is very IMPORTANT is great too 
2 Likes
Well problem is war dropping
Alliances have figured out they can drop members and get easier matches and string together war wins for more war chests
I could give top 100 examples but i dont want to be too Aggressive
Alliances normally at 30 dropping a member and staying at 29 for awhile gets them easier matchups since it drops them down a bracket.
Best way to have fairer matchups is have 30/30 members
3 Likes
I knew there had to be a workaround, just couldn’t figure it out. Thanks, answers a lot of questions.
Np
There was an alliance that stayed at 20 members for awhile cause they could go undefeated that way
So it’s happening at any member count level
Hoping @mhalttu may see this and think of a fix
4 Likes
I agree, a win is a win is a win. Whether by one point or 1500 points doesn’t matter. If we introduce graded points (fuzzy wars?) does that mean we need an even more convoluted war point calculation? You get +2k for a win over 500 points and only +1k if less, and only +100 if you win by 10 points or less? Ugh. Keep it simple, …
2 Likes
Please GOD keep it simple!!! I certainly don’t want the convoluted mess that College football rankings are!! Can you imagine?
1 Like
The cap is reportedly at ± 10 net wins (see below) – which should translate to ±20k, per your observation.
However, back in March, Kerridoc reported that mhalttu had reported that the adjustment is multiplicative. His illustrative “not the actual numbers” was a ±2% of the (unmodified) alliance score per net win.
… and of course, that may have chanced since March …
I believe I saw them mentioned on Wikipedia as examples of Elo rankings.
1 Like
I imagine you did @Sidhekin, the ELO is a disaster IMO.
I think SG has balanced as fairly as they can at this time. It’s just disheartening to see my team facing top 10 4K+ Defenses during AW.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s AWESOME when we beat them. But that’s normally because they just left way too many flags on the field.
5 Likes
Thanks for the tidbit of info, ran the math and it checks out
Idk if i missed that or it just slipped my mind. I know I’ve mentioned the 10 wars part before but not the %
This isn’t an exact solution to the problem you highlighted, but here’s one change I did make just now.
When we started to take into account the past war history, we capped the effect to 10 consecutive victories or losses. There are a lot of alliances who have reached both ends of the spectrum. I’ve now increased the limit to 20 wins or losses.
We’ll monitor the situation, and feel free to comment on this thread if you think it made things worse and not better. I reserve the right to bring the limit back to 10.
19 Likes
Thanks of course I’ll keep ya posted
Nevermind, i know my answer. Gettin coffee and revisiting later
“This isn’t an exact solution to the problem you highlighted, but here’s one change I did make just now.”
Solution to OP’s complaint/suggestion is possible take it in another way (if game isn’t doing it, which effects are war chest value/tier). 1) Each time you Win a War you get 5 Points put in Chest (5 Points = >the War-score Value< of the enemy you just beat. Or 1/5 of the Enemy War score that just beat you. Put the Values on a Tier System like everything else in this game and it’s sorted.
“When we started to take into account the past war history, we capped the effect to 10 consecutive victories or losses. There are a lot of alliances who have reached both ends of the spectrum. I’ve now increased the limit to 20 wins or losses.”
Are you talking taking the War Penalties to ±20 and not ±10? Truthfully I love the idea. Because our War score is going to be worth (More the current) in relation to Titans/Cups & War Centric Teams we’ll Rise to the top. Will also water down the timing of Titans dying and rankings jumping.
The issue of Jumping it from 10 to 20 is it has Zero effect on “match making” after we catch back up through those Penalties the “pecking order” up top is going to be the exact same once all the teams fighting at 10 Climb to 20 VS each other.
4 Likes
30 participants, or just 30 members? I really hope it’s participants.
We usually have 30 members, but never 30 in war (I think our high is 26). If it matters, then we’ll have to talk over making war mandatory, not just flag usage.
Is there discussion of the brackets somewhere? I’m betting it’s that multi thousand reply thread, isn’t it? 
It will be interesting to see how that is effecting matches/max. war scores. We are currently at cap 109,5K, top war teams cap seems to be 110k, does that mean that our cap will raise if getting more wins?
If so the issue on top may be that the few alliances winning 80- 90% of their wars will be almost impossible to reach extending cap to 20 wins penalty.
I know all about how a very close win/defeat can seem unfair, like getting 1 point in a close to tie war.
I can not support your idea though @Galaxy_Guardian74 as I think it would take a lot of the thrill from getting a close win and may get people care less about how of if they use their last flags if it doesn’t effect the end war result anyway
1 Like
I am not good at Wording/Typing. But this post has pictures & colors and hopefully explains.
1 Like