Alliance War, less Binary

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? :cry:

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.

@Zathrus

1 Like

It’s very low response threads because people have more interest in complaints that are irrelevant to gameplay due to lack of game understanding and just being window shoppers, probably same people that think only the players with the most expensive basketball shoes are the only players good at basketball

War score doesnt count opt out players
Only takes in opt ins

The brackets aren’t listed for every strength and member count tier as it would take way too much time to do and not all alliances are easily listed with their war scores in game outside of top 100

The only bracket listed i know of is like the top 32 teams within the top 100

1 Like

If you guys were at war cap, this will just extend your war cap

Like Saders is 105k right now, we’re capped in the old system. We only fight teams stronger than us when we’re war capped. Less than war cap and we fight opponents weaker than us. Well now our war cap will be like 124k or somethin like that so we now have 10 more wars under cap before we fight a more probable loss

At least theoretically

With that being said, i think this new change will be really good for the game, especially for the top 100 leaderboard since now war scores exceed titan scores and the rankings will reflect that. So teams that do the best in wars at 30/30 will be higher up the ranks than teams that kill 14s and are at 30/30 but do terrible in wars

I hope that makes sense, if it doesn’t feel free to ask questions and if you don’t wanna ask here, my line id is jrigs

3 Likes

As far as my original issue with the less than 30 member matchmaking, it wont effect that at all. Teams that are really really strong can still just drop a member and dominate the field of alliances weaker than them and farm war chests without issue. Say a #3 alliance when full drops 1 member and goes to 29/30 well you dont see many teams in even the top 50 that are 29/30 so of course the #3 team would be way ahead in strength of the teams that are typically at 29/30. And if they’re not then can just drop to 28/30 or 27/30 or whatever until they find a strength cap they exceed with their member counts. So the system is still very easily manipulated

I have no proposed solution for this. Only thing i can think of is varying war chest point values based on how an opponent’s strength compares to a team’s strength, and would only compare full theoretical full strengths. Basically the stronger opponent you face, the more chest points they’re worth for a win, the weaker teams you face, the less points they are worth for a win. Less than 30 teams would be compared at a theoretical level as if they were full, take the average member war score and tack into the empty spots and those theoretical strengths would determine the value of a win/loss. So would work kind of like cups but different since cup count can be irrelevant to team power where war chest points would be directly tied team powers basically

Also don’t know how much i would personally like this system but considering we stay at 30/30 and dont fall more than 1 war under our cap, then we wouldnt see a big variance in our chest points but teams less than 30 would see some

I just don’t know how easily that would be implemented into the current system

3 Likes

Thanks @Rigs and @Zombies. We’re nowhere close to the cap, and probably do a 50/50 win rate at best, but always looking to improve.

I don’t think we’re up against anything like what Rigs said above though.

1 Like

I agree, only saying that 3-4 top alliances will have war/alliance scores that is almost unreachable to other teams on the leaderboard, not even getting close. I can live with that as we all know the top 3 alliances anyway :smile: It is nice and encouraging for other alliances to reach top ranks once in a while, even though it may not always reflect the actual strength of alliances. So I think it is a balance between top of leaderboard being more stagnant, that maybe reflecting actual alliance strenght more, if giving war score more weight, or have if more floating like now.

1 Like

War scores are already pretty static considering a win or loss is only 2% of total war score, with an alliance not able to go more than 20% above or below it’s own base strength without dropping members and losing streaks are a rarity in i would say the top 50 or so.

If i had to “guess” without tracking data, i would say top 50 don’t see more than 2 back to back losses which means even after those back to back losses, their score will only drop 4% which is enough to move the chains in the leaderboard but not enough to drop them ridiculously low

Like right now if we dropped 4k points in our alliance score, we’d go from 30 somethin to 40 somethin leaderboard wise

The way the alliance war score matchmaking system works is it’s pretty bracketed which is why we all face same opponents over and over

With this new system, things may look awkward for a month or 2, but once it all shakes out everyone will be back where they are now i suspect. As far as grand scheme of things and the bracket they belong to anyways.

Leaderboard wise will just be more accurate in alliance strength/performance

I know that the issue I refer too is irrelevant to 99,9 % of all alliances, so I will support any system that is working better for the 99%.

1 Like

Personally i would prefer a more accurate leaderboard that isnt just jumping all over the place from titan decays

If it was up to me, i would probly remove the titan decay and just cap titan score to x amount and let the war score determine the leaderboard

I mean we can kill back to back titans in a 24 hr period and jump to #1 knowing we aren’t the strongest alliance and not even the top performing alliance. Teammates get excited about it but until our strength&performance rightfully places us there, it’s not something i personally consider brag worthy or even worth getting excited about as it’s a false/inflated ranking

2 Likes

I was one of the players speaking out loudy for a long time, to make war scores a part of alliance score and spamming @mhalttu about it, so I couldn’t agree more. I still fully understand that it takes a lot of consideration to change ranking systems though, as players and Alliances have very different approaches to goals based on ranks. And all alliance scores need to have some cap to keep a balance, for titans the decay helps doing that

2 Likes

players do enjoy patting themselves on the back for ranking higher than they should i guess

I think one of the easiest solutions would be to make a war leaderboard aside of the general leaderboard. Like we have global and local leaderboard in raids.
Then Alliances mainly focused on war results could keep track of the movements there. That is what is interesting to most Alliances on the leaderboard, as we all can down high level titans using enough flask or items or make a push on cups if needed

2 Likes

I dont see a point in even having ranks if they’re not accurate

Luckily some players actually do keep track of an accurate leaderboard that doesnt show alliances ranked higher than others just due to what time of day it is

1 Like

I like it Julia.

I struggle with how current top 100 Even matters though Tbh and why not just delete it. War & ability to win Wars at a higher % (open chest faster)…is all that maters if everyone is tied on titans [14’s] persay.

They could track us on win rate if 30/30 only or a simple version of top to bottom a counter put on a team for winning a cap and displaying us from top to bottom for who has the highest counters per month etc. This would give a accurate measure to compare teams, recruit, frame goals etc.

@Zathrus - The comment above. “Not at your level”. > What I/We are talking about applies at all levels. Example - There very will could be a team in the game with 30/30 on 10 Titans worth say 90k and they are War Capped at 90k and uncontested in War Due to there Strat and Skill cap.

3 Likes

There is probably a formula behind the increase/decrease in score following win/loss of a war.

I just captured the numbers 1h before the end of the war and just after:

  • a bit before the end of the war : 53884
  • right after the war : 55181

So this makes an increase of 1297 in our case (which can be a bit altered if people evolved their heroes).

For correction to previous statement @anon42499138