Alliance War Score Win/Loss History Limit Changed from 10 to 20

Reposting from @mhalttu for visibility:

13 Likes

Bump for visibility

20

2 Likes

Does it instantly take account of the last 20 or does it build up to 20 over the next 10 wars? Just curious, we certainly don’t track our performance close enough to be able to tell a difference :smile:

3 Likes

Build up to 20 over next 10 wars

4 Likes

Thanks for the info.

2 Likes

Extra bump for visibility. Because you can never have enough bumps, unless they are moles and covering your face, then I guess more than 2 is too many?

1 Like

This literally makes Zero Sense Other the kicking the can down the road.

With the current Ladder System in EP/used in other games. This is exactly what happens. We are all on the Top of it in pecking order and the bottom. The only way to fill up Center is population of the game.

I love having a higher War Score in Relationship to Titan/Cups. So I am solid anyhow.

But current War Issues are:

  1. Teams exploiting with 28 or 29 and not filling so they can go undefeated (Could be corrected by giving us Value in Chest and loot based on Tiers). This immediately fix’s 28 and 29 teams to go to 30.

  2. Teams being able to Win at Max Penalty? This went from ~6 in the game Per month, Summer to 16-18 during Summer to close to 25 per month now days. Some doing it once and some 75-85+%. Some teams are extremely good at it and it’s not the top 10 Teams in game. This is due to War Stat, 3/2 VS 4/1 VS Mono, + Emblems + people Amplifying Emblems with Troops & most importantly skill cap.

  • Adjusting is all to 20 Penalties gifts us all 10 Wins in 45-60 Days but the Pecking order is still the same.

This adjustment makes Zero Sense unless we are buying time for Emblems to flat out the top 50 Teams in the game. Fact in current type Ladder system we are ALWAYS going to be staggered off the top & the bottom. 10, 20 or 30 “counters”

@mhalttu

@zephyr1

1 Like

Not really… Cause match-making takes into account the top 30 heroes of all opted in members. Thus there is an accounting section for alliances which have less than full members.

Not sure what the issue is here? Is it that some teams are too good at wars? Thats kinda their prerogative tho…?

1 Like

[Removed]

All good Sir maybe a bit defensive. I don’t type well but understand the Mechanics just not the logic to why 10 to 20.

1 Like

Sorry wasn’t trying to be a “Forum Warrior”. Just trying to understand the apparent issue…

2 Likes

True

But for a “theoretical example”(tho is currently happening Aggressively)

Say an alliance is #2 in the game strength wise, and has a 9/10 war win rate for 30/30 member wars, matched with other opponents of the same etc

Ok well now that alliance decides 9/10 isn’t enough, they want to win 10/10 wars and fill more war chests

So they open their 30th spot

When full their war score is 113k+

At 29/30 their war score drops down to like 108k or 109k(give or take)

But the closest 29 member team that can touch them has a war score of like 103k(give or take)

That’s a big difference in strength

Well the flawed system we currently use matches that 113k+ team with a 103k or less team due to the system prioritizing member counts to avoid matching full vs unfull alliances as much as possible, and knowing this info, the strong team can exploit it and succesfully “war drop” and fill all the chests they want due to no one being able to compete with them at the 29/30 level

It is currently being exploited by at least 2 teams in the top 20, and I’m sure the trend will grow once other teams figure out they can just drop members to win wars instead of trying to beat competition at their level to win at “war cap”

It’s the easiest war exploit to date for alliances near or at the top of their competition brackets

Numbers above are not exacts btw, just purely for easy example clear picture sake

Basically 29 people with 30+ maxed 5s per member can intentionally match with another 29 people with less than 30 maxed 5s per member, and it’s fully within the rules/guidelines/system of the game but you can see how this would be considered “unfair” to those other alliances at 29/30 knowing their headed into a 1 sided loss every 4 or 5 wars(matchmaking doesn’t match same teams sooner than 2 weeks from my understanding) and the 30/30 teams that put actual effort into winning at cap or beyond to fill an extra war chest instead of taking the low road

6 Likes

In one of our wars a member was forced opted-out of war by the game. Apparently this was so that our 30 member alliance could be matched up with a 29 member alliance. Our war win rate is usually 9 out of 10 so I assume this kind of match up could happen against any alliance trying to game the system in the way you describe. Trying to sand bag match making by ducking into the 29-member tier could still be matched against another alliance at or near the win rate cap.

True but if matchmaking starts at the top and works it’s way down, any 30/30 alliance that would be strong enough to match em has already been matched with someone else by the time they’re matched with someone

If #2 in war score when 30/30, that leaves very few match possibilities even when they’re full. They drop to 29, those few possibilities have already been matched elsewhere

I agree it can be an issue @Rigs. The few times we have been 29/30 for war, we had pretty fair matches though. Usually against another top alliance being one short, like us having someone leaving soon before matchmaking and not having a sub ready to join.

1 Like

Consecutive??? Does that mean it will be resetted to 1 lose after a loss even if they won all previous 9? @zephyr1

1 Like

No

It tracks 20 consecutive matches

Latest score(win/loss) replacing the last score(win/loss)

If you’re at war cap, and you lose, you’ll go down in score by x amount, then when you win, it’ll go back up

Now if you’re at cap and you win, you’re war score no longer goes up until you lose again(speaking strictly performance score, base/strength score still goes up as more heroes and troops are leveled)

2 Likes

Btw to all the people tryin to act like I’m a moron and that top alliances aren’t taking advantage of 29/30 wars… here’s a matchup one got by dropping to 29/30 and it’s for the current war:

1577343176532

1577343178207

So people can dismiss it, call it crazy talks, throw in their anecdotal bs, whatever but those who actually pay attention are watching these matchmakings happen and are watching the system get exploited.

Anyways just food for thought

And yes the 118k alliance is full now but even their 29/30 score was 114k

We’ve beat the lower team everytime we’ve faced them by a substantial amount and we’re not a top 3 powerhouse like the 118k is.

So before jumping in and talkin out the side of your heads…think about all that…

Spoiler alert:
The stronger team won

1 Like

Another example

1578244775312 1578244777422

Was it taken exactly after matchmaking?

This was score without 30th member opted in for the winning side

So scores seemed similar but the outcomes were obviously not

This is a sader war btw

We went from fighting 4400 to 4600+ defenses

To 4k to 4200

Just by dropping a member

Didnt do it intentionally. I left to visit a friend and the guy replacing me got booted before war matched and we didnt find a replacement in time

We avoid wars at less than 30/30 as much as possible
Mainly for this reason. We like competitive wars.

Cookie Settings