Alliance wars - matching manipulation

Got it! Updated the post to reflect the correct delays. Thanks for the catch!

3 Likes

Theory is good, but as I said the swingers are usually to strong for us to even scratch them, kill group of 6 or 7 swingers is quite impossible. That is why the are just keep winning.

2 Likes

Kill all the enemies is probably easier said than done :wink:

2 Likes

Even if you don’t get the board clear, that’s a good approach. And with good coordination you can take out the huge teams. It helps to have some people plan to bust the tanks so other follow-up hits can chip away. It may take several flags, but it’s worth it once you’ve killed the weaker teams repeatedly.

For what it’s worth, my alliance has won Wars with similar matchups to what you’re describing by following that approach.

The War we just won today was somewhat similar to that. They had a huge gap between their strongest players and the rest of the alliance. And their strongest players were all stronger than anyone in our alliance.

4 Likes

So, it doesn’t impact the matching, as has already been pointed out. Those players could have been there 300 days or 1 minute before match making. The match would be the same.

It also would be an insane strategy for the players. They would never open a war chest. The second you fight a war in another players alliance, then the participation gets reset.

If they are doing this, they would have to be pretty stupid. It doesn’t help the match making and takes valuable mats out of the players pockets.

5 Likes

What do your rosters look like? I’m level 30, and I’ve been playing for about 4 months. I color stack 3/2, and I have about a 70% win rate against teams with 500+ TP above me. I believe you really could learn to do it…

That said, I agree with you that this high variance “swinging” strategy is probably a weakness in the current matching algorithm. And it’s definitely something that’s worth getting SG to look at fixing.

Thank you very much for bringing this up, and in sticking with it long enough to help us understand what the real problem is! Now let’s see if we can get Small Giant to see it as a problem too.

2 Likes

I still don’t understand it. There is a core problem with matching, where teams with power concentration in higher TP teams somehow match with teams that don’t have the same shape. That has been discussed a lot of time, and this appears to be just another instance.

The swinging aspect is just a red herring…it holds no water.

1 Like

If you stay in a single alliance, the gap is transitory, because weak teams strengthen differentially fast vs. strong teams. Eventually, your alliance will compress out the gap in the average strength.

If you keep hopping alliances, you can maintain an enormous gap vs the average team strength forever. There’s also a turning aspect to their strategy. If you focus carefully on the number of strong versus weak in the alliance, you can maximize the difficulty of your opponents’ job.

2 Likes

Yes, but to what advantage? Your strong players will never open a chest. The match making is the same as if they were there forever.

If anyone is doing this they are just stupid. And the core problem still resolves itself to be power concentration and outliers. Which is a know problem that once addressed will fix this “issue” which I don’t even think is really a “thing”.

2 Likes

Stay for 5 wars, open a chest, switch. Repeat as necessary.

I agree that the fix is to address high TP variance strategies in general.

2 Likes

OK, and what does it buy you? Stay with the same team, you have the same weak teams and the same strong teams. Maybe after 3 months the weak teams become medium teams.

And it still come down to a know core issue.

1 Like

This presumes entering on a 0/25 chest and having 5 straight wins. In practice the duration of stay would likely tend to be longer.

I agree with @General_Confusion, I don’t think the duration of stay/jump is particularly relevant, it’s more an issue that an alliance with a large split of strong/weak players is a hard match for an alliance of all similarly-middle-strength players.

And certainly there are plenty of posts on the forum saying as much.

3 Likes

Yep, the problem is while there are a number of posts describing this issue, I don[t know how prevalent it really is. Does it impact 1% of all wars, 20%? I’m sure SG knows, but they didn’t answer when I asked if this was viewed as an issue to them. If it’s 1%, don’t expect a fix anytime soon. If its above 10%, I sure hope they are working on something to fix it (either my suggestion or another way).

2 Likes

They’re clearly tracking consecutive losses (according to mhalttu). So I’m guessing it’s more a 1% kind of problem than a 10% kind of problem. But yeah, no one really knows.

When did you raise the issue to SG, out of interest? How long ago?

2 Likes

Hi I do agree it needs to be adjusted a bit and I do believe there a loopholes. They are based on top 30 heroes I believe. They should include the whole alliance main and bench teams. Our last war was very even it was awesome we lost but it was great we don’t give up heck bring on 7DD we’ll battle anyone and still have fun win or lose

1 Like

Top 30 for each opted in member. With extra weight to the top 5 from each member…

2 Likes

I posted it in the APL about 17 days ago, and @ Petri and mhalttu to it about 10 days ago,

I also included some info on how I would approach fixing it, which is something I played with a bit and it seemed to work. It would have to be played with on a larger scale and likely tuned a bit, but since I was using a spreadsheet and not code there was only so much I was willing to do.

But that whole adding the solution thing may have been my undoing, since it made for a very long post, and may have decreased the odds of them reading it.

3 Likes

It is a truism that the more detailed the solution, the less likely it is to be read. :man_shrugging: But maybe they’re thinking about it?

1 Like

FYI the strategy you laid out is essentially what the Aliiance War guide you linked to evolved into. That said, you are correct that it works best against alliances with high variation in strength of members. It is also a bit of a PITA to implement.

1 Like

Good to know. Thanks! :slight_smile: My alliance is super tight on wars, using Line and close timing on kills. But yeah, I’m sure that more casual alliances would really struggle. Wasting flags is going to be lethal in high-variance situations, since you’re trying to squeeze every drop of juice out of those 500 equally-distributed points.

1 Like