The problem with excluding new members for wars is it penalizes players who are not involved in “swinging” alliances. It’s alreadg ridiculously hard to recruit new members in a mid-high level alliance. If you excluded them from wars too it would make that task even more difficult or possibly drive off mid level players from the game all together. You can’t penalize everyone in the game for something that possibly 1% may be doing. And right now it has not even been proven that this does occur and gives any significant advantage. I don’t agree with that as a solution.
You have to move alliances back and forth constantly if you don’t want the sucky titans of the weak alliance you’re going to war with. You’re guaranteed a titan miss on war days too…
I believe the reason win/loss recorded was added is because there were alliances that were getting unfair matches because of participation and organized strategy that they could not match due to the level of activity of the alliance or because they were a more “casual” alliance. Now that members can opt out maybe it would not make those matches quite as often. But there are two sides to every solution. You have to look at the people it may help and also the innocent bystanders who it may have negative effects on. I’ll have to see if I can find some of the older threads that initiated the win/loss record being added to matching and see what exactly the original complaint was.
You keep adding more steps and it makes less sense to me.
Why would these ‘War Mercs’ leave before end of war? When they return to ‘home’ their participation % will drop. If ‘home’ wins next War and alliance chest is full, they get 10-20% (me math badly) loot.
Man, I feel like I’m being dense here but im just not wrapping my head around the upside to doing any of this and especially not at the amount some of you are reporting it. So, apologies for that.
Not necessarily. For example we have a training alliance that has several members over level 40 and several very new players as well. The majority fall somewhere in the middle around level 20. The upper level players joined because they needed an alliance that didn’t require strict daily participation and war strategy or because they enjoy teaching and helping new members. But because alliance has a large gap between the top and lower players they sometimes get some strange matches. Taking out win/loss record may have a negative effect on them. But without trial and error I’m not 100% sure. I do see where improvements could be made to help limit the uneven matches for alliances that fall into a similar category but I’m at a loss as to what that might be that wouldn’t punish another group as a side effect.
I think that loosing war alliance before the end of war does’t affect their participation %, cause „home” don’t participate in wars, only fight titans. You are loosing participation only if you take a part in another alliance war.
Sorry for asking but in order to have a more completed picture, can you give us a picture of your alliance without naming it… if that is ok of course.
like average war score, average alliance score, higher/lower members’ teams to see the gap between strong and weak members, participation in war, average attacks left… that kind of things… because I’m guessing alliances similar to yours are more valuable to this exploit… and maybe we could find a solution to defent against them…
So we have seen a lot of evidence that a win impacts the war score less than the leveling done during a war cycle. If they wipe 5 wins, that is 15 days of leveling. I’m not sure that is a serious advantage.
I say do it if you think there is an advantage. Then report back if you actually saw one after a two months or so of trying it.
I can think of so many other reasons, ones that I see every day, for what you are seeing. And it has nothing to do with war advantage.
War Score 168228
Trophy score 34512
Titan score 38767
Members 29, participation in war 21, active 19. After last war 35 flags left (our enemy left 38, we won 2933 vs 2729).
Leader 44 lvl 3,8k, another 9 have 30 lvl plus, 11 20 lvl plus.
We have two wars with strange Russian teams that I decsribed, and it was 1000-1500 point plus of advantage for them.
We are winning almost every war with regular alliances, and if we loose it is not spectacular.
If I read these two pieces together, you’re saying that you don’t know or care what the details of the effect are, but it’s a huge problem anyway.
I think it’s really hard to say how big a problem it might be until we know the actual effects on war score. If it’s a 20% difference, I care a LOT. If it’s a 1% difference, I don’t basically care at all.
20% would be a teenager vs a grown man. 1% would be a good heavyweight vs an average heavyweight. Again, hard to know how much concern to have without some more detailed knowledge.
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. I’m saying I don’t really understand the magnitude of the problem just yet.
Of course that not every alliance with large group of newbies and large group of old, strong players is suspicious. But when you see that every strong player joined the alliance 48 hour before the war or so, and there is a large group of new, strong players, you know that you already lost the war.
I descibed my alliance, so you can see it is quite uniform. I would say that 7 best players of 21 war participants generate about 40% of overall 168 k warscore, but even if it is 50% we can say that 7 strongest players in my alliance generates about 85k warscore.
Compare that to alliance created of 14 newbies (probably some or all are the second acounts of switchers), this group of newbies has only 10-15 heroes each, so I think that the group generates only 10-20% of alliance warscore, so switchers generate about 80-90% of 168k warscore that is about 135-150k.
My 7 leaders are about two times weaker that 7 switchers, we can even scratch their best players having vivica and other best 5* heroes on board, all damage is cured during a fight.
What do you mean by “two times weaker?” Can you give specific team power numbers?
You do know that alliances merge from time to time right?
Well if the newbies are lvl 20-25 and haven’t reach tc13+ I find it a good strategy. Having the 3rd-6th attack-team with 1500-1100 power just adds 2500-3000 for each member to the war score… for 11 members… is 27500- 33000 points…
And many alliances, from the moment their members reach tc12 they start gathering 3star untrained heroes having 1-2 good teams with leveled heroes and 20 1.1 3star heroes…
an avarage 1.1 3star hero is 230-250x5=1150-1250 <— the damage you can make with all these 33 teams combined I would say is around 50-70 points in total…
I don’t know if your alliance does that, ours did it and was a huge problem…
But if they are level 20+ with just one 3-4stars and a bit leveled up defense team, and been in the game for 150+ days and still show up in the war I would say they are fakes…
Is it really that hard for a NES to understand when a NNES try to use English?!
Two times weaker = half the strength
There are many of us NNES (Not Native English Speaker) who are playing this game and and thereby encounter problems, and as this forum only allow posts in English (and some other major languages), this forces people to try ot express their complaints as well as they can while using a foreign language!
I think most of us realize how difficult it is for NNES to express themselves in this forum. Even NES, who may not have great communication skills, are often difficult to understand.
That is often why players will try to reframe your question, or ask for more clarification. I don’t believe it’s because they are trying to mock you (or others), I believe it comes from a place of sincerely wanting to help understand the problem, and try to fix it.
Of course there will always be truly ignorant people, regardless of what language they speak, and it’s always advisable to ignore much of what they say.
I flat don’t believe the war matching algorithm is pairing alliances where the strongest player on one side is, say, 4000 TP and the strongest player on the other side is 2000 TP. So I’m asking for clarification.
In English, this is a polite way of expressing doubt in the statement being made. I’m assuming it must be hyperbole and not literally accurate.