Looks like it. Everyone remaining joined in the last 2 days.
Now THAT is a problem. Unfortunately, alliances like Jamir’s are going to be the punching bag for these “newer” alliances until they work their way up (and hopefully stay together and not defraud the system and fair-play alliances of a fair match).
1 Like
They created the alliance (with 30 members) 2 hours before the matchmaking… and when the war finished… they started to go away 
Seriously?! That’s disgusting and unethical by gaming standards. Small Giant should seriously consider suspending some of these players’ accounts, who abuse the system in this way.
I think it pretty much affects every alliance not in the top 100 who have stuck together. I know people keep saying that it isn’t smart to do that from a titan perspective, but the point is it happens.
People have suggested that there should be a carrot to keep alliances together. My thought would be that after a year or so, if you are in the same alliance, opening a war chest should give you an extra chance for a 4 star ascension material. Make it worth getting beaten up by these type of alliances.
3 Likes
How many were opted in on both sides?
Sorry if this has already been mentioned already (as the 4030th post, I’m sure it has but I’m too lazy to search)… I mildly wish out of curiosity’s sake that there was a way to view Alliance War TPs (i.e. war score NOT taking into account past war history), even if it was hidden until after the war or something.
Def agree with war matching based on adjusted alliance war scores for obvious reasons, and I can see why it’s hidden during the war bc it could affect strategy… it would just be interesting to see how mismatched the heroes themselves were after the war’s over.
Have to agree that was a terrible match up and you were victim of the alliace shuffle it seems. 
1 Like
I’ve done a lot of thinking about why this is so prevalent, especially since it means giving up on Titans for PoV.
I’ve come to the conclusion, that through the use of a few 2-3 month old alt accounts, you could keep an alliance in 3-4* titan range pretty easily, and bounce between the alliances. This would keep the Titan level in either alliance from falling too quick. Then, to avoid the war chest participation rate dropping, you opt out with the alts.
Effectively, this means you get to go in to a slightly weaker alliance with a clean war history every 2.5 weeks, and streak on Titans that are too weak for you, but not 1*, and saves the gems of recreating a new alliance every time.
Is that essentially the ploy these idiots are running?
2 Likes
War history follows players …
I’ve never seen that said. All I’ve seen was that past performance affects the war score. Since that score is at an alliance level, I would think history is tied to the alliance. Basically, this would be the equivalent of a confidence rating in ELO, which is essentially what we know is used for raid matching.
I think there’s strong evidence it is tied to the alliance, not the individuals.
1 Like
I suspect they are using more than one two alliances and using alt accounts to keep titans at a fairly high level. That way the titan penalty is minimal as they would never get below and 7-9 9 star if their alts are of a reasonable level.
Currently it is. This is the whole issue (though I think the issue is blown out of proportion).
1 Like
That’s sounds about right. And these guys are jumping from one ghost Alliance to another just to get easier opponents (alts are used to keep ghost Alliances alive. Then, they are coming back to collect war chest, and they are still getting a decent loot, as war participation rate is stored in database referencing player identifiers. We’ve also faced one Russian Alliance (> 25 members) which was much stronger than ours and they just smashed our organized Alliance with 61xx points VS 29xx points. And, all the members of that Russian Alliance were marked as Ex-member way before the end of the war.
1 Like
Just got matched with another one, all guys less than a week in the alliance. Pretty frustrating.
You are referring to the plan of keeping a bit longer list of previous opponents. This change would only affect the very top alliances. And if we do implement it, we will obviously monitor the situation and reserve the right to revert the change.
3 Likes
You’re wasting your time dude… SG will and can spin it however they want to divert focus from the root of the issue and moderators will all but play “good boys”, it’s kinda part of their job you know. So don’t expect to get any objective communication on this matter. And many others for that matter. This is exactly why I don’t usually participate in 99% of the discussions.
Anyway, FWIW, even though I think you’re full of ■■■■ at times, I’m with you on this 100% and might expand on my personal thoughts at some point later today…
6 Likes
Just read this thread and had one of those ‘aha’ moments. Lately have not been able to win at war. And when I keep seeing these alliances of lvl50+ players who all join together 2-3 days before war. It seems to be happening a lot lately. Very demoralizing to us lower placed alliances. I came looking to see if something was up as we have been seeing it so often this past month. It’s ruining Wars for us, making the game less enjoyable, and now has even caused people to quit.
Perhaps they need to make new players wait a week before they can do war? I do not know if that will stop it. But it is hurting the game, imho.
1 Like
I can see how one would come to that sentiment
But i would hate the idea of getting a new member in our unexploitive alliance and they have to sit out a week before they can be a true part of the team just because some players decided to exploit the system(we’ve already seen players caught in the mercs vs devs crossfire, i wouldn’t want to see a similar situation arise due to these war exploits)
I would prefer if devs found a way to just make it less rewarding to exploit the system somehow
I’ve suggested it a few times but making chest points based on depth score instead of the current point system would be my ideal solution but I’m just 1 guy.
If your team beats a stronger team, it should be worth more chest points
If your team beats a weaker team, it should be worth less
This would deter the exploiters since it wouldn’t fill their war chests any faster by pickin on lower teams
If a win vs a weaker team is only worth 2 points instead of the current 5, then they’re better off facing teams of equal or higher depth
Sure new alliances started by veteran players would be on a losing end of this change for a bit but that’s already the case with titans so why not make it the case with wars…
Game rewards should be based on progress and the challenges that come with it
“Same for all rewards” typically leads to the sort of exploits we’re seeing
4 Likes