All of my alliance’s original members are actually related to or connected to my girlfriend’s family in some way. Cousins, nieces, nephews, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc.
That is all I can officially say without betraying confidentiality. She comes from a very large family with lots of connections. And they have been kind enough to accept me as part of their family.
The game was just meant as a fun distraction, few of them ever took it seriously as anything more than that.
War history must be abandoned altogether. Otherwise game is just punishing better organized alliances for their wins. The accent should be also increased from 5 to 10 strongest heroes and troops.
I fail to be convinced, after our last win, our war score increased by just 2% and the losers lost 1.9%. 2% harder is not much at all (literally a couple of levels on a troop) and is still doable for us. We don’t expect to win forever. After all, our war score has increased 7 times (compounded 2% base but ~15%) in recent time and we are close to our limits but we are far more organised and reliable than our opponents. Everyone has a role and we have a cheer squad!!
Ah, buddy, you know I love you, but I’m going to have to side with @PaulKami on this one.
I certainly don’t want any easy wins from alliances who knock themselves out like The Three Stooges (we have faced quite a few of those types, they are just comically bad)… but at the same time, I don’t want any more of the crap we were facing before either… P2W teams that are all average 300+ TP and 15+ player levels above us just one shotting us into oblivion, while we scramble to try to get a third reset after they have already reset us 4 times without so much as breaking a sweat?
I know you don’t really want a return to that, do you? The teams that used to beat us blindfolded with both hands behind their backs, 20 flags unused on their side? That’s the kind of 
that made me opt out before.
I still say that the best war we’ve had lately was the one before our last. That team was very talented, but not overpowered compared to us. They very nearly beat us, and in a series of rematches, I imagine they probably would beat us 50% of the time.
I would love to fight them again some day! If only the matchmaking allowed it.
Whereas our last opponents were more in the Larry, Curly and Moe category. Poking each others eyes out, trying to hit us with a bat and instead smacking each other in the face.
This practice has become a stain on the game. I don’t really care that it’s not as effective as maybe it once was (as I’ve read elsewhere) in terms of garnering better loot. And I can’t see anyway that SG could stop alliances from doing the war score manipulation shuffle, but I hate it with the fire of a thousand suns.
That stopped being useful last November. In October they changed it so that win/loss history is associated to the individual players, not the alliance.
So go ahead and reform, or shuffle between alliances, or whatever. Your war score will follow you now.
We faced such practice several times during last months. Next time I will note alliance name. But one of them had this very well defined. After war they even changed description to " resting" and all members except leader left an alliance.
War matching is based off the hero’s you own not your tp which you can change… y’all have better hero’s then them…
I follow the updates pretty regularly, but have never read that the win/loss history is tied to individual players and not the alliance. Can you point me toward a post that states this because that doesn’t make much sense to me. If it stopped being useful, why are we seeing it more than ever these past couple of months?
I would like to see this aswell
Just found it. I’m still a bit skeptical. The practice is more common than ever and we are seeing bigger mismatches as a result. Meh.
Just look at the Alliance Score tooltip. It states:
The War Score is calculated based on the most powerful Heroes and Troops of each Alliance member participating in the Wars, adjusted by their past performance in the Wars.
As for people still doing the war shuffling strategy, they don’t realize it has changed, or they think it still works.
Cheers bud Reading now…
Thanks @Quinn3 , just saw that as well as the post from November stating the change.
I dunno…maybe 75% of our recent wars have been against war shufflers. All with similar war scores to our and most of them were clearly tougher teams. And I can’t imagine that they would keep up with this practice if it wasn’t working for them. I only see it on the other side of the rainbow, so I can’t judge their success or lack thereof. But just based on how common it is, I feel like it has to be some kind of edge. Regardless of what is stated here.
My head hurts reading that 
Tbh I didn’t realise that I still thought it was down to the alliance.
I am not sure if merging a topic with “cheating” behavior with general match making topic that is active from 2018 year is a good idea.
I can imagine that match making algorithm has its own pros/cons. Possibly if opposite team have all defence teams at 4700 power or more and small amount of other heroes (i.e. worse attack teams and this may result in feeling that it is unfair after seeing battle field.
My second topic was directly related to switching alliance behavior to get something lowered (coefficient inside matching algorithm )in ranking and had a higher chance to get a weaker opponent match during war.
Someone from staff: Is that cheating possibility related to matching algorithm only or other game limitations?
My idea for a solution is to check if a member is in alliance more than 1,2,3,4,5 wars and depending on result add something to make a rank of such member higher. This will result in a little penalty to the alliance after a member will join but huge penalty for alliances were many members will join for a “cheat war”. As e result such “cheaters” will be matched with stronger team and not a weaker one.
Yes, I thought your original post deserved to be on it’s own. Hope you don’t mind that I posted a screenshot of it here to continue the discussion (which can get buried in a post with 4400+ comments).
