My alliance is not skillful enough to defy the 50% magnet.
Do I really have to explain the difference between fair and perfect?
Perfect is without flaws. Think me vs you.
And fair is, , the fact we all abide by the sane rules.
The sooner you come to grips, that you’re not the best war team out there.
In fact, 5 of the last 5 you’ve faced are better than you. The sooner we can wrap up these lessons in common sense.
Of course you were. You can certainly appreciate the irony, though, right?
15,000 posts of people that “just want things to be fair” yet not one of them from the winners…
So the question is, “Do you really?”
Because it sounds more like people just get mad when they lose.
Exactly the matching system has its flaws… But we all get to share in them. It’s like King said, You have to outgrow the modified match…
I was in raids the other day and was like, 1800th spot. And was attacked by #46… sure I would have rather been attacked by #1801… and then have the benefit of choosing # 1804, to work my way to spot #1.
But as you know, not a lot separates #1800 from #1.
But that’s war in a microcosm, depending on how well you played the last war as a team…
A spot above you, can fall into that match, if they played bad, and you played well.
That’s not the conclusion I draw from the explanation I read from mhaltu.
If your alliance is consistently sloppy, consistently doesn’t use all your flags, etc, you will be matched (eventually) with alliances that have a lower raw war score (weaker rosters) because your performance adjustment will decrease your score, generating similar adjusted war scores.
If your alliance (like @Zero2Hero’s) is very active and strategic in war, as they win, the performance adjustment will bump up their adjusted war score, matching them with alliances that have much higher raw scores (stronger rosters) eventually getting them wars they can’t win.
I believe the only alliances that can maintain a >50% win ratio are ones like CP and 7DD, and that is because there aren’t alliances strong enough to slaughter them that their boosted war score can cause them to get matched with.
That wasn’t my take-away. I probably should go find the post, but here’s how I understood it.
This information was posted by mhalttu in the APL: (BTW, mhalttu is SGG’s CIO, so this is definitive):
Given how this algorithm works, there’s an absolute maximum % adjustment up or down. So if you keep winning, your war score used for matching does not keep climbing indefinitely. Once you’ve won 10 in a row, you’re maxed.
You keep using the words “being kept,” as though there is some intentionality to what is going on. That’s not how it works though.
The goal is fair fights. And you should win a fair fight about half the time.
The matches get harder as you win, based purely on the matching algorithm.
- Every win up to 10 (I believe) adds a bit to your score, which is the equivalent of rating your roster as a little bit stronger than the true card powers.
- Every loss up to 10 (I believe) subtracts a bit from your score, which is the equivalent of rating your roster as a little bit weaker than the true card powers.
You might get matched against an opponent which is also outperforming their nominal card power.
You might also get paired against an opponent that is winning less often, and thus is matching their nominal card power. They will have better heroes, but tend to use them worse than you.
You might get paired against an alliance that is much stronger in card power, but has been losing.
You might get paired against an alliance that is new, but stronger in card power.
None of these are guaranteed losses for your alliance. Rather, they are more difficult fights, but on average they will be commensurate with your combination of demonstrated skill and card power.
Good strategy, good tile play, and full participation can overcome the card power gap.
Card power is an imperfect measure of roster strength, and sometimes you really will get fights that are unwinnable. But that’s by accident, not by design.
This is sort of true.
Once you won ten in a row your fake Elo modifier is max.
Your war score still increases every time you power up a top 30 hero or top five troop. Or bypass a top 30 hero or top five troop with a different hero or troop.
It does not increase if you power up a non top 30 hero or non top five troop.
This is why my contribution to war score does not increase, even though I keep adding more 4* 3.60 heroes. When I finally get a good rainbow 5* team, then my part of the war score will increase.
Will be interesting to see if skins increase raw stat or are like swapping Crit troops for Mana troops - redistribute stats.
02Hero. Here’s my thoughts. Your a high leveled player with a decent set of war teams. Same heroes serve you well against titans. Your guild ( and this is my opinion on generic version of guilds) is typical. There’s a big gap from top players in the guild than bottom. This is great for all in titans because you get decent loot… bottom guys get decent loot and you kill a steady diet of titans. War doesn’t work so much with that set up so you win about 50 % on average. Either join a top alliance where everyone is equal ( insert-“love my guild”, “not that serious” here for an excuse). So, yes to me it’s “ sniveling” … join a new guild, bug your alliance members to catch up or whatever but quit sniveling. SG has done a wonderful job to make Wars decent overall- not perfect but better than I ever expected!
Not my take… you can win or lose, more than 10… it simply pulls from a range within a margin, above or below of 10 in either direction.
It’s no different than the raid system really. They are just using power vs trophies, and then setting the pool on score, rather than the trophies. Like the 300 above or below system would.
It seems like they just wanted a way around people padding trophies, so they created a score.
So it’s power collects available matches, and then score, in place of trophies, to chose the closest match within a margin. + or - 10
So to extend the example, let’s suppose your alliance’s “raw” war score (counting up hero and troops) is 300,000. Then using the examples mhalttu gives, the final war scores used for matching could be:
|Win-Loss Counter||Adjustment Factor||Final Score|
So in mhalttu’s example, a 300,000 “raw” score can give a war score used for matching that varies between 240,000 (if you’ve had 10 straight losses) and 360,000 (if you’ve had 10 straight wins).
Yes, this was my understanding exactly.
Since when do you think war matching Is so wonderful? And I don’t think you should judge O.P. so harshly when you complained the last 2 months in the other thread about power distribution and you never had a winnable match.
Was never about skill and tactics then. Why the chance of tune towards @Zero2Hero?
I never said or implied it was “wonderful”… In fact you can quote me next time, and you’ll save me the trouble of correcting you…
I said it was “flawed” which clearly it is, having read my posts.,I then said it was, “fair” in that, we all fall under the same flaws and rules…
So is that harsh or just confusing to you? I think his assessment that the game is making him lose harsh… Yet I only find that 1/2 as harsh as you making up things about me that run counter to what I’ve said…
The game by design will sooner or later place you in a mismatch if you’re good… That’s not unfair, as I said before, it runs in both directions… He is not complaining about the easy teams he now faces that he lost 5 in a row, is he?
The devs showed us the option on how to fix it, clarifying the systems limitations.
The option they chose was the best one… That is the rules now… I don’t have to like them…but that doesn’t make them unfair…
At times you just get bad matches… But those are usually dictated by your own benches, and the level of the players in a given alliance…
Fair enough, I should not have said wonderful those were my words not yours. Now i was in the main war thread for months. We both know that your skill was called into question and you denied that could ever be the case. It was all unfair matching for your personal alliance because of the power distribution. I just am surprised you have flipped in this thread. Anyway the insulting is already flowing so I’m out.
Glad to know the impact wins and losses dont try to create 50% long term win rate. That was my only concern.
I haven’t flipped in the sense I think it has mismatch issues. But the bottom line is… They chose the best options available to set up the war system.
The developer went out of his way to find the best system, going so far as to seek out the last thread…
I think I have a clear picture of what causes the matches we see that have a bad balance…
We have a shot most wars, even if we don’t… No matter what, you have to just keep on fighting…
This scenario is perfectly ok in a RAIDS type arena, because you have to topple tougher players to get to the top. YOU AS A PLAYER GET TO CHOOSE THAT TOUGHER OPPONENT & wear it if you lose. It was the players choice to oppose the stronger team. This is very fair of course.
But in WARS you have absolutely NO CHOICE AT ALL. So your alliance relies on the system to make a fair choice.
The SYSTEM has to be fair.
*If War Alliances had a leader board & your alliance leader chose the overpowered alliance as a rival because the reward for winning would mean more points towards your “War Chest”, then there’s no problems whatsover at all.
This seems a fairer system pending some research.
The error you’re making is believing that the relative War Scores is an accurate reflection of the likelihood of one alliance beating another. In a perfect world, it would be, but for all the reasons people have already pointed out, it is not.
What it is, is an approximation of the strength of one team, and is certainly correlated with war performance. However when evidence (i.e. an alliance going on a run of wins) suggests that the aproximation is incorrect, the matching algorithm correctly compensates by matching that alliance with one who has a higher War Score.
This is how it’s supposed to work. I get the impression that you want your alliance, which seems to be well run and take pride in coordinated attacks in alliance wars, to be matched up with alliances which have similar war scores.
Based on what you’re saying, your war score is an inaccurate reflection of your chances of winning and the matching algorithm (again, correctly) will match you up with harder opponents to compensate for how well coordinated your team seems to be (I’m a bit jealous of that, tbh. My alliance is pretty non-chalant about wars). You refer to matches “you weren’t supposed to win.” I read those as matches where your teamwork beat alliance with more powerful heroes. That makes you a stronger opponent than those alliances which should be matched with stronger opponents.
I’m sorry it’s upsetting to you that the matching seems to be unfair, but based on everything you’ve described, this is how it’s supposed to work, with the possible exception that when you lose badly, it should maybe recalibrate to weaker opponents a bit faster.
I respectfully disagree.
If an alliance is matched fairly every time they could go on winning or losing depending on variables such as luck, personal decisions made during battle, flag contributions & aquired skill.
THESE VARIABLES SHOULD BE THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR THE WIN OR LOSS.
Not some written algorithm deciding when it’s time for a player to lose.
I think that‘s the essence of competition. The more often you win - the farer you get - the stronger get the opponents.