Last war we got our behinds handed over with a ribbon around it. Lost 5900 vs 6300.
As soon as war ended almost all members left and joined the same alliance. All members from that alliance joined the one we faced.
I think 5 have stayed at the same alliance.
Can someone please help me understand why they want to do this and swap 25 members?
The alliance we faced is ranked a lot higher, the players are equal level (more or less).
Will come back to this
They probably completed the warchest and reset the warscore. Many alliances do this.
So this also works with leaving and joining the same alliance again? 
They swapped around 25 people, so not leaving and joining.
Maybe they will be back before next war and this resets the war score, I don’t know
No idea, I just was guessing. I don’t know if the main percentage of the leaving members, reset the victories or not. But I don’t see other reason for they’ve done this.
For your reffernece, we are around 120-140 spot with our alliance.
We had this with an alliance, too, they swapped around before war (there were 2 alliances, we only recognized, because we had a spy for a short time and he joined the 2nd alliance then)…this was the alliance that reshuffled the board 3 or 4 times with demotions and promotions. I laughed at this, it’s just…you can take something way too serious, too 
I think I’ve read something about this in the depth of the forum, but that was long ago and I don’t know anymore what to search for, didn’t give that priority. But yes, this might manipulate the war score. I thought the ups and downs with wins and losses are tied to the alliance, but some days ago I read something about individual war score tied to the player
Just to clarify: War Score past performance modifier is tied to the alliance and not the player. It’s been this way for a long time and to confirm I just tested it again with the second account I use to keep my research alliance from deleted whilst my main goes on walkies.
Now in my opinion each player should have their own past performance record and the alliance’s war score should be modified by an average of all of the alliance’s past performances scores to prevent the ability to reset the performance modifier.
A lot of people take issue with cup dropping but personally I think this is worse. At least in cup dropping the dropper is presenting a weakened defence that makes it easier for weaker players to fill their chests as well, in the case of war resetting it is exploiting the system to face weaker and more inexperienced alliances instead. By resetting the war score you’re preventing that alliance from being matched against another alliance they have a chance to win against with one they have no chance against and that doesn’t seem fair.
Many alliances have group of alliances. Some of groups need help with titan so they gonna to help them. If they will join back war score aren’t restarted. Our alliances doing the same.
Nope sorry wasn’t that clear of mind to record it before or after…
The method I’ve seen be used by those exploiting resetting war score progress involves having two alliances and at least one secondary account.
Whilst all the active accounts sit in one alliance winning a string of wars the second account sits in the other alliance deliberately losing wars. Once the alliance hits the max win ratio in one alliance and the other is at maximum lose they then switch around with all active players moving to the alliance with the low score and sending the dupe to the account with max win ratio to then lose a load.
The difference between having an alliance with a win record of 0 and +10 is 27.5% higher war score - this increases even more between a win record of -10 and +10.
The differences between roster strengths becomes even more pronounced than this as let’s say an alliance gaming the system has their war score modified by -20% and the other alliance playing properly is on a +10% modifier. The relative difference between their actual rosters without a modifier would be much more than a 30% difference.
The fact that war score is mainly irrelevant as something like a 30% difference in the strength of the two alliance’s war rosters puts the weaker alliance at a significant disadvantage based not on a genuine match-up but one alliance gaming the system to fight an alliance much weaker than themselves.
Thanks for the clarification. Ouch, that’s just too much for me -.- I think that’s really weird, but that’s my opinion…
Thnx @Gryphonknight for the elaborate post you made.
Makes sense now to me and yes the could be addressed but I fear that will be low on priority list for devs.
This strategy will become exacerbated now that they are using 20 past wars instead of 10. The second alliance can drop even lower now to get even easier opponents.
Edit: aah, just read @Gryphonknight’s post on shuffle war strategy. A little different from what I thought was going on (win ten [now 20] in A lose ten [now 20] in B then switch). With this strategy you are ALWAYS facing weaker opponents.
I agree that war performance should be tied to the player rather than the alliance.
Has the war matching exploit been fixed yet? It seems not. A lot of alliance groups are doing it. The way it works is to exploit the new member discount in the alliance score. So the alliance shifts members around to exploit the new member discount in matching.
What do you mean by the new member discount?
