I don't like SG Scoring System for Wars

Wars at the moment only give credit at the end to top Attackers, but as we all know wars are not won this way, you only win by scoring more than you give away to the opponent.

For example, If i score 300 and then my Defense team gives 300 back to the opponent, then my actual contribution to a win is at baseline.
I see many unsung Heroes of wars, not always the top attacker, so they don’t receive a podium position although in reality they may be the one who gave you that win.

SG can create all sorts of clever algorithms, all this requires is a very simple one.
The system just takes your attack points and deducts your defense points, and this highlights the real top player of the war from your alliance.

Everything in war is based on 6 attacks, so its no difference for working out a ratio on defense. i.e. you are attacked 6 times and the opponent takes 300 points, its quite simple , 300 attack - 300 defense = zero/ baseline.

Obviously we don’t always get attacked 6 times and some are losses and retries/ or it could be less.
So it works on a ratio, another example, the opponent takes 300 points but it takes 9 attacks.
So its 6/9 x 300 = 200 points for your defense.

So now you have 300 attack - 200 Defense = +100 points for your alliance. So your score is +100.

Obviously this also goes the other way on attacks, they may attack you less than 6 times, so lets say the opponent takes 200 points over 5 attacks.
6/5 x200 = 240

So now you have 300 attack - 240 defense = +60 points for your alliance.

Your Defense can be unlucky with colors, but that’s no different to your attack team, it swings in roundabouts.

This is the scoring system we use in our alliance and it promotes people to pay more attention to their Defense, sometimes wars can be won by a good Defense and not by a top attacker.


In general I agree. Looking at top attack performance doesn’t provide a picture of top contribution. Although I would also say, your proposal doesn’t. There are players working on resetting the board, players taking a clean for the team etc etc etc… where to start and end defining who contributed more?


Yeah I don’t think the top attacker gets any special bonus either it’s just really a nice graphic is all


Your comments about people resetting the board is relating to top attacker position and and i agree.
You are also correct Top contributor is difficult to put a score on, but then again, those who fall on their sword with regards to score for the good of their alliance , i.e resetting the board, happens already, and generally they do so knowing they lose their chance at the podium.

The podium already exists but at the moment only based on attack, so with the exception of removing the podium altogether, i just think its a better system to take into account defense as well, I’m not saying its a perfect solution, but i do think it would be an improvement to what we have at present and also helps track defense performance.

Perhabs. Many alliances track defense performance as well and data are published afterwards. It is a nice a read. But that’s all about it for me. I have noticed many times that defensive performance, although having several identical defenses on the field, have different performances. And this is simply explained by attacker. I cannot influence who is going after me in war. I mostly shrugged it off and carried on :grin: that is also exactly why I think: what quality are you looking for to add into this?

1 Like

Again you are right, same defenses can have different results, but so can the same attacks teams.
Its not necessarily down to the players but can be down to the boards.
You can be as skillful as you want at backgammon but its still down to the luck of the dice.

I also agree its down the the individual alliance to monitor and decide who they congratulate within their ranks, usually its a “well played everyone”, followed by a “well played” to the top attacker and well done if a Defense has performed exceptionally

Unfortunately. SG has quantified the results, this is already in existence in the form of top Attacker. The only reason they did top attacker is because it was the only result they could quantify.
But as you can see from my opening post its also possible to Quantify Defense.

But i must reiterate that i do agree with you, there are many things which players do which are not quantifiable but yet require recognition, but unfortunately there is no way to portion a score to noble acts and taking one for the team.
So my post is purely aimed towards the part of the scoring system which is quantifiable.

What i want to avoid getting into is a discussion on the un-quantifiable. The scoring system already exists, that’s not down to me, , and yes it is flawed, we can also add defense into the equation and I admit it will still be flawed ( although less so), but unfortunately its the way of the world, Michael Jordan didn’t get into the hall for passing the ball or moral support to his team mates.
Rightly or wrongly people keep scores.

1 Like

I agree war score doesn’t equal value but I don’t think adding defense in helps.

Imagine a two person alliance. One has every five star hero in the game. The other only has three stars. Well of course the five star player will have a better defense score.

In an alliance with very equal players that concert goes away.

What i actually want is to know how each person contributes to matchmaking. The person with the good roster and no skill is the clear example of someone who would stand out here. Or the person with a weak roster and a lot of skill.

Ruskin, I don’t think the author is suggesting that adding defence into the equation will help a 3* team beat a 5* defense team…lol
That’s quite bizarre.

To the topic starter, it seems like a good idea to me, that’s is, to take into account defense and not just top attacker.
Please take some responses on these forums with a pinch of salt.
I will suggest using your equation to my alliance.
:+1: although don’t expect SG to implement any changes in the game.
I don’t think anyone from SG even reads the posts on these forums. Maybe post it in suggestions.?

1 Like

that is completly understandable. Still for me it is not appropriate to consider defense performance. It has something to do with accountability. And I am not for the board my opponent got, I am not for his/her roster, and I am not for his team composition skills, and I am also not for his/her board manipulation. Tho I am very much accountable for my attacks with all what I have said about my attacker :slight_smile:

On another note: I am a wee bit afraid what such a measurement would do to alliances with a wide mix of p2p, c2p and f2p players.

Personally, and out of exactly the reasons I mentioned in my first post, I congratulate my team, not individuals. I absolutely don’t care about individual ranking. For my taste even attack is misleading on a team basis


War is a team effort. Did your defense get attacked by your opponents’ worst player with their worst attack team, or was it the best player with their best attack team.

Did you use your attacks to score points on a fresh field (ie pick of the litter), or was it close to a reset with only the hardest opponents left on the field.

There are roles to fill in war. The MVP is not always the highest scorer, so I would vote to leave war scoring exactly as it is.


in all what I have said, I have missed to thank you for bringing this up. It is a topic bugging me - like forever :stuck_out_tongue: because ppl do not get credit in the form they deserve.

1 Like


Yes there are roles to fill in wars and if you fill the role of cleaner , its very rare you will score higher than a good tankbuster. Just like a goaly is unlikely to score more than a striker
That’s also a team game you might have noticed.
So you say wars is more than just attack and then vote to leave scoring as just attack? Thats the confusing part.

I didn’t create the scoring system, it already exists, and you are correct top attacker is not always the MVP, that’s the point of proposing to modify the scoring system.
That is … To take more into account than just top attacker.

Yes there are variables out of your control, that’s the model of the game. Same goes for both attack and defense. You can only control the part of the game that is in your control, i.e. choosing an effective defense team strategy.

Thank you Cadi, yes that’s what its about, just trying to give credit in the alliance to more than just the tank busters.

With my system we found cleaners came top sometimes, whereas before that never happened and when it does it really cheers them up.

1 Like

The only issue i have found with the equation is when they get attacked less than 6 times, your ratio fills in the blank space based on performance of the previous attacks.
How do you know whether or not on the last attack it might have been a complete fail or a 1 hit kill?

Don’t get me wrong i think it’s a great idea, So many times i’m chasing people to change their defense each war. It does my head in. I think being scored on defense will create incentive and save me a lot of reminder messages.
I’m definitely trying it on my alliance this next war.

1 Like

In my alliance we track war data and find a net score. This is found by subtracting defensive points per flag (ppf) from offensive ppf.

The formula would be (offensive score/flags used)-(points allowed/times hit)

I like this metric because it’s intuitive and makes it really easy to see who had large impacts one way or the other

Here is a snippet of how it looks


Because showing the top point scorer doesn’t matter, we win or lose as a team. Any change by SGG could negatively impact individuals thereby affecting the whole alliance.

Two defenses are exactly the same. One is one-shotted multiple times, the other eats flags. They are the exact same defense, each defensive performance was determined by the attack team composition and the tiles/tile play.

If I understand the objective correctly, attempt to give credit to the all-around MVP. My answer, we win or lose as a team.

This is the most fair equation, PPF gain/loss.

My defense always gets blasted so hard for me to have a positive # on this one haha… Ursena isn’t what she uses to be…

1 Like

Sorry, forgot a detail. Offensive ppf is always (offensive score/6)

This way ppl who don’t use flags are appropriately downgraded

1 Like

Why not play for fun? Who cares who wins, try it.


Yeah, I agree :slight_smile:

Sometimes sacrificing higher score can ensure victory.
(Eg: by trying to take out a harder opponent with some fails instead of taking out the weakest ones with 100% success rate but losing the war because of weaker players can not do anything meaningful against 5k+ teams )

War is a team work.