I want to offer my system of selection of alliances for war

Let’s put it this way: the current system of selection of alliances for war is far from perfect!
First tried to pick up alliances by the number of cups each player, all began to fold cups, and it turned out that weak alliances got stronger.
Then tried to find alliances on the number of points for a Titan, strong alliances again began to release the titans to reduce the number of points.
Now imposed by the war, which is not known, how it is formed, but only became worse. I will say on the example of our Alliance: out of 28 people, only 6 players have the strength of the team more than 3700, and only two of them-more than 4000. Three more players have teams with strength less than 2900, all the rest-3000-3500. We also pick up in recent alliances, which have 10-11 players have experience of more than 45 and with the forces of teams of more than 3700! We can barely cope with the titans of 8 stars, they already beat the titans of 10-11 stars. Is that fair?

I see that the developers the situation with the selection of alliances for the war at an impasse, so I want to offer a system of accounts of the war:

  1. analysed 30 of the most powerful heroes each member of the Alliance, which is involved in the war; the analysis is conducted at the power level of the characters; accordingly, the power levels of all 30 of the most powerful heroes are added, and displays the total amount of each member of the Alliance, and then by all members of the Alliance formed, and it turns out the final score of the war, which will increase as you increase the level of heroes;
  2. also propose to introduce a level of expertise across the Alliance, which will contribute to the level of experience of each member of the Alliance involved in the war.
    These two figures (the level of experience of the company and the amount of force 30 of the most powerful heroes of each member of the Alliance) and for recruiting. In my opinion, it will be more fair selection, when alliances really are equivalent!
    And to exclude fraud within the Alliance, I propose to introduce the following restrictions:
  3. each member of the Alliance for war is a must have for war at least 15 characters, no matter what level, as long as they were; if less, then the player in the wars is not involved;
  4. each member of the Alliance for war will be given this amount of energy the war, as it has complete teams to war; let’s say a player has 19 characters: 3 full teams and 1 incomplete, so it will be given only 3 energy war; and if he wants him to have all 6 of the energies of war, then let it to the beginning of the selection of alliances for the rest of the team is of the heroes of 1-2 stars.

I believe that this approach will make it possible to select alliances for war more fairly and minimize frauds within the Alliance to reduce the overall score.

Давайте скажем так: нынешняя система подбора альянсов для войны далека от совершенства!
Сначала пробовали подбирать альянсы по количеству кубков у каждого игрока, все стали сбрасывать кубки, и получалось, что слабым альянсам доставались более сильные.
Затем пробовали подбирать альянсы по количеству очков за титана, сильные альянсы снова стали отпускать титанов, чтобы снизить количество очков.
Теперь ввели счёт войны, который неизвестно, как формируется, но стало только ещё хуже! Скажу на примере своего альянса: у нас из 28 человек только 6 игроков имеют силы команды более 3700, причём только двое из них - более 4000. Ещё трое игроков имеют команды с силой менее 2900, все остальные - 3000-3500. Нам же подбирают в последнее время альянсы, у которых 10-11 игроков имеют опыт более 45 и с силами команд более 3700! Мы еле-еле справляемся с титанами 8 звёзд, они же уже бьют титанов 10-11 звёзд. Разве это справедливо?

Я вижу, что у разработчиков ситуация с подбором альянсов для войны зашла в тупик, поэтому хочу предложить свою систему формирования счёта войны:

  1. анализируются 30 самых сильных героев у каждого члена альянса, который участвует в войне; анализ проводится по уровню силы героев; соответственно уровни силы у всех 30 самых сильных героев складываются, и выводится итоговая сумма каждого члена альянса, а затем счёт всех членов альянса складывается, и получается итоговый счёт войны, который будет увеличиваться по мере повышения уровня героев;
  2. также предлагаю ввести уровень опыта всего альянса, который будет складываться из уровня опыта каждого члена альянса, принимающего участие в войне.
    Именно по этим двум цифрам (уровень опыта всего альянса и сумма силы 30 самых сильных героев каждого члена альянса) и будет осуществляться подбор. На мой взгляд, это будет более справедливый подбор, когда альянсы действительно будут равносильными!
    А чтобы исключить махинации внутри альянса, предлагаю ввести следующие ограничения:
  3. каждый член альянса для войны должен иметь для войны минимум 15 героев, неважно, какого уровня, главное, чтобы они были; если меньше, то этот игрок в войнах не участвует;
  4. каждому члену альянса на войну будет даваться такое количество энергий войны, сколько у него имеется полных команд для войны; предположим, у игрока имеется 19 героев: 3 полные команды и 1 неполная, значит ему будет даваться только 3 энергии войны; а если он хочет, чтобы у него было все 6 энергий войны, то значит пусть он к началу подбора альянсов все остальные команды составляет из героев 1-2 звезды.

Я считаю, что такой подход позволит более справедливо подбирать альянсы для войны и минимизировать махинации внутри альянса для снижения общего счёта.

This would be an unwanted restriction. If I only have 15 heroes for war, I may decide to use them the way I see fit. That means I could do 5 attacks with 3 heroes each if I think this would help my alliance. Why on earth would some players have more war flags then others, why limit my number of attacks based on my hero roster?

by reading your post real fast cuz thats what i normally do when i see a long post :smiley: something came to my mind while reading your post and i dont know if you meant it that way.

each ally member while waiting for the next war to happen have to select his 30 heroes for the next war b4 even knowing the enemy, and the system then will pick your enemy based on those 30X30 heroes selected and once your enemy is selected you cant change your 30 heroes to attack with.

it might make the war more fair and it will be more fun if you picked a color and your enemy have a tank color that your heroes is weak vs them. “you are scrwed then :D”

as allies it will need tactics both attack and defense :smiley:

No, you’ve misunderstood the idea: the system will only analyze 30 of YOUR MOST powerful heroes! And what characters you will actually use in the war, you have to decide! Can apply characters with at least 1 star, if it will help You in the attack!

Suppose you have only 15 heroes for the war. But what’s stopping you to do another 15 characters to the beginning of the selection of alliances? At least heroes with 1-2 stars, it is done even in training camp 1-3 at a maximum of 7.5 hours! And how to use ANY of his characters during the war, you have to decide!

This is almost exactly how the War Score used for matching is currently calculated. There are two additions, which I think you’ll agree are valuable:

  • The top 5 heroes are give extra weight, as a proxy for how powerful your defense will be.
  • The alliance’s recent win/loss ratio in wars nudges the score up or down.

I’m not sure what this accomplishes. Experience that is not reflected in powerful heroes isn’t very useful. A free-to-play player may be level 50 but have heroes that a level 20 P2W player has, and far worse troops.

Any player who doesn’t have 30 heroes should be given a quick talking to by their alliance leaders. Training camps can turn out 30 heroes in a few hours; any hero is better than no hero.

That this is precisely the problem: it turns out that every time you give an opponent that much superior to us in strength. Analysis of the top 5 heroes of each player-it’s still not enough! We have 1 player who has fully pumped 1 team of heroes 4-5 stars, and all other teams are almost not pumped! But the analysis of the top 30 heroes will significantly increase the accuracy of the assessment, and therefore, the fairness of the selection!

And the second point: I believe that the account of the war should be increased not by the results of the war, but depending on the level of heroes! For example, if I pumped some hero to a higher level, then the war score increased, and if I got rid of some strong hero, because I did not need him, then the score should decrease!

  1. SGG does look at the top 30 heroes, but it gives extra weight to the top 5 because a powerful defense is used repeatedly, while on offense each hero is used but once. Others have complained that the top-5 weight is too small because their deep but mostly 3*-4* roster has to face maxed 5* defenses.

  2. As you increase your heroes (or, heaven forbid, delete one of your top 30), your war score will go up or down accordingly. The win/loss ratio is a multiplier on this raw score.

1 Like

Experience taught me 1 and 2* unleveled heroes are a waste of roster space in terms of war usage. So what would be the point of that? Should we postpone hero leveling in order to keep feeders just to have 30 heroes, knowing we’ll never use the unleveled 1 and 2*? What would be the advantage? I’m afraid I do not see your point…
I read a few days ago here on the forum about a much better war flags distribution idea. The idea was that at the beginning of the war each player would start with 30 individual war flags (or two sets of 15, 12 hours apart), one for each hero he would be allowed to use. This way players would not be limited to 6 attacks. If a clean-up hit would require the use of only two heroes, the three remaining ones could be used for another hit.

If recruitment is conducted on the top 30 heroes, then why do we choose the alliances are much stronger than us? As I wrote above, we in the Alliance only player 2 have a team of fully pumped heroes with 5 stars with the team’s strength 4000+, 3 more players are in a team of 2-3 heroes with 5 stars and a total team strength of 3700-3800+, and two have 1 hero with 5 stars in the team. All other players have either heroes with 5 stars, which are pumped only to level 3, or do not have them at all. And we in recent times get alliances, which have at least 4 players have a team defense with the force of a 4000+, four - 3800-3900+ (3-4 hero with 5 stars and 1 hero with 4 stars), another 4-5 people have 1-2 hero 5* and the strength of the team 3600-3700+, and only 10-11 of the remaining players on the team consist of heroes with 4 stars and the strength of the team less than 3450! Unless such “titans” can be won with our forces?

And one more addition: you have presented an example where players with experience level 50 can have heroes of level 20. But these players are less than 1%, all the other 99% already fully pumped 6 teams with heroes 4-5 stars, or even more!

When you are up against an alliance with stronger defense, they probably have much shallower benches than you alliance—a few big hero’s, but on attack they willl run out of good heroes.

This is a consequence of looking at the top 30 heroes. If matching were on top 5, then defenses would be similar but offensive strength could be wildly different.

And that’s why they use a hybrid approach: look at top 30 but weigh top 5 more heavily. If the defenses (too 5) differ by a lot, then the offensive depth should be in favor of the team with the weaker defenses. Whether they’ve got the weighting factor right is an open question. Defensive mismatches like yours suggest increasing the top-5 weight.

My example about the level 50 and level 20 player is only to make the point that a player’s level doesn’t necessarily tell you very much. With sufficient application of money, a level 20 player could have an amazing team. It’s best simply to compare teams, not player level.

Beside 7DD and CP (which you eventually get matched to when you roam around the top) our matches were pretty even imo. We won some, we lost some. but all were close so that 3-4 good boards on one side and 3-4 bad boards on the other side would have Change the outcome.

I can then suggest such a system of selection: when choosing rivals, the expense of war and the alliance’s account will be taken into account with a 1-2% difference.

And one more thing: I have repeatedly written that in the war for my team with weaker heroes they give more points than for rivals with stronger heroes. I was then told that points for victory are assigned depending on the health of the characters. But sorry, among the heroes with 5 stars there are those who have a level of health, like heroes with 4 stars. but the level of armor and the impact force is incomparable with nothing! Example: for Izarniya 5* with a health level of 1200 give points for less than 4* Kashrek or Gormek! But sorry, the strength of Isarnia is incomparable with one or the other! Another example is Richard, he also has little health, but the level of armor is more than 800, which makes him difficult to break! Could you make sure that team points were assigned not depending on the hero’s health, but depending on his general strength? Izarnia has a total strength of 755, Gormek has 642, Kashrek has 643, so let them give more points for Izarnia!

1 Like

I agree, allocating war points by HP is silly. Gobbler is the best example: huge HP, garbage defense. Points should be assigned based on hero power as modified by the associated troop.

I want to indicate that you can do to in the wars of alliances to the weaker opponent!
As you know, the developers have made it so that the selection of alliances is conducted by points of war, plus the system selects alliances with an equal number of participants, and each participant analyzes the strongest heroes.
But the developers for some reason made it so that after each victory points for the war increase, as if we are all participating in the world championship on Alliance wars with the main prize of a million dollars. As a result of this decision - we pick up opponents who are much stronger than us. And even if we lose the war, the number of points will decrease a little, but the next time the enemy is even stronger! Developers attribute this fact to the “side effect” of the selection system, but in fact it is not so!
Now I will tell you how inquisitive Russian mind was able to bypass this decision! Suppose there is an Alliance that fights successfully, points for the war are becoming more and more opponents - stronger and stronger, and at some point comes to the fact that the Alliance loses because of this several wars in a row!
But this is not a problem: one of the participants creates a new Alliance, all smoothly move into it. And voila: the number of points for a war again small, but the Alliance get weaker opponents! Side effect - you have to beat the weak titans, but that’s no problem!
In the old Alliance there is one participant with a low level of experience, for example, 6-10. As soon as the new Alliance are beginning to get close again, stronger opponents, all smoothly go back to the old Alliance, and the weakest member in the new. And voila: the old Alliance through the war, again small, and again, getting weaker opponents!

I in the first message offered to make each member of the system analyzed the top 30 most powerful heroes, each participant receives points, which are the sum of the Force characters the top 30, and the points of the war were assigned to each Alliance as a sum of points of all participants involved in the war! I believe that in this case, such manipulations can be reduced to a minimum, and points of war would rise only in the process of pumping more than strong characters, if such members will receive, or when you join the Alliance of new players!
But once the developers consider their system of rebounds more perfect, then I want to see what they can do to eliminate such unfair manipulation

Хочу сообщить, что можно сделать, чтобы в войнах альянсов получить более слабого противника!
Как известно, разработчики сделали так, что подбор альянсов ведётся по очкам войны, плюс система подбирает альянсы с равным количеством участников, и у каждого участника анализируются самые сильные герои.
Но разработчики зачем-то сделали так, что после каждой победы очки за войну увеличиваются, как будто мы все участвуем в чемпионате мира по войнам альянсов с главным призом в миллион долларов. Как результат этого решения - нам подбирают противников, которые гораздо сильнее нас. И даже если мы проиграем войну, количество очков немного снизится, но в следующий раз противник оказывается ещё сильнее! Разработчики списывают этот факт на “побочный эффект” системы подборов, но на самом деле это не так!
Сейчас я расскажу, как пытливый русский ум смог обойти это решение! Предположим, имеется, альянс, который воюет успешно, очки за войну становятся всё больше и больше, противники - всё сильнее и сильнее, и в какой-то момент доходит до того, что альянс проигрывает из-за этого несколько войн подряд!
Но это не проблема: кто-нибудь из участников создаёт новый альянс, все плавно переходят в него. И вуаля: количество очков за войну снова небольшое, а альянсу достаются более слабые противники! Побочный эффект - приходится бить слабых титанов, но это не проблема!
В старом альянсе остаётся один участник с низким уровнем опыта, например, 6-10. Как только новому альянсу начинают подбираться опять более сильные противники, все плавно переходят обратно в старый альянс, а самый слабый участник - в новый. И вуаля: в старом альянсе счёт войны опять небольшой, и снова подбираются более слабые противники!

Я в самом первом сообщении предлагал сделать так, чтобы у каждого участника система анализировала топ-30 самых сильных героев, каждый участник получает очки, которые являются суммой Силы героев топ-30, а очки войны присваивались бы каждому альянсу в качестве суммы очков всех участников, которые участвуют в войне! Я считаю, что в таком случае подобные манипуляции можно свести к минимуму, а очки войны увеличивались бы только в процессе прокачки более сильных героев, если таких участники получат, либо при вступлении в альянс новых игроков!
Но раз разработчики считают свою систему подборов более совершенной, тогда я хочу посмотреть, что они могут сделать, чтобы исключить подобные нечестные манипуляции!