KPIs for your alliance?

Flags used should always = 6

If it is anything less they should get the lowest possible number for the war or probably be excluded in some fashion anyway.

That aside, I disagree with this formula in a general sense as it provides no benefit to team members who choose the most challenged enemy teams to attack.

If the enemy team has six GTV defenses, and one of your team members runs at all six of them, has three kills, two wounds, and one stinker. That ain’t a bad effort. But it’s gonna come out around 180 points and have him below someone who runs at 6 mediocre / less threatening teams.

How do you track quality of enemy team attacked and measure attack effectiveness with that in mind?

I have zero idea. But I’m also not interested in doing it :slight_smile:

(I wish ya the best of luck, just wanted to point this out as what I view to be a limitation of your formula)


I’m also of the belief that individual war score shouldn’t be a measurement of a player’s ability, or participation.

I often use my teams as clean up if it’s appropriate at the time. My scores will fluctuate from war to war. More importantly, in my opinion, is whether the player is consistent in communication, using all their flags, and attacking appropriate targets. A spreadsheet may not give you that kind of data.

As a former leader I believe it’s more a matter of instinct when studying your teammates. As you get to know them, you’ll develop a gut feeling whether they are playing to the best of their abilities, or if you can see them struggling. In that case a personal conversation could be helpful.


Current Key Performance Indicators for my alliance (semi-casual expectation levels):


Player opts into war. Uses 6 flags, gets good score. :+1:
Player opts into war. Uses 6 flags, gets bad score. :+1:
Player opts into war. Uses 3 flags, apologizes for not using other 3 due to real life situation. :+1:
Player opts out of war. :+1:
Player opts into war. Doesn’t use all flags. Gives no explanation. :thinking:


Player uses 3 titan flags, gets great score. :+1:
Player uses 6 titan flags, gets great score. :+1:
Player uses 3 titan flags, gets low score. :+1:
Player uses 6 titan flags, gets low score. :+1:
Player doesn’t log in all day. :+1:
Player logs in, doesn’t use any titan flags, gives no explanation. :thinking:


Player is helpful and supportive. :+1:
Player vents about horrible boards and summoning odds. :+1:
Player posts jokes and ridiculous nonsense. :+1:
Player doesn’t post anything at all in chat. :+1:

Player is intentionally cruel, rude, racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive towards other members (outside of an already pre-established and generally understood joking type of context): :rage: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:


I think you misunderstand my intention :slight_smile:

The best kinds of KPI are the ones worth the time to gather the data and provide a simple method easily understood,

So folks can have something to look at on their own, and folks tasked with answering questions can have a starting point without it sounding like a personal attack.

This captures defense — something the game doesn’t… but shouldn’t be used as a qualifier for booting someone

There’s a lot of bias and data floating out there; and not everyone is armed to be a coach or understand deeper data.

It’s particularly difficult with veterans — who don’t want feedback but may not realize how a small change on their part, sometime temporary, may benefit the alliance, even if the score goes down.

For example:

If you look at my score a year ago — it dropped in half and stayed there for months.

I went from focusing on offense with a good defense — to more tank busting; and upgrading my defense first.

When three of us did this — a lot of folks numbers went up… It was harder to flip us.

We still lost more than we won — but confidence went up; folks that would wait for cleanup Started taking on a bit more risk; the fun chatter increased.

In a reasonable about of time, a couple of folks went all out on their offense and we started winning.

Given the growth stage and loot available — I’d rather folks pull their war team from the pool of heroes they use for Titans (20-25 heros) and do better there — hopefully reducing their reliance on too many items — then leveling heroes JUST for war defense at that early stage.

Or going ahead with some niche hero that they only use to clear the personal events. For example: raids and cups don’t generally help the alliance, and if that’s where your spending your spoils — you may be misaligned if that’s done first…

Any saved ham/iron can be reinvested in troops and buildings.

The thing is — it’s a team event, and In my experience —Ruthless stack ranking team events is not the best way to maximize over time; particularly when a handful of folks are going run away with it.

I want fun, happy And growing folks that enjoy what they’re doing — with a simple KPI that can be easily understood And leveraged to get people on the same page

And a lot of times — not put unintentional pressure to spend more, do more, sacrifice time with family to meet an arbitrary objective when there are so many areas that are excluded from “progress” in the games KPIs.

And there’s always the drill down data. In top alliances — this metric would be too simplistic, beyond keeping an eye on training Alliances and new recruits.

For flags — in most cases; only using 5 makes it very very difficult to stay Trending above 1.0. It self identifies, and the expectations filter out non compliance without involving metrics.

And there’s no API to feed data — so every datapoint has someone who is logging that, maintaining it, or compiling it — even if they enjoy it; that’s a lot of time :slight_smile:

At that time — benching 3-5 cool but growing folks from Titans we could already kill so they focus on buildings, troops and Titan teams was a good trade off; and understanding no one was looking down on their Short term contribution while they invested Mats saved elsewhere helped morale.

a single imperfect metric Was enough to have the conversations.

(My personal pet peeve is having a top tier team with low, low troops)


I would super like your post if I could!

1 Like

I like having an alliance where people try because they want to try, not because they’re scared of getting kicked if they don’t.

I also like having an alliance where a level 20 feels perfectly comfortable fighting alongside a level 60, even if they can’t ever possibly hope to match their scores.

An alliance where the level 60 gives helpful tips to the level 20, and encourages them, rather than berating them for using the wrong teams or whatever.

An alliance where a member can take a day off without being called into the leader’s office the next day and asked to provide a doctor’s note as to why they didn’t log in.

Etc. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

@TGW It definitely sounds like a nice alliance. :smile:

1 Like

Cookie Settings