Devs don’t care about anyone getting shafted unless it reduces cash flow.
1 Like
Interesting
So they’ve never fixed anything players have complained about unless it directly had to do with sales?
Any evidence of this?
2 Likes
Sorry, i do not pay attenction to that.
What i can say to you is that usually on my fifth fight (before opening chest) i’m usually paired with two lv 40+ (my main is lv 72 and my alt lv 12) and usually win with something like 2000 points difference, when instead my first fight is usually against lv 20-30 people and win even for 4000 points.
Until now i was paired only twice with someone with my same strategy, and only once it was of a similar level.
1 Like
And then again you will have the one sided match ups when the casual alliance and the rising competitive alliance with the same TP are matched together. Any way you go with this the complaints will stay! 
1 Like
Of course you know what SG would do if they adressed the problem with changeing of loot.
They would nerf the war chest loot!
1 Like
Best 30 heroes for matchmaking, not only the defense.
How would that matter?
If they both have the same amount of strength then it’s a fair win/loss
One team simply got outplayed
Sure there would be complaints but they would be weightless and tucked into their own thread somewhere that logical people would ignore
3 Likes
This is actually my bigger concern. With so many exploiting to fill more chests, wouldn’t surprise me if sg took the easy way out and just made the loot undesirable for everyone
Hopin after all the time and work and with how big of a part of the game wars are now, they wouldn’t go that route but it would be the easiest solution so…
I don’t feel like wars are worth the loot we get as is compared to the effort put in. I mean titans are a mindless 10 minutes a day without coordination or any tracking or anything else that goes with wars, yet titans are the bigger source of loot, that’s a discussion for another thread though
6 Likes
Nerf war chest any further would be simply ridicolous.
It is already much less rewarding of the other chests if we consider time/effort, even using this method.
And as other already test it, it is not entirely a convenient (and doable) strategy for all the players.
It is a niche and not really game changing way to keep the pace without having the stress to spending for Atlantis and monthly event.
The “shuffle strategy” is an exploit, not a strategy and is basically cheating within system to gain an advantage over one’s foes.
How about adding an alliance loyalty bonus? Instead of directly punishing moves reward players who stay with their alliance. Maybe give players increased odds at better draws in the war and titan chest or allow trading with alliance members after a certain length of time in the alliance.
6 Likes
One could argue that this already exists.
It’s been shown that the war shuffle strategy already sacrifices significant titan loot but it still seems to have its devotees 
And there are lots of legitimate reasons to switch alliances that shouldn’t be penalised
It’s certainly a knotty issue
1 Like
It seems I was not precise enough with my sentence.
The points you gain for wins which count for war score were introduced to avoid the match up between the casual alliance and the competitive allince who have about the same TP strength.
Reasons:
The casual alliance does not have same color tanks,
does usually not use all it’s flags,
has no reset strategy/organisation.
So the the match up is an extremely unfair one with blow out final scores an the resulting complaints.
With the inclusion of the win/loss count such mismatches are now avoided but the human genius found the shuffle alliance cheat. 
Result: Complaints ( justified in my opinion )
3 Likes
Eh idk about justified
Why would a casual alliance care about winning if they don’t want to put the effort in to do so?
Sure what you said makes sense until you tossed in justified then it pretty much unraveled it
If i was leading a casual alliance it would be “we win some, we lose some, hope for a win next time” rather than “well we lost, let’s improve”
So while you consider their complaints of a loss justified, i consider em bs
What i don’t like: teams unfairly getting such matches through exploits
It’s not so much about the fact they’re winning or losing, it’s that they’re doing so by loopholing the system
7 Likes
So you are a single player alliance? That makes it easier to implement and will also have more impact I think. I still believe for a 30 player alliance it would be about a 10-20% reduction in warscore, which pretty well means it isn’t too much of a benefit against an established alliance.
Yes, i think the same too.
I’m solo because i take this concept to an extreme way using my alt account to lower the strengh of my opponents (my alt has pretty much only unleveled heroes)
That said, once in a while i still get paired with some quite unbalanced opponent that may pose a treat, and i even lost 2 times because of that.
I think larger alliances face this problem more often then me.
Easy solution: don’t let NEWLY created alliances participate in wars until two of them go by. Easy solution and fair.
Legitimate alliances aren’t doing this.
3 Likes
And if they stick an alt in a dummy alliance for 2 wars to go by then all move over after?
1 Like
Heh, true…make NEW MEMBERS to an alliance wait 2 wars before participation too. ?
So every time you get a new teammate, they should sit out 2 wars even if it’s a fresh chest and they sacrifice their chest loot by missing out on participation %?
Problem is, there is no true “easy” solution other than nerfing loot(which will just ■■■■ every single person in the game off so while easy to code, wont be easy to deal with)
2 Likes