I was lol
Precoffee so feelin bit snarky
Anyways, i agree performance score should remain, i was just pointing out we probly have different reasons/motivation for thinking it should remain
1 Like
For me, I’m not calling for nerfing of loot, or restricting who can participate in war. I just want SG to close the loophole that makes the war score inaccurate for new alliances/team members. Rather than starting at a base of “0” or whatever they start at now, they need start higher. There should NOT be an advantage simply because you are in a new alliance. I have no idea how complicated the current calculation is, but my suggestion doesn’t seem that difficult, and will help close the exploit.
1 Like
If a basketball team usually wins by 19 points fans of the team would be outraged if the team always had to start the game with a 19 point penalty “to make the game fair.” That’s what war scores based on past performance do.
2 Likes
Is it really worth the effort though to start a new alliance every 2.5 weeks? When create a new alliance you drop down titans, so it will take a week or so to get back to where you are at in terms of hitting an optimal titan. Assuming you are killing 10*+ titans on a consistent basis wouldn’t you get more mats overall than you would from opening a war chest (and thats assuming you get 2x 4* mats per chest). Maybe someone who has run the numbers can elaborate on it better…
Guvnor showed that you get significantly less rare materials by doing the switch… BUT that was predicted on killing 9/10* titans.
In the case of Elpis or others that are in super small alliances that’s not going to happen. I don’t know what Titans he can kill (if any), but certainly not a 9*.
I’d be interested to know what size alliances are seeing this with any frequency. We saw it once in the past 3 months with a 20-25 people each war. And yeah, they flattened us.
2 Likes
We’re in a 23 person alliance, and have seen it 3 straight wars, so it’s doesn’t appear to be that rare. I’m not arguing that it’s easy or overall beneficial for alliances to do this, but it is happening and it is unfair.
2 Likes
You obviously find them more often in medium maximum high-medium tier.
After a certain point your titan score makes enough difference to not encounter them no matter what (expecially with 30 members).
It is also not really easy to encounter my kind of small alliances, and even if you encounter it your alliance is already almost dead most of the time.
Pairing is usually set up to have the same numbers of members no matter what, so if you manage to have 30 members i guess is more easy to avoid them.
As @Zathrus said, I tested the theory & it is categorically NOT worth while…
If you join an alliance which hits 9* titans plus you are wayyyyyyy better off.
Cliff-Notes here:
Full Assessment: Loot Assessment - War Shuffle vs. Established Alliance, Which is Better?
Also worth noting that given the MASSIVE disparity I would say that even hitting smaller titans 7*+ CONSISTENTLY is WAYY better than the war shuffle…
5 Likes
Not how it works
Has anyone in this thread actually studied and tracked matchmaking?
Based on some of the posts I’m reading, it doesn’t seem like it
The problem is no matter what they do for matchmaking there will be players who see it as unfair.
4 Likes
That’s fine and can typically be explained
But when someone doesnt understand how it works but pretends they do with poor analogies, it doesn’t help anything. Just causes more confusion.
Facing a more challenging opponent by having a good win record/streak, is nowhere near starting a match already behind or starting a drag race with a car length handicap or anything of the sort.
Facing a 30/30 team and your team only having 28/30 or 29/30 would fit the basketball comparison he used.
The way matchmaking currently works with performance score is closer to a playoff bracket system
Alliances are bracketed/tiered by war score
Starting at the top and going down
An alliance advances to the next bracket through growth, performance, or both
And rightfully so as it’s been pointed out a few times in this thread, casual alliances facing competitive alliances while fair due to equal strength, isn’t an enjoyable matchup due to 1 side studying stats and strategizing and the other team just doing whatever it is casual alliances do(never been in an alliance that doesn’t strategize war so i have no clue how they handle wars)
No alliance should go undefeated unless it’s a top 5 team that is just performing ridiculously well. The rest should all be climbing the ladder
That being said, there is a bracket cap(20 penalties) which is when an alliance’s performance score stops increasing with wins then they can only face teams in the next bracket 1 of 2 ways.
When a team above them loses a war and drops in their bracket, or when the capped team increases in depth.(btw it is very possible to beat teams in a bracket above you as it typically means they are performing bad either due to being out strategized or new members throwin off thier rhythm or whatever the case may be, consistency wins wars)
Of course the other way is by a team above them exploiting and just dropping x members until they’re well below the bracket they should rightfully be in.
(easiest exploit in the game, but very few alliances can manage to find the sweetspot and not take a huge dive in titans. A top 5 team can cap at 29 members and just dominate their opposition for example, but that’s still not comparative to starting a match behind/ahead in points)
It’s a competitive ladder/bracket/tier system. Win more, climb more. Lose more, drop more.
Competitive alliances typically dont drop below 7 penalties(back when cap was 10, too early to analyze the new 20 cap). While casual alliances typically cap at 5 to 6 at best and even that is at least a bit on the competitive side since it would basically mean they win 50-60% of their wars
3 Likes
Well, that makes certain assumptions that might not be true. As I stated elsewhere I am pretty sure that with a 3 alliance slide (heavy hitter mains, medium hitter alts, and weak hitter alts) you can keep up a rotation that would give you a net benefit for your mains (but not a huge one).
But what is the benefit of doing it? If it really is the ~10% difference in war score I suspect it is for a 30 player alliance, it isn’t much of a benefit as that kind of gap isn’t insurmountable by a long shot.
1 Like
in my alliance I don’t here anyone complaining about the strength of the opponents! We a mix bunch 2800-4200 say of the top of my head!
We’ve been delt this hand! How can we beat them together, have strategy but can change due to how the war is going. This our last war with some very good people and was 6 flags down as had no active member and booted someone! They had 2 flags left at the end of the war.
Work together!
1 Like
It could definitely be done
I mean at one point players in saders had almost enough alts to form an alliance full of alts which would have rather easily kept up with 9* titans
Could have just let em lose wars, then swapped in our mains to streak wins and not take a huge drop in titan loot
That being said, we prefer 14s. We prefer fighting the toughest matches we can possibly get. That is fun for us.
War loot sucks
But the teamplay and competition still keeps wars fun and worth doing
Sure dropping a player to string war chests could be beneficial loot wise due to more war chests, but just don’t see the fun in it so not worth it.
4 Likes
Too much analysis to screw over the system for a slight advantage to get crappy war chest loot. Lol, competitive or not just go have fun with the wars and look at it as a challenge. I love the AW it’s defiantly my fav aspect of the game but at the end of the day… titans drop more AM and come on a daily basis.
3 Likes
Performance results definitely should be reflected in war score or at least for war matchmaking, and it’s good to have it implemented, but it should be done differently.
Because players are winning/losing wars not the alliances themselves this performance score should be somewhat added/deducted to each member’s war score instead. And as it’s not possible to gauge performance individually (it’s kind of a team play), I would add the same amount for winning and deducted the same for losing to everyone who was opted in.
What would be the results of this change?
- Disbanding alliance and forming a new one with the same players would have the same war score
- it could help with merging alliances as the newcomers would bring their own war scores
- it probably wouldn’t affect stable alliances gaining few members from time to time as they will come with their war scores too
- it would be harder to abuse this, because only way to drop your personal war score would be losing wars
There might be some issues with this system too, but I believe it would be more precise than what we have now.
5 Likes
Ah yes, the alliance shifting exploit. It’s an exploit that’s gaming the war matching system. If this bug isn’t being fixed, should we presume it is intended?
We’ve seen it a lot too. They use the exploit to generate unbalanced war matches to open war chests quicker.
This explained one exploit well:
3 Likes
Just wrapped up a war against a suspected shifting alliance, and we did not fair well losing by approximately double the points. We are a casual alliance, so losing by a 1000 points is not that unfamiliar. However, this appeared to be a poor war matchup from the start where their 3rd to last ranking member was equivalent to our top member.
The image here show opponent alliance members peeling off before next matchmaking after war was complete. I also have images demonstrating players arriving to opponent alliance less than 24hrs of matchmaking. I submitted a help ticket documenting this, and I received a generic reply concerning how the system is designed to not allow for cheating to transpire and that all wars are winnable.
An easy fix would be to prevent new members to an alliance from participating in wars for 120 hours ( or whatever timeframe ensures inability to participate in two wars). That way shifting alliances members would only get every third war. If this behavior us not curtailed by that the timeframe for excluding new members could be extended to the point of being excluded from five wars. This would render the shifting alliance tactic useless.
1 Like
We just had the (bad) luck of getting matched with one of these “shifting” alliances. We lost. Not by much, about 300 points, but we lost. It was a good war, though. I took out 5 of their top teams, most flags were used, we scored enough points to win most of our usual wars. Still, they were just too strong. Their alliance was composed of two strictly delimited classes. Class I, long term alliance members (not that long actually, but a lot longer than the others) consisting of 3100 to 3500 teams and then, Class II, made up of players who joined the alliance just hours before matchmaking, fielding 4200 to 4400 defenses. My guess is they go hunting for titans elsewhere and only get together for wars, making them more of a crowd than an alliance, in the sense most of us perceive E&P alliances.
1 Like
I honestly think devs could give 2 s**ts as long as you spend money they’re not fixing anything!