Possible solution to the problem of wars - War Tiers / Brackets / Round Robin Style Setup

in the same way that in the assaults created the different arenas create a war classification of alliances

first achieve a series of alliance wars in the slalom under the first 3 alliances that earn more points go up to the next escalafon and acquire a higher status while higher status better prizes.
in this way they will be able to automatically create a level of the highest level, and those that are of lower levels will face each other until they achieve a king of alliances

I’d like to see a ranking/matching system like in LoL or Starcraft, where each alliance is placed in a tier from Bronze 5 to Diamond 1 (Major tiers being Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Diamond and sub-tiers 1-5 within each major tier) plus a separate Master tier for the top 50 or so. Every 3 wars, divide all the alliance into groups of 4 from the same tier and have them play a round robin among themselves. At the end of those 3 wars, the team with the best record is promoted to the next tier up and the team with the worst record is relegated to the next tier down (If 2 alliances have the same record, the result of their war determines placement. If 3 or teams have the same record, total points won determines placement). Loot would increase with tier just like in raids.

I believe this would make wars feel more dynamic and important, while simultaneously helping with matchmaking in the long run. Currently each war is an isolated event which yields mediocre loot, and therefore doesn’t feel impact on the game overall. Admittedly, transitioning to this system could make proper matchmaking harder initially, but would improve matchmaking once alliances got settled into appropriate tiers. This would add mid-long term goals for alliances, and create a feeling of story and progress.

Now that an AW matchmaking score has been introduced I wanted to propose a tiered system for AW just like it happens for raids, so that alliances in high tiers can hope for better loot in AW victories and AW chests, make AW more appealing, add to the participation and so on.
I made a brief search to check this idea hadn’t been proposed yet and found this old post.
It was written in a period in which AW was still plagued by bad matchmaking (in my personal experience the current matchmaking works way better than anything before), but I think that what it proposes is actually better than my original idea, so I’ll just bring this back to the top list messages to give a second chance of collecting votes!

4 Likes

I think this is a great idea. This def will encourage participation in each alliance more and my alliance has been noticing the loot lately isn’t too great. This sounds like it’ll make the alliance wars much more organized too.

2 Likes

I suggested this a long time ago not to influence for more rewards, but to accommodate for the particular bench of certain levels of players. For example: It is very difficult for a new player to come up with 6 full teams for AW. Why not tier the wars so that at the base tier only 3 defensive teams are required and only 3 flags given per player. Seeing as the players are fairly new and participation/play time may be an issue make it so that those three flags are available at the beginning of the war.

As Alliances ascend through the tiers more defensive teams would be required and more flags given. The next tier up would award 4 flags with two given immediately at the beginning and two after half time. Eventually top tier would require 10 full offensive teams and each player would be given 10 flags with 5 awarded at the beginning of the conflict and 5 awarded after the 12 hour mark.

This would make it an easier introduction to the Wars for new players and for players who have been around for a long time and actually have 40+ maxed 5* heroes it would still provide a challenge.

I like this idea alot. Although it would help if they reassessed hero matchmaking system lol. I proposed a simple point system that would have solved this issue, but probably got swept under the rug.

Since most players don't be satisfied with the match system and loots in war,I suggest you match the winner to the winner , loser to loser in war.
  And for every consecutive win , increase the loot bonus.The increasing  bonus limited to 3~7 wins,then reset.
 The increasing bonus may also used in Titan killing for consecutive kill,I think more alliance may be willing to use flasks for consecutive win.

I suppor tthis idea,
There is already a cup system for raid, similar to the chest rating system, something very similar could be done for war!

Really cool idea!!

They could display an alliances war win streak, their best ever war win streak… and, have some extra rewards every X wins… whether it’s a few extra gems or a shot at ascension items. Either way that’d be really cool.

I pulled my vote off the alchemy lab for this :slight_smile: so that’s how ya know it’s legit :slight_smile:

If you only match winners with winners there are still lots of possible unfair matchups.
Weak winner against strong winner for example.

In chess they are using the elo eystem. This means all newcomers are given, based on their first 10 games or so, a raiting. Now when they play if they win the gain points ( more against a stronger player ), if they loose they loose points ( more against a weaker player ) and so you have a sytem for ranking players and pairing players.

To a certain extent this could work in AW too. I dont know how the Cups System in E&P works but it seems to be similar. ( Maybe simpler )

The elo system is purely perfrormance based which means if an alliance changes ( stronger or weaker ) it might take some time for the new raiting to stabilize on ist new correct value.

I read somewhere that sm whant to implement it in the game but since I am not a programmer I have no idea about how, when or if it is even a good idea to use it. :slight_smile:

Like always we will have to wait and see.

Of course,the winner and another winner should base on similar alliance power.Just as 30 most powerful heroes or others they will used to Judge the strength of the alliance later.

1 Like

I have a question here. In our allience board we have a score based on trophy and titan score meaning it adds up all members into a single number.

Why not for AW’s do the same with total power score of every hero in every alliance members team rolled into one total allience score which would then be used to determine who fights who in battles and with a margin of say 500 either way per alluence it keeps things fare more fairer than using cups or who won the last AW.

At least this way AW’s if your allience is growing so will your AW chances of climbimg the ladder, it would also encourage allience members to work as a team to improve each others teams and strategies, but most of all it would keep battles honest.

Just a thought

Just an idea, might be too much gor the AI to handle but maybe once a year have a round robin Alliance War knockout competition similar to FA Cup Round Robin format. Teams face each other over in a 3 flag only attack that can be over in an hour or two. Losers get knocked out and winners face other winners.

Matchmaking after each round with the top 1000 Alliances seeded so they only have to fight once the lower teams have fought until there are only 1000 teams left. These remaining 2000 teams then face each other until the final 2 fight it out for the title.

This is just a loose framework, the developers would know best on the mechanics. Great bragging rights for the winner. :blush:

2 Likes

I’ve mentioned this before and maybe it was a bit early to bring it up, because it was not well received.

I believe that Tiered wars should be implemented. For people just starting out, it is difficult to field 6 attack teams. For people who are very advanced, they have a lot of 5* left over after war.

To help fix this situation I feel that Tiered wars should be implemented. Based on war score Alliances will be included in a particular tier.

Tier 1: 4 flags available for war meaning 4 attack teams would be required
Tier 2: 6 Flags available meaning that 6 attack teams would be required.
Tier 3: 8 Flags available meaning that 8 attack teams would be required
Tier 4: 10 Flags available meaning that 10 attack teams would be required.

This would make it a much gentler introduction to war for newer players and would give Advanced players something to do with all of their maxed heroes.

Just putting this out there again.

This assumes that all alliances are made up of the same level players. Ours has some serious heavy hitters mixed in with absolute beginners and everything in between. A tiered war would disadvantage one end of our alliance (esp 4 or 8 flags). With 6 flags we are functional and everyone knows what is required.

4 Likes

This is based off of war score. If Some really deep benches choose to be in lower tier alliances and have a lot of unused heroes left over, then that is their choice.

Rather than regulate flags, I’d prefer to see something more like the tournaments. Eliminate a color. Only 4*s and below, etc. But I’m happy with wars the way they are too.

5 Likes

Wars are already tiered

3 Likes

Especially for the weekday war it’s enough for me to use 6 flags. 8 or especially 10 would be too much. I don’t see where the improvement would be anyway. By the tenth flag against 30 Guins what are you using?

1 Like

Just as @Rigs said, war score is already a tier system.

And newbies will have less chance to learn from experienced players.

1 Like

Cookie Settings