Top #100 Alliance Ranking (@Beezzer)

Thankfully @Beezzer invests a huge amount of time to create this and someone asked him, if it’s possible to show it - so here we go:

Beezer’s Top 100 Ranking Update

As background for new members, SG’s in game leaderboard is meaningless when it comes to ranking alliances based on war strength. So with @Zarubina Natalia’s help, I track alliance war scores for the purpose of ranking the Top 100.

My methodology is:

  1. For the Top 3, they are ranked based on heads up matches among the Top 3

  2. For the #4 - #100, it’s based on a 10-war average war score with a 75% weighting to the average score and a 25% weighting to the maximum war score during those 10 wars.

Have Fun with it :upside_down_face:


@Beezzer :point_up_2: :clap: thanks for it!


Very nice, thanks! I am curious how you collect the raw data, from alliances members?

1 Like

Thank you, Oli.

As a bit more color to the rankings, the purpose of this was to provide insight into relative war rankings of alliances that typically war against each other with 30 teams and to identify a “Top 100” that has more meaning than SG’s leaderboard rankings.

If an alliance has too many wars at less than 30 teams, they are not included in the rankings. That’s not to say they aren’t a Top 100 in terms of strength (e.g., Last Regiment), but instead they’re not within the scope of what I’m trying to rank. Also, I don’t include an alliance in the rankings until they have 5 scores in the data set.

The ranking (“War Rank”) is based on an alliance’s 10-war average alliance score, which is captured before the end of each war. While there are occasional blips up and down in rankings due to war matchups, over time it generally works out where alliances are ranked where they should be relative to their peers. It takes into account wins and losses, and the level of competition that an alliance is fighting at. Approximately 130 to 150 alliances are being tracked at any given time,

When alliance score don’t make sense, which occasionally occurs when an alliance is sitting out a member or two for war, I can determine the approximately correct score by looking at the score before and after the current war. In addition, I’m usually able to track down war results of the Top 100, which gives me another data point to confirm accuracy of questionable alliance scores.

For those in the Top 100 who often are fighting at their war max, the rankings are surprisingly accurate. 77.4% of the time the higher ranked alliance will win when matched up against a lower ranked alliance.

However, there are tiers even within the the highest levels. To be a Top 50, Top 20, Top 10, etc. alliance is a huge accomplishment. But even at those levels there are notable differences in alliance war strength. The #5 alliance (Tier 3), for example, is not at the same level as the #4, #6 or #7 alliances (Tier 2).

So as additional insight, I have recently started to rank the very top alliances based on “War Tiers.” That’s the first column in the first chart, where so far I have ranked the first three Tiers (9 alliances so far). Regardless of their current War Rank, it is their War Tier that I would pay attention to in regard to how strong they are at war. The War Tier is based on a review of war results against other alliances.

Alliance scores are meaningless for the Top 3. The Avengers, Kobyer and 7DD are in a class by themselves. It is them, then everyone else. So for purposes of rankings, I use their heads up wins / losses against each other over the last 10 wars to rank them. Over the last few months, each of those three alliances are 50/50 against the other two. About as even as it can be.

And finally, this is only my view of the Top 100. If your ranking is different, yours is right and mine is wrong.


Top 100 alliances post war results to him after every war.


Thanks, really interesting to see the thought process and tracking behind this


Wow! Just wow! In awe of the number crunching and analysis. :exploding_head::astonished:


Love this! It seems to be a very good representation of a “compromise” (between skill and roster strength) ranking.

Suggestion: Add a column which shows last 10 avg as a % of max. That’ll give an idea of how often an alliance wins despite being at their cap, which I think is a good measure of skill (at least for tiers 2+). This method kind of “controls for” roster strength (since that’s primarily what’s reflected in an alliance’s cap/max war score).

(I recognize you’re doing that to some extent already, by using avg score as the majority basis for your ranking. This other column I’m suggesting you add would simply be an additional metric to tease out which alliances do the most with what they have to work with. Might be useful as an additional predictive tool as well. And depending on exactly how you record and maintain the data, you might actually be able to do this retroactively, and see if it’s already been a good predictive tool!)


The titans are removed from this ranking system because it is meant to stop the moving around all over the place that takes place every 24 hours cycle because of titan decay. Titan decay (5% of the titan score portion of the alliance score) occurs every 24 hours. It starts to decline slowly over time after your Titan is killed. As the Titan is killed, there is a jump in 5%, and then it slowly starts to decay until your next titan is killed. Once killed, it jumps again, and then decays again, every 24 hours. This causes daily volatility in alliance rank. This causes alliances to jump around in rank +/- 50 or more every day. This makes it difficult to figure out what alliances rank really is, so the titan score has been removed in this system. As all top 100 alliances are chaining 14 * Titans without let up or skipping, then it is assumed this is pretty much the same for all top alliances.

One of us will come on to repost new and updated ranking list once a month. I promise.

Screenshot showing the three parts of the alliance score. I’m sure that elsewhere on the forum this is explained in much more detail and a lot better than I’ve done it here. But for those that aren’t that aware of this then I would recommend tracking your score (parts) several times a day and see how it changes over time.


I love having the 10 war cycle ranks for top 100 wars and some more, shared between top 100+ leaders in a different app.
Also thinking it is a great idea to share the info here
It is probably like 2 years ago or more, since I and many other first started asking for a war leaderboard in game, as that is so different from the main leaderboard.
That not being implemented in game, it is anyway war score rank, that upcoming/competitive alliances are mainly striving for.
I highly appreciate that we are then having smart people like @Beezzer summoning things up, when not easy to see in game and on top on that telling what data used, if it for some seems inaccurate


I like your suggestion and will play around with it. I have wins and losses off to the side, but don’t include that to avoid data overload. But the % of max might be a good metric to condense it down. Hmm…


The biggest takeaway from this thread, and the thread that started us down this rabbit hole, should be that the community saw a need and an individual player (with a few helpers) created this ranking. This is something that should be provided by SG/Zynga not something that is pieced together by the players. @Beezzer we have been grateful for your hard work over the past months to bring us this clear picture of the true top 100 alliances in this game. But the onus should not be on the players to collect this data and create a ranking, it should be something offered by the creators of this game. @Petri Can you bring this up at headquarters and see if it is something that can be done by SG?


As I always say : fantastic job made by Beezzer & helpers :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


I totally agree @Datootfary.
We are having the great top 100 war ranking made by players. That is limited to a very small group, hidden from most in game.
Most leaders having goals of higher alliance war ranks, and trying to keep track on their improvements on that, will have to set up their own system, to keep up some tracking on that


Is there data from the Korean alliances? I’m kinda of surprised there aren’t any Korean alliances in the top 40.

There are a few that would rank in the top 100 (Jo Seen, 1st Family, Team Korea and the now defunct Veterans of Korea) but many do not war at 30 to be included in this list. If Jo Seon warred at 30 they would be in the top 10 ranking for sure.


A number of Korean alliances recently had a rash of restructurings. When their alliances are full, they are well represented in the Top 100.

Jo Seon is a top 10 and was ranked as such for quite a while, but hasn’t fought at 30 teams for 5 weeks (28 teams more recently). When / if they go to 30, they’ll be added back. Tracked, but not ranked.

1st Family of Korea hasn’t fought at 30 for 2 months, and more recently at 25 members. Tracked, but not ranked.

VOK exploded into a powerhouse, then recently disappeared.

상록수 and 포레스트 are currently tracked and ranked.


There was. Thewre were 2 or 3 way up there in the top 15, but I belive there is a reorganziation underway currently.

Those included 1st Familly and Je Seon, and Veteran of Korea.

nvm, just saw beezzer already got to this


Thanks for the info. Amazing data and work :+1:


From what I know, they have their own complex ranking system, they even have price (Gift card) for winning alliances every month, have YouTube channel to broadcast the result of each war from the Korean speaking communities.
The issue is some are not English speaking and some could care less to be part of this.


Cookie Settings