so what is it? I couldnt find it
It’s 5 now for everyone.
Used to be 4 (I believe).
Reality is tho that for everyone but the top 10 (maybe 20?) or so alliances, it is a LONG time between drinks facing another alliance… matchmaking cooldown or not… Just cause there are more options.
This change affects really only the top tier of alliances.
what I meant was what IS war cooldown exactly? how many wars have to pass before you are matched up with the same alliance?
War Cooldown = Number of wars that must pass before you CAN BE / ARE ELIGIBLE to match with the same alliance again in Alliance Wars.
Did you search: “alliance war cool down”? List “by most recent post” in options? Like @Guvnor said, it’s not that much of a big deal as it only affects the top alliances; but they are whining, I find that idiotic and SG is appeasing them.
Thx @Rigs for the information, even if he went about it in the wrong way.
So, I would like to talk about this, specially after one of my teammate rage quit yesterday due to frustration in war. Why is SG secretly (since there is nothing in the fixlist) and intentionally making it easier for the top 3 alliances in war? Just because one of the whales ask for the change so they can face different teams then the algorithm match them with, shouldn’t mean SG should just crave and let them face weaker teams every 5th war. Giving those top 3 alliances a chance to face weaker teams means making those weaker teams face a team they have no chance of beating in war. This seems like a cheat to me.
If SG is ok with this, why stop there and only make changes that benefit the top 3 alliances? How about SG implementing a cheat, I mean a change, that allows other alliances that face weak teams?
Ok, OK, for something more constructive, how about each time those top alliances get to face a weaker team, those top alliances can’t use 2 random classes of heroes?
Lots of people on the forumn have complain about wars becoming boring, but SG only implemented one change for war, and it was to the direct benefit of 3 alliances while hurting other alliances.
SG is aware of the possible negative side effects, other players, alliances, and even the player that made suggestion from one of those top teams is aware and have all discussed the negatives and positives that could come with this change
The most likely effected teams below the top 3 seem ok with it
If it causes too many 1 sided wars/mismatches or reaches too far below the typical matchmaking alglorithm, @mhalttu has said the change would be reverted and is as easy as flippin a switch with no update needed. The change will take effect starting with the upcoming war
Players and teams do track matchmakings and war scores within at least the top 30 which is where this change will have the most effect and will definitely let devs know if things are goin sideways after the change
I’d give it time to see how it goes and not put weight into my pre coffee gun blazing radical unnecessary reacitve bs rant…
And the one change was made for the top 3 due to how slim match making becomes towards the top of the matchmaking system. It was an easy change that required no development process or updates or testing etc etc etc. Adding anything else beyond tweaking the matchmaking algorithm requires more work, time, and thought
Basically it was a convenient change that would benefit some players. Sure it sucks that a convenient change couldn’t be made to benefit all.
Any ideas of changes to benefit more than the top 3?
Well I am in one of those teams that will most likely be effected, and I am personally against it. Couple in my alliance are ok with it saying it will be low stress since they know we would lose. Or saying that the idea was from within the family anyways. Don’t think either of those are good. Worst is that we just lost a teammate who rage quit the game because of the last war.
One sided war sucks.
I can’t say you guys won’t possibly be effected but i can say i believe it’s unlikely
If an average war score of 123.9 matches with an average of 130k+ it’ll definitely raise alarm and be one of the examples of a negative side effect from the change
Hope a matchup that far apart doesn’t occur but you should definitely revisit this if it does
i believe 128k will most likely be the cutoff for possibility of being matched and matches that low will be few and far between
I could be completely wrong but that’s just my personal prediction
It’s all irrelevant anyway while war scores are completely pointless. In our last 3 wars, our war score has been equal to our opponents, both around 100k, yet they have been massively OP. That needs fixing much more than maybe meeting the same team a bit earlier.
not that I will ever be anywhere near the top 3, but I think that is blatant bull if they are intentionally matching top alliances with weaker opponents for the sake of “providing diversity” for the top spenders, then simply remove the strongest hero from each player from said alliances when matchmaking - now it is fair for everyone. or remove defense effects for them, but that is harder to quantify.
honestly, I dont even quite get this. they want diversity because they are bored fighting same alliances? but fighting weaker alliances going 6/6 like shooting fish in a barrel is not boring?
Anything more than a paragraph to go with this statement?
It’s a test. No one is even sure if they’ll get that far outside of their normal strength range. It’s still in the wait and see status…
hmm interesting. My alliance is at 127k war score, so would be right outside it unless we win the next war.
I don’t like this at all. Let’s just say, those TOP4 alliance face each other 3 times and then they get one alliance, which isn’t there yet, close put still underdogs. That war gives 5 points to those top4 alliances for sure and now they want to get 2 those kind of wars before facing another TOP4 ally again. Giving them 10 points for sure.
Same time alliances, which are just under that top4 gets two wars, which they lose and 2 points. And others wars are close ones, no easy wins.
I personally find funny to complain wars not having variety, there are always option to go different ally. Isn’t there?
Well for instance in our last war, we had a war score of 101569, or opponent were within 60 points of this. When it came to the war, they had 8 teams over 4500, another 9 teams over 4400 and all the rest were over 4200. We have 1 team over 4500, 2 over 4400. We have 10 teams of 4100 or lower. We obviously got absolutely battered. They scored over 6500, where as we struggled to break 5700. It wasnt even remotely evenly matched.
I know people will say, it’s based on your your top 30 heroes etc. But that doesn’t explain it, these guys clearly had much deeper benches than we did, yet their score is the same as ours. Tough match ups occasionally are fun, but when you don’t stand a cat in hells chance it makes it kinda dull and pointless.
It also might be that they have lost several wars, which have drop their war score. Or your ally having winning strike.
yes, they did. and even 30 heroes dont tell the whole picture. they may have 15 good heroes of each color go be ready to go 3-1-1 or 3-2-0 against any tank color. heck, they could have 30 of each color to go mono in every fight of any war.
working on war bench doesnt stop at 30 heroes.
How many wars did you win before that type of matchup? Typically the higher win % you have, the more likely you are to run into that
I looked at averages. Was in a rush and didnt have time to look at the currents(even though we have em all charted right next to the averages, the sheet was sorted by averages so i went for convenience but I’ll take a better look at things when i get home)
You guys are 22nd in the current “war ranks” based on current war score @Checker
Pure Speculation/guess work below
So if you’re concerned about matching with the top 3 within a cycle of 5 wars based on current standings:
So if each of top 3 matches each other once in 5 wars
That’s 3 out of 5 wars they can’t match below their weight
4th will be within top 5-10
5th would most likely be in the same 5-10 range, at worst 10-15
If i had to guess, I’d say you guys would have to win the next war to be a “possibility” which would put you over 129k
And then it would depend on timing of if there are better matches within the top 5-10 and would also depend on the war results of the teams above you guys
That’s my current conclusion on the theoretical you brought up
Again purely guesswork and definitely some unknown info in the mix as far as how recent the top 3 have faced each other, rematch eligibilities, future results of the top 30, etc etc etc
So just see how it goes. If you guys lose next war, then it would take 2 war wins to become a possibility which would make it even less likely
Good luck on your next war and hopefully if you guys win, you don’t get the matches you’re concerned about