Anyone could have figured this out on there own mate…
Leave alliance, rejoin. War score different even though the other 29 members stayed.
Or by tracking X amount of top War teams or at a bare min your own and noticing random (not so random) drops.
This was one of the very first patch’s to correct war system “bugs” after game switched war systems.
If you want >proof< or a list of all the bugs they double backed and fixed in first update…maybe ping a Dev.
PS. Massive War Change: Moving from 10 Penalties to 20 Penalite war system wasn’t adjusted with a “Patch note”. It was a Dev on the board mad at @Rigs and hit [enter] on his computer and casually mentioned it on a thread that he changed it.
For those new to “war matchmaking” and may be thinkin the loopholes discussed in the OP are just speculation or exaggerations etc
Think it should be pointed out that devs were aware of these type of loopholes and pitfalls and predicted them a long time ago:
Just wanted to make it clear that these “loopholes” are more than speculation…
So with devs knowing these loopholes exist and now we’re seeing more and more teams/players figuring out ways to take advantage of the loopholes, i suspect devs have something in the works to start closing them
All @SADERSpanda and others wanted to do was suggest something from player(s) perspective before devs just looked at a chart of data and said “ok this is what we’re goin to do”, since players and numbers are both involved in the matchmaking process, it’ll take more than just data to help figure out solutions to the matchmaking system…in my opinion.
I know some people are wondering why teams/players have a sudden interest in taking advantage of matchmaking to chain war chests and miss out on titan loot
That’s pretty simple. War chests reward emblems. Rare titans reward emblems. Teams taking advantage of war matchmaking don’t miss out on either, especially with the current cap being +20 for wars.
Once players get to a certain level, ascension mats hit a back burner. Once a player has more than 30 maxed 5s, each new maxed 5 after that just adds another 5* they don’t use.
So just like with troops where players hit a progression point of shifting focus from heroes to troops. Players also hit a progression point where emblems have more value than ascension mats.
Improving 30 most used heroes > increasing amount of unused heroes
Just from simply observing players focuses/priorities in public game chats, line, this forum etc
Seems to be a common timeline players go through with their shift of focus
As more players reach the “emblem priority” timeline we’ll see more and more players/teams taking advantage of the current loopholes which in turn makes the current problems progressively worse
Hence how you can look at many “new(ish)” teams but see familiar faces from leaderboards and big alliances
Panda’s solution doesn’t have to be the only proposal(and isn’t the only one as far as i know)
Any player that has another idea is always welcome to start a new thread in the ideas/suggestions category for voting to take place and garner some attention.
It’s not like Crew-Saders has any pull on devs or their decisions or that we don’t think there can’t possibly be any other better suggestions for solution, this is just the one we felt was best from our discussions but a small group can’t rule out that a bigger group/audience with more perspectives can’t come up with something we may like better or may be better even if we don’t like it.
Hence how devs can’t rule out that a group of perspectives bigger than just the development team may have worthwhile suggestions & ideas…and why this category exists and how some player suggestions do see game implementation(even tho typically not implemented the exact way they were originally suggested)
When a team wants to compete with the 7DD, Aggressive, etc type teams but can’t win as consistently as they do to fill chests then the next option is to drop out of the top and increase their growth through emblems then eventually jump back up top to try again, if fail again then repeat.
Troops, heroes, mats are much easier to increase through purchases than emblems which are much more scarcely offered up for purchase and are not offered as rewards for pay ranks in challenge events or elsewhere and even tourney divies up random amounts to random ranks etc. Rare titans can appear as early as after 7 consecutive titan kills…which is how teams don’t miss out on rares by dropping and climbing back up the titan chain since by the time they would normally be due for a rare titan, they’ve already climbed back up to 5* titans and will see a rare sooner than later
It’ll help some teams. I think some will run into the same win trade brickwall they ran into before because they believe winning consistently comes from alliance strength in depth and not from coordination/teamwork which they severely lacked while up top as more teams without their depth figured out how to compensate for that.
None the less, the exploits effect matchmaking from top to mid to bottom. Takes longer for the top to be effected, mid & bottom see more immediate impact, but impact is still game wide
So basically current system actually punishes alliance longevity rather than rewards it more which is a** backwards and why we simply suggested reversing that effect.
It seems as though you have found an alliance that exploits the system. If you look closely at their name and several alliances and banners… If the OP proposal were implemented this particular problem goes away as the exploitation of new alliances for war goes away…
Yeah, pretty much that. And not limited to powerful players only. To be perfectly honest, i couldn’t care less about them. But implementing higher tier rewards for consistent alliances which win wars at their war score cap would discourage that exploitative behavior
Yes and no. The problem is the incentive to not keep an alliance with a history at any level. It doesn’t matter if it is a top 10 alliance or a top 1000 alliance or a top 10000 alliance. Resetting the alliance war history provides a skew to the matchmaking process. As @Rigs mentioned, alliances dropping members to continually get “easier” wins is another issue. As it skews matchmaking. If these loopholes are acceptable, my solution is to give the “honorable” full alliance competing with their true history a reward.
The initial proposal addressed it by giving incentives to not do that.
In version 31 we start to track war history on a player level in addition to alliance level. After we’ve collected some data and if everything seems good, we can start using the player specific war history instead of alliance specific war history, which should resolve this issue.
Thank you so very much for taking time to begin to look into and endeavour to rectify alliance war matchmaking issues.
Communication, even just acknowledgement of an issue, is vital.
Please keep the forum in the loop as much as you can regarding the individual war history tracking you’ve outlined. It would be greatly appreciated!
A secondary approach I’d raised a few weeks back is to consider using “carrot” as a means to potentially disincentivise folks from jumping through loopholes for war chests. Increase the quantity and quality of titan loot at higher titan star levels.
It may not work for all, but currently the cost-benefit analysis determined by some sways folks to abuse the war matchmaking over stable and progressing Alliances; so make the carrot for stable alliances through progressively higher titan loot too tempting.
Just my two cents.
Anyways, thank you again for looking into this issue.