So, by your own admission- the matching is adjusted in an attempt to trigger a loss. Further, other penalties exist too- ever heard “bad boards “?
That would penalize honest new alliances.
It’s more fair to start at a high penalty level, like an “average” war score for every new alliance, and as teams win and lose ir can be adjusted.
After all, only shufflers form new alliances for the specific purpose of winning all wars from the start.
Nope, you’ve got it wrong.
The point of matching you against a stronger opponent for every victory is because you won, so YOU WERE STRONGER than your prior match, so it is expected that a stronger enemy will be a better match for you (match is always with a similar score alliance, not with a higher one).
Bad boards are only a penalty if they are intentional and are only presented to one team, is this what you are suggesting?
1 Like
Oh absolutely- that’s exactly what I suggest. I suggest there are two main penalty types implemented- unbalanced matchup and bad boards.
The goal- quite simple is to ensure that all members are awarded 50% victories and 50% losses. Before the ladder system- winning and losing streaks were common. Some alliances losing 10 in a row, others winning 10 in a row.
These variants from the norm are counterproductive to the business model hence adjustments are in place to ensure as a group the win loss ratio is 50:50
1 Like
If the match is not based on metrics like heores and troops but purely win loss histories- then how is an unbalanced match not a means to induce an unnatural loss?
1 Like
That is some serious claim, to say that the system is rigged so every war one of the alliances will face bad boards and the other one won’t.
If I thought that was the case, I would not even be playing E&P any more, and if you have any evidence, please show it, it’s basically a scam, and it has to stop.
Well, that’s exactly my point, AFAIK SGG has tried to make the matches as fair as possible (actually that is the whole point of this thread and @mhalttu’s answer)
And IT IS based on heroes and troops, they just added another metric.
The point of adding wins/losses into the mix is because it’s not only heroes “power” that affects the war outcome.
You can have 30 +20 Richards as your tanks in the war, and they will never be as effective as 30 +10 Tellurias, however they might seem more “powerful” to make the match.
Then you have the strategy, participation, and of course the boards.
Just yesterday we won a war by 7 points, with one guy on the other side leaving a flag unused, we were pretty much equal in all aspects, but we were STRONGER IN PARTICIPATION.
But I think saying all this to someone that thinks SGG is actually manipulating the outcome of the wars might be actually useless.
1 Like
you’re right
i cherry picked the alliances with the right leadership and effort in place to stay full and attract good members
you should find one of those
5 Likes
You were right, they actually hove around 8* titansm, just watched that video again.
But my point stands, if it were not worth it, nobody would do it.
But it can’t be- look- imagine you have 2 equal alliances- for sake of argument- everyone goes mono Sonya- troops and heroes identical. Boards go in your favour and so you win. As you say, you now need to be matched with a stronger alliance- so, the winning mono Sonya is matched with a different alliance- 50% is mono Sonya and 50% mono Magni. By pure luck, you win again. Next match- even stronger- so mono Sonya is matched with mono Magni and naturally you lose.
So- you either claim that mono Sonya matches mono Magni is fair- due to history- and actually troops and heroes doesn’t matter because the goal is to trigger a loss.
Or, you say troops and heroes absolutely does matter in which case, mono Sonya will always match mono Sonya forever- you can never match a stronger opponent. But if you agree, then you contradict yourself earlier saying you need to be matched to a stronger opponent. And if you say the heroes and troops doesn’t matter and mono Magni vs mono Sonya is fair due to history- then you’re just aligned to my point of view- that war matching is fundamentally biased.
How about we track performance in another thread? If you won the previous war, my guess is you will lose this one. And then you’ll win the next. Over time, your win loss ratio will revert to 50:50. Also, track where you observe your members saying “sorry guys not my war bad boards” - give me the observation points, I’ll do the statistics to see if there’s a correlation between your losses and so called “bad boards”
This case experiment would be a good way to find a correlation between bad boards and defeats, which is kinda obvious IMO, if most players have bad boards, war is most likely to end in defeat.
But you claim that such bad boards are intentionally delivered to only one of the teams, in order to trigger a defeat for that team, that is a little bit harder to prove.
Since you are making that accusation, you hold the burden of proof, namely you already gathered all the info and did the numbers to support your claim.
Your entire answer is oversimplified.
No, I’m not contradicting myself nor agreeing with you.
Matter is not synonim of sole factor as all your “reasoning” pretends.
Using your examples, the goal of the system is to match Magni vs Magni with both X previous victories.
Whoever wins (stronger team) opens a chest and puts their Magnis in +5, so next time the system will match them to another Magni+5 with X+1 victories.
And loser team, with less emblems can put their Magnis only in +1, so next time they will be faced to another Magni+1 team with X-1 victories.
Where is the system “forcing a loss” here?
If anything, matching system is trying to “force” a tie…!!!
1 Like
Keep in mind a few things
- When someone loses a battle they usually have an excuse. Don’t buy the board is always bad
- Many times the board is not bad but the player is not good and do not know how to manipulate a board. Just because the colors are not line up for you doesn’t mean the board is bad.
- Many players I see don’t have any idea of what heroes to even use giving the computer the advantage.
2 Likes
I agree with you.
The point we are discussing in these latest comments is that @Elpis and @Vica-at-EP say that the system, as is currently designed, is forcing alliances to loose by matching you with a stronger opponent after you win a war (ladder system).
In addition to that, Vica says bad boards are dealt intentionally by the game to one of the alliances in the war, with the same purpose of triggering a loss on that alliance.
I disagree with both statements.
4 Likes
I don’t buy this at all. Some board start out bad and after moving some diamonds again it’s a good board.
What’s the “Developer response”. Not at post 113, as stated in the title?
Deleted posts sometimes changes the post numbers.
1 Like
That would make sense if I was say lvl 12 and had limited abilities. However, I’m not. I’m a level 66 with near three years experience- degree educated, maths background, statistics and mean reversion / regression capabilities- so, I do know how to turn bad boards, and, as evidence shows- I’m particularly good at getting high scores during war.
So, I am qualified- more than most- to observe and claim that be it intentional or otherwise- bad boards “are a thing” and certainly not an isolated instance.
I been playing this game 2 and a half years, level 83 and know a thing or two about this game and players. I’ve heard many excuses when players don’t do good. I wasn’t speaking directly at you but it doesn’t change the fact that some people like for something to blame when they lose a battle.
I lead my alliance in every war as well. Here’s my war score:
1 Like
For someone with math background, your logic is too flawed.
IF, as you say, bad boards are not random, but purposedly given only to one alliance every war, you should know, more than most, that you need numbers and evidence to support your claims and observations, if you want them to at least be taken seriously.
Oh, now we’re talking! On this I agree, my usual score in wars is between 250-300, but just yesterday I had a 2 OS war with 143 score. And bad boards were present indeed, with not even heroes like Malosi or Jackal activating on time.
I just don’t think they’re intentional, and I think opponents suffer the same pain during wars.
3 Likes
So, uh, I am not sure if they’ve implemented anything new, but it appears that if nothing else war matching is worse now than it was before. My alliance with a current War Score of 102177. The team we just matched up to face has a war score of 127027. That’s a difference of almost 25,000 points. We have no more business being matched up against this team than we do against a team in the top 100.
This is a joke.
1 Like