War Matchmaking Issue -- Proposed Solutions (Developer response: post 107)

[AureliusBP]

So we have watched as we are a small group of real life friends. An assumption that your war history is reset is not accurate. We moved people who were not participating in last couple wars. When they arrive to new alliance with opt-in set, the war score did not adjust. When we had people who came in and recently had a war, their war score adjusted. We tested this across several of our non-war players versus our war players and in all cases, the war history in some part tracks to the individual (did this 4 weeks ago and again 2 days ago)

In conclusion, your basis for change I believe is inaccurate and have seen direct evidence that refutes the assumption you make about smaller alliances.

[AureliusBP]

On a different element of this topic, the most significant imbalance is between smaller alliances who coordinate their weak and strong flags and those who do not.

In the top tier alliances, the need for this level of coordination is not required as everyone is capable of cleaning up their own messes and hitting achievable targets with their first flag.

We are now 14-1 as we tried to merge alliances and found alliance players lacking ambition to coordinate, we went alone again…it very much is about coordinating the flags. I would say coordinating as described above is a difference of 1000 points.

Furthermore,I would hypothesize that the war scores are taking the teams final score calculating ppf used and then adding into that score a value of flags for unused to that ppf to the adjusted matching value…this prevents sleeper flags from waking up and instead promotes full participation. In conclusion, we require 100% flag use so that we don’t have the offset issue. We have noticed that lack of flag use causes alliances to have unwieldy matchups. This hypothesis could be the reason.

In conclusion, your basis and assumptions if inaccurate, invalidate your entire proposal and as such there is no merit for the change. The absolution that you suggest as to why the differential exists between the ladders is theoretically inaccurate as we have real evidence to refute such claims.

[SADERSpanda]

Please provide the data. Screenshots line ID is boeckc321. Would love to take a look. Your assertion is contrary to the data I have personally collected. But even still please show me so I can adjust my thought process.

[SADERSpanda]

You are awfully sure without providing anything but words. Seems like you are probably taking advantage of one of the “features” listed above. 14-1 seems unlikely. Unless you prefer to start new alliances for less competitive match ups.

[Azazel_Nox]

War matching has a serious flaw and should be looked at. Tiering loot, whether alliance or individual, is a bad idea.

[Rigs]

@Azazel_Nox

Tiering loot, whether alliance or individual, is a bad idea for me. Therefore it’s a bad idea for all, just because I’m too lazy to try for better loot, doesn’t mean anyone else should get better loot for trying harder than me, that’s completely out of my control, I’m the victim here ffs!!

Hmm i simply disagree with this sentiment

[Azazel_Nox]

Good, so do I and glad you restructured my statement to fit your narrative of what you think I’m saying while still being ignorant to what I actually said.

No idea why you guys are being so ridiculously sensitive like I’m saying your request is dumbfounded and stupid.

For the 8th time:

How the Teir Concept is worded above, I do not concur with. Whether against an individual or against an alliance. It is a deeper part, an add on, to the solutions I do agree with that were also presented.

To solve the main issue at hand, tiering isn’t necessary.

The fact it states “we don’t want to force people to play our way” is an outright contradiction to then adding stipulations that ultimately force others to “play your way”.

I tried to point out that while you insist that “I’m all about the loot” that’s literally what started this whole concept.

On one hand, you’re mad people are sacrificing A for B while you’re not sacrificing B to achieve A, but ultimately still get the rewards of A and B.

Meanwhile, people not doing the trick and still doing what must be done for A and B will ultimately be affected even if unintended.

Now if the tier system was presented as simply “duration of the existence of the alliance” that’s perfectly fine and would reduce/remove the ones you’re targeting from reaping benefits.

But that’s where it stopped, participation, duration x was in x alliance, were also presented factors.

It was mercs who posted this in group that brought me here…

If it becomes based on my presence in the alliance, I cannot go merc, I’d be teired.

I’m not asking to have better loot, but I shouldn’t be punished just cause I roam in down time. That’s why I’m anti-tiers as presented/suggested. This is also why I brought up the reminder of mercing.

That idea was to remove people exploiting those that bounced from titan to titan collecting full loot everywhere. But in the aftermath, it affected anyone who left an alliance ignoring any reason to do so as invalid.

In that regards, teiring/cooldown timers legitimately forced everyone that roamed to settle down if you wanted war loot at all. This already changed how ppl played and were forced into how that system wants us to play.

[Rigs]

If you’re out mercing, then again…you’re sacrificing loot…so…why would you care…

Just sounds like you’re disagreeing to just disagree

You care about loot or you don’t

Mercs themselves have said plenty of times(whole thread that i could pull multiple quotes from) they don’t care about loot

Care about loot? Extra war chests by winning at cap, most titan chests per month, stringing 14* titans, that’s where the most loot for an alliance as a whole is at

Don’t care about loot? Then you’re not trying for these things. And if you’re out mercing then you’re sacrficing even more loot than those who are just havin escaped titans here n there…

Maybe you had a point and failed at execution but i think I’ll standby the disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing as motivation for your disagreement…

[Guvnor]

Moderator Note.

Let’s try avoiding too much back and forth arguments. You’re unlikely to alter someone’s opinion & tends to just degrade the quality of the thread.

[AureliusBP]

And your assertion is contrary to the data I have collected and make no mistake, you can never assert your claims without knowing specifics around how the programming was constructed. This whole approach you have is misguided because your “proofs” are based on your point of view.

A la Ben Kenobi educating Luke Skywalker.

Anyway, I don’t need to submit any data to you other than to suggest that we are not exploiting. We did change alliances in an attempt to merge into another…that didn’t work out great because too many players didn’t want to coordinate…simple three hits and leave. That will cause lower scores. Once we had proven the effectiveness, it was convincing enough to get them doing it.

In a full 30…where by the teams of each are really perfected and the number of choices are large enough, the humanity of hit come-and-go is easier. If you remove it and truly go coordinated…the score imbalance is massive.

Again, I challenge this proposal because the assumptions you set forth are based only on your views. I can tell we have other data. Makes for a great game and yes! We want all the loot we can get and in fact merged to have larger scores to capture larger titans. But lackadaisical mentalities with the group we merged with showed us just how unique our approach was…

We don’t have screenshots. Just spreadsheets. But don’t worry. Your theory is yours and I am telling the developers to check our teams too(they have the data) before they start taking your data as evidence.

Also, don’t worry. I am not offended with your slander suggesting we are exploiting

One final note on the power of data…you may want to find a book called “How not to be wrong: The power of mathematical thinking” by Jordan Ellenberg. Excellent read that covers situations just like this where presentment of two different situations and accurate data creates dissimilar conclusions. Excellent because it identifies exactly what we are seeing with your data versus mine.

[SADERSpanda]

I really wished we could have compared notes. Instead words and no numbers. Link a spreadsheet show the facts. I’d love to exchange information as my genuine hope is to improve the experience for the multitude of members on this forum that are being exploited.

As we will likely not convince one another and you are unwilling to share your data please agree to disagree and leave the thread for more productive discussion

[Oliz]

The Titan tier system sucks as it is, the only rewards system in this game that is a little better is the war chest, personally I won’t want that to be tiered like the Titans…

[Rigs]

@AureliusBP

war history is reset is not accurate

That’s accurate. When all members leave an alliance, the alliance is deleted. When members start a new alliance, the new alliance starts off with 0 penalties towards performance score.

Fact.

@AureliusBP

they arrive to new alliance with opt-in set

What you’re referring to is joining a different alliance that is already established, not starting a new alliance from scratch. Established alliance performance score(penalties) isn’t reset when new members join.

Fact.

@AureliusBP

war score did not adjust.

War score adjusts with every opt in, and opt out. Has been thoroughly tested. It’s not instant change, can take up to 15 minutes but typically no longer than 3 to 5 minutes. Varied times are due to lag for whatever technical reasons that can cause the game to lag.

Fact

@AureliusBP

tracks to the individual

Depth score is tacked to the individual. The whole “30 heroes and troops with weight towards top 5 blah blah”
Has been widely known and openly informed by devs for a very long time and even the little “i” next to your alliance’s war score will give you this information

Fact

@AureliusBP

have seen direct evidence that refutes the assumption

Seen isn’t the same as provided

So your point is moot until you can actually disprove what you believe to be false in the OP

Fact

@AureliusBP

level of coordination is not required

It’s still required

@AureliusBP

is capable of cleaning up their own messes

Not always. Everyone only has 6 flags. And not everyone’s 5th or 6th is as strong as someone else’s 4th or 5th…

@AureliusBP

it very much is about coordinating the flags. I would say coordinating as described above is a difference of 1000 points.

Sure but without any other info, even as little as your alliance’s name, all we can do is take your word for it. For all we know you guys are big players with about 15 members just playin king of the mountain which is you’re motivation to be against a new system and in turn you’re supplying false information and no data in order to lure blind support against a new system

@AureliusBP

war scores are taking the teams final score calculating ppf used and then adding into that score a value of flags for unused to that ppf to the adjusted matching value…this prevents sleeper flags from waking up and instead promotes full participation

Nope.

War score is based on depth and wins/losses. That’s it. Been proven 1000x and even straight forward from the SmallGiant team themselves. So again, hypothesis is squashed…

Search the forum. Read. Do your homework. Sleep on the info and come back.

Thanks.

[AureliusBP]

I would suggest looking at two stories based on your assumptions and findings.

AMS :: Feature Column :: The Legend of Abraham Wald

The other is our dear friend, King George III…many will be familiar with how the perception of those at the top differ greatly from the perception of the masses

[Rigs]

@Oliz

Titan tier system sucks as it is,

Reasons behind why you dislike somethin would be great…

[Oliz]

OK @Rigs since you asked for my reasons, this is my view on this, I perceive a data set collated just within a very small sample and now being proposed to be used to generalize for a larger populace.
Regarding the tier proposal, again my opinion is that it’s benefit is geared towards the top few alliances.

Would it benefit the middle level alliances who are mostly less less than 30 members? My response…compared to the current system,…not exactly.

Now large proportion of the lower level alliances, still growing with very few members and enjoying the war based on 100% participation reward as it is .???

Again the exploits mentioned, where is the data, how many are engaging in this? 100, 200 or a thousand alliances? How significant is the number? , in any case, I still find the tier proposal unsuitable, may be alliance war history is not enough to combat the issue, perhaps players war history should be incorporated in the match making…my stand is leave the reward system as it is.

[PooFlingerJr]

Not 100% accurate. Not everyone has the same amount of time to dedicate to the game and won’t meet the requirements of many top alliances. They may still have the desire to progress though.

[Oliz]

Frankly, there shouldn’t be room for exploiting the system, for the group of people doing that, it is a shame and I quite commend @SADERSpanda and team for bringing this up.

However, my proposed solution to the exploit should be either ditch alliance war history in the match making and use individual player’s war history, or use both.

In this case, player’s personal war history ( cannot be reset) becomes significant and form a weighted factor in the match making including other existing factors like heroes and troops etc.

This way a very close to fair match making could be achieved. And then it won’t matter if any group of experienced players choose to ditch their alliance to form a new alliance either genuinely or with exploit intent, their players war history would go with them for the match making.

[Rigs]

@PooFlingerJr

desire to progress

If you dont have the time to put in the effort to progress, you’re goin to miss out on loot no matter what and again you wouldn’t lose anything in this proposal. You just wouldn’t gain as much as those who invest more time to progress, which has always been the case in this game anyways so this would fall right into the design of the game

[Rigs]

Individual performance scores wouldn’t fix it. Players would find ways to offset it. Alt accounts are extremely easy to make and only need a once every couple days login to stay opted into wars…that’s already a manipulation of that system off the top of my head. I’m sure others would figure out more and better…