I don’t believe people should be punished for leaving an alliance. Loyalty bonus is wrong.
There are many reasons a person leaves. The most prevalent is growth. You are growing and it’s time to move on.
Or, there are consistently flags floated.
Or, you can’t stand someone in your alliance.
Maybe you aren’t big enough to hit the size of titan you are facing while still trying to build yourself up.
There are a ton of valid reasons.
Calling something a bonus doesn’t mean it’s not a punishment
2 Likes
sooner they find an established, active, alliance then the sooner they would work towards the bonus
would be motivation to stop the exploitation of loopholes
there is an alliance for everyone, find it, stick with it, gain more loot. or don’t and miss out on loot.
those early enough in the game where they don’t know what kind of alliance they’re looking for wouldn’t gain a ton from the “loyalty bonus” anyways so therefore wouldn’t lose out if it took them a bit to find the right fit
and besides that, people in the type of alliances you’re speaking of are already missing out a ton of loot as is and either don’t care, don’t know it, or are actively seeking a better alliance
i hear your excuses, but they feel irrelevant
2 Likes
So the 10-15 assumes “winning history” meaning all new alliances would have bias towards an initial losing streak?
not necessarily
it would put them as if they had won ~50%(out of 20) of their wars basically
which would start them in the ballpark closer to peers instead of starting with much lower opponents they wouldnt face if they already had an established history
starting them at 18-20, would be more likely to put them in a losing streak situation
fwiw even at a 10-15 start point, some teams would still dominate the crap out of everyone until they’re back up to 20 penalties
if we even drop to 19 penalties it’s not pretty
So, instead of creating a new alliance, simply plant an alt account into s zombie alliance, deliberately lose 10 wars in succession- then bring your remaining clan to that zombie alliance to therefore dominate the next 20 wars in succession? Would that work? There’s no real need to create a new- just reuse a zombie and force the war score low in advance.
1 Like
that’s believed to be happening as well
devs linking war history to players and not just alliances would make it harder to exploit performance score loophole with either method
2 Likes
At what point do you record player histories? So, if in war, a player selects an opponent and loses the battle- is the loss statistic recorded immediately? Do, if a player looses 3 and wins 3- the net delta would be zero?
Also, if I mix a ‘winning’ alliance with ‘loser’ players- or ‘winning’ players with losing alliances- the net penalties would be flat? Or, one statistic has a priority over the other?
Assume the win/loss alliance/player balances the penalties- then i just need to maintain two alliances and rotate my main accounts into a losing alliance- for a net delta zero penalties- whilst the others alliance fielding alt accounts simply loses their wars- after a streak- then rotate the main accounts back to the loss running alliance and repeat. Using the alts to suppress the alliance history by continually losing, you ensure your winning main accounts continue with suppressed penalties.
it won’t be individual attacks
it’ll be wins/losses of the alliance the player is in
That is exactly why I suggested to keep alliance score AND add player score.
right now “half” of the score can be zeroed just by switching alliances.
if we reduce that number to 1/3, it will be harder to exploit and cheaters will profit less out of it.
The point is not to make the system flawless, but make it so complicated to cheat it, and with so little benefit, that will be just not worth it the effort.
Now the reward is to open a war chest by simply creating a new alliance every 2.5 weeks.
And they can even keep their titans high, so… big rewards for just stomping on weaker players.
I propose matchmaking by score bands so as to avoid wars that are too unbalanced, divide the alliances by score bands as follows:
300k
250k
200k
150k
100k
50k
25k
an important rule is to eliminate matchmaking based on the strongest heroes, on the escaped titans and above all on the allies who leave the alliance and then return shortly.
What criteria you want to use to compose war score then?
Eliminating the stronger heroes and troops factor actually leaves the whole score to highly manipulation susceptible factors.
The heroes and troops are the only thing players do not have a way to manipulate to increase/decrease score.
Also, titans are not included in the war score, so there is no point in doing anything about that.
1 Like
Titans have nothing to do with war matchmaking. Nothing.
Strongest heroes absolutely should carry the greatest weight in matchmaking, as those are likely the heroes that are going to be on an opponent’s defense teams.
Say for example that your entire alliance all have exactly 6 equally leveled 3500 TP war teams. Your opponent’s teams are more scattered. Their top teams are 4500 TP, but their 6th flags are only 2500 TP.
Add up the total TP of every player’s teams, and they’re all perfectly even. So then, that’s a fair war. Right?
No, not at all. Your team only has 3500 TP defenses, opponent has all 4500 TP defenses. Even though your guys have deep benches, you’re having to use 2-3 flags minimum to take down each opponent defense, while they’re one shotting the crap out of your 3500 defenses. Strongest heroes definitely have to be taken into consideration.
The part that bothers me is the “war history” tracking. Let’s say my alliance won our last 5 wars. Good for us, right? But what if the only reason we won is because we used all flags and our stronger opponents only used 80% of their flags? So now we’re being faced against opponents that are much much stronger than us. Only way we can possibly win is if they don’t use all of their flags. That’s not really a fair fight, is it? Every team should use all of their flags. If they don’t, and they lose, that’s strictly their fault. Why should my team be punished in the next war simply because our previous opponent was incompetent?
Teams that don’t even try pretty much deserve to die, IMO. Even if that means losing every single war until they pull their heads out from their nether regions and either use their flags, or opt out. I’m tired of fighting teams that could easily destroy mine if they tried, and only winning by the skin of our teeth because two of their members didn’t even bother to use half their flags. Victory only because the opponent was stupid and lazy? I mean, I’m sure I could probably beat up Mike Tyson while he was in a coma. But that’s kind of a hollow victory.
But! That’s how matchmaking works. You beat up Mike Tyson! Even though he didn’t even swing at you! Now your next fight is against Evander Holyfield.
Well holy fielding 
.
12 Likes
Alliance score total
pretty much how it is but with war scores which are more accurate than alliance scores
original matchmaking used alliance score
then changed to titan score
then devs created war score
going back to alliance or titan score would be goin backwards
you can look at the matchmaking original discussion thread and see that war score was a huge improvement over either of those methods
3 Likes
In tracking my alliance’s war score and our opponents’ when matching is confirmed, the war scores are within 100 points of each other. Given the current algorithm that’s as close as it gets.
Certainly interested to see whether the new tracking will help reduce war shuffling.
2 Likes
That will only worsen shuffling.
Total score is composed of titans, cups and war score, which is made of stronger heroes + war performance.
If we take stronger heroes out of the formula, it will leave only titans, cups and war performance, and all of these can be easily manipulated by creating a new alliance and dropping cups.
It would be a nightmare for newer players.
2 Likes
I’m glad they’re going to fix that. Unethical players reset the alliance to change the war score. I hope with this for fairer pairings.
1 Like
I like the idea of a player individual war history.
Another idea might be some kind of ban for a period of time after entering a new alliance. Did anyone suggest that you can only participate in alliance wars, when you are a specific time span in the alliance? Let’s say, coming to a new alliance won’t allow you to participate for maybe 20 wars. Or maybe you participate but won’t be rewarded by full participation level. That should discourage changing an alliance too often.
1 Like
There might not be a solution for this without opening another loophole…
So why not extend the matching criteria (just for matching not for AW Score) from 30 to 50 heroes (higher % for strongest 5), and from 5 to 15 troops(higher % to strongest 5), because thats were the biggest diffrence is… that with the purposed player history should solve the majority of the “loopholes” right?
The biggest loophole now is that a new alliance first wars are always against a much weaker ones, so shuffling evry 5 wars they never lose.
Starting at a higher penalty level from day one will pretty much close that loophole.
And if the players also carry their own war history along, the benefit of shuffling reduces drastically.