Thank you, I just saw this. I think going to a player-specific war history will be a good thing for the game.
One question, will the player-specific war history also track the player-specific results or just the alliance-wide results in war? Or is that too much to give away 
Players carrying their own war history along will pretty much close that loophole without penalizing the genuine new alliances that arenāt created to exploit it.
Pairing a new alliance against another one with the same strength is to penalize them? Why?
I think new alliances actually should EXPECT to be paired with their equals.
They will probably loose a couple of wars until they tune their strategy, but giving them a chance to win 5 straight wars is: a) condescendent and b) prone to exploits, like itās happening now.
Starting genuine new alliances with a higher penalty level would pair them against more advanced and experienced alliances who typically do better in wars, thus penalizing the new alliance with no experience. Without the higher penalty they would be paired with their equals. Alliances with no experience (ie new players) cannot be expected to easily win their first 5 ever wars.
They are only paired against alliances with same strength without the higher penalty level.
Carrying an individual war score with you from alliance to alliance would ensure that ānewā alliances of experienced players would start with the higher penalty level. This also applies to a mixed alliance, just the penalty level will be somewhat lower to compensate for the newer, inexperienced players.
Great idea should have a good impact on the situation and adds a value to players stock in a nutshellā¦ I think itās the best way to go about the situation and needsā¦thanks for listening and now stop nerfing hotms that are already nerfed from original version so it should be not double nerfed and triple nerfs to HOTMS especially
If they completely get rid of the penalizing (performance in previous wars) part of the war score, player own āpenaltyā system should close current gap, indeed.
If they donāt, I think new alliances should at least start halfway up.
Also, for those alliances with members cap, I would suggest they ācompleteā their scores with averages for matching purposes.
Letās say there is an alliance with 20 members cap.
At the time of the pairing, systems divide whatever their score sum, and multiply by 30, then it uses that number for the matching.
I can already see alliances demanding proof of war history, either seeking good records, or excluding them. This isnāt my preferred line of attack. Iād like to see player experience for new alliances taken into account. (I suspect the current system is in place because so many new alliances are filled with inexperienced warriors, prompting their initial negative adjustment.)
Aliiances asking for war score or āproofā that a player is good are not a problem.
Problem are allliances full of heavyweights being matched against newbies because of a loophole in the system.
Not sure what particular issue youāre trying to reference.
Leaving an alliance doesnāt need to be fixed. Most discussions have been around the formation of a new alliance which, under the usual matchmaking algorithm, meant a new alliance will only be evaluated and scored on their bench and troops.
The new fix SGG seek to implement means the individual player accounts have their own personal war history, which means these accounts can no longer exploit the obvious loophole in matchmaking. Time will tell as to whether this will have the effect some of us imagined.
Exactly.
What currently doesnāt make sense is that my alliance keeps getting paired against stronger alliances, simply based on the fact that weāve managed to beat stronger alliances before.
I mean sure, thatās all well and good, if weāre actually that much better than all the alliances of equal strength.
The issue is thatā¦ the reason weāre winning is because weāre better coordinated than many of the bigger teams. Thatās not our fault? Shouldnāt they be the ones who are expected to āget betterā, not vice versa? If they donāt want to lose, maybe they should umā¦ ohhhh I donāt knowā¦ use all of their freaking flags? At the very least.
But then we have the occasional opponent who actually is well coordinated and uses all of their flags, and theyāre all much higher level than us, leaving us with basically zero chance of winning. Thatās not fair for us.
And yeah, usually these are ānewā alliances. Not new as in new players. Most of their players are level 50+ minimum. Somehow they get matched against teams with lower level members and weaker TP becauseā¦ why? Because theyāre ānewā? Letās give them some easy fights early on until they learn what theyāre doing? Sure, I guess thatās a nice courtesy to extend to an actual ānewā alliance, but in reality, an actual new alliance absolutely should expect to lose wars until they learn how to war better. Versus these guys who are already very experienced in wars, coming in pretending to be newbies just so that they can beat up on lower level teamsā¦ itās sick, really, is what it is.
Especially when war history is based on the last 20 warsā¦ so it can literally take months for war scores to actually adjust to a proper level for any alliance. Thatās extremely excessive in my opinion.
By tying war histories to each individual player - it might not be a perfect solution, but at least it will prevent experienced war veterans from creating new alliances to reset their history back to noob level. It will force strong players to actually have to fight other equally strong players, and vice versa. As it should be.
Just so Iām clear, the matchmaker will no longer do alliance war score? Instead player war score? Will the alliance leader be able to see the war scores? I would like to know a person score upon deciding to keep them or not. Also, if a player sit out a war will his score drop? The reason I ask is players in my alliance are adults and have things to do and opted out a lot.
It hasnāt been officially released yet as far as I know, but if Iām understanding it correctlyā¦ each player will still carry a personal war score, and alliance war score will be a total of all opted in playersā scores. Just that, the win/loss history will be tied to each individual player vs. the entire alliance.
Curious as to why you would ādecide whether or not to keep someoneā based on their personal scoreā¦ considering that you donāt know how much of that score is based on their win/loss history vs. their bench depthā¦
Are you wanting to kick people if their scores are too high? Because if they have high scores, it either means they have really good bench depth, or came from an alliance that won a lot of wars, or bothā¦ which would be a good thing? Of course, it could also possibly match you up against stronger opponentsā¦
Or are you wanting to kick them for having scores that are too low? Thatā¦ I guess would be reasonableā¦ ishā¦ but kinda sucks for that person. Might not be their fault. Maybe they just need some proper help and guidanceā¦?
As for opting out. I believe that your win/loss ratio remains completely unchanged if you opt out. At that point, your war score will only go up as you level up your troops and heroes. I thinkā¦ pretty sure, at least, because my entire alliance opted out of wars for months, and Iām fairly certain our win/loss ratio didnāt move at all in that time.
I think people shouldnāt be āforcedā to lose after some specific point, but if thatās the general consensus, i canāt (and will not) go against it.
I quite know my personal opinion is nothing compared to the overall perceived satisfaction.
Really hoped this never happen, but expected it.
This is the second time I have seen this and yes one of the Devs told me they are aware of this and they are working on a solution. The Alliance was full of very strong members. But got matched with us. After war they all left the alliance. Yes Iām sure you see that all the time.
Iāve only seen a number of people leave an alliance before a war ends (which messed up my data gathering). I also believe we went up against a group of war shufflers once before (we lost, but not by much). Personally I canāt claim I see it all the time, but I do follow all the war threads and occasionally participate in them so am aware of the issues some people face.
One of the devs responded above:
And with the current version having rolled out, the process has begun. Again, as I mentioned, time will tell if it will have the effect some of us hope it will have. While this thread got the response, a different thread proposed war history as a player metric rather than alliance metric as a solution to the issue a few months before:
This simply isnāt true. Iām in an alliance and have been for a good long while and did a LOT of recruiting, sadly most new players donāt take the war seriously and get upset and leave when asked to improve their war participation or have to be removed from the alliance.
We manage to maintain 23 to 26 players most of the time and our leader has said they would rather be a little smaller than to have unreliable members. Itās a lot of work to try and keep an alliance full with few new members not always making the cut.
I like most of the ideas proposed, but as mentioned above it isnāt always easy to keep a full alliance and this punishes alliances that arenāt full for no fault of their own in many cases. I like the idea of rewarding alliances with better loot, but it shouldnāt be based a number of members. I would much rather prefer it be based an average number of days members have been a part of the alliance. That way there is an incentive to join a well established alliance helping the entire alliance community.
As far as players opting in and out of war to skew their war record, the easy fix is to only account for war history when there is war participation. If they opt out of a war, then simply donāt take that into the individual war history so that opting out doesnāt change anything.
Good point, the game does keep track of the players war participation though and as long as they donāt join the war in another alliance their war chest participation stays intact. Perhaps they can keep a record of war participation in the given alliance instead of the total days in alliance? Just a thought!
I have posted in other similar threads discussing this topic that the war score should be tracked individually and I think that solves 90% of the issues with war matchups, but I like most of the ideas proposed. I just disagree with any benefit or penalty associated with the size of the alliance, there are simply to many different reasons, just as there are different type of people for differing sizes of alliances with many being outside of the alliances control.
These are good adjustments. Loyalty rewards, in particular, will keep people in alliances without punishing teams that are just starting out.
I speak as the leader of an Alliance of . . . hang on a moment . . .
. . . 9
nobody is āforcingā anybody to loose, unless of course you think you are being āforcedā to loose by matching you against opponents as strong as you.
