@SWEG but the cosmetics are what people are focusing on. Look at all the posts with people complaining about their match beforehand listing several reasons they think they are getting screwed based on things that have nothing to do with AW.
I’m only asking your opinion because it is a relatively easy change and people have been mentioning it more than once.
A few months back we actually spent considerable amount of effort improving the balance of Alliance Wars matchmaking, and according to our metrics we were able to make big improvements. It’s not perfect, but it is massively better than what it used to be.
15 Likes
I have found some mentions of it.
If you think this change is easy to do and will improve the game then it has my vote. I do see @SWEG point though that many concerns, issues, and ideas go unaddressed by staff.
And while we don’t expect you guys to address every thread or idea. Popular ones should get a response in my opinion and not just responses to bugs/errors, it would strengthen the consumer and developer relations by a great deal.
It’s normally just players talking back and forth on this forum, and if we didn’t want developer feedback, we would simply just talk in Line.
Great game hopefully we continue to see improvements
3 Likes
War matchups are considerably better, you guys did a great job with that. It was a good fix. I don’t think this would be a good fix. Again, it’s just cosmetic; additionally it would create a larger gap between the high end of alliances and the middle or lower end. You said it doesn’t affect matchmaking in wars, so I don’t see the point. All I’m picturing is the alliances above my own to get a significant boost in their alliance scores, and my alliance that is very close to top 100 having a more difficult time to reach that goal. Adding war score to alliance score is just a cosmetic change in numbers and I don’t see the point of it, the value of it; for the majority of the player base.
1 Like
I agree that the matchmaking has improved so much. Wars have become fun again.
I like the separation of the war score from the alliance score. I like to track it closely for when players opt out for vacation, against our opponent, compared to other alliances etc.
I’m hoping it remains separated even if it means we have to constantly keep telling players that alliance score is not included in the matching.
1 Like
Well it could still have same separated displays like it does now when you click the ? Next to alliance score. It would just be calculated into the ranking system this way.
Basically they should display cup score, alliance score, and undivided war score when you click the ?
But on main alliance header show the combo of the 3 including the divided war score
This would satisfy groups on both sides of the fence i believe
What about alliances that opt out of War? This would pretty much stifle their chances of making the top 100
Please don’t discourage SGG from bringing stuff like this to us. Most of the changes that we ask for are either complicated to implement or might have subtle effects on the game. This one is quick, simple, and purely cosmetic. I’m happy to have them knock stuff like this out while they’re thinking about the hard suggestions.
2 Likes
Valid point but in reality cups and titans are technically optional so they could stifle chances as well. If an alliance wants to be competitive, they should be competitive on all fronts in my opinion
8 Likes
But what’s the point…? Where is the value in this? This is just a way to cosmetically improve the top end of alliances. It’s a total bs waste of time feature to focus on. It doesn’t change anything in a positive way.
It probably takes longer to talk about than it does to code and test. So I doubt they’re focusing on it. If they spent more than 15 minutes at one internal meeting on this topic, I’d be shocked.
The point is that the score would more accurately reflect the whole activities of the alliance. You may like that or dislike it (and I totally get your on-topic concerns). The value is that alliance rankings/score is something that matters to a lot of players.
3 Likes
I disagree - because why wouldn’t a purely alliance based activity such as wars not play a part in the alliance score? Trophies are in there and they are totally player based.
Your argument about your alliance being close to the top 100 and then perhaps falling down the ladder seems to be a bit self-serving… 
4 Likes
It can be discussed if leaderboards have a value as they most often only shows a snapshot of a players or an alliance achievement on a given time, but nevertheless it means something to many players and alliances making goals to work for.
Right now top 10- 20 on the alliance leaderboard changes spots several times a day only based on when the titan decay sets in.
That doesn’t matter to the majority of alliances in game, but for me do question the value of a leaderboard, when aw achievement being a great factor in showing the strength and teamwork in alliance is not counting in.
I agree that it may be a good idea to start with a separate leaderboard for aw to make the right adjustments if needed.
2 Likes
I posted this over in the Active Players Lounge, but it will get more discussion here.
As @Rigs correctly points out, a problem with using the War Score as part of the Alliance Score is that War Score is mostly determined by people’s rosters, not their performance. Alliance Score currently is entirely based on performance–raid won, titans slain–and only indirectly on rosters.
Suppose a war leaderboard were created using the following approach. This score could be a factor in the Alliance Score, too.
A simple metric would be the tally of points scored in each war by the alliance. The top alliances reset foes many times and rack up scores > 6000, while middle tier alliances only get one, maybe two resets, with lower total scores.
I’d use a weighted moving average, as is used with titans. Each new war you multiply the old war points score by, say, 0.9, then add in the new point total.
If you wanted to get fancy, you could multiply the result by the same factor used to adjust War Scores based on the recent win/loss ratio to boost the ranking of winning teams and lower the ranking of losing teams.
7 Likes
Much more complicated than i had in mind but i think it’ll work lol
All alliance score components - cups and titans - already dependent on roster. A player with several good purple heroes is likely to do more damage on a yellow titan than someone with a single rainbow team. Same goes for cups, a good defence team is needed in addition to enough heroes to stack against different defense teams. Merging the war score would not make a big change from that perspective.
2 Likes
But titans and cups are based on performance. Not just roster and war score rankings should relfect the same.
I was in top 100 with only maxed 4*(many months ago) but that didnt mean i had a stellar roster or even a better roster than players i outranked
Just simply meant i performed well
Players can have great rosters but if they dont get 100% participation each titan then titan score most likely doesnt reflect their true strength
Wars are the same way. You can be in an alliance of 30 people and all have 30 maxed 5* and still lose consistently due to poor performance and participation
That’s what @Kerridoc is looking at
3 Likes
Nah, keep it the way it is. It works being separate. A ranking might be nice, though.
I thought war score is a combination of roster and performance - a kind of elo already today.
TL;DR: Don’t change it: Alliance score isn’t broken enough, and that won’t fix it enough, but there will be winners and losers if you change it, and I don’t want to see all the complaints from the losers in the forums!
Look at the components:
- Titan Score: It is a pretty much perfect as designed weighted average of an alliance’s performance killing titans. (Number in the alliance doesn’t matter; same score for 3 players killing 6* titans as for 30 players killing 6* titans.) Titan score bumps up every time you kill a titan, and since this happens at different times in different alliances, you jump quite a bit in the standings when you kill your titan … and then decline over ~23 hours as all the alliances you leapfrogged over catch back up.
- Trophy Score: It is a very noisy and flawed measure of how good players are at raiding, and how good their raid defense team is. Since players are summed, smaller alliances cannot possibly compete fairly with full ones here, unlike titans.
- War Score: It is a useful but imperfect measure of the strength of the troops, defensive team, and attacking roster of all the players in the alliance…with a significant adjustment based on the win/loss record of an alliance. (Again, smaller alliances cannot compete with full ones here, and in war score, players opting out of war hurt the alliance, although they don’t hurt them in their war matchups.) War score bumps up and down each time you win or lose a war, due to the performance adjustment, even if the raw strength doesn’t change.
War matchmaking is now based on a raw war score which is a measure of team strength … with a performance adjustment.
Bluntly, without the performance adjustment, war matchmaking was so bad that some alliances never got matched in a winnable war.
With the performance adjustment, if your alliance is penalized by the flaws in this score … or if your alliance has really bad war strategy … or has really good war strategy … etc., what happens is that you will after a few straight wins or losses start getting matched with opponents you can beat about half the time.
Note that doesn’t mean you will be getting good matches, and having close wars. Given that the fundamental method of comparing alliances is still flawed and given all the variables, there will still be a good number of blowout wars that are pretty much unwinnable for one side.
What it means that by now, most alliances should be spending time on both sides of blowout unwinnable wars, rather than always being on the winning or losing side, which is a huge improvement.
That said, I don’t see how either component of the war score would make alliance ranking better. Either the performance portion or the raw alliance strength portion. Or the combination of the two.
What I see happening if the performance aspect gets rolled into alliance score is that there will be a moderate re-shuffling of the leaderboards after every war ends and war scores go up or down. (And a lot of grumbling about it)
If the raw war score gets used as part of the alliance score, I don’t see it having as obvious an impact since the capability it is trying to measure is already more-or-less baked into both titan score and trophy score. But there will be winners, losers, and grumbling there too!
For starters, alliance score is pretty much only useful for comparing 27~30 member alliances, even though all alliances are ranked. (I don’t see this as a problem that needs a solution, but as a member of a rebuilding alliance, it is pretty obvious to me right now)
(I started to write a few paragraphs about how trophies are flawed as a measure of player strength/skill…and decided better of it; I don’t think that there’s much of anything new for me to say about it anyway)