Yeah, 20 is crazy. I thought the original number was 5. 10? Okay, I suppose, but that still means I might have to lose 5 in a row to get back down to a similarly leveled opponent. 20 means I have to lose 10 in a row just to drop down to a 50/50 win rate (meaning I’m matched against an equally leveled team)? That’s just wrong. Pretty sure my alliance would start crying foul if we lost more than 3 in a row… no way they would stick around through 10 consecutive losses without opting out of wars.
I admit war matchmaking is broken ( Gryphonkit, my wife, has a 100% win rate as a solo war player, but that is another rant ) but there are only two situations where game designers do not want a 50/50 win rate.
You are fighting a computer AND can select/ reroll your opponent. War is fighting live opponents.
You have a Elo based rating of 2700+ ( conversely losing more should only happen if you have Elo based rating of 750 or less ). SGG decided to go with might based matchmaking even though countless game designers have discovered this is a bad idea because players are gorram frakking GOOD at exploiting loopholes.
There have been a lot of suggestions to make war more interesting ( one of my current favorites is after a loss, you can pick the allowable color for center heroes - opponents’ and yours - in the next war ), but the bottom line is live player versus live player will always be less than ideal because it is millions of players versus less than 100 designers and a dumb AI for matchmaking.
Click for notes
OK, thank you for the context, it really matters.
I admit, I don’t care about top 30 alliances much, so if there was a complete separate system for that top 30 alliances, I wouldn’t mind. Whatever keeps top 30 entertained, is fine by me. What I’m against is breaking entire matchmaking system for every other alliance so that top 30 are satisfied.
The OP sounds like their alliance is not a top 30, and it’s having 50/50 win/loss ratio, and I think this is an intended and desired behavior, and I totally support it. I’m not against having special rules for top and bottom percents of alliances to smooth the cornercases.
Let’s Vote, that’s what the topic is here for
Yeah, even at 10, I began to realize the futility.
IIRC, when I first started my alliance, I waited until most of my team had enough leveled heroes to participate before opting us in. I believe we won our first 3 wars, then lost 1. Then we won the next 4 after that, then lost 1. Then we won the next 5 after that, and lost 1.
After that, our win rate began to drop dramatically. Dropped down to 3:1 wins vs. losses. Then down to 2:1. Then down to 1:1. Occasionally, we lost 2 in a row.
I came to the forum and read that it was based on last 10 wars. Ouch. That means that we have to lose 5 of our last 10 wars just to stay in the same tier. And that tier was kicking our butts. Which meant that it was inevitable that we were going to have to lose even more in order to get knocked down.
Shared the bad news with my team. They were not happy. All the complaints about “how come we’re fighting teams where their lowest levels are as strong as our highest levels? This is absolute ■■■■■■■■. I don’t want to participate any more.”
100% understandable. But seeing as how our war chest at the time was at 24/25, I pleaded with them all to just participate in one more war. Either way, win or lose, we’re still going to get the chest loot. I believe we actually won that one, but afterwards, I still opted us out anyway per majority decision.
That was more than 6 months ago. I’d like to get back into the fray one of these days, but that would require convincing my team that it’s worth it. And that will be hard to do if we can expect to have to lose 5+ wars in a row before dropping back down to a “fair” level.
I don’t think anyone on my team wants an easy war where we just completely steamroll our opponents… but most of them are tired of facing off against a bunch of 4k-4.5k teams when our own team is all 3.5k-4k. Granted, it is our own fault, because we wiped the floor with teams that were closer to our own level early on. But no one on my team is excited at the prospect of going back in against teams that are going to one-shot us with every flag.
I’m not so much focused on the top 30 as much as I’m focused on the system as a whole
Currently it’s too exploitable
Now yes it can be tricky to exploit outside the top 100 and I’m sure most teams exploiting it aren’t doing it through tracking. Dumb luck can exploit it just as easy
Say you’re a team at 30/30 and you guys are at a 50% win rate
Well few members bail and you have trouble replacing
While trying to replace them, you notice you guys just won the last 3 wars since those 3 left and someone says hmm…let’s ride this out the next 3 wars…win those and then they carry on with the trend and using the bracket they don’t belong in as a stomping ground for alliances that spend less than them, are more casual than them, or have actually put forth the effort to be dominant in the bracket they belong in just to get screwed by matching those who don’t belong there which sets them back a war chest and gains a war chest for the exploiters
The history is 20. So after 20 losses in a row the matchmaking forgets it. 20 losses in a row is treated the same as 100 losses in a row. So your win/ loss/ tie rate can be anything from 20 wins to 20 ties to 20 losses in the last 20 wars.
Elo based matchmaking effectively has infinite win/ loss/ tie history ( in actuality it is
target top divided by 50% K-factor or 100 in Empires raids ). So even if Empires war matchmaking worked, it should really track your last 100 wars.
And as Empires has shown, team based, and might based, matchmaking has problems.
Here’s the direct question - will OP’s idea make it more exploitable or less exploitable, and why?
If this is true, your hypothesis “the system is too exploitable” doesn’t have more sense than null hypothesis “everything is random, and the noise is greater than the signal”.
I can predict that no matter what happens next, eventually you will go back to 50% win rate, and the short streaks of wins from “exploit” will be replaced with losses to arrive at desired 50% win rate, unless you’re in top or bottom percent of alliances where poll of possible matches is limited. It doesn’t matter how much you try to exploit the system if the win/loss rate over a long period of time is 50:50 (which I believe is the case). That’s the beauty of self-regulated systems with negative feedback loop, they can maintain stability even if disturbed.
I agree, thank you! Peace!
Do you have line?..
Have you met a nice guy named Arpad Elo? He would agree with you.
Gryphonkit, my wife, and several other alliances have a 100% win rate over 25+ wars because the current system is team based, and might based.
Let me guess - those alliances are either top or bottom percent alliances if ranked by war score?
I was thinking about this - you could get around this a little bit - say four of your titans a week - with some finagling.
You have your titan alliance and your (zero war history) war alliance. You spend most of your time in your titan alliance hitting high level titans. When it’s time for matchmaking, you jump into your war alliance. Matchmaking done, you head back to your titan alliance. You stay until the last four hours then use your flags, stick around for war loot, and then jump back.
You just keep one player in each alliance at all times. Sure it’s cumbersome and sure you might get some more reduced loot depending on your titan’s schedule. But it could be worked out, and you’re already gaming the system if you’re doing the war reset thing, so a few extra steps shouldn’t bother you. And now you’re getting full loot for three to four double digit titans plus reduced loot for the other three.
I do not. I believe you’ve asked me that before.
Unfortunately, seeing as how I’m a cheap bastard, I also have a cheap phone that can’t handle such apps (barely even handles E&P as it is).
Right… but that means that if my alliance had previously been on a winning streak… say we won 15 out of the last 20… it’s going to match us up against a stronger opponent, until we lose 5 more, which will drop us down to 10/20 (i.e. 50/50)… and we will continue to be matched up against the same level opponents as the previous 5 who kicked our butts until our overall losses > our overall wins. In other words - you gotta lose some before you can win some.
Personally, I’m okay with that. But I don’t think others in my alliance are too keen on the idea of fighting wars that we know we’re most likely going to lose.
There are ways around it. I elaborated on it quite a bit some months back. A step by step walkthrough actually and players are saying they do see teams doing that.
U can get it on computer if u have one
The ones I know of are bottom.
I totally forgot about that gorram frakking matchmaking adjustment.
That works best with 5*+20 defense teams allowing them to fight 30 member alliances without 5*+20 defense teams.
Click for notes
Anyways yea you can take quite a dive by droppin a member and if you have maxed +20 defenses, typically a pretty favorable matchup depending on where you’re normally at and where you’re dropping to
The war history is an adjustment up, or down.
The war score always has been, your 30 best heroes ( now weighed by your 5 best heroes).
I favor healers and utility heroes, so I increase our losses whenever I join war.
Gryphonkit, my wife, favors high attack stat heroes good for advanced color stacking, so our wins always increase whenever she joins war.
This is similar to tournament matchmaking still counting green 4* Melendor for the same points in
4* Bloody battle no blue as red 4* Wilbur.
I do, that is where I’m posting from. No way I could post here on my phone, it would take me half an hour to type my posts on that stupid tiny piece of crap.
I had downloaded Line on my computer before, but it told me I had to link it to my phone or something… bleh. Technical stuffs. I’m too old to keep trying to learn all this newfangled crap. Took me long enough to learn how to use “smart” phones and Windows 10 as it is. And I grew up with computers!
Then I’d suggest nerfing alliance war chest for teams that have less than certain amount of members.
…think all they do is send a confirmation text to your phone