Thank you for your reply! We are all in favour of a challenge, even a difficult one! But it is a completely different matter when we come up against an alliance which we have no chance against, absolutely no chance. To be completely annihilated without any chance of even retaliation is demoralising, we have junior alliance members who ask us repeatedly “Why is this happening?” and unfortunately we have no answer for them yet.
Thank you for the extra info about the matched war score—it’s refreshing to have a thoughtful and well-researched complaint raised. What we have here is not some broken matching process–the opponents had nearly equal war scores and nearly equal sizes. What’s broken, therefore, is whether the war score, as currently calculated, is actually a robust measure of an alliance’s tools to wage war.
@mhalttu should think about this issue. My suspicion is that the core cause is four-fold:
- Disparate strength of members: two mid-tier players are deemed equal to a senior player + a junior player. In practice, the two mid-tier players will do worse
- Over-valuing weak offenses when aligned against strong defenses
- Under-valuing troop depth. When stacking heroes, have multiple good troops in a color matters
- Placing no value on heroes 30-50, even though these are situationally useful.
Anyone else have thoughts about how the war score should be tweaked to reflect actual strength of opponents?
I firmly believe that it’s not about the heroes depth in backup teams or troops strength. I believe that some alliances have found a way to fool the system. We did tests within our alliance and we are stumped. We gradually took off participation in war ticks and measured how it affected the warscore. It behaved logically and reduced according to strength. However, the opposite alliance teams were clearly superior so the only expanation I have (it’s only a theory) is that participation is the loophole. Loosing a war totally and without any participation may affect the warscore so much that the next match is easy pickings (i.e. us). However I may be wrong on all points expressed as I have nothing to back these theories up with. We have agreed to do a test with zero participation next time we are faced with an overwhelming opponent and see how it affects the warscore. I will update on the results.
And I would like to say that it’s not so much a complaint but rather a cry for help and an attempt to understand what is going on. We are trying our best to keep the morale up within the alliance but this atmosphere of “no chance for victory” is starting to affect everyone in our ranks.
I totally hear you and commiserate. I wish I could offer more than that. We were in the same position before it was fixed (for us), with the war score addition.
I know my many “complaints” were seen just as that when in reality, I loved the wars before they were broken with the previous updates, and was also just begging to have them fixed.
Please don’t give up! Keep reminding everyone that it’s not fixed for everyone yet.
Elo is time tested
Click for very long, very boring, discussion
This would help with unknowable asymmetrical like Elpis:
The current matchmaking is hampered by his hero roster. Elo’s math does not care. It would just keep bumping him up until he fought a losing war then knock him down.
While a losing alliance would keep getting knocked down until it eventually won.
Nothing will happen.
Matchmaking is based on your participants at the time of matchmaking. If you all opt out, it effects the NEXT matchmaking.
Abort abort abort
To save moral, you can abort. But aborting will not influence your next matchmaking since it does not count as a win or a loss AND you lose you 1x ascension item roll for a lost war.
The Devs have been doing this a long time and have seen it all.
Erm, probably I did not make myself clear. I did not mean taking off the tick from the war. No, we will be in the war, we will just do nothing. None of us. Just let them beat us with 100% of our war tickets remaining.
What do you mean by abort? There is a way to stop the war once we were matched??
If someone with access to the data, examined alliances that have long winning streaks and compared them to alliances with long loosing streaks. Once obvious factors like low participation have been factored in (if they ain’t trying I don’t care about their war experience any more than they do) Then surely the way that heroes are measured towards war scores could be adjusted based on the reality of what is actually happening?
Members skipping war
If you do this, remember to have all members check their war opt in. If they forget and this happens twice in a row, they will be automatically opted out. This is the real reason the Devs added Individual Opt outs. For members skipping wars.
Low investment wars
When I am working long hours at work I just use find opponent, auto fill and attack for all six war energy. Takes almost no time and I do not feel as demoralized because “The computer picked my opponent and teams” but my alliance still gets war points.
This might be a better compromise.
CONFIRM ABORT (Y/N)?
There are several ways. Some have real consequences.
But a loss will match you with a weaker opponent next time.
An abort just skips this week. Think of it as a retro active opt out.
Are you SURE you want to abort?
I am just interested in how it is done? Do you mean taking off the tick from alliance wars on leader/co-leader level? Is that what you call an abort?
I’m definetely against it.
All is fine guys, all is fine
Nothing to see here.
I think you got most of them, I also think:
- make sure that the algorithms scale correctly from alliances of 1 to alliances of 30
Along with my suggestion in the APL for dealing with #1, I strongly believe that the weight of the top 5 heroes needs to be increased. Most/All of these are used in defense, and then again in offense…and a 3100 teams trying to take out a 4100 team needs a lot of bench strength to even that out.
Book of heroes tried SGG war matchmaking for 1v1 Raids but eventually switched to Elo because Elo works. I will not bore you with the details but it boils down to no man is a number. Kashhrek is substantially stronger in some situations than others. Giving him a flat value is almost guaranteed to under value him versus some opponents and over value him versus others.
Elo’s biggest strength is it knows nothing it arrives at its values by empirically testing it values and correcting them when it is wrong.
This abort is the fastest and the easiest.
Leader opts out of the next war.
After war starts ( edit: thanks @General_Confusion ) , to abort, each teammate in the war leaves the alliance and rejoins.
This should automatically end the war ( the Devs may have changed it ) but resets everyone’s time in alliance.
Leader opts out of the next war.
All teammates use a 1* 1.1 or 2* 1.1 as their right corner war defense hero.
After matchmaking, or after war starts, to abort, each teammate in war uses the 1* 1.1 or 2* 1.1 right corner war defense hero to level a hero in their roster, removing it from their war defense team.
This definitely ends the war but puts you as a big disadvantage if you decide not to abort.
You mother was a hamster
Everyone attacks with a single 1* 1.1 for all six war energy.
This abort requires you to wait out the full 24 hours of war, but does the least weird stuff if you decide not to abort.
And it also has some pretty big issues. No system will be perfect, but there are things that can be done with what we have to tune it to better than it is. The hard thing is to improve the edge cases while not harming the improvement for the majority of cases, but I firmly think it can be done.
They did. As long you leave after matching starts (someone said 1 hour after) you can rejoin and fight.
Do you have to hit a titan?
Last time a teammate left to fight a rare titan ( helping a good friend) their defense team became “[Ex-member]” and they could not rejoin the war.
I haven’t heard of a “hit the titan” rule. I do know it works as we have had someone forget they were opted in, leave to join another alliance and then were kind enough to come back to get their hits in for the war. They came back prior to actual start of the war, and I suspect that was a key point.
Thanks for the info
I would like to thank everyone for participation and interesting ideas. I am afraid I still do not have a solid answer, one thing is clear though, there are alliances out there exploiting the “absence” factor by not fighting in a war to bring down their war score and get an easy alliance next match.
I do not understand why participation is factored in at all. If a person does not want to fight a war, they can opt out. If they are in a war and do not participate, well that is a problem of that alliance. In a strict alliance they would be kicked out, in an easy going one they will be forgiven. I think this participation factor should be removed and alliances are to be matched based on strength of the heroes and troops that have agreed to participate in a war. Otherwise this manipulation of a war score by taking a part in a war and doing nothing will persist.
Last thing I want to say is that while we are all against use of bugs and loopholes and are in favour of fair play, is we will continue to face alliances that are overwhelmingly stronger than us, we will be forced to use this loophole.
Still seems like an awful lot of work just to reduce your war score for one war? I don’t see the long-term viability in doing this.
And, are there actually so many alliances doing this that it’s causing mis-matches for the OP on a regular basis?
Or, if this just happening with very small alliances? I certainly can’t see trying to coordinate this with 29 other players, unless we somehow managed to build an alliance specifically for this purpose?
I could be totally missing the big picture here … in which case, don’t bother trying to explain it to me