Warscore Manipulation (not matchmaking)

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.

2 Likes

Cool.

Thanks for the info :heart_decoration:

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 :blush:

1 Like

Well I would not call doing nothing “a lot of work” )) As I said, this is a measure out of desparation, not choice.

This isn’t how it works, though. As we understand it from SG, war score is formed from two parts:

  1. A base value, which is derived from the card power of the top 30 heroes and top 5 troops of each currently-opted-in participant. There is extra weight given to the top 5 heroes of each participant. This goes up or down whenever anyone opts in or out, but is memoryless.

  2. A scale factor based on win/loss record over the last 10 wars. This is a percentage scale factor, not an absolute number adjustment of the war score. Participation/non-participation of players doesn’t affect it. But it intrinsically has memory of wins and losses.

The war score is then: (base value) * (scale factor)

Opting people in and out moves the base value, but it doesn’t touch the scale factor. Winning or losing moves the scale factor, but it doesn’t change the base value.

There isn’t a participation factor that anyone is aware of. Whatever is causing your mismatches, it’s not people having been opted in or out for a given war. Losing a war will have an effect though, whether or not people were opted in or it for that war.

4 Likes

Need to bookmark this.

1 Like

I find all the lengths people go to find conspiracies in war highly amusing.

2 Likes

I do too… until it gets in the way of looking at ways to minimize true mismatches between alliances, which are demoralizing. Whatever I think of the current way of calculating warscores, I do not consider it to be ridiculously open to cheating, and the chances of any one alliance being consistently matched with “cheating” aliances must be fairly remote.
I do think it is a good idea to look at guenuine mismatches (which are happening in the absence of any desire to cheat) and discuss ways they might be avoided.

2 Likes

Trying to understand “why” is the most human of urges. And when we don’t have a good explanation, we stitch whatever we do have into the best story of “why” that we can muster.

1 Like

That problem is still affecting our alliance!
We always face with an alliance with 3-5 very strong player (4000-4600 def teams and lvl60 account 1000+days joined) what means they have a lot behind the def teams. The rest of the alliance is almost nothing but that 4 player crush us very badly.
If somebody played this game the next few lines will speak for themselves.
Our alliance:
4200 lvl48, 4000 lvl45, 3600 lvl32, 3500 lvl32, 3450 lvl31, 3400 lvl31, 3400 lvl32, 3400 lvl30, 3400 lvl28, 2700 (so one newbie and 9 player with 270 days playing time, no spenders)
Enemy:
4550 lvl61, 4400 lvl67, 4400 lvl68, 4100 lvl57, 3900 lvl51, 3800 lvl31, 3600 lvl30, 3400 lvl30, 3400 lvl29, 3000 lvl28

The first 4 player scored 3200 points on us, we scored 2660 in total.

We were chickens in their farm!

This algorithm works on high-end alliances only I think.


1 Like

2 Likes

The war matchmaking is still screwed. I’m not even post my alliance situation because I’ve come to the conclusion that SG is never going to fix the problem.

Cookie Settings