On points, a larger alliance gains the advantage equivalent to 12 additional attacks. 6 due to a larger number of flags and 6 due to the fact that teams of a smaller alliance are more expensive. This can be seen even in the table above. I repeatedly participated in wars where the enemy had more teams and well saw what real bonus the enemy receives.

Again consider the example from the first message, where in the alliance A 10 participants, in alliance B 12.

- The price of each team of Alliance B is 1500/12 = 125 points

Alliance A spent 10 * 6 = 60 attacks and earned 60 ***125**= 7500 points - The price of each team of Alliance A is 1500/10 = 150 points

Alliance B spent 12 * 6 = 72 attacks and earned 72 ***150**= 10800 points

The difference was 10800-7500 = 3300 points.

- We divide the difference by the price of the attack of Alliance A and we get 3300/125 = 26.6 attacks
- We divide the difference by the price of the attack of the alliance B and we get 3300/150 = 22 attacks

An average of 24 attacks for 2 personal players. Those are 12 each.

Look at the sign above. The enemy has more top defense teams, his defense teams are on average stronger, he has more flags. At the same time, his teams are cheaper and if not for this last factor, we would have won, simply having received 5-6 points more for the destruction of each enemy team. I want the war to be fair without the obvious advantage of one of the opponents. And now, a larger alliance gets 300-700 bonus points, which for equal or close in strength rivals determines victory in 95% of cases.

Now I want to understand - this is a mistake in calculating the cost of the teams of the alliance or debriefing deliberately give an advantage to the greater alliances. When I created the theme, I thought it was a mistake and just wanted to fix it. I even wrote what exactly needs to be fixed. But since there are essentially no answers, I tend to the second option. Now they can say “sorry, we were wrong, but we fixed everything and now both alliances have equal chances.” In half a year they will be able to say only “we have long known about this error”. And since they have long been known and do not correct, then everyone can guess why.

I forgot to write - the enemy troops were also stronger and the expense of war is higher. As for the length of the benches, their tops made by 6 Wanchots. I am not one of the indicators for which they were weaker. But the developers of all these advantages seemed few and they gave us opponents, where the teams are smaller and there is a bonus of 600 points. Maybe this is the answer? To some alliances to ensure victory before the outbreak of war? This explains the silence of the developers.

You have several things you are conflating:

- Your calculations (which I will let someone with better math answer)
- The fact that there are winners and losers every war (50/50 in fact)
*And now this conspiracy theory that SG is somehow tilting the board in favor of “certain alliances”.*

If you want to talk numbers, that’s your prerogative. If you want to start slinging baseless accusations, the thread is closed.

These three items are separate and need to be broken down and discussed separately, logically. Please follow Forum Rules.

I have long wanted to get an answer with the calculation from the developers, but I just can not. I do not believe that wars with different numbers of teams end 50/50. We won more than 80% of wars, when the opponent had an equal number of teams and only one, where the enemy had more. All other wars where the enemy had more teams lost. If you have statistics on such wars, bring it, please.

If the SG does not want to help any alliances, why does it actually do it? An alliance with a large number of teams gets just a huge head start.

When you are outnumbered, you have a two-fold disadvantage:

- You have fewer total flags
- Each of your teams is worth more on average, because the 1,500 points is distributed among fewer teams.

The devs have confirmed that there is a penalty for mismatched alliance sizes, so presumably when you face a larger alliance you ought to have an offsetting higher war score. I’d suggest you post your experience, preferably with data about your war score and your foe’s war score (the score shown as detail under the alliance score) over in that thread, where the devs have been interacting.

The table above (post 21) shows the enemy, who had all the indicators at the time of the war were more than ours - the average strength of the teams, the number of top teams, the level of players, the score of war. My opinion - the expense of war is the most harmful that could only come up with. Boxers weighing 60 and 90 kg cannot be reduced on the grounds that a boxer has 60 kg more victories. He won against opponents of his weight, against 90kg he has no chance.

The enemy of the defense and attack team is stronger, it has more flags and each successful attack brings more points. And what about us - the mythical account of wars? This is an abstraction, it is unclear how it was counted and which can not be used in an attack / defense. Many real advantages on the one hand and a dummy on the other. I make such a selection dishonest and asked for statistics - what percentage of wars with different numbers of teams won a smaller alliance.

This is the main mistake. Allianas should cost differently so that (the number of teams) * (the average price of a OPPONENT team) was the same.

Nope! Our last war was 10 vs 11.

I think that fewer alliances are getting a mismatch in player numbers than before, but it still happens, perhaps more in smaller alliances.

We probably lost solely because of the structural scoring disadvantage of a team with fewer players.

I described this problem a while back in another topic:

If the developers did not give a bonus to a larger alliance, you would have scored points 1.1 times more, and the enemy 1.1 times less.

Yes, this is the same problem. Meaning, developers have long been aware of it but do not want to fix it. They want to give a bonus to a larger alliance, often in addition to other bonuses.

I l8e your approach more than mine. My approach (Average team value equal across sides) solves only on of the two problems. Your approach (divide 1500 by number of foes, not number of allies) solves both.

Continuation of the topic Wrong assignment of points to teams for wars with different number of teams on the field - #83 by Kerridoc

For a long time there were wars where rivals have an equal number of teams. But here is an example of a war where one alliance has fewer teams and only because of this has lost. Международный день могильщика в Empires & Puzzles - YouTube

With the correct scoring he would have won. It turns out that the developers stole the victory, giving the larger alliance a bonus of 12 flags.

This is not the only example recently. It’s a shame to lose due to the fact that the developers do not know how to multiply / divide and / or do not want to acknowledge and correct their mistakes.

For example, Alliance1 has 5 teams, and Alliance2 has 6 teams. All attacks are 100%, those each attack completely destroys the enemy team. Alliance1 scored 5 * 6 * 1500/6 = 7500 points. Alliance2 scored 6 * 6 * 1500/5 = 10800, they defeated the opponent who played as efficiently as possible. Due to what won? Due to the bonus from the developers of 12 flags!

The average cost of a team should be 1500 / <the number of teams an opponent has!> Then both alliances would score 9,000 points.

Hiya,

While what happened sucks, the devs haven’t “cheated” or “stolen” the victory…

What is more likely to have happened I’ve explained elsewhere:

Answer ONE QUESTION - can the selection system give an adversary who has more teams in the war than ours. Provided that our field has the same number of teams as it was when selecting?

More alliance members → YES

More OPTED IN alliance members → NO

HOWEVER, if members DO NOT set a proper defence team for war BEFORE battles begin, they are removed from the battlefield & can create a “mismatch”

Actually, the algorithm is set to give the same number of opted in members with a margin of +/-3