Wrong assignment of points to teams for wars with different number of teams on the field

That shows 15 and 16. You were complaining specifically about a 10 and 12 Player war. Screenshot? From the game?

It can be seen that for the destruction of our team they give about 5 points more, and more attacks from the enemy, since he has one more person. The enemy gets a double bonus - more attacks and more points for the attack.

I gave 10 and 12 as an example to simplify the calculation. Also, for simplicity, it was believed that all teams are the same and all attacks are 100% effective. It was a model to demonstrate the fallacy of the algorithm.
A 15 and 16 of the real last war. Do you expect that for 10 and 12 the calculation is wrong, but for real it will be correct? Well, forget about 10 and 12 and we will look for 15 and 16.

Fair enough. But I think two things:

  1. Did everyone on the 16-man team show up? (Sometimes they don’t)

  2. I would expect the sixteen man team to score more, if both teams use all flags (rough numbers):

  • 1500 / 15 = 100 pts * 6 = 600 ea
  • 1500 / 16 = 93.75 pts * 6 = 562.50 ea

Wars are affected by all kinds of factors:

  • people don’t show
  • people don’t use all flags
  • people have superior defense teams
  • people have inferior benches
  • people have different strategies

I’m not sure I believe that ONE factor determines the outcome of the war. Ever. I’ve seen the others come into play too many times. :confused:

In the first report I asked the developers to make a calculation of the model war in accordance with the conditions given. And showed my calculation. Where is the calculation from the developers?

1 Like

The Devs are always reading player posts but cannot always reply, due to sheer numbers.

Hopefully they will reply to yours. :slight_smile:

The table shows all the players who had a tick to participate in the war at the time of distribution. They all participated and used all the flags. When the war started, we saw that the enemy has more teams and they are, on average, cheaper than ours. At the same time, the enemy has 6 flags more.

Yes…each player has six flags…if the opponent has one more player than you, they will have six more flags than you…if they use them all, and if they overcome your defense…and if they don’t have inferior benches…if, if, if…then they will win. If…

(It is not a foregone conclusion just because they start with 16 players…the war has the proceed; you have to see if you can overcome their defenses, if they can overcome yours; who has the deeper benches to use all six of those flags well, etc.)

We averaged 57.5 points for the attack. And the opponent is 52.7. However, we lost (both sides used all the flags)
Please note that we were given less points for the destruction of the team. When calculated correctly, they should have given more to compensate for the enemy’s extra flags.

So that all these if … do not play a role, I asked to make a calculation of an ideal war, where there are 10 players in one alliance and 12 in the other. All teams are equal in power, all flags are used, all attacks completely destroy enemy teams. Then the strength of the characters, the length of the benches does not matter. My calculation is given, where is the calculation from the developers?

Forgive me, I’m not speaking against you, you understand, just speaking in generalities from my own experience:

In the last war, I scored:

  1. one-shot (81 pts)
  2. tank-kill (13 pts)
  3. tank-kill (16 pts)
  4. damage (4 pts)
  5. cleanup (28 pts)
  6. damage (9 pts)

That’s 151 total. If I calculate what I could have done (not taking into account my poor bench), I should have done something like 428.58 (1500 / 21 = 71.43 * 6). That’s what I’m saying. War is not raw numbers. There are many factors that come into play.


The main factor is that a bonus of 400-800 points for each extra team in 99% of wars with a different number of teams covers all other factors…

If the points were considered correct, we would not have lost 4948-5056, but won 5278-4740. If points were considered correct …

An example of war. You and your opponent have 15 teams each. You used all the flags and last attack destroyed the last command of the enemy. Got 1500 points. The enemy also used all the flags but could not destroy the last command, there remained 1 hero in it. The enemy received 1480 points and lost.

Now the war is almost the same, but the enemy has the 16th player X. You attacked as in the previous war and X remained on the field. All other teams are destroyed. Received 1500 * 15/16 = 1406 points (you didn’t destroy team X). The enemy also attacked, as in the previous war and earned the same 1480 points. Player X did not attack anyone, got 0 points, but now you lost, although you played better!

If you wish, you can assume that player X used 6 flags, but received 0 points.

But this is academic: more flags can garner you more points. Can. Not will.

The game cannot promise every alliance a match with an exact number of players each and every time unless they trim off extra players from certain alliances, and no one wants that. So sometimes you’ll get matches like these, with all the factors I mentioned before. Raw data does not = won or lost war. All the factors go into a real war, and the real winning and losing of one.

You lost this one. It stinks. You believe it is only due to this one factor. I don’t know; I’d like to see all the factors in play before rendering a judgement (which would only be my personal opinion anyway).

1 Like

If you can not provide an equal number of teams in the war, then let’s a smaller alliance more points for the destruction of the enemy team. Now a larger alliance receives more flags and a higher price for each attack. Because some stupid decided: the alliance should cost 1500, regardless of the number of teams from the enemy.
I gave the correct formula: The sum of the points of all the teams of the alliance is 1500 * Ka / Ke. Here Ka is the number of the alliance team on the war field, Ke is the number of enemy teams on the war field.

Why is it “stupid” that an enemy team costs 1500? You could say arbitrary. But the gamemaker decides the rules.

Why does a 3-point shot in Basketball get 3 points? Because it does. Because the game makers decided it was so (difficulty of the shot etc).

Is it game-breaking? No. But it adds an element of randomness to the game, because every so often, there will be extra points.

Because the rules should give equal chances to rivals. And “to all 1500” gives an advantage to a larger alliance of 400-800 points (12 attacks) for each extra player.

Does it average out over time? Or are the same poor alliances mistreated over and over? (At which point I would give them a link for a support ticket.)

Cookie Settings