Design Spotlight - WW Leaderboards and more!

[Fable]

@Prodigal Clint

In my original post I merely stated I wasn't found of bigger clans (concerning Glory) get rewarded more. Not that they don't deserve it. My clan runs 20-25 NOT for a lack of trying to run higher wars, we just can't. So why would I be behind this when it directly affects how my clan wars? Addressing clans as Varsity vs. JV for lb...I guess i can support that, if Nexon goes that route. But currently I have 2 GA, several IA,,EA,,GPA and a bunch of small acc.s who r active and who r not in my clan atm. Ik Nexon can not cater to all, but a lot of this [heat] could be cooled off a little with more clarification (since some think there's a bunch of left out/hidden material in there usual what's to come post). And with everything there will b a way to take advantage of it.

That said, I applaud anyone having a question related to the original post. Reading mine over I can't find where I was that negative (as others state) I usually give suggestions or ideas if I don't agree with something. I was hoping for an individual lb, but I did not read anything about that.


@Hugh jazz

And those aren't my clan mates or alliance members, I just don't care for anyone to call out individuals offering their own point of view, being negative or positive. All opinions matter.

 

[bsharpy]

@prodigal clint

Alright I get that, but what happens when there is a "JV team" that can constantly run 40v40 wars because I guarantee there are, many of those Korean alliances are very active and have been running large world war matches. They will get the same amount of glory points, will match easier alliances, and will match more often resulting in more glory points and an advantage over teams that are in theory better than them.

 

[S_How]

Just wanted to say this looks great on paper. Im really excited Nexon put it out, and took a lot of feedback from the community. Any system can be gamed, but the fact that this system appears to encourage broad participation and age advancement is a great first step, and will make wars more meaningful and exciting. Cannot wait to try it out!

 

[S_How]

Fable

To me, the answer of larger wars being rewarded more is pretty much the only and the best way to go. Not only are 35-50 person wars much harder to coordinate, teams harder to build....but rewarding small wars would be pretty much awful for the community. You'd see teams shrink their war squads even farther than they already do to play it safe. A bunch of 10v10 wars, and 80% of the community excluded from this game's best feature.

 

[S_How]

Totally agree with the commentary from Prodigal Clint and flash, especially the math. And disagree with the quick condemnation from the OP. I would say it is extremely likely that some of the top medal alliances will also be some of the top war ranking alliances. High risk, high reward....a big win of 40v40+ on a global vs global team will give more points than any other type of matchup. If there is a team that consistently beats the others in the top rankings, they will gain points in a way no other team can.

I do agree with the fact that finding matchups will be an issue - I am in an alli that is probably average of mid IA. We do 40-45 wars all the time, and face pretty tough teams. It frequently takes us 15hrs-24hrs+ to find a match (you can hear me complain in my post history a lot lol), so this is not a plight unique to the top 10%. My hope is that war ranking rules as they stand will encourage more to branch out and try bigger wars to help alleviate some of this problem.

I also dont want the war rankings page to be a copy/paste from the medal rankings....this is something new and different and both leaderboards will have merits hopefully.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Fable, my mistake, I must have lost the point somewhere amongst all the "bv droppings" throwing. as GailWho very eloquently stated, it's very hard to incorporate everything that every alliance wants to a single ranking algorithm. I also agree with her and your point that not taking into account past war performance is somewhat disheartening.

My point is, and has been, that they have to take a lot of different interest into account, the LB can not and should not be structured to reward only the high end (which would shut out the vast majority of alliances as others, not u, have stated). This gives everyone a chance to make it. Additionally, they must reward the time and effort many teams have put in to build up to a point over months and months to get to where they are today.

Speaking from my own perspective, it took about 6 months of hard work finding teammates, teaching them the game if needed, and working together as a team to move up from a 4 star average in 30v30 to putting up perfect scores in 40's and 45's. It's a lot of work and not easy, so it Has to be rewarded in the rankings. This was a long process of grooming one -three good new members at a time out of say every 12 recruits we received (and we all play by the same rules as far as getting new recruits..)

At least this system gives u a shot to put in work and get there eventually! Which would b my suggestion, there are no easy solutions to this process, nor should the lb ignore the teams who have spent the immense amount of time to succeed and get there at this point.

Ps- sounds like your main gripe should be with the alliance search/ recruitment issues... I'd suggest you put all this time and energy into making sure that adjustment (as mentioned in June state of nations) , is implemented in this next update. Just a suggestion

 

[Prodigal Clint]

I'm not going to walk the dog with u anymore on this. Make a few simple adjustments to the formula and u can see for yourself. If you do this, you will also notice the amount of "unknown" variables still present, which leads me back to my original point. You and I both have NO idea what concretely will happen bc we don't know all the variables or even enough to presume, so everything you are saying is 100% assumptive (and may I say self serving) in nature. I'm not gonna waste anymore of my time going back and forth with this, because if you can't see what I'm saying after that example, you never will be able to. GL w the leaderboard..

 

[S_How]

Im not going to say this system as they have presented it is perfect, but I think its a good start.

Im not sure I understand the point you're making, when you say it should be a measure of skill, and then say matchmaking should be done 'regardless of upgrade levels'. Where is the skill in a global team smashing a team of EA players. This system at least attempts to match people with relatively equal upgrades, and provides incentive to advance and do large wars, and measures the relative effectiveness.

 

[Guest]

Fable & redprince Let's cool it on the insults. If it continues we'll have to shut down the thread and I'd hate to do that.

 

[S_How]

I think this is a pretty good question. Two teams could do exceptionally well (max score) and get nothing out of it. In your current war log how many do you have that are max score vs max score?.

 

[Quovatis]

It is very common. I'd say about 50% of our matches with top alliances are max score vs max score contests.

 

[Quovatis]

Still interested in how stalemates will be handled. This is very common for the top alliances.

 

[redprince]

I can...I don't think he can...

 

[Prodigal Clint]

My guess would be that the differing war ranks from all the player (perhaps ages as well tho not as much at the very top) would lead to one being the underdog, and if a tie occured, they would see a slight edge in receiving glory.. certainly no glory would/should be lost on either side given the match result was a tie... 100% agree with you tho, an official response would be nice on the matter Seraphine Nb4powerup

 

[Quovatis]

I'm also concerned how the really good (advanced-age) alliances will ever gain any glory points. The top alliances right now all play the same ~6 alliances every war, because there aren't that many alliances with advanced bases. 50% of the wars end in perfect-score stalemates at this level, so these alliances will never gain a lot of glory points. Plus, since WW matchmaking is based on player ranking and not glory points, these top 6 alliances will never get to play an alliance with lower-age bases. So I predict the top alliances will be mid-size IA-dominant players, who have a bigger pool of alliances to be matched with, and a smaller chance of ending in a perfect-score stalemate.

 

[Nb4powerup]

If there should be a tie between two alliances for stars, it will then calculate the winner by the total damage done.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Thanks for your quick response Nb4, when it's perfect stars on both sides, the avg. destruction is recalculated after the fact based on the final stars and results in a tie at 100% for both sides..We've only had this happen once or twice but evidently it's quite common for the top alliances. How would glory be awarded in this scenario?

 

[bsharpy]

Fair enough, your attitude here is not the best and you talk like many of us don't understand simple math formulas. We are having a conversation here, but if you want to make it personal and act like my concerns are "self serving" then I am done talking to you on these forums. I am bringing up flaws that I already see with the system before it is released so that it might be fixed or at the very least considered before they launch the new update. Good luck.

 

[bsharpy]

Yes, I agree and I mentioned this earlier in the thread. We will have to see how it actually works when it comes out, but I also suspect the top alliances will not be properly represented on the leaderboard due to the lengthy matchmaking process/stalemates.

 

[S_How]

Yeah I'd say the max vs max tie is going to hurt top teams more than anything else previously posted and is a very legit concern. Wonder if they could have a condition that treats max score ties as a win, or at least much better than a mediocre score tie.