Design Spotlight - WW Leaderboards and more!

[Toast]

good post. looking forward to the changes and additions. question though: besides determining overall ranking of an alliance, does Glory do anything else? Will it give perks for being particularly 'glorious'?

 

[Hugh Jazz]

that's the million dollar question .. out of everything mentioned about the proposal that was not covered. very curios to know the answer also

 

[Fable]

Have done so already, wouldn't have happened if ppl just kept their opinions about other's opinions to themselves. If someone refers to me in a negative manner, I will respond.

 

[Fable]

Pretty sure this suggestion will b bashed, but would it make more sense to have the max WW participants at 25? If clans r waiting hours upon hours (which is insane) wouldn't a huge pool of 25's (obviously there still would b 10's,,15's and 20's too) make more sense? The clans that run 50's,,45's,,40's can have a sister clan and war from there as well (2 25ppl rosters/ 2 20's), again just a suggestion to make Glory more levelled if possible and kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

My clan runs 15-25's and if we wait more than 5 minutes to b matched that's shocking, usually it's instantaneous. Until this last war (25ppl) I can't tell u if we ever faced the same clan twice out of the 100+ wars we've done.

Or like Prodigal Clint stated have different divisions (gonna take your suggestion and modify it slightly)

40-50's (D1?) Most Glory pts.
25-35's (D2?) Second Most
10-20's (D3?) (Do I need to state?, lol)

If we get more clarification/update on the original post it might help ease the expectancy of it too, js.

And we r still losing att.s because of connection issues in WW, any update to that beauty?

 

[redprince]

Wouldn't there just be a natural adjustment to this? For example, larger alliances will realize they are falling behind and will do smaller wars so that they can war more frequently? Keeping the proposed glory system makes sense because alliances will adjust to what works best for them to gain the most glory.

 

[Quovatis]

We're talking about perfect-score ties, which are quite common among top alliances. 100% damage on both sides.

 

[S_How]

Quovatis you frame the concern so much better lol. Anyhow, even though Im not in a league that there are many max score ties in, if they are really that common then I would say Nexon should strongly consider a rule for max score ties. Maybe reward them not as much as a full win (there has to be incentive to win outright, and otherwise it would be easily gamed), but definitely not let them be glory neutral - maybe 50% modifier for both teams? Either that, or change how they do final destruction so that it counts all hits, not just best hit on each base, so that there are not ties.

For what its worth, wait times are not unique to the top teams. We are an IA average team......just waited 10 hours for a 45v45, didnt get it, and waited another 10 hours for a 40v40. We've had it worse than that plenty of times, too. I really hope this will encourage teams to try bigger brackets, and maybe it will help us all. I would guess ties might also be less common in bigger wars (they are for us at least).

 

[Equal]

How about running two ww simualtaneously in the same alliance? Perfect solution for stronger and weaker players, and for stronger alliances possibility to climb the leaderboard twice as fast. Now from time to time we do seperate ww for stronger players, cuz when we try 30,35 sized ww we are always outmatched badly. Looks like there isn't many available options with bigger wars and they give us whatever is possible. Most of the times way too strong for us.

 

[Glacier]

Ty for the info leading up to the releasing of "Glory". Sounds like a cool idea.

For those crying bout past wars leading up to the ranking system: can I cry about world wars before Embassy update? I mean I coulda changed some out comes if I can go back before the embassy was introduced and use these Coalitions! Really now, y'all stop trying to relive your lives and accept change as it comes, not expect today's changes to effect yesterday's results, smh.

On a side note: It would be nice to get Alliance Perks from winning world wars. Say Alliance leveling or something, each level gives an Alliance a certain perk like maybe faster troop requests from a shorter cool down timer, ect. ect... Just some food for thought

 

[Porcupine]

Nb4powerup Seraphine Nice addition, I'm only concerned about stalemates. Most of our and other top alliances wars are stalemates, full score and 100% damage on both sides. That will be a problem for well advanced alliances, I don't think it's right that we'll get penalized for getting full score. I hope Nexon/Bhg will take that into consideration.

 

[S_How]

It seems like max score stalemates are the biggest community concern, and it makes a lot of sense. My suggested solution would be to either give a modifier that gives a partial reward (no way is it fair for those wars to be glory neutral, but probably shouldn't be awarded as a win either...maybe like 50%?). Or, switch the destruction tiebreaker to count all attacks, not just best hits (which are all 100% in these stalemates). But, Im sure other better ideas exist too.

Can we get a Nexon's thoughts on this? What would the reward be under this system for a stalemate, and how will you be addressing max score ties? Maybe its jumping the gun, but I can actually see this being a big issue for the top tier teams.

 

[GailWho]

. Group hug!!!!!

 

[Nb4powerup]

I'm getting more information. I am aiming for an update some time Wednesday.

 

[polo1967]

In the description I think they said an alliances medal score will decide a winner in case of a stalemate if both teams end up with the same glory points.

 

[polo1967]

It says that stalemates will be broken using an alliances medal count (the highest wins).

 

[JuDomines]

seems the best way to handle stalemates is declare winner the team achieving a perfect score with a lower number of attack. Of course there is the rare case when both alliance achieve perfect score with the exact same number of attacks, but that's a edge case. And in this case it's just a tie, glory neutral.
And as side note, I like the Elo system.

 

[Equal]

Bad idea.. so some members would be penalized and not gonna take full war loot.

 

[The Huns]

Quovatis Among the top alliances you guys don't have anything but 100% 5-Star attacks? Must be nice. We have quite a few full-stars games, but there is usually at least one or two attacks that fail because of crash or lower level just getting resources. So even if we have had at least one 100% destruction on each base with five start we NEVER have 100% average destruction.

 

[Quovatis]

@TheHuns The average destruction is based on the BEST attack on each base. During the war it will show a lower percentage, but once war is over, it updates to 100%. No, every single one of our attacks are not 100%, but each base has 100% destruction.

 

[S_How]

I'm getting more information. I am aiming for an update some time Wednesday.

Nb4powerup Still really interested in what Nexon's thoughts are on max score stalemates. I am sure that they will be glory neutral, even though not confirmed yet. However, what I am interested in understanding, is how Nexon thinks they should be rewarded. Should they be glory neutral? If so, why? Was it something not considered during design and something you are looking at changing in the future?

I can really see two teams doing exceedingly well, and coming out with 0 glory, and it being a really frustrating experience. I still dont think it should be rewarded like a win, but I really think there should be some sort of point award for max score ties. Or, some sort of third level tie breaker in addition to what we see today, to prevent the somewhat common occurrence of stalemates that are max score.