How should alliances be matched in world wars?

[Saruman the White]

Throughout the forum I've come by many opinions on how world war matchmaking should take place. I've viewed many posts, participated in many discussions and encountered many arguments. I think that the time has come to vote! Please accept my apologizes in case a similar poll already exists, but I think it'd be useful to see what the majority of players really want. So,

How should alliances be matched in world wars?

 

[Saruman the White]

I think it's the simplest and fairer for me. An alliance that wins, goes up and gets harder opponents next time. An alliance that loses, goes down and gets easier opponents next time. Now, if higher alliance glory should yield more war loot, or if the glory system needs fixing is another matter that could be also assessed to.

 

[pckrn]

matching by glory alone would be terrible.

eventually alliances would reach certain buffer zone where they no longer climb or slip, and then comes the problem: if a low age member leaves and a high age member enters, you would win every war until you reach a new buffer, and if a high age member leaves and a low age member joins you would lose every war until you reach a new buffer.

not very exciting for me. glory can be one of many criteria, but it should not be the only criteria in matching

 

[Houkai]

Glory leagues. Just like the regular but for alliances. After certain time alliances will reach perfect distributon. For every victory, there will be a defeat and vice versa.

 

[tusharsap]

Agree with pckrn

 

[Saruman the White]

Interesting idea! Promotions and Relegations per sessions would be also fun, granting more war loot in higher leagues

 

[KniferX]

A team of globals get into the 'perfect position'. Then a couple of CWA guys join in for fun and they roll over the next 50 opponents.
Then they leave and join another low alliance for the same stomp ride.
Perfect distribution?

 

[KniferX]

The current system, with appropriate changes to make sandbagging less effective, more annoying, and redundant.

 

[Houkai]

We can always restrict jumpers. Like 1 week cooldown before being able to join a new alliance. And 1 week probation befire you can participate in WW. Also this will solve the sandbag problem as you will only face allianced from your respective glory league.
PS. While Glory league boat is a nice idea, we may survive without it

 

[Quovatis]

Not average, but a weighted average

 

[KniferX]

''Oh noes, we gotta wait 2 weeks, get months of overpowered warring and then we leave that alliance to lose for months again.''
You'd need more and more convoluted rules to solve the simple issue that war weight and strength of alliances constantly change depending on who they bring to war with them.
Not to speak of that system just chasing away any non-atomic players from wars.
It would be tenfold worse than sandbagging is right now.

 

[Necksahn]

It should be by alliance strength with weighted average. First 50% should be weighted very heavy (10x) and then next 25% much less and bottom 25% even less to nothing.

The top 50% define the game since they get 2 attacks.

i would not mind having Glory impact the weights some. Maybe a 10% factor to weight.

 

[Festivus]

Average shoe size.

 

[Mcnasty]

Can we get this idea added to the poll. I think this is the best idea for war matchups I mean it couldn’t be any worse lmfao