Individual War Ranks/Weights

[S_How]

Nb4powerup So, what is the answer to how the first screenshot could be #28 on a war roster based on war weight, while bases in the teens look like the second screenshot? I dont want to know any secret formulas, it just doesnt seem to be viable, and support has no idea either.

The only 3 real options could be:

1) Im missing something on these bases, something that would innately reduce their war rank. However, 28 has max traps and max coalitions as well, and seems to be max Saladin, too (though cannot tell on the uni for sure)

2) BHG's weighting system is completely broken

3) BHG's weighting system is able to be completely manipulated in ways more insidious than we already know

Rank 28:

Rank 16 on the same team in the same war:

 

[ELITE JAG]

There is indeed some kind of problem with how Bases are ranked. CS' responses have been that they are "investigating" the issue. Maybe they are. But the responses, as usual, seem to be just canned responses to close tickets and move on.
Nb4powerup can you please press on this issue to be resolved? At least get further information other than CS is "investigating" the issue?

 

[Quovatis]

Yeah, we have a max-wall, max-defense, level 250 player that has been as low as 25 on our war roster. Nobody above this player even comes close to matching strength. So it appears to be entirely random.

 

[Nb4powerup]

Hi! I'm still putting something together that should answer most questions around match making and sandbagging. More news to come early next week.

 

[Quovatis]

None of those concerns are the topic of this thread. We're questioning how individual bases are ranked inside a war. It doesn't seem to be ranked on strength by any measure conceivable.

 

[Sir Pizzuoff]

It's still welcome news, nonetheless! Thanks, Nb4powerup

 

[S_How]

Usually I'd complain about something being off topic, but any update about progress to prevent sandbagging is welcome (unless its another 'mission accomplished!' post)

 

[S_How]

Yes, this - we see it happpen more frequently since atomic. It doesnt really matter in the context of hitting them in a war, the real concern though is are overall weights being distorted because of a glitch causing this

 

[Vixen]

bumping this back up to the top... early next starts soon for me so watching.. waiting.. expecting something..

 

[Radzeer]

Who told you guys, that the war rank has something to do with strength or difficulty?
The ranks are defined by BHGs Network Error Distributing System (NErDS) - depicting the probability ranks of getting Network Error or crash while attacking

 

[cclaerbo]

Let's bump this to the top again. Hopefully early next week means today or tomorrow

 

[snowleopard]

This is some next level bullshit

 

[Vixen]

It's def early next week here.....

 

[Kaiser Shag]

Yup, same here

 

[Veldan]

*refreshes General and News and Announcements every 2 min*

 

[ELITE JAG]

Nb, the issue here is not really match making or sandbagging. It is about how Bases are now being ranked within a team. Stronger bases show up way below their rank, while weaker bases show up on top. Something is askew in how Bases are being ranked within a War Team...

 

[S_How]

Nb4powerup NB4, it was confirmed in the AMA that this was indeed a bug, and it was being worked on. It is our belief, that this is also throwing off team weight and in the case of teams with several very high level bases it can have a huge impact to overall matchmaking. Our last war was against K1. First off, great job K1 going in full weight and no sandbags, you all were awesome too. Secondly, big FU to the BHG matchmaking system for giving us one of our only non sandbagged matches, with a nearly 20 level natural gap built in, just like a sandbag match lol. They had more than double our AA offenses, and about 10 AA defenses to our 0.

But, when we looked at the averages....they had multiple near maxxed out bases in the late teens and 20s. With them included, it was a massive massive mismatch. If you took them out though, the levels were almost normal and very reasonable comparing the teams. We have never ever had a level disparity >15 in a matchup until this one, and it significantly surpassed it. And, it had multiple examples of max lvl bases being out of order in the individual weights.

NB4, can you tell us when this will be fixed? There are new players meeting this very high AA threshold every day, so the problem is going to get much worse soon enough, if it is not fixed.

 

[Nb4powerup]

Hi S_How,

I'll speak with the developers but I do not have a timeline as to when this might be addressed.

 

[S_How]

Hi S_How,

I'll speak with the developers but I do not have a timeline as to when this might be addressed.

Nb4powerup Hi Nb4, just wanted to follow up on this. Its been a week, did they say anything? It is our belief that this is causing a lot of problems with matchmaking overall. We just met KA (#1 alliance, btw great job to KA, they had virtually no sandbags and while we got our butts kicked, we still got 85% of stars despite the mismatch!!). Its ok that we met them if its normal....but the natural level discrepancy was 27 and the power gap was even greater. I dont think this match would have ever been made normally. I do believe it is because level 230-250 bases are appearing around where enlightenment bases should be on a roster, with a wildly low war weight.

 

[ColdestRage]

There seems to be a bug with AA lvl bunker that lowers your war rank instead of making it higher .
Each AA base that has AA bunker is shown at middle-end instead of at the top