Suggestion Re: making war leaderboard more relevant

[Theserver]

I would like to present an idea I had about making the war leaderboard more relevant. The glory list could be taken and the leaderboard formed from the top glory teams that ALSO are in the top third of alliances for medals. I think this could really help with the base stacking problem that is so prevalent as well as promoting truly strong teams.

Secondarily, if this was considered the "First All-Star Alliances", there could also be a "Second All-Star Alliances" list that included teams with highest glory that were also in the top two-thirds. If their alliance was in the top third, but didn't make the first list, they could still qualify for the second.

Thoughts?

Forgive me - I'm new to the forums. But a friend told me that I should also do this. Nb4powerup. Hope that was right!

 

[Alex Alex Alex]

I think they have to add medal score in with glory points to rate alliances, otherwise the whole point of the game shifts considerably. There are too many people using the low medal trick to get easier attacks, so it would help to nip that in the bud as well.

My view is that they started with the glory points leaderboard to switch it up a bit and bring attention to it and that later they will adapt it for the good of the game, I do hope they take note of this and are planning accordingly..

 

[sponge]

Medals are not affecting war matchmaking, so there is no such thing as low medal trick. I think most will agree that medals are irrelevant at this point, due to completely broken medal system. So ranking alliances by medals doesn't make much sense.

 

[Theserver]

I think the "low medal trick" comment is directed at people dropping medals to get easier attacks in multiplayer. My suggestion would make medals relevant for the leaderboard, and would also encourage people to play closer to their appropriate medal range.

 

[S_How]

Hi Theserver. I agree a solution has to be found, but given how alli medal score works, I dont believe this solution would work. Currently, alliance medal score is based off of 50% top 10 medals, 25% 11-20 medals, 12% 21-30 medals, 10% 31-40 medals, and 2% 41-50 medals. So, really only the top 20 make a big difference in an alli medal score, and the bottom 10 are very insignificant. All it takes is about 5 undeveloped bases to completely throw off the matchmaking algorithm to give a team an overwhelmingly easy and risk free matchup.

 

[S_How]

The only solution I can really think of that doesnt really hurt alliances, is to remove the bottom 25-40% of an alliances war members from the matchup calculation. If you did matchups based on the top 25-30 out of 40, it would probably discourage this tactic. It would also incentivize alliances to make the bottom part of their rosters at least capable of making an attack.

Im sure there are other smart ideas out there, this is just one that might work. Anything is better than the way it is now.

 

[Theserver]

Good point. Absolutely right - I wasn't thinking about how the alliance medal score was tabulated. Yet I think if a standard deviation variable was somehow added, it could be made to work. For war matches it would be something like taking the average star level and then computing standard deviation, then making an adjustment based on that. Think it could be applied to alliance medal score as well... Something to consider more...

 

[Theserver]

I have to admit, I don't care for that solution either because if you have allies that are higher in medals than the rest of your group, it will hurt you the other way. And they are the ones who can really add to the strength of your team.

 

[Equal]

i do not understand one thing. why for nexon is so difficult to make that "strenght" rank available to see for everyone on a ww map? or the system is so broken that the differences between two alliances are so big sometimes, that they are keeping that rank in a secret.. and for you proposition not to include 25-40% of member into calculation, then it means that theese 75%-60% of strongest players must attack with few mistakes only to win a ww and for the rest of alliance members, if alliance is using various ages players, some attacks would be only for fun. we are running ww with about equal numbers of GA, IA and EA and sometimes our top 15-18 are eual to theirs. bet the bottom completely outmaches. so the last 10 members are getting max 2-3 stars from their attacks. it is a good idea, but not so perfet when you meet an equal 1 trough 25 alliance, and there is no possibility to see whatt the "strenght" ranking is for each alliance.

 

[Glacier]

I can snipe for medals, whoopidy doo. Medals are not a very good way to judge a book. Players also drop medals for a reason of which most should know. The stackers are the best on these boards because of how they are built. Why, I think because they cant win in a reguler alliance build. Their mids win there wars because they overpower their opponent's mids. Glory and medals will not change how they run. Phil even said they been this way 7 months before glory went live. He claims a lot of other alliances are conforming to this weak mentality :-[