Wars

[AmbriaJT]

So who, with any sort of sense, actually believes matchmaking is any different? It isn't. At all. The ranking system is the only difference. You can use an ELO ranking system without changing matchmaking. I guess comprehension of that separates the real nubs from the not real nubs.

What this ranking system does do, though, is it separates the less organized from the more organized and the less skilled from the more skilled. Only a minor few will cheat the system, too. It is only going to accent the accomplishments of the alliances that care for it. Keep in mind that this is phase 1 of this rollout. There will be tweaks. Hopefully the tweaks crack down on unfairness of things such as USA Dankness is doing.

I, for one, would love to get our hands on them. Because of their manipulation of the metrics, though, it will never happen.

We want stars, we take them!

Ambria of Eminent Domain

 

[AmbriaJT]

SERBIAN EMPIRE did the same to us a while back. 10 high globals, 10 high industrials and 10 lvl 10 iron age that made 3 zero star attacks total.

 

[ccfoo]

AmbriaJT That's pretty unfortunate that you met Serbian Empire which manipulated the system too. Hope you guys won.

If you have a few GA players, you won't meet that alliance I met anyway, they will continue to walkover those who are much lower level than them while avoiding the heavyweights pro. Kinda like the national team trampling over your school team because they have a few younger kids sitting at the bench.

I do hope that further tweaks of the system will allow REAL good alliance to shine, those who are more organised and have better skilled players, and not those who trick the matchmaking system.

 

[AmbriaJT]

An easy tweak would be to disregard the bottom 25% or 33% of an alliances members for metrics purposes. Or put more weight on the score of the higher weighted person's score then trickle down to the bottom.

Example: In a 40v the #1 should be valued at a 40, 2 at a 39, 3 at a 38, etc.

 

[Eddie F1]

What would happen if there was only 1 attack in war instead of 2?

 

[dannemare]

Not a bad idea, actually. It is waaay too easy to stalemate with perfect scores with 2 attacks per member.

 

[ColdestRage]

Let me answer your cries over this whole glory system matchup speaking your language.

You are a noob comparing chess which is one vs one with a teamplayed match.

Ever seen a complaint about losing soccer or basketball game becouse the other team had younger members?

As long as a team that has mostly allies of EA wins with an aliance that is mostly GA , and does it fair and square they deserve to be higher than an aliance they beat even if their members are of lower Age .

Even noob should understand that.

That's what sportsmanship is based on.


Right now the only ones that are on leaderboards and are there even when they shouldn't are the ones that don't play fair,and are placed on top of leaderboard becouse they cheat the system taking half of filler bases into war which lowers their battle strenght, and they get in the end matched with alliances which have less than one percent chances to win since their members are scattered all over different Ages.

It looks a little like taking half of national soccer players to a high school game , and those that do that are the Real problem of glory system matchups.

Leaderboards ain't about having top players , it is about teamwork and talent.

Most talented alliances should be at top, not the ones that have most high lvl allies.

Leaderboards ain't a place at which it is important what your alliance base lvls are, it is a place in which it is important what you're made of instead, and everyone talented enough to 5 star bases that are 30,40,or 50lvls higher should be able to compete , and have a chance to appear on leaderboards

You can cry all you wan't to , and even curse the ones above your alliance , but IMO pure medal based leaderboards like it was before doesn't do any justice.
Instead of showing best alliances it could show the most active ones, and beeing the most active doesn't actualy mean you are the best there is

 

[ccfoo]

AmbriaJT I think that is a good idea. In Clash Royale, the clan trophies are calculated by weight, in a clan of 50 people, rank 1-10 influences 50%, 11-20 25%, 21-30 12%, 31-40 10%, 41-50 3%. Of course, the weightage which they use is kind of extreme for wars here, but nexon can adjust it accordingly. For example:

In a 25 man war:
1-5: 35%
6-10: 25%
11-15: 20%
16-20: 15%
21-25: 5%

This prevents clans from stacking their half of their war line up with classical and iron age players.

Another method is to limit the upgrades for wars, in CR tournaments, cards have a limit to their levels. But I doubt its feasible as there will be lesser incentive to earn money from players wanting to upgrade their base since the medals system is broken here.

 

[Ravenlord]

You all realise you're getting upset over a game, right??!

 

[BV123]

You all realise you're getting upset over a game, right??!

I'm upset I did not get pie.... does that count?

 

[ccfoo]

i want a pie too!

 

[BV123]

Don't look at me ccfoo. Ravenlord ate the last slice.

 

[Glacier]

Iron age in top of the medal leagues? Yeah see that's why top medal alliances aren't really top alliances. How can iron age be in top leagues? Simply by sniping farmers like my th3 did in CoC. I sniped to 1200 medals not long ago as a gp just to get achievement. Medals ain't Hard!


I like the Glory system a bit more, only the matching needs adjusting. VZ been on leader boards couple days now yet we keep getting 210 or so glory potential 0.o What?! If we're on the boards that means we tuff nuff to win, correct? I mean really now, why can't we get a match with an Alliance on the boards? Aren't they somewhere near our level of play? We can't catch up to the top winning 200 while those above us somehow winning 5&600 glory now can we?

Anyone have an answer to this, I'm hip.

 

[AmbriaJT]

Matchmaking is still the same and random. Glory won or lost is based off then opponent. We just won like 385 for winning a 45v where we would have loat 1200 b had we lost. We were ranked 6 at the start of that war and they weren't ranked at all.

 

[phil_dee]

Hi, I am the leader of USA Dankness. There are some things in this thread, and in others, that deserve some attention:

1) We did not adopt our current strategy for the purpose of "manipulating the leaderboard," or anything that resembles this. We have been using this strategy since approximately January 9th, before which we had completed sixteen wars (14-2).

2) The aim of any warlike alliance should be to win wars within the parameters of game rules. Period. This is accomplished by optimizing both rosters and attack strategy in a manner which increases an alliance's probability of victory. While the alliances at the top of our former leaderboard were selling their souls for medal scores between November 2015 and early July 2016, we were winning wars. When USA Dankness landed atop the "unofficial war leaderboard" in this forum and cleared the entire field by five wins before mid-March, nobody cared...nor should they have. [see https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...l-leaderboard

3) Our roster is not composed of accounts that are created and abandoned for the purpose of giving us weak bases. All of the bases being referred to constantly in these threads are of legitimate players who have arrived at our alliance just as they might arrive at yours; this is in stark contrast, of course, to the unnamed alliance whose members have been especially critical of our strategy but who have now also mysteriously rostered three very weak players named "Eeny," "Meeny," and "Miny." In fact, any of you could create a new account and show up on our doorstep, and you'll find yourself at war within 48 hours, just like the rest have. Give it a try, we could always use more of these players.

4) The weak players we employ in wars are PLAYERS, just like any other, and should not be precluded from participating in wars solely because much stronger players comprise the alliance roster they are joining. It's not as if we are able to go send invites to these people; they come to us organically and are fair game for inclusion in wars, no matter how loudly many of you object.

 

[Ravenlord]

Hey - what have you got against Mo ?? Doesn't he deserve a chance to play too ????!!!

 

[Ravenlord]

Hi, I am the leader of USA Dankness. There are some things in this thread, and in others, that deserve some attention:

1) We did not adopt our current strategy for the purpose of "manipulating the leaderboard," or anything that resembles this. We have been using this strategy since approximately January 9th, before which we had completed sixteen wars (14-2).

2) The aim of any warlike alliance should be to win wars within the parameters of game rules. Period. This is accomplished by optimizing both rosters and attack strategy in a manner which increases an alliance's probability of victory. While the alliances at the top of our former leaderboard were selling their souls for medal scores between November 2015 and early July 2016, we were winning wars. When USA Dankness landed atop the "unofficial war leaderboard" in this forum and cleared the entire field by five wins before mid-March, nobody cared...nor should they have. [see https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...l-leaderboard].

3) Our roster is not composed of accounts that are created and abandoned for the purpose of giving us weak bases. All of the bases being referred to constantly in these threads are of legitimate players who have arrived at our alliance just as they might arrive at yours; this is in stark contrast, of course, to the unnamed alliance whose members have been especially critical of our strategy but who have now also mysteriously rostered three very weak players named "Eeny," "Meeny," and "Miny." In fact, any of you could create a new account and show up on our doorstep, and you'll find yourself at war within 48 hours, just like the rest have. Give it a try, we could always use more of these players.

4) The weak players we employ in wars are PLAYERS, just like any other, and should not be precluded from participating in wars solely because much stronger players comprise the alliance roster they are joining. It's not as if we are able to go send invites to these people; they come to us organically and are fair game for inclusion in wars, no matter how loudly many of you object.

Good points - well said. If people have a problem with your alliance then it's really their problem isn't it? I understand you wanted to set the record straight but don't feel you need to explain your actions to people. Even IF you did adopt your strategy recently to take advantage of the system, it's still working within the system - as you pointed out.

Until a better system comes along everyone is entitled to do it. And according to many, that's exactly what people are now doing - but so what????!! So what if certain alliances are taking advantage of a system to skew the odds in their favour? So what if these alliances can only win by beating up the little kids?? It's a hollow victory and we should just let these babies have their bottle, you know??! Maybe the system just needs time to settle into itself .....

 

[phil_dee]

We love Mo, he should come see us (as long as he is either weak or strong enough to be useful!)

 

[ccfoo]

The 18 out of 40 weak REAL players you employ probably are loot adverse that they don't even try to TC snipe the opponent's bottom Iron Age base? Some probably like pies more than gold and food in game.

Well, it's open for all to see and to make their own judgement.

 

[ccfoo]

Haha if someone is at the TOP of the list selling ice cream, they ought to justify theirs is the tastiest, isn't it?

Yup, we can continue bashing our little nephews as Long as their parents aren't around A better system will never come along, it never happened for CoC, how much hope we have for Nexon? So let's all do it!

Anyway, it's a bit out of trend to stack bases, now CoC has the trend of weighted base where people don't upgrade any Defence, build any walls etc and have these tiny power pack kingdoms lower their ratings, hit u for 10 stars while u can only revenge back for 5. Let's all copy and exploit it too! Woohoo! It feels so good to win those babies every time, their cries are so irritating, they can't eat ice cream yet although sometimes I wish to stuff it down their throats too.

Fair play, conscience and honor? Leave it to the Angels up in heaven! I prefer delicious ice cream wherever they come from