World War unofficial leaderboard

Kassutera

Approved user
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
63
No Title

Been sick (still am) so haven't really had a chance to post the latest results Despite being sick, I have been continuing with monitoring the results. Our 16 win streak ended with one loss, however our streak is started again with two wins directly after that. So we have a combined total loss of 2 out of all the wars we had. Hopefully we can beat our streak of 16 straight wins :)
 

Attachments

  • photo6424.jpg
    photo6424.jpg
    26.9 KB · Views: 57
  • photo6425.jpg
    photo6425.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 61

dannemare

Approved user
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
96
Here is what Nexon/BHG should do:

**WORLD WAR TOURNAMENT**

*) Start out by removing all the junior alliances with an alliance score of less than 10,000.
*) Use whatever ranking system is used today for matching WW opponents and create "segments" of alliances based on that ranking system.
*) Take each segment and remove all alliances having done less than 20 wars.
*) Take each segment and remove all alliances except for those who represent the top 5 (those with the best win/lose ratio in each segment).
In situations where more than 5 alliances represent the top 5, simply include them all (simple example: 8 alliances in a segment all have a 100% win ratio).

Now we have a list of alliances with a solid world war record, and they represent the entire war ranking ladder, so to say.


Qualification:

Each segment battles it out internally (each alliance will do one battle against all the other alliances in the segment).

The top two alliances (sorted first by stars won, next by destruction percentage) within each segments go to the actual tournament.


Tournament:

The tournament begins with X alliances, divided into Y groups.

Each alliance meets the others in its group just once.
The winning alliance and the runner-up from each group then progress to the next round.

The winning team from one group then battles against the runner-up from another group.

In summary, kinda like this...:

http://www.aussportsbetting.com/images/2012-06-05_euro_knockouts.gif


Pre-requirements:

1) The tournament must have a public battle log with all the necessary statistical details.

2) WW replays must be introduced (and replay accuray must be improved).

3) Announce the tournament 1 month in advance to let more alliances get a chance to reach a minimum of 20 World Wars.

4) After the qualification round, players with maxed out walls/gates are asked to show receipts for crown purchases or otherwise document how they achieved looting more than 3,700,000,000 gold (Nexon/BGH can pull the exact looting amount from each player's account, but I'm not sure if they can view a player's payment history, because this goes though the App Store or Google play). Players who cannot provide sufficient documentation are kicked. This rule should motivate alliances to kick cheaters prior to entering the WORLD WAR TOURNAMENT.


Optional:

Let replays be public (and easily accessible/searchable in a web browser as well). Publicly publish replays as soon as battles are done.

I have created a dedicated thread about World Wars tournaments here: https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-feature-requests/500989-world-war-tournament

In hindsight, it would be an idea to lower the qualifications requirements a bit, I just now realise. For example, even in this "war enthusiastic" thread most alliances would not even make it through the qualification round.
 

Wicked Odie

Approved user
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
184
I have a question, we have that alliance bug that doesn't allow us to fully fill up, so we can only have 47 members max. We want to start a new alliance and move over so we can have max members. Is this going to be a problem with our score? I can take a screen shot on bluestacks with a time stamp if that will help validate our score even more?
 

Kassutera

Approved user
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
63
No Title

3rd win in a row now for USA 2.0. This one was particularly a very close match. The opposing team was winning by 13 stars but we managed to bring up the star count and tie them and literally the last few seconds of the war we managed to bring up the destruction bonus causing us to win. We should be 19-2 or 20-2 now I believe, not sure as I lost count lol.
 

Attachments

  • photo6456.jpg
    photo6456.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 61

dannemare

Approved user
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
96
Two perfect wins for United Allies™ this week (and 20th win in a row). Record improves to 24-1.

Pharon, pray to God we never meet Heisenberg and his alliance. They have some badass gunpowder age members. They would totally destroy us. :)

Sorry, Heisenberg, couldn't help myself after reading your comment in my WW tournament proposal thread... :)

On another note, I badly wish it was possible to challenge any alliance for war. The way the current world war matching algorithm works, means that an alliance like ours can sometimes search for 1-2 whole days before matching an opponent. And when a match is finally found, it is sometimes the same opponents over and over again. Please Nexon/BHG, make it possible for an alliance to declare war on any other alliance (let it be up to the targeted alliance to accept or reject the challenge - but keep a (public) log of all accepted/rejected wars).
 

Wicked Odie

Approved user
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
184
Pharon, pray to God we never meet Heisenberg and his alliance. They have some badass gunpowder age members. They would totally destroy us. :)

Sorry, Heisenberg, couldn't help myself after reading your comment in my WW tournament proposal thread... :)

On another note, I badly wish it was possible to challenge any alliance for war. The way the current world war matching algorithm works, means that an alliance like ours can sometimes search for 1-2 whole days before matching an opponent. And when a match is finally found, it is sometimes the same opponents over and over again. Please Nexon/BHG, make it possible for an alliance to declare war on any other alliance (let it be up to the targeted alliance to accept or reject the challenge - but keep a (public) log of all accepted/rejected wars).


This would be almost impossible to do. Why you ask... Well what if i was a top alliance, decked out with nothing but industrial and maxed out enlightenment, and i was challenging people way lower than me with gunpowder bases. All the easy wins that could be had. This would be good for alliances in the top echelon but would be of no real use to the lower guys.

My alliance about the mid range with zero industrial players is going up against alliances with 4-8 industrial players. While we are usually much better than these alliances it's still unfair as it is. We have to work harder, plan better, just to succeed.
 

Heisenberg1913

Approved user
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
102
My comment was in regards to keeping everyone 10k medals and under out. We're just getting started only had this alliance for a month or so. We will grow soon enough.
 

dannemare

Approved user
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
96
Well what if i was a top alliance, decked out with nothing but industrial and maxed out enlightenment, and i was challenging people way lower than me with gunpowder bases. All the easy wins that could be had. This would be good for alliances in the top echelon but would be of no real use to the lower guys.

I hear you, but following my proposal you could just reject war challenges from high-level alliances and there would be no war. The game devs could even make this configurable by adding an adjustable "war opponent strength" parameter which each alliance could then tweak to their own liking.

For example, you could set it to a range of X and Y, thus auto-rejecting war challenges from opponents outside of this range. That way you would not be wasting time on battling extremely strong opponents, and you would not be wasting time battling extremely weak opponents.
 

dannemare

Approved user
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
96
By the way, have you guys seen the so-called World War leaderboard which is posted each month on the official DomiNations Facebook page?

foolish_ww_leaderboard1.png


Those alliances would be SLAUGHTERED, if they ever were to be matched up against the strongest WW alliances such as 1st Dynasty, United Allies, and Korea Army.

This Facebook WW ranking system is *completely* pointless. It is like doing a common goal score board for your kid's local soccer team together with the world cup scores. Not sure if I should cry or laugh. :)

foolish_ww_leaderboard2.png
 

Europeos

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
146
Another win for the 1st dynasty... 3rd one in a row against the same opponent. I hope we get a different one soon.
image_6470.jpg
 

Europeos

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
146
You're right, it's very incomplete. Mainly because most alliances which don't have a very good record don't post it... Suggestions are welcome :)
 
Top