@Kabam Miike
Based on what I have seen the only restriction on possible out comes is 2 alliances cant face each other back to back. There needs to be 1 war they don't face each other between wars. WIll any information be provided on a restriction such as this now that its not able to be manipulated?
(btw thanks for your input on name policy yesterday)
If one alliance in Master bracket have no luck and get multiple Times NY and lose many wars because of one Alliance....
When you lose to them, your rating drops and it’s highly unlikely you’ll get them again in the next matchup given the unified matchmaking. The only way you have a chance of matching them again is you win your next war and they lose their next.
Thing is, if you’re fighting for the top spot, and if it’s a sole contention between you and them, you’re bound to meet them multiple times.
Wait. You’re afraid?
The issue is not Master alliances being afraid to match each other.
The issue is that there is a significant difference in rewards for top 3, but the current T1 rating/multiplier encompasses about 30 top alliances. There should be a difference between the amount of points earned for #1 vs #2 ranked alliance, and a #29 vs #30 ranked alliance as the power levels are actually quite different despite these two matches both being currently classified as T1. Either everyone in T1 should have equal opportunity to match, meaning #1 plays #30 occasionally, or award more points for a harder match for top 5 alliances competing for ranks 1,2,3.
This new system will help to improve the following:
Helps ensure that Alliances are being matched against other Alliances with similar capabilities.
Minimizes Alliances missing Wars based on matchmaking time.
Helps to minimize Collusion.
These are all important steps in making Alliance Wars and Alliance Wars Seasons a fair, and competitive mode!
It seems reasonable, and I see you found the problem (and basically the same solution) with odd numbers I mentioned regarding this type of system.
I think this does represent half of the solution to the overall problem with match making in general: the specifics of *how* matches are found still has problematic properties. But if you are actually doing a top-down match making system that prioritizes war rating, then many of those issues will likely get suppressed. I'm sure we can revisit them if they continue to occur after the new system is in place. Mostly, I'm thinking one issue gets muted and one will crop up. The old issue is the need to match on both war rating and alliance rating in order to "seek" matches when the system can't find a good one in time. The new system mostly nullifies that situation. But the new problem that might come up is that the "best match" might start to become the same alliances over and over in certain pathological situations.
That might be unavoidable sometimes: maybe sometimes number one and number two should be fighting it out most of the time if they also completely destroy everyone else. But in practice, I think the system should try to find random matches within "good enough" ranges so it doesn't get stuck in a local-minima of two alliances or a tiny group of alliances just happening to be the best matches for each other repeatedly.
If one alliance in Master bracket have no luck and get multiple Times NY and lose many wars because of one Alliance....
When you lose to them, your rating drops and it’s highly unlikely you’ll get them again in the next matchup given the unified matchmaking. The only way you have a chance of matching them again is you win your next war and they lose their next.
Thing is, if you’re fighting for the top spot, and if it’s a sole contention between you and them, you’re bound to meet them multiple times.
Wait. You’re afraid?
The issue is not Master alliances being afraid to match each other.
The issue is that there is a significant difference in rewards for top 3, but the current T1 rating/multiplier encompasses about 30 top alliances. There should be a difference between the amount of points earned for #1 vs #2 ranked alliance, and a #29 vs #30 ranked alliance as the power levels are actually quite different despite these two matches both being currently classified as T1. Either everyone in T1 should have equal opportunity to match, meaning #1 plays #30 occasionally, or award more points for a harder match for top 5 alliances competing for ranks 1,2,3.
Yup I agree. This is why I suggested a follow up system to this that incorporates war rating into season score calculation as well.
Let me find the post somewhere and post the link here.
This topic mentions collusion, and the company is working to address this with revisions to the mode, but this also seems to cause more problems for players. As was mentioned above, some teams intentionally plan their matchmaking searches for legitimate reasons, like making sure their teammates are free from work, school or are not sleeping. The game is global, and some players timezones will limit their availability to fight, especially if they are waiting for a node to be removed.
It just seems like a lot of work is being done to work around cheating, but this hurts more alliances in the process. Isn't it just time to remove rewards period to cheating teams and/or players (both seasonal and individual match rewards)? There are people who track cheating teams, they're exposed on places like YouTube and Reddit, and constantly we see the same names of teams and players who seem to hurt the game more.
I fully realize that there is revenue to be made, and that not all accusations are proof, and that also not all cheaters get caught (unfortunately), but this change in timing, while hopefully helpful for matchmaking, seems like a problematic response to teams that keep getting away with breaking the rules.
If the same cheaters keep getting around your attempts to counter them, when will they be removed?
As for the timezone issue, it would be best if Alliance Wars lost their timers then, so that players could move as they needed. Or that timers were permanently shortened, so that schedules could be worked around.
No complaints with this process for Alliance Quest
This is great news! Can't wait to see the changes "live"
But one question, will you be posting the explanation also in the other foreign Kabam orums?
Thanks
What's the cut off to have all members in your alliance to participate? Does it have to be before matchmaking or before enlistment?
It will be before matchmaking. You can find a new recruit during Enlistment.
So to clarify.... whether voluntary or involuntary if a change is to be made to roster (mid war week) someone has to leave/be kicked before war is over to have new recruit in for next war?
... not to mention scheduling complications with AQ.
It looks like you have a 4 hour matchmaking session and a 20 hr put your defense in section.... Perhaps add a 2 hour personnel change window and shorten defense to 18 hours?
I believe how the system works is it gives a weighted score to alliance war rating and alliance prestige. Then the scores are tabulated, and #1 matches #2, #3 matches #4 etc.
In essence, the matchups will almost definitely be a fair one.
One issue this system doesn’t address is tanking and shell alliances. This can help by changing the way war ratings are calculated from an alliance perspective to an individual perspective, with the alliance rating being the average of all individuals in the alliance, and war ratings being part of score calculation. (I suggested this somewhere in the forums before)
Nope. It’s not fair. If you’re at the top all you match is the top. Makes room for alliances dying 30+ times to finish in top 3
If one alliance in Master bracket have no luck and get multiple Times NY and lose many wars because of one Alliance....
When you lose to them, your rating drops and it’s highly unlikely you’ll get them again in the next matchup given the unified matchmaking. The only way you have a chance of matching them again is you win your next war and they lose their next.
Thing is, if you’re fighting for the top spot, and if it’s a sole contention between you and them, you’re bound to meet them multiple times.
Wait. You’re afraid?
The issue is not Master alliances being afraid to match each other.
The issue is that there is a significant difference in rewards for top 3, but the current T1 rating/multiplier encompasses about 30 top alliances. There should be a difference between the amount of points earned for #1 vs #2 ranked alliance, and a #29 vs #30 ranked alliance as the power levels are actually quite different despite these two matches both being currently classified as T1. Either everyone in T1 should have equal opportunity to match, meaning #1 plays #30 occasionally, or award more points for a harder match for top 5 alliances competing for ranks 1,2,3.
The problem with this idea is that it runs counter to the problem Kabam addressed by reducing the multipliers at the top: that the multipliers created the potential for too large a gap to overcome by lower alliances.
If you make the amount of points earned by the top three alliances too much higher than the points anyone else can get when they fight each other, they can create a situation where no one can catch them while they continue to fight each other. It might seem unfair for them to have "harder" fights and yet no more points, but in a competition the goal is in fact to make it harder to stay at the top than to get to the top to promote more competition.
However I'm not opposed to your idea to mix up the matching in the top 30 though: I think that's actually a good idea in principle. In fact, I suggested a modification to the match making system where the system actually matched alliances based on win/loss record within a season. In other words, in war #1 everyone gets matched just like now. But in war #2, all the winners get matched against each other, and all the losers get matched against each other. So instead of #1 matching against #2, the highest winner gets matched against the second highest winner, and then on down. In war #3, all the two and zero alliances get matched against each other, all the one and one alliances get matched against each other, and all the oh and two alliances get matched against each other. And so on.
Eventually, not all top 30 alliances will get matched against each other, but winners are forced to face other winners. You can't "dodge" even accidentally the strongest alliances. Well, except by losing. In effect, war seasons gets resolved in something like a pseudo-tournament. It isn't a real tournament because there are fewer rounds than are necessary for the amount of alliances. Twelve wars can only "match up" about four thousand alliances. But that's actually comparable to the amount of alliances in Gold 3 and higher. It is *almost* a tournament for alliances above tier 9 or so.
So there are set times where alliances can enlist, basically very short time frames......and you honestly expect that your servers are going to be able to handle all of that?.....even within the current state of the game with the constant connection issues and lag?
Good changes IMO.. sad that people abuse matchmaking so much they have to take control out of summoners hands like this especially if your alliance has some mixed time zones.
It’s a nice change, but to make it a little better you can allow the alliance to chose the time, when they decide to enlist, within the first 8hrs (11am, 12pm, 1pm ••••• 7pm).
So there are set times where alliances can enlist, basically very short time frames......and you honestly expect that your servers are going to be able to handle all of that?.....even within the current state of the game with the constant connection issues and lag?
If I'm reading the announcement correctly, you can enlist for the next war the moment the previous one starts. In other words, all the while you are placing and then attacking in one war, you can be enlisting for the next one. So you have about two days to enlist for the upcoming war. The window from 11:00 to 16:00 (11am-4pm) is when the servers will be doing match making calculations, it isn't when you have to enlist for that upcoming war.
And what will be done against shell alliances? I think even more alliances will change their alliances to trick matchmaking and getting easier opponents.
So there are set times where alliances can enlist, basically very short time frames......and you honestly expect that your servers are going to be able to handle all of that?.....even within the current state of the game with the constant connection issues and lag?
If I'm reading the announcement correctly, you can enlist for the next war the moment the previous one starts. In other words, all the while you are placing and then attacking in one war, you can be enlisting for the next one. So you have about two days to enlist for the upcoming war. The window from 11:00 to 16:00 (11am-4pm) is when the servers will be doing match making calculations, it isn't when you have to enlist for that upcoming war.
Well thank you, that sounds more manageable than I was thinking.
@Kabam Miike could we get a rough estimate of how far in war rating the system will reach to? For example would a 3000 rated alliance ever be matched with a 3300 or 2700 alliance if there are plenty available within 2900-3100 and so on. Should we expect to face the same allies multiple times a season if they tend to hover around similar war ratings?
You should implement a punishment in AW rating for those alliance who does not enlist in war. Theres a lot of alliance with no activity that affects the quantity of alliances in a Tier and not giving others alliance the opportunity of having a higher multiplier.
What's the cut off to have all members in your alliance to participate? Does it have to be before matchmaking or before enlistment?
It will be before matchmaking. You can find a new recruit during Enlistment.
When you say "enlistment" the enlistment phase for War #N occurs in large part *during* war #N-1. You can't replace a member during that window because an actual war is going on (well, you can, but that's not what players are concerned about).
Really, the only safe window to swap a player gracefully appears to be during maintenance, not enlistment. Given the new system, I think it would be better if Kabam allows alliances to replace members during the defense placement window, so that if they join before attack phase starts they are free to place defenders and participate in the war.
Of course, if you lose a player involuntarily you can replace them immediately, but from where are you going to recruit? Players actually in other alliances would not want to leave in the middle of a war or before they get their individual war rewards if possible. That might force alliances that lose a member to have to wait for the Tuesday/Wednesday maintenance window to find replacements willing to jump.
Can a top Alliance matched again a other top Alliance multiple times in one Season?
This Change is for the Most top Alliances Really Bad
Poor guy. You might have to actually compete with someone on your level instead of steamrolling the lower alliances to stay on top. Tough life.
Let’s see we matched KenOB, wah!, ASR, etc. who did you match that’s comparable that would justify a top 3 or masters finish? You ever watch sports?
I guess mount Union college going undefeated against division III opponents would mean Alabama losing 1 game against division I would give Mount Union the national championship.
@Kabam Miike tell me how this isn’t the new system.
@Kabam Miike could we get a rough estimate of how far in war rating the system will reach to? For example would a 3000 rated alliance ever be matched with a 3300 or 2700 alliance if there are plenty available within 2900-3100 and so on. Should we expect to face the same allies multiple times a season if they tend to hover around similar war ratings?
The announcement seems to imply that "reach" is now moot. The system will start with the top rated alliance and find the closest match for it. If that closest match is 30 rating points away or 3000 rating points away, that's the match. The current system needs "ranges" to look because the current best match might not be an especially good one: it has to decide whether to take the current best match or wait for a potentially better one. But in the current system, the game always knows what the absolute best match will be, because it knows from the start what the ratings are for every alliance participating in that war. No better match is ever coming along.
My guess is that when it comes to having a lot of alliances with identical ratings the game will match them all randomly. And unless you tie, you can't face the same alliance again because one of you will win and one will lose, except perhaps at the very top when #1 and #2 face each other and no one else catches up to the loser.
It will be interesting to see if rematches are more or less common in the new system. We had one rematch in season six and so far one in season seven, happening basically as you'd expect: we lost the first one, won the next war, and because we went down and then up we were able to face the same alliance again (who won and then lost to also arrive at about the same rating). Since we both start matches at about the same time (which is how we matched in the first place) the odds of facing each other again are actually pretty good if we bounce rating (up/down or down/up) because there probably aren't all that many alliances with the same rating and looking at the exact same time. In the newer system we are less likely to face that same alliance again because now match making will be looking across more alliances. But perhaps at very high tiers this is reversed, and alliances might be more likely to see rematches because now the game has a better chance to find "best" matches.
While not a bad start, it needs tweaking @Kabam Miike .
For starters, not all alliances have people in the same timezones. This is gonna cause huge problems.
The fix is VERY easy though.
Have everyone place defense like you outline. Have everyone opt-in to AW, as you have said, however, have a sliding 6 hour attack window, when the alliance can pick a more optimal time for THEM. Yes, alliances won't finish at the same time, but, who cares. The leaderboard scores will only be updated when BOTH alliances from the war are done.
For this to work correctly, you can't lock champs in AW anymore, but, that is a small price to pay to have everyone play at a more reasonable time at their choosing.
I agree with @DNA3000 above. Like the changes overall (matchmaking games were the root of huge problems), but there is a major issue with regards to player movement between alliances and reward distribution / event timings.
But I will say that the issues we're concerned with are fixable (depends on codebase how easily fixable)... Players COULD get the rewards for a war they participated in even if kicked mid-war. Players could get pro-rata % of rewards achieved in 3day alliance events even if kicked before they ended. Players COULD place defenders even if they joined after matchmaking. Kabam would just need to change a few things around. And frankly, I think a lot of those changes would actually make sense/be more fair. As it is currently, the coordination and timing around moving between new alliances, or recruiting others in, is a TON of effort and kind of a nightmare, and that doesn't even approach the nightmare that arises when folks get accidentally kicked or shadily replaced because an ally found someone better. People should get rewards based on what they participate in, and if that were the case from the get go, a lot of the stress around player movement would probably drop away.
While not a bad start, it needs tweaking @Kabam Miike .
For starters, not all alliances have people in the same timezones. This is gonna cause huge problems.
The fix is VERY easy though.
Have everyone place defense like you outline. Have everyone opt-in to AW, as you have said, however, have a sliding 6 hour attack window, when the alliance can pick a more optimal time for THEM. Yes, alliances won't finish at the same time, but, who cares. The leaderboard scores will only be updated when BOTH alliances from the war are done.
For this to work correctly, you can't lock champs in AW anymore, but, that is a small price to pay to have everyone play at a more reasonable time at their choosing.
It sounds easy, but this basic idea has been kicked around the forums since season one and this has been discussed previously. It is problematic to have that sliding window because there's no obvious place that time can come from. You can't shorten the attack phase. You could shorten the placement phase but then it has already been shortened by five hours for the match making calculations. An additional six hours means defense placement drops to only thirteen hours and now some alliances might not be able to place properly. You can't steal it from maintenance since match making itself occurs in a specific time: to distribute the maintenance time across all three wars requires shifting match making windows forward six hours, drifting them around during the day. That's probably less desirable so everything else must compress into the same time windows between match making.
Everyone complaining about start times matching up is rubbish
Everyone has same AQ start time and have to link the exact same in map6 to take down nodes and everything works fine. PLUS YOU HAVE 3 different BGs.. if there is a scheduling conflict, rotate a player or two.
This is the best way to do it fairly on that note.
What I don’t get is same multiplier if that’s true,. This would make no sense as if we go 13-0 at plat 3 get 1st over the top guys facing eachother every war..
But they most 100% should. Because the #1spot right now hasn’t faced a single alliance in the top 5. Happy that is fixed so we will know who the best alliance really is
There are chats that master alliances participate in to not match eachother.. 6 hour slide window would defeat the purpose of this matchmaking fix.
Do not change it.. alliances are split into 3 BGs, they run map 6 fine as it is.. there is no diff than having to log AW and do a couple fights. Everyone has 24 hours in a day to fight.
Comments
Based on what I have seen the only restriction on possible out comes is 2 alliances cant face each other back to back. There needs to be 1 war they don't face each other between wars. WIll any information be provided on a restriction such as this now that its not able to be manipulated?
(btw thanks for your input on name policy yesterday)
The issue is not Master alliances being afraid to match each other.
The issue is that there is a significant difference in rewards for top 3, but the current T1 rating/multiplier encompasses about 30 top alliances. There should be a difference between the amount of points earned for #1 vs #2 ranked alliance, and a #29 vs #30 ranked alliance as the power levels are actually quite different despite these two matches both being currently classified as T1. Either everyone in T1 should have equal opportunity to match, meaning #1 plays #30 occasionally, or award more points for a harder match for top 5 alliances competing for ranks 1,2,3.
It seems reasonable, and I see you found the problem (and basically the same solution) with odd numbers I mentioned regarding this type of system.
I think this does represent half of the solution to the overall problem with match making in general: the specifics of *how* matches are found still has problematic properties. But if you are actually doing a top-down match making system that prioritizes war rating, then many of those issues will likely get suppressed. I'm sure we can revisit them if they continue to occur after the new system is in place. Mostly, I'm thinking one issue gets muted and one will crop up. The old issue is the need to match on both war rating and alliance rating in order to "seek" matches when the system can't find a good one in time. The new system mostly nullifies that situation. But the new problem that might come up is that the "best match" might start to become the same alliances over and over in certain pathological situations.
That might be unavoidable sometimes: maybe sometimes number one and number two should be fighting it out most of the time if they also completely destroy everyone else. But in practice, I think the system should try to find random matches within "good enough" ranges so it doesn't get stuck in a local-minima of two alliances or a tiny group of alliances just happening to be the best matches for each other repeatedly.
Poor guy. You might have to actually compete with someone on your level instead of steamrolling the lower alliances to stay on top. Tough life.
I remember now brought this up in March 2018 at the end of season 1 glad to see action taken
Yup I agree. This is why I suggested a follow up system to this that incorporates war rating into season score calculation as well.
Let me find the post somewhere and post the link here.
No complaints with this process for Alliance Quest
But one question, will you be posting the explanation also in the other foreign Kabam orums?
Thanks
So to clarify.... whether voluntary or involuntary if a change is to be made to roster (mid war week) someone has to leave/be kicked before war is over to have new recruit in for next war?
... not to mention scheduling complications with AQ.
It looks like you have a 4 hour matchmaking session and a 20 hr put your defense in section.... Perhaps add a 2 hour personnel change window and shorten defense to 18 hours?
Nope. It’s not fair. If you’re at the top all you match is the top. Makes room for alliances dying 30+ times to finish in top 3
The problem with this idea is that it runs counter to the problem Kabam addressed by reducing the multipliers at the top: that the multipliers created the potential for too large a gap to overcome by lower alliances.
If you make the amount of points earned by the top three alliances too much higher than the points anyone else can get when they fight each other, they can create a situation where no one can catch them while they continue to fight each other. It might seem unfair for them to have "harder" fights and yet no more points, but in a competition the goal is in fact to make it harder to stay at the top than to get to the top to promote more competition.
However I'm not opposed to your idea to mix up the matching in the top 30 though: I think that's actually a good idea in principle. In fact, I suggested a modification to the match making system where the system actually matched alliances based on win/loss record within a season. In other words, in war #1 everyone gets matched just like now. But in war #2, all the winners get matched against each other, and all the losers get matched against each other. So instead of #1 matching against #2, the highest winner gets matched against the second highest winner, and then on down. In war #3, all the two and zero alliances get matched against each other, all the one and one alliances get matched against each other, and all the oh and two alliances get matched against each other. And so on.
Eventually, not all top 30 alliances will get matched against each other, but winners are forced to face other winners. You can't "dodge" even accidentally the strongest alliances. Well, except by losing. In effect, war seasons gets resolved in something like a pseudo-tournament. It isn't a real tournament because there are fewer rounds than are necessary for the amount of alliances. Twelve wars can only "match up" about four thousand alliances. But that's actually comparable to the amount of alliances in Gold 3 and higher. It is *almost* a tournament for alliances above tier 9 or so.
If I'm reading the announcement correctly, you can enlist for the next war the moment the previous one starts. In other words, all the while you are placing and then attacking in one war, you can be enlisting for the next one. So you have about two days to enlist for the upcoming war. The window from 11:00 to 16:00 (11am-4pm) is when the servers will be doing match making calculations, it isn't when you have to enlist for that upcoming war.
Well thank you, that sounds more manageable than I was thinking.
When you say "enlistment" the enlistment phase for War #N occurs in large part *during* war #N-1. You can't replace a member during that window because an actual war is going on (well, you can, but that's not what players are concerned about).
Really, the only safe window to swap a player gracefully appears to be during maintenance, not enlistment. Given the new system, I think it would be better if Kabam allows alliances to replace members during the defense placement window, so that if they join before attack phase starts they are free to place defenders and participate in the war.
Of course, if you lose a player involuntarily you can replace them immediately, but from where are you going to recruit? Players actually in other alliances would not want to leave in the middle of a war or before they get their individual war rewards if possible. That might force alliances that lose a member to have to wait for the Tuesday/Wednesday maintenance window to find replacements willing to jump.
Let’s see we matched KenOB, wah!, ASR, etc. who did you match that’s comparable that would justify a top 3 or masters finish? You ever watch sports?
I guess mount Union college going undefeated against division III opponents would mean Alabama losing 1 game against division I would give Mount Union the national championship.
@Kabam Miike tell me how this isn’t the new system.
The announcement seems to imply that "reach" is now moot. The system will start with the top rated alliance and find the closest match for it. If that closest match is 30 rating points away or 3000 rating points away, that's the match. The current system needs "ranges" to look because the current best match might not be an especially good one: it has to decide whether to take the current best match or wait for a potentially better one. But in the current system, the game always knows what the absolute best match will be, because it knows from the start what the ratings are for every alliance participating in that war. No better match is ever coming along.
My guess is that when it comes to having a lot of alliances with identical ratings the game will match them all randomly. And unless you tie, you can't face the same alliance again because one of you will win and one will lose, except perhaps at the very top when #1 and #2 face each other and no one else catches up to the loser.
It will be interesting to see if rematches are more or less common in the new system. We had one rematch in season six and so far one in season seven, happening basically as you'd expect: we lost the first one, won the next war, and because we went down and then up we were able to face the same alliance again (who won and then lost to also arrive at about the same rating). Since we both start matches at about the same time (which is how we matched in the first place) the odds of facing each other again are actually pretty good if we bounce rating (up/down or down/up) because there probably aren't all that many alliances with the same rating and looking at the exact same time. In the newer system we are less likely to face that same alliance again because now match making will be looking across more alliances. But perhaps at very high tiers this is reversed, and alliances might be more likely to see rematches because now the game has a better chance to find "best" matches.
For starters, not all alliances have people in the same timezones. This is gonna cause huge problems.
The fix is VERY easy though.
Have everyone place defense like you outline. Have everyone opt-in to AW, as you have said, however, have a sliding 6 hour attack window, when the alliance can pick a more optimal time for THEM. Yes, alliances won't finish at the same time, but, who cares. The leaderboard scores will only be updated when BOTH alliances from the war are done.
For this to work correctly, you can't lock champs in AW anymore, but, that is a small price to pay to have everyone play at a more reasonable time at their choosing.
But I will say that the issues we're concerned with are fixable (depends on codebase how easily fixable)... Players COULD get the rewards for a war they participated in even if kicked mid-war. Players could get pro-rata % of rewards achieved in 3day alliance events even if kicked before they ended. Players COULD place defenders even if they joined after matchmaking. Kabam would just need to change a few things around. And frankly, I think a lot of those changes would actually make sense/be more fair. As it is currently, the coordination and timing around moving between new alliances, or recruiting others in, is a TON of effort and kind of a nightmare, and that doesn't even approach the nightmare that arises when folks get accidentally kicked or shadily replaced because an ally found someone better. People should get rewards based on what they participate in, and if that were the case from the get go, a lot of the stress around player movement would probably drop away.
It sounds easy, but this basic idea has been kicked around the forums since season one and this has been discussed previously. It is problematic to have that sliding window because there's no obvious place that time can come from. You can't shorten the attack phase. You could shorten the placement phase but then it has already been shortened by five hours for the match making calculations. An additional six hours means defense placement drops to only thirteen hours and now some alliances might not be able to place properly. You can't steal it from maintenance since match making itself occurs in a specific time: to distribute the maintenance time across all three wars requires shifting match making windows forward six hours, drifting them around during the day. That's probably less desirable so everything else must compress into the same time windows between match making.
Everyone complaining about start times matching up is rubbish
Everyone has same AQ start time and have to link the exact same in map6 to take down nodes and everything works fine. PLUS YOU HAVE 3 different BGs.. if there is a scheduling conflict, rotate a player or two.
This is the best way to do it fairly on that note.
What I don’t get is same multiplier if that’s true,. This would make no sense as if we go 13-0 at plat 3 get 1st over the top guys facing eachother every war..
But they most 100% should. Because the #1spot right now hasn’t faced a single alliance in the top 5. Happy that is fixed so we will know who the best alliance really is
Do not change it.. alliances are split into 3 BGs, they run map 6 fine as it is.. there is no diff than having to log AW and do a couple fights. Everyone has 24 hours in a day to fight.