Alliance War Tier System Needs an Overhaul

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

LordSmasher

They are two different things:
* Tier equal your win/loss -> the multiplier doesn't factor
* Points equal your season rewards -> the multiplier does factor

If you keep winning you will move a tiers as your War Rating (currently 2,311 from the shot) will got up

Is my math correct or am I missing something?

What you're missing is that your point multiplier is based on war tier, not season bracket. A tier 4 alliance can win all their wars and lose to a tier 3 alliance that loses all their wars only if their multipliers are frozen, which they are not. In reality, a tier 4 alliance that wins all their wars won't be in tier 4 for an entire season, and neither will a tier 3 that loses all their wars. A tier 4 that keeps winning will eventually overtake a tier 3 that keeps losing because eventually the tier 4 will become tier 3 and vice versa.

QuikPik

It is exceptionally difficult for a tier 4 alliance to break into P3 with the current multipliers.

Assume you get 190k points per win and 160k points per loss.

If an alliance starts the war season in tier 4 and goes 8 and 1 in the first 9 wars and finally breaks into tier 3. They then go 2-1 whilst in tier 3. Finishing up at 10-2 which is an incredible season; they'd have 10.8 million season points.

An alliance that starts in tier 3 and goes 5-7 would finish with 12.42 million points. Going 5-7 will most likely not drop you out of tier 3 unless you were at the very bottom edge. Even an alliance that finished 4-8 will still get 12.24 million points and could very well stay in tier 3.

The multiplier between tier 3 and 4 is the only one where it's a jump of 1.5 percentage points.

@DNA3000 double check my math

Kabam,
I’m in a platinum 4 alliance. We’re currently in tier 4 and desperately trying to move up. We’ve hit a wall and I think I see why.

For numbers sake let’s say each war gets 160k points for 100% clearing the 3 maps.

Lets say we win in tier 4 at 4.5x multiplier and that comes with a 30k bonus. We get 4.5x 190k = 855k points.

Now let’s say a tier 3 alliance with 6x multiplier loses but clears all their maps at 160k. 6x 160k = 960k points.

We win in tier 4 and the tier above us loses their war but doesn’t lose any ground in terms of ranking. The only way I can losing out of your aw tier is by not clearing the maps. As long as you do that, pretty much regardless of the small attack bonus difference, the lower tier can never bump you out.

Is my math correct or am I missing something? It looks like a platinum 4 tier 3 alliance can’t ever get bumped down as long as they keep clearing maps, regardless of performance.

Even if they get 0 attack bonus, that’s not going to make up the 105k point difference.

It’s to prevent shell alliances. There’s no more incentive to switch alliances since a loss in a higher tier grants about the same points than a win in a lower one.

SirGamesBond

Takes time my guy! Keep those wins going...
That's the Progression ladder everyone needs to climb for higher rewards.

Is my math correct or am I missing something?
What you're missing is that your point multiplier is based on war tier, not season bracket. A tier 4 alliance can win all their wars and lose to a tier 3 alliance that loses all their wars only if their multipliers are frozen, which they are not. In reality, a tier 4 alliance that wins all their wars won't be in tier 4 for an entire season, and neither will a tier 3 that loses all their wars. A tier 4 that keeps winning will eventually overtake a tier 3 that keeps losing because eventually the tier 4 will become tier 3 and vice versa.

I think my issue is I need an explanation on what the different point values are used for and what determines your war bracket.

When we win a war we get +xx that increases our war rating. As far as I see that number is only used to match you to another alliance during matchmaking to a similar rated alliance, regardless if they’re in different brackets.

Then there’s the total season points which are based off your tier bracket for the point multiplier that determine season rewards.

What do we need to improve to move up tiers or to platinum 3? Last season we won 5 wars in a row during the season and are still platinum 4 tier 4. That’s the same rank we are now and this season we’re 6-3.

What determines how you move up war ranks? I can’t find any explanation with the new points structure how to move up or down. Should we focus on just getting the win to increase our war rating or focus on getting the most points for exploring the maps?

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

The point is kabam hasn’t

It is exceptionally difficult for a tier 4 alliance to break into P3 with the current multipliers.

Assume you get 190k points per win and 160k points per loss.

If an alliance starts the war season in plat 4 and goes 8 and 1 in the first 9 wars and finally breaks into tier 3. They then go 2-1 whilst in tier 3. Finishing up at 10-2 which is an incredible season; they'd have 10.8 million season points.

An alliance that starts in tier 3 and goes 5-7 would finish with 12.42 million points. Going 5-7 will most likely not drop you out of tier 3 unless you were at the very bottom edge. Even an alliance that finished 4-8 will still get 12.24 million points and could very well stay in tier 3.

The multiplier between tier 3 and 4 is the only one where it's a jump of 1.5 percentage points.

@DNA3000 double check my math
What is the point of this post? Obviously it's going to be hard for a t4 alliance to get plat 3, that's how it's supposed to work. If you want higher season rewards you need to be a higher tier

Point being I don’t think kabam updated multipliers for the different tiers when they updated the scoring structure. As the title says, I think the points system needs reviewed and possibly overhauled to make it competitive. Otherwise you’re going to have alliances at platinum 2 and 3 just winning 50/50 to stay where they are and not putting much in versus actually pushing for wins to stay where they are. The points multiplier structure builds in complacency. Not an indication of season performance.

This content has been removed.

The point is kabam hasn’t
It is exceptionally difficult for a tier 4 alliance to break into P3 with the current multipliers.

Assume you get 190k points per win and 160k points per loss.

If an alliance starts the war season in plat 4 and goes 8 and 1 in the first 9 wars and finally breaks into tier 3. They then go 2-1 whilst in tier 3. Finishing up at 10-2 which is an incredible season; they'd have 10.8 million season points.

An alliance that starts in tier 3 and goes 5-7 would finish with 12.42 million points. Going 5-7 will most likely not drop you out of tier 3 unless you were at the very bottom edge. Even an alliance that finished 4-8 will still get 12.24 million points and could very well stay in tier 3.

The multiplier between tier 3 and 4 is the only one where it's a jump of 1.5 percentage points.

@DNA3000 double check my math
What is the point of this post? Obviously it's going to be hard for a t4 alliance to get plat 3, that's how it's supposed to work. If you want higher season rewards you need to be a higher tier
Point being I don’t think kabam updated multipliers for the different tiers when they updated the scoring structure. As the title says, I think the points system needs reviewed and possibly overhauled to make it competitive. Otherwise you’re going to have alliances at platinum 2 and 3 just winning 50/50 to stay where they are and not putting much in versus actually pushing for wins to stay where they are. The points multiplier structure builds in complacency. Not an indication of season performance.
Again war tier is entirely based on war rating so if an alliance gains more war rating then they lose on average they will slowly over time move up in tiers.

You could get 3 matches in a row that just gives you 5 war rating for winning because it's a really easy matchup and then get 1 loss and lose 50 rating so you'll be at a net negative

So war rating is what determines your bracket? Because in March 2021 kabam said rating is only used for matchmaking.

https://help.kabamsupport.com/hc/en-us/articles/360057197712-Alliance-Wars-Guide

If the points multiplier system is used to determine total season points to determine rankings, then there’s a roadblock at platinum 4 tier 4 with a 1.5% point multiplier to go to tier 3 that can never be overcome unless alliances in higher brackets just quit altogether.

This content has been removed.

It is exceptionally difficult for a tier 4 alliance to break into P3 with the current multipliers.

Assume you get 190k points per win and 160k points per loss.

If an alliance starts the war season in tier 4 and goes 8 and 1 in the first 9 wars and finally breaks into tier 3. They then go 2-1 whilst in tier 3. Finishing up at 10-2 which is an incredible season; they'd have 10.8 million season points.

An alliance that starts in tier 3 and goes 5-7 would finish with 12.42 million points. Going 5-7 will most likely not drop you out of tier 3 unless you were at the very bottom edge. Even an alliance that finished 4-8 will still get 12.24 million points and could very well stay in tier 3.

The multiplier between tier 3 and 4 is the only one where it's a jump of 1.5 percentage points.

@DNA3000 double check my math

Your numbers appear to be correct. However, what's missing from this picture is the fact that it takes very special circumstances for this specific sequence of events to happen, and they aren't sustainable. In other words, a tier 4 alliance doesn't just randomly go eight and one in its first nine wars and still somehow stay in tier 4. I'm not 100% certain that's even possible, but if it is that alliance somehow went from the bottom of tier 4 to the top of tier 4 in a single run. Going 10 and 2 overall and ending up in tier 3 is either an incredibly lucky series of fortunate match ups, sometimes with alliances who happen to disappear into the Bermuda Triangle, or it is an alliance that actually belongs in tier 3 in terms of their actual strength and was just rated temporarily lower than their true strength. Such an alliance could find themselves scoring fewer points in one season, but by the end of that season they would be placed in a more appropriate tier and earning more points.

The game has no magical way of rating alliances without watching them fight it out. So in a sense, everyone's rating is "wrong" until they fight enough wars to make it "right." Whenever something changes, like someone leaves or someone replaces someone else or even just the actual players get better at the game, the game can only adjust that alliance's rating over a period of time, and over a set of competitive wars. This means an alliance might score "the wrong" amount of points temporarily, but the system eventually nudges alliances to their correct places over time.

It isn't perfect, but there's no better system. There's no way to know how strong an alliance is, except by comparing them to other alliances, and that's basically what competitive season wars do.

To put it another way, your hypothetical tier 4 alliance was really a tier 3 alliance that just had not yet earned a tier 3 rating on the field. Until they did, they were earning less points than they were capable of earning, but that's just part of how the system works over time. An alliance that is intrinsically as strong as the average tier 4 alliance will likely win about half their wars in tier 4 and stay in tier 4 and get outscored by an alliance that is as strong as the average tier 3 alliance and wins about half their wars in tier 3. That's intentional. Alliances capable of winning the vast majority of their wars in one tier are probably stronger than that tier, and just need to win enough wars to move into their true tier. During that period of time, they will underperform their true strength for a while until they get there.

The point is kabam hasn’t
It is exceptionally difficult for a tier 4 alliance to break into P3 with the current multipliers.

Assume you get 190k points per win and 160k points per loss.

If an alliance starts the war season in plat 4 and goes 8 and 1 in the first 9 wars and finally breaks into tier 3. They then go 2-1 whilst in tier 3. Finishing up at 10-2 which is an incredible season; they'd have 10.8 million season points.

An alliance that starts in tier 3 and goes 5-7 would finish with 12.42 million points. Going 5-7 will most likely not drop you out of tier 3 unless you were at the very bottom edge. Even an alliance that finished 4-8 will still get 12.24 million points and could very well stay in tier 3.

The multiplier between tier 3 and 4 is the only one where it's a jump of 1.5 percentage points.

@DNA3000 double check my math
What is the point of this post? Obviously it's going to be hard for a t4 alliance to get plat 3, that's how it's supposed to work. If you want higher season rewards you need to be a higher tier
Point being I don’t think kabam updated multipliers for the different tiers when they updated the scoring structure. As the title says, I think the points system needs reviewed and possibly overhauled to make it competitive. Otherwise you’re going to have alliances at platinum 2 and 3 just winning 50/50 to stay where they are and not putting much in versus actually pushing for wins to stay where they are. The points multiplier structure builds in complacency. Not an indication of season performance.

That’s the whole idea. Winning 50/50 at a specific tier should grant you that bracket rewards (ie Tier 2 for P2, Tier 3 for P3).

You cannot say that a war in Tier 2 is easier than a war in Tier 3. Higher tiers generally have higher ranked defenders and in Tier 2 onwards, harder nodes.

An alliance taking it easy in Tier 2 with 50/50 doesn’t mean your alliance can take it easy in that same tier. They likely have the defenders and basic skills/champs to do so.

War tier is based on % based on rankings of alliances’ war ratings. Iirc, Tier 1 is top 1%. Tier 2 is 2-3%, tier 3 is 4-5%, while tier 4 is 5-10%. So if you’re in Tier 4, it likely means you’re in the top 5-10% bracket and as you gradually win more wars, your war rating increases and you’ll move up in Tiers, earning a higher multiplier.

I can guarantee that almost any Tier 4 alliance, matched with a Tier 3 alliance, will feel the difference in defenders and deaths.

You’re looking at 1-2 R3 defenders per person (about 15-20 R3 defenders for the BG) for a Tier 4 alliance, against 4-5 R3 defenders per person (40-45 R3 defenders for the BG) for a Tier 3 alliance.

True enough, a skilled Tier 4 alliance can take down a “take it easy” Tier 3 alliance. But more likely than not, a tier 4 alliance is usually at tier 4 because that’s where they are supposed to be.

Is my math correct or am I missing something?
What you're missing is that your point multiplier is based on war tier, not season bracket. A tier 4 alliance can win all their wars and lose to a tier 3 alliance that loses all their wars only if their multipliers are frozen, which they are not. In reality, a tier 4 alliance that wins all their wars won't be in tier 4 for an entire season, and neither will a tier 3 that loses all their wars. A tier 4 that keeps winning will eventually overtake a tier 3 that keeps losing because eventually the tier 4 will become tier 3 and vice versa.
I think my issue is I need an explanation on what the different point values are used for and what determines your war bracket.

When we win a war we get +xx that increases our war rating. As far as I see that number is only used to match you to another alliance during matchmaking to a similar rated alliance, regardless if they’re in different brackets.

Then there’s the total season points which are based off your tier bracket for the point multiplier that determine season rewards.

What do we need to improve to move up tiers or to platinum 3? Last season we won 5 wars in a row during the season and are still platinum 4 tier 4. That’s the same rank we are now and this season we’re 6-3.

What determines how you move up war ranks? I can’t find any explanation with the new points structure how to move up or down. Should we focus on just getting the win to increase our war rating or focus on getting the most points for exploring the maps?

War rating determines your war tier, and thus your point multiplier. War rating is ultimately determined by your win/loss record. Win more, and you get a higher rating, lose, and you get a lower rating. War rating is a measure of how strong you are, compared to the competition.

War bracket is determined by how much points you score, which is a measure of how well you execute each war and how strong you and your competition is. If you're in a higher rating alliance and your competition is also in a higher rating alliance, your point multipliers will be higher and you'll score more points.

Imagine a group of very weak alliances all fighting each other. They all beat each other about half the time, so they go six and six during a season. Now imagine a group of super strong alliances all fighting each other, and also beating each other about half the time and going six and six during a season. Most people would say that the average strong alliance that went 6-6 fighting against top tier competition worked a lot harder for that record than the average weak alliance that also went 6-6 and ended with the same record. Both alliances will end the season at or near the same war rating, because they won and lost an even amount of wars. But the strong alliances will score more points because they had the higher multiplier, so they earn more points per war, win or lose, than weaker alliances with much lower rating.

This is intentional. If you want to earn more season rewards, you need to score more points. To score more points you need to face harder competition. To face harder competition you need to win more than you lose, so your war rating goes up, and you face alliances with similarly higher rating.

DNA’s post is always so detailed and nicely phrased.

*gushes* 😂

Crys23

War rating is self explanatory, it expresses your strength in war and difficulty you face. It matches you with similar rated opponents and gives you points based on that rating (the multiplier). You want more points, better rewards? Win, get war rating higher, meaning you'll face tougher defenses. If you can't yet (hit a wall), improve your roster, recruit players with better rosters, grow as an alliance.

Point being I don’t think kabam updated multipliers for the different tiers when they updated the scoring structure. As the title says, I think the points system needs reviewed and possibly overhauled to make it competitive. Otherwise you’re going to have alliances at platinum 2 and 3 just winning 50/50 to stay where they are and not putting much in versus actually pushing for wins to stay where they are. The points multiplier structure builds in complacency. Not an indication of season performance.

You appear to be operating under a misconception: that an alliance that goes 50/50 is just sitting back and not putting in much effort. That's false. In point of fact, no matter how much effort you put in, you're almost guaranteed to end up going about 6-6 in every season on average, eventually.

This is inevitable. Imagine two alliances, one putting in maximum effort, and one cruising along putting in minimal effort. The max alliance keeps winning, and winning, and winning. Unless they are the best alliance in the game, this cannot continue, because with every win their rating increases, and their competition gets harder, and eventually they are facing alliances exactly as strong as they are, factoring in their max effort. At that point, they *must* win about half their wars. That's what facing equal competition means. If they continue to win more than half, they will continue to rise in rating, and continue to face harder and harder competition until they are finally stopped by alliances sufficiently strong that they *cannot* beat more than half of them on average. This is literally impossible to avoid, unless you're one of the absolutely strongest alliances in the game.

Conversely, look at the cruise alliance. They lose. And lose. And lose. But this too cannot go on forever. Eventually they drop low enough that even their low effort is enough to start winning. They stop dropping when they start winning about half their wars, and then their rating stabilizes. Both alliances, the max effort and the cruise alliance end up winning about half their wars and stabilizing at a war rating that roughly measures how strong they are, factoring in their effort. Those alliances can now only rise or fall if they change their effort, or their members.

It is literally impossible to force people to "push" just to stay where they are. Because all alliance wars are head to head, for every winner there's a loser. You can't change that equation. Someone wins, someone loses: someone goes up, someone else goes down. Everyone picks the level of effort they want to expend, and then every alliance rises or falls to the level appropriate to that level of effort. The scoring system can't really change that, because rewards are not based on effort. They are based on rank. Someone has to be first, someone has to be second, irrespective of effort.

Point being I don’t think kabam updated multipliers for the different tiers when they updated the scoring structure. As the title says, I think the points system needs reviewed and possibly overhauled to make it competitive. Otherwise you’re going to have alliances at platinum 2 and 3 just winning 50/50 to stay where they are and not putting much in versus actually pushing for wins to stay where they are. The points multiplier structure builds in complacency. Not an indication of season performance.
You appear to be operating under a misconception: that an alliance that goes 50/50 is just sitting back and not putting in much effort. That's false. In point of fact, no matter how much effort you put in, you're almost guaranteed to end up going about 6-6 in every season on average, eventually.

This is inevitable. Imagine two alliances, one putting in maximum effort, and one cruising along putting in minimal effort. The max alliance keeps winning, and winning, and winning. Unless they are the best alliance in the game, this cannot continue, because with every win their rating increases, and their competition gets harder, and eventually they are facing alliances exactly as strong as they are, factoring in their max effort. At that point, they *must* win about half their wars. That's what facing equal competition means. If they continue to win more than half, they will continue to rise in rating, and continue to face harder and harder competition until they are finally stopped by alliances sufficiently strong that they *cannot* beat more than half of them on average. This is literally impossible to avoid, unless you're one of the absolutely strongest alliances in the game.

Conversely, look at the cruise alliance. They lose. And lose. And lose. But this too cannot go on forever. Eventually they drop low enough that even their low effort is enough to start winning. They stop dropping when they start winning about half their wars, and then their rating stabilizes. Both alliances, the max effort and the cruise alliance end up winning about half their wars and stabilizing at a war rating that roughly measures how strong they are, factoring in their effort. Those alliances can now only rise or fall if they change their effort, or their members.

It is literally impossible to force people to "push" just to stay where they are. Because all alliance wars are head to head, for every winner there's a loser. You can't change that equation. Someone wins, someone loses: someone goes up, someone else goes down. Everyone picks the level of effort they want to expend, and then every alliance rises or falls to the level appropriate to that level of effort. The scoring system can't really change that, because rewards are not based on effort. They are based on rank. Someone has to be first, someone has to be second, irrespective of effort.

I get the win more and you’re suppose to advance. Rating isn’t necessarily equal to the level of champs because there’s item usage, boosts, etc ally’s can use to help them level the field against an ally that doesn’t use items for instance.

What I’m saying is the math doesn’t support your argument. An ally at tier 3 platinum 4 can lose every match and just show up and score 160k points at 6 times multiplier and get 960k points. A platinum 4 tier 4 alliance can win every war and only score 190k at 4.5 multiplier for 855k points.

How does the math support ranking up to tier 3 or higher? Considering all ally’s at platinum level are 100% exploring the maps. Even losing all of the attack bonus and diversity points at tier 3 won’t close the gap to a tier 4 ally winning the war and getting all of the bonuses.

This content has been removed.

Point being I don’t think kabam updated multipliers for the different tiers when they updated the scoring structure. As the title says, I think the points system needs reviewed and possibly overhauled to make it competitive. Otherwise you’re going to have alliances at platinum 2 and 3 just winning 50/50 to stay where they are and not putting much in versus actually pushing for wins to stay where they are. The points multiplier structure builds in complacency. Not an indication of season performance.
You appear to be operating under a misconception: that an alliance that goes 50/50 is just sitting back and not putting in much effort. That's false. In point of fact, no matter how much effort you put in, you're almost guaranteed to end up going about 6-6 in every season on average, eventually.

This is inevitable. Imagine two alliances, one putting in maximum effort, and one cruising along putting in minimal effort. The max alliance keeps winning, and winning, and winning. Unless they are the best alliance in the game, this cannot continue, because with every win their rating increases, and their competition gets harder, and eventually they are facing alliances exactly as strong as they are, factoring in their max effort. At that point, they *must* win about half their wars. That's what facing equal competition means. If they continue to win more than half, they will continue to rise in rating, and continue to face harder and harder competition until they are finally stopped by alliances sufficiently strong that they *cannot* beat more than half of them on average. This is literally impossible to avoid, unless you're one of the absolutely strongest alliances in the game.

Conversely, look at the cruise alliance. They lose. And lose. And lose. But this too cannot go on forever. Eventually they drop low enough that even their low effort is enough to start winning. They stop dropping when they start winning about half their wars, and then their rating stabilizes. Both alliances, the max effort and the cruise alliance end up winning about half their wars and stabilizing at a war rating that roughly measures how strong they are, factoring in their effort. Those alliances can now only rise or fall if they change their effort, or their members.

It is literally impossible to force people to "push" just to stay where they are. Because all alliance wars are head to head, for every winner there's a loser. You can't change that equation. Someone wins, someone loses: someone goes up, someone else goes down. Everyone picks the level of effort they want to expend, and then every alliance rises or falls to the level appropriate to that level of effort. The scoring system can't really change that, because rewards are not based on effort. They are based on rank. Someone has to be first, someone has to be second, irrespective of effort.
I get the win more and you’re suppose to advance. Rating isn’t necessarily equal to the level of champs because there’s item usage, boosts, etc ally’s can use to help them level the field against an ally that doesn’t use items for instance.

What I’m saying is the math doesn’t support your argument. An ally at tier 3 platinum 4 can lose every match and just show up and score 160k points at 6 times multiplier and get 960k points. A platinum 4 tier 4 alliance can win every war and only score 190k at 4.5 multiplier for 855k points.

How does the math support ranking up to tier 3 or higher? Considering all ally’s at platinum level are 100% exploring the maps. Even losing all of the attack bonus and diversity points at tier 3 won’t close the gap to a tier 4 ally winning the war and getting all of the bonuses.

That’s because you’re calculating it based on the assumption that the Tier 3 alliance doesn’t drop to Tier 4 despite losing all their wars, and the Tier 4 alliance does not go up in tier to Tier 3 despite winning all their wars.

This assumption is false and using a false assumption to base your calculations on will only generate false results.

QuikPik

At no point in the higher tiers does a win in the tier below not net you more points than a loss in the tier above.

Tier 1 Loss 1,280,000
Tier 2 Win 1,330,000
Tier 2 Loss 1,120,000
Tier 3 Win 1,140,000
Tier 3 Loss 960,000
Tier 4 Win 855,000
Tier 4 Loss 720,000
Tier 5 Win 760,000

The problem is the large multiplier difference between the 2 tiers. I think if Kabam made the tier 4 multiplier x5 things would be better.

Is my math correct or am I missing something?
What you're missing is that your point multiplier is based on war tier, not season bracket. A tier 4 alliance can win all their wars and lose to a tier 3 alliance that loses all their wars only if their multipliers are frozen, which they are not. In reality, a tier 4 alliance that wins all their wars won't be in tier 4 for an entire season, and neither will a tier 3 that loses all their wars. A tier 4 that keeps winning will eventually overtake a tier 3 that keeps losing because eventually the tier 4 will become tier 3 and vice versa.
I think my issue is I need an explanation on what the different point values are used for and what determines your war bracket.

When we win a war we get +xx that increases our war rating. As far as I see that number is only used to match you to another alliance during matchmaking to a similar rated alliance, regardless if they’re in different brackets.

Then there’s the total season points which are based off your tier bracket for the point multiplier that determine season rewards.

What do we need to improve to move up tiers or to platinum 3? Last season we won 5 wars in a row during the season and are still platinum 4 tier 4. That’s the same rank we are now and this season we’re 6-3.

What determines how you move up war ranks? I can’t find any explanation with the new points structure how to move up or down. Should we focus on just getting the win to increase our war rating or focus on getting the most points for exploring the maps?
War rating determines your war tier, and thus your point multiplier. War rating is ultimately determined by your win/loss record. Win more, and you get a higher rating, lose, and you get a lower rating. War rating is a measure of how strong you are, compared to the competition.

War bracket is determined by how much points you score, which is a measure of how well you execute each war and how strong you and your competition is. If you're in a higher rating alliance and your competition is also in a higher rating alliance, your point multipliers will be higher and you'll score more points.

Imagine a group of very weak alliances all fighting each other. They all beat each other about half the time, so they go six and six during a season. Now imagine a group of super strong alliances all fighting each other, and also beating each other about half the time and going six and six during a season. Most people would say that the average strong alliance that went 6-6 fighting against top tier competition worked a lot harder for that record than the average weak alliance that also went 6-6 and ended with the same record. Both alliances will end the season at or near the same war rating, because they won and lost an even amount of wars. But the strong alliances will score more points because they had the higher multiplier, so they earn more points per war, win or lose, than weaker alliances with much lower rating.

This is intentional. If you want to earn more season rewards, you need to score more points. To score more points you need to face harder competition. To face harder competition you need to win more than you lose, so your war rating goes up, and you face alliances with similarly higher rating.

I went back and reread your note. This makes sense now. I was unintentionally tying the tier multiplier to the bracket ranks and they’re mutually exclusive to the population of alliances. Tier levels apply to every alliance at every level and not just within each bracket. Brackets gold, platinum, master are determined by the season points.

So if Jedi knights quit alliance wars for a season and they get passed in war rating, they could still have a high multiplier the next season. But they’d be at the bottom bracket in terms of rewards cause they had 0 season points. Then they should move up brackets quickly because of the multiplier and they don’t lose, so war rating is going up, too. Getting stone rewards for fighting master alliances, at least in the first fight until they get the points and get repositioned in a higher bracket.