Analysis of AW Season 1: Tier vs Bracket

Question: if you want your alliance to get the rewards from a particular bracket, how strong do you realistically have to be?

Based on my analysis of the numbers from season one, I can make a rough estimate. I used the top score for each bracket as the estimate for how many points minimum you need to score to reach the next higher bracket (in other words, to enter Gold 2 you need to outscore the highest score in Gold 3). I then guestimated a reasonable strong performance points before multiplier of about 165k (which is 140k plus 25k bonus for winning half the time) and presumed 24 wars in eight weeks with full battlegroups every time. I then divided to get the multiplier you would need to reach the point total, and then used that to determine the war tier you would need to be to have that multiplier or higher.

Here's the basics: each reward bracket, the highest score from the bracket below (i.e. the estimate for the lowest possible score to be in that bracket), the average multiplier you likely have to possess to achieve that score, and the tier you need to be in to have at least that multiplier.

60p6z7a8p14o.png

The first set of numbers presumes 165k per AW on average (this assumes 50% win rate) and the second set presumes 175k per AW on average. I included the first set of numbers because I thought it best represented a reasonably point average for relatively competent alliances, but I included the 175k numbers because the calculations showed that at the very top that assumption was slightly too low: you couldn't enter the master bracket with 170k average even with a consistent 8.0 multiplier: those alliances had to sustain something closer to 175k per war at a minimum.

A couple of observations. First, if you're not in tier 3, you're unlikely to be able to reach the Platinum brackets. In fact, there was a suggestion a while ago to increase the tier 4 multiplier from 4.5 to 5.0. My calculations suggest that increase would not be enough to allow tier 4 alliances to enter the Platinum bracket without extraordinary scoring. Second, most of the competition is in the Gold bracket. Out of all the alliances that consistently fight wars and can score about 140k per war not counting the war bonus almost the top 50% will likely end up in Gold 3 or higher. Most of the rest will end up in Silver. Stone and lower are mainly alliances not consistently competing or only competing with one or two battlegroups at very low tiers.

First place required extremely strong play. Assuming 24 wars the top alliance averaged 194,516 points per war including the win bonus at the maximum multiplier. For the record, the highest possible point total in a war in which the other side clears all of your defenders is 149,100 points. The highest possible point total in a war where your opponent does literally nothing is 186,600 points. I doubt that they won every single war while scoring about 144k points, which suggests the much more frightening alternative that quite a lot of the time their (top tier) opponents were unable to even come close to clearing their defenders.

Season two numbers will almost certainly be at least a little different (and probably higher), but these are rough estimates anyway and will probably still be in the general ballpark assuming no major structural changes to alliance war prior to season two. And consistently scoring 140k points in every war is definitely above average play: I picked that number not because it was average, but rather to calculate the minimum rating multipler required for very strong (but not fantastical) play. For alliances that average fewer points per war, the minimum rating required will be higher.

Comments/corrections welcome.
«134567

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 10,238
    Thank you for this. I appreciate the effort in the breakdown.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 10,238
    It's an interesting system where Matches are based on War Rating, and War Rating is based on performance. We suffered a bit because of scheduling and didn't play consistently. Seasons are cumulative, so it's about playing consistently whether you win or lose, in order to maintain positions. It was definitely an adjustment, but a fairly efficient system once you get used to it. Naturally, you're going to want Wins, but playing continually is necessary to maintain a position.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 10,238
    What I mean by difference in systems is on the off-time, I focus on organizing Wins to accumulate Rating. I'm usually pretty efficient with that, but it also means we don't play as often. Seasons are different. It's all about Points, regardless of the outcome. Next Season we will be more prepared.
  • DNA3000 wrote: »
    Question: if you want your alliance to get the rewards from a particular bracket, how strong do you realistically have to be?

    Based on my analysis of the numbers from season one, I can make a rough estimate. I used the top score for each bracket as the estimate for how many points minimum you need to score to reach the next higher bracket (in other words, to enter Gold 2 you need to outscore the highest score in Gold 3). I then guestimated a reasonable strong performance points before multiplier of about 165k (which is 140k plus 25k bonus for winning half the time) and presumed 24 wars in eight weeks with full battlegroups every time. I then divided to get the multiplier you would need to reach the point total, and then used that to determine the war tier you would need to be to have that multiplier or higher.

    Here's the basics: each reward bracket, the highest score from the bracket below (i.e. the estimate for the lowest possible score to be in that bracket), the average multiplier you likely have to possess to achieve that score, and the tier you need to be in to have at least that multiplier.

    60p6z7a8p14o.png

    The first set of numbers presumes 165k per AW on average (this assumes 50% win rate) and the second set presumes 175k per AW on average. I included the first set of numbers because I thought it best represented a reasonably point average for relatively competent alliances, but I included the 175k numbers because the calculations showed that at the very top that assumption was slightly too low: you couldn't enter the master bracket with 170k average even with a consistent 8.0 multiplier: those alliances had to sustain something closer to 175k per war at a minimum.

    A couple of observations. First, if you're not in tier 3, you're unlikely to be able to reach the Platinum brackets. In fact, there was a suggestion a while ago to increase the tier 4 multiplier from 4.5 to 5.0. My calculations suggest that increase would not be enough to allow tier 4 alliances to enter the Platinum bracket without extraordinary scoring. Second, most of the competition is in the Gold bracket. Out of all the alliances that consistently fight wars and can score about 140k per war not counting the war bonus almost the top 50% will likely end up in Gold 3 or higher. Most of the rest will end up in Silver. Stone and lower are mainly alliances not consistently competing or only competing with one or two battlegroups at very low tiers.

    First place required extremely strong play. Assuming 24 wars the top alliance averaged 194,516 points per war including the win bonus at the maximum multiplier. For the record, the highest possible point total in a war in which the other side clears all of your defenders is 149,100 points. The highest possible point total in a war where your opponent does literally nothing is 186,600 points. I doubt that they won every single war while scoring about 144k points, which suggests the much more frightening alternative that quite a lot of the time their (top tier) opponents were unable to even come close to clearing their defenders.

    Season two numbers will almost certainly be at least a little different (and probably higher), but these are rough estimates anyway and will probably still be in the general ballpark assuming no major structural changes to alliance war prior to season two. And consistently scoring 140k points in every war is definitely above average play: I picked that number not because it was average, but rather to calculate the minimum rating multipler required for very strong (but not fantastical) play. For alliances that average fewer points per war, the minimum rating required will be higher.

    Comments/corrections welcome.

    I'd be curious as to how you arrived at the "likely mulitplier needed to achieve that score". My alliance finished 1177 in Gold 1 - approx 13.5 million pts. We never played one match in tier 7. All matches were in tier 5 or 6 - probably 70% in tier 5.
  • FactorQFactorQ Posts: 37
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Question: if you want your alliance to get the rewards from a particular bracket, how strong do you realistically have to be?

    Based on my analysis of the numbers from season one, I can make a rough estimate. I used the top score for each bracket as the estimate for how many points minimum you need to score to reach the next higher bracket (in other words, to enter Gold 2 you need to outscore the highest score in Gold 3). I then guestimated a reasonable strong performance points before multiplier of about 165k (which is 140k plus 25k bonus for winning half the time) and presumed 24 wars in eight weeks with full battlegroups every time. I then divided to get the multiplier you would need to reach the point total, and then used that to determine the war tier you would need to be to have that multiplier or higher.

    Here's the basics: each reward bracket, the highest score from the bracket below (i.e. the estimate for the lowest possible score to be in that bracket), the average multiplier you likely have to possess to achieve that score, and the tier you need to be in to have at least that multiplier.

    60p6z7a8p14o.png

    The first set of numbers presumes 165k per AW on average (this assumes 50% win rate) and the second set presumes 175k per AW on average. I included the first set of numbers because I thought it best represented a reasonably point average for relatively competent alliances, but I included the 175k numbers because the calculations showed that at the very top that assumption was slightly too low: you couldn't enter the master bracket with 170k average even with a consistent 8.0 multiplier: those alliances had to sustain something closer to 175k per war at a minimum.

    A couple of observations. First, if you're not in tier 3, you're unlikely to be able to reach the Platinum brackets. In fact, there was a suggestion a while ago to increase the tier 4 multiplier from 4.5 to 5.0. My calculations suggest that increase would not be enough to allow tier 4 alliances to enter the Platinum bracket without extraordinary scoring. Second, most of the competition is in the Gold bracket. Out of all the alliances that consistently fight wars and can score about 140k per war not counting the war bonus almost the top 50% will likely end up in Gold 3 or higher. Most of the rest will end up in Silver. Stone and lower are mainly alliances not consistently competing or only competing with one or two battlegroups at very low tiers.

    First place required extremely strong play. Assuming 24 wars the top alliance averaged 194,516 points per war including the win bonus at the maximum multiplier. For the record, the highest possible point total in a war in which the other side clears all of your defenders is 149,100 points. The highest possible point total in a war where your opponent does literally nothing is 186,600 points. I doubt that they won every single war while scoring about 144k points, which suggests the much more frightening alternative that quite a lot of the time their (top tier) opponents were unable to even come close to clearing their defenders.

    Season two numbers will almost certainly be at least a little different (and probably higher), but these are rough estimates anyway and will probably still be in the general ballpark assuming no major structural changes to alliance war prior to season two. And consistently scoring 140k points in every war is definitely above average play: I picked that number not because it was average, but rather to calculate the minimum rating multipler required for very strong (but not fantastical) play. For alliances that average fewer points per war, the minimum rating required will be higher.

    Comments/corrections welcome.

    I'd be curious as to how you arrived at the "likely mulitplier needed to achieve that score". My alliance finished 1177 in Gold 1 - approx 13.5 million pts. We never played one match in tier 7. All matches were in tier 5 or 6 - probably 70% in tier 5.

    He divides the total score by average of 165k per match. If you achieved that score with T5 to T6 multiplier, you averaged below 165k per match, which can be explained by missed matches, not clearing the map, more losses than wins etc.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 4,271
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Question: if you want your alliance to get the rewards from a particular bracket, how strong do you realistically have to be?

    Based on my analysis of the numbers from season one, I can make a rough estimate. I used the top score for each bracket as the estimate for how many points minimum you need to score to reach the next higher bracket (in other words, to enter Gold 2 you need to outscore the highest score in Gold 3). I then guestimated a reasonable strong performance points before multiplier of about 165k (which is 140k plus 25k bonus for winning half the time) and presumed 24 wars in eight weeks with full battlegroups every time. I then divided to get the multiplier you would need to reach the point total, and then used that to determine the war tier you would need to be to have that multiplier or higher.

    Here's the basics: each reward bracket, the highest score from the bracket below (i.e. the estimate for the lowest possible score to be in that bracket), the average multiplier you likely have to possess to achieve that score, and the tier you need to be in to have at least that multiplier.

    60p6z7a8p14o.png

    The first set of numbers presumes 165k per AW on average (this assumes 50% win rate) and the second set presumes 175k per AW on average. I included the first set of numbers because I thought it best represented a reasonably point average for relatively competent alliances, but I included the 175k numbers because the calculations showed that at the very top that assumption was slightly too low: you couldn't enter the master bracket with 170k average even with a consistent 8.0 multiplier: those alliances had to sustain something closer to 175k per war at a minimum.

    A couple of observations. First, if you're not in tier 3, you're unlikely to be able to reach the Platinum brackets. In fact, there was a suggestion a while ago to increase the tier 4 multiplier from 4.5 to 5.0. My calculations suggest that increase would not be enough to allow tier 4 alliances to enter the Platinum bracket without extraordinary scoring. Second, most of the competition is in the Gold bracket. Out of all the alliances that consistently fight wars and can score about 140k per war not counting the war bonus almost the top 50% will likely end up in Gold 3 or higher. Most of the rest will end up in Silver. Stone and lower are mainly alliances not consistently competing or only competing with one or two battlegroups at very low tiers.

    First place required extremely strong play. Assuming 24 wars the top alliance averaged 194,516 points per war including the win bonus at the maximum multiplier. For the record, the highest possible point total in a war in which the other side clears all of your defenders is 149,100 points. The highest possible point total in a war where your opponent does literally nothing is 186,600 points. I doubt that they won every single war while scoring about 144k points, which suggests the much more frightening alternative that quite a lot of the time their (top tier) opponents were unable to even come close to clearing their defenders.

    Season two numbers will almost certainly be at least a little different (and probably higher), but these are rough estimates anyway and will probably still be in the general ballpark assuming no major structural changes to alliance war prior to season two. And consistently scoring 140k points in every war is definitely above average play: I picked that number not because it was average, but rather to calculate the minimum rating multipler required for very strong (but not fantastical) play. For alliances that average fewer points per war, the minimum rating required will be higher.

    Comments/corrections welcome.

    I'd be curious as to how you arrived at the "likely mulitplier needed to achieve that score". My alliance finished 1177 in Gold 1 - approx 13.5 million pts. We never played one match in tier 7. All matches were in tier 5 or 6 - probably 70% in tier 5.

    He divides the total score by average of 165k per match. If you achieved that score with T5 to T6 multiplier, you averaged below 165k per match, which can be explained by missed matches, not clearing the map, more losses than wins etc.

    Basically. I took the highest score in every bracket to be essentially the score to beat to just make it into the next higher bracket (because you cannot directly look up the bottom score in every bracket, only the top scores in every bracket) and divided by 24 wars and then by 165k and 175k. I should have more strongly emphasized that these scores were chosen to be upper limits of scoring, not typical scoring. Given this upper bound assumption, I calculated the average multiplier necessary to reach the minimum score required to enter each bracket.

    In another thread I added an additional column to represent more typical scoring: about 130k points per war plus the war bonus half the time, for an average score of 155k per war. This is the table that results:

    fdm88zj6cb9l.png
  • GriffoplayGriffoplay Posts: 132
    edited April 6
    It is nice that someone with good english can point it out. I realized it at half season and what really have to be addressed is the HUGE rewards differences from platinum 3 and Gold 1 considering that the struggle for Platinum 3 is really the more bloody.

    Edit: If a newly T4 ally wins all 24 wars it is possible they do not get platinum 3. Otherwise an hight t3 alliance can loose a lot more then 12 wars and still be in gold 1
  • @Griffoplay If an alliance was to start in tier 4 and win all 24 wars throughout the AW season they would almost certainly move up to tier 3 or even higher, increasing their scores and chances of getting into a Platinum rewards bracket
  • GriffoplayGriffoplay Posts: 132
    @Griffoplay If an alliance was to start in tier 4 and win all 24 wars throughout the AW season they would almost certainly move up to tier 3 or even higher, increasing their scores and chances of getting into a Platinum rewards bracket

    yes it can be but it is not sure, expecialy if you start the season at the very begining of T4. What I was trying to say is that more then half the alliances in Gold 1, no matter the efford, will not land in platinum 3 in season 2. Otherwise, with no efford they can consolidate gold 1. So I see no incentives. AND with so great resouce discrepancy from Platinum 3 to gold 1 in about 2/3 seasons moving up a position will be almost impossible.
    We already have AQ wich is almost a static Ranking, soon we will have wars too.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 4,271
    Griffoplay wrote: »
    @Griffoplay If an alliance was to start in tier 4 and win all 24 wars throughout the AW season they would almost certainly move up to tier 3 or even higher, increasing their scores and chances of getting into a Platinum rewards bracket

    yes it can be but it is not sure, expecialy if you start the season at the very begining of T4. What I was trying to say is that more then half the alliances in Gold 1, no matter the efford, will not land in platinum 3 in season 2. Otherwise, with no efford they can consolidate gold 1. So I see no incentives. AND with so great resouce discrepancy from Platinum 3 to gold 1 in about 2/3 seasons moving up a position will be almost impossible.
    We already have AQ wich is almost a static Ranking, soon we will have wars too.

    If you were anywhere in tier 4 and won all 24 wars I don't think there's any possible way you could not end up in tier 3. You'd be increasing over a thousand points in rating. I'm pretty sure tier 4 isn't a thousand rating points wide. Winning 24 in a row almost certainly gets you from tier 5 to tier 3.

    I think most of the alliances that ended in Gold 1 averaged being in tier 5 or higher. Each of them *could* in theory make it into Platinum 3 next season, but only by winning a large percentage of the wars they fight and probably only by climbing into tier 3 as a result. Of course, a majority of them can't actually make it into Platinum 3 simply because only a limited number of alliances can rank into the Platinum 3 bracket.

    Its not easy, but its not mathematically impossible.
  • VizardVizard Posts: 70
    Good work! Interesting to look at.

    I would like to see more tiers in season 2 with better scaling of resources. I think this shows how difficult it already is for alliances to move into better tiers, and the way season 1 was set up only increases inequity by providing alliances with better matchmaking luck substantially better rewards.

    What if the system reset entirely with each season? And your end of season tier determined your offseason tier and rewards. I personally think this would make war more enjoyable.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 4,271
    Vizard wrote: »
    Good work! Interesting to look at.

    I would like to see more tiers in season 2 with better scaling of resources. I think this shows how difficult it already is for alliances to move into better tiers, and the way season 1 was set up only increases inequity by providing alliances with better matchmaking luck substantially better rewards.

    What if the system reset entirely with each season? And your end of season tier determined your offseason tier and rewards. I personally think this would make war more enjoyable.

    I'm pretty sure brackets restart at zero in the new season. But if you are referring to war tiers, I don't think resetting them is a good idea. All that would do is force top alliances to beat up lower ones to climb back to where they ought to be, and that would be frustrating for lower alliances.

    The brackets don't say much about how difficult it is to move into different tiers, because the brackets don't affect the tiers. But it does suggest that the top brackets are perhaps more compressed in terms of war tier than they ought to be. You have to jump a lot of tiers upward to have a decent chance of also jumping a single bracket upward.
  • Carmel1Carmel1 Posts: 187
    @DNA3000 what is the difference between columns 3-4 and columns 5-6? (in the first table you sent)
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 4,271
    Carmel1 wrote: »
    @DNA3000 what is the difference between columns 3-4 and columns 5-6? (in the first table you sent)

    The second table has column headers that make it a little more clear. The first set of columns (3-4) assumes an average of 165k points per war (including the victory bonus) and the second set of columns (5-6) assumes an average of 175k. The second table I posted has headers and includes a third set of numbers for the assumption of scoring an average of 155k points per war.

    These guestimates roughly correspond to almost perfect play (175k) and winning more than 50% of the time, extremely strong play (165k) that always clears and always has only moderate deaths and wins at least 50% of the time, and very good play that almost always 100% clears but with significant deaths and wins about 50% of the time.
  • PolderpommiePolderpommie Posts: 68
    edited April 11
    Top bit of analysis here. Great work!
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    Its hard but when a 3mil alliance can win eaiser and climb tiers with scores of only 80k there by get a higher multiplier than an ally of 9mil who will need 140k to score most victories... probably losing more wars then the 3 mil ally there by averaging a lower multiplier...
    I know this from having accounts in 2 diff allies. 1 much larger than the other amd it is soooo much easier to get wins in the wins in the weaker ally.
    Both my 3mil ally and my 8 mil ally finished gold 3....
    The 3 mil ally had more wins.... but scored less per win but the 50k win bonus and ability to eaisier sustain a multiplier led to the same bracket.
    3mil ally 80k = win = 130k and same or higher multiplier
    8mil ally 120k = loss = 120k and lower multiplier.
    So even though the stronger ally performed better we got less wins and had a harder run to maintain gold 3.
    When our 8mil ally won yes we ended up like 170k points which is more but as we struggled to maintain the same multiplier as the lower ally it somewhat balances out.

    And this was consistent throughout the season

    So from my point of view in a erage tier say 10-7 lower allies have an easier time accross the season as each war requires less work for a victory
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 4,271
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Its hard but when a 3mil alliance can win eaiser and climb tiers with scores of only 80k there by get a higher multiplier than an ally of 9mil who will need 140k to score most victories... probably losing more wars then the 3 mil ally there by averaging a lower multiplier...
    I know this from having accounts in 2 diff allies. 1 much larger than the other amd it is soooo much easier to get wins in the wins in the weaker ally.
    Both my 3mil ally and my 8 mil ally finished gold 3....
    The 3 mil ally had more wins.... but scored less per win but the 50k win bonus and ability to eaisier sustain a multiplier led to the same bracket.
    3mil ally 80k = win = 130k and same or higher multiplier
    8mil ally 120k = loss = 120k and lower multiplier.
    So even though the stronger ally performed better we got less wins and had a harder run to maintain gold 3.
    When our 8mil ally won yes we ended up like 170k points which is more but as we struggled to maintain the same multiplier as the lower ally it somewhat balances out.

    And this was consistent throughout the season

    So from my point of view in a erage tier say 10-7 lower allies have an easier time accross the season as each war requires less work for a victory

    Honestly, what you're describing isn't possible. I'm not saying the higher alliance didn't face harder foes, but the foes you face depend on war rating. If the higher alliance lost enough wars it would drop to the same tier as the lower alliance and start winning again at that point or earlier, because it would face the same competition.

    If you're saying the higher alliance rated alliance was getting harder match ups than the lower alliance rated alliance at the same tier, I can't account for that but I also have never seen direct evidence of that happening in a sustained fashion. Once or twice is random chance. But if someone wants to prove that happens across an entire season I would want to see hard data. That data would be trivial to collect for anyone that wants to attempt that next season.

    It is possible that the higher alliance fought harder but ended up in the same tier. But that's not the same thing as saying the lower alliance had an easier time entering the same bracket. It says the higher alliance could have done much less and still maintained their bracket.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    Last war from 8 mil ally

    qnw07ofd3qux.jpeg
    0ibn3l866caa.jpeg
    4adavcsq0j1k.png
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    Last war from 3 mil ally
    kx71j1evdhw7.jpeg
    bnfaqlb77yd6.jpeg
    d65y4cocwc3e.png
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    this was consistent matchups amd results across season 1.
    I will collect more data across season 2 but the above is the kind of matchups we faced all last season.
    For most of last season our 3 mil ally was 1 or two tiers higher than our 8mil ally due to this
    @DNA3000
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    History of 3 mil ally wars
    Mostly same tier all our recent ones
    16453aqu4rz7.png
    lxhsuu2ld6vj.png
    ylc0gi8idr5s.png
    n9ua67b3eq2a.png
    awxx95be7txh.png
    elrp95r8fguv.png
    7507rkb95860.png
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    ossu6ipwf1cs.png
    16jx9dte38rd.png
    zarb2zrb161b.png
    f79r8rqcwm8w.png
    twe5lx6tucmn.png
    3a08d8a8j0d7.png
    91zrly6xv91w.png
    History of our (now 9 mil ally)
    Prior to 1 week ago we were only 7mil rating

    Bear that in mind so most of these we versed as only a 7 mil ally
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    bwpho1jpkp2c.jpeg
    ^^^^ our ally rating during last season and all bar the most recent war

    So from this you can clearly see that consistently

    3 mil ally matched against similar allies

    Now 9 mil (previously 7mil) ally consistently matched agains similar allies.

    And yeah 3 mill ally only needs 1 or 2 bg clears to get a win.
    Stronger alliy needed all 3 bg clears and good explo to get win.

    Wars were much much easier with our waeker ally

    I will take a comparison screenshot from every war next season to show further difference...
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    I started a thread on thos an people didnt believe me.
    I will glady keep screenshotting the matchups and show where we are at.
    No we are clearly different last war was same.
    Next war will be weaker ally higher
    Stronger ally lower
    8il35lv8zcat.jpeg
    4a3389kxabfc.jpeg
  • Blax4everBlax4ever Posts: 570
    @Maat1985

    Great Job of using real examples to prove your point.

    However some experts will swear what you say is impossible, even with actual evidence.

    However, it would take more examples from other players to really form a discernible pattern. Kabam has the actual data and it would be nice if they put it out for the community to dissect, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Keep up the good work, it looks like you may have stumbled on a design flaw that can be exploited.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    As i said this is from where i stand with my 2 allies and i can continue to collect more.
    I keep seeing people say it doesnt happen... well here is proof it can happen...
    Now hopefully others can start to collect further evidence and we can see just how much.
    For me it is frustrating to see my weaker half assed ally getting easier progression and better / same rewards with hapf the effort of my larger ally which i put alot of time into growing. When we were smaller i had easier wars in the same tiers and higher tiers. Now i have pushed to grow bigger and get better rewards yet we begin to slide backwards and get less rewards as our competition is harder.

    I may go back to what i had before when i had 12 or so beasty accounts in an ally with the rest as weaklings... we had easy matchups as a strong guys could smash our opponents and they couldnt beat us... we climed up
    To tier 5 as a 5 mil ally.... every step we have grown we have just faced harder competition. I kicked pur weak players ang recruited stronger ones to maintain tier 5 and maybe even grow more but it just got harder. I may go back to previous setup.... easy victories
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 4,271
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    this was consistent matchups amd results across season 1.
    I will collect more data across season 2 but the above is the kind of matchups we faced all last season.
    For most of last season our 3 mil ally was 1 or two tiers higher than our 8mil ally due to this
    @DNA3000

    Looking at the initial data above, it looks like both alliances were being matched up against alliances with similar war rating. For example, in the first one TCR16 was facing B2K17 and the final ratings were 1040 (-64) and 1178 (+62). That means the initial ratings at match up were 1104 and 1116. That's considered a close match up. Conversely 1GT faced BR4V0 with final ratings 1140 (+62) and 1007 (-64) which means the match up ratings were 1078 and 1071, also a very close match up.

    I think what you are trying to say is that since 1GT faced an alliance with alliance rating 3 million that war was an easier war than the 8 million alliance that TCR16 faced. But that's not necessarily true. Given no other information it would be logical to assume that the 8 million alliance is the stronger one, but that's not the only information we have. We also have the information that they possessed a 1071 war rating. That war rating implies a certain level of winning higher than normal for the typical 3 million rating alliance.

    From what I've seen in season one match ups, especially in corner cases near the top of the rankings, it seems that the match up system first looks for all alliances near your rating and then if it finds more than one it then looks for the alliance closest in alliance rating. That would explain some of what you're seeing. But if the system cannot find a quick match it looks for near matches by looking for alliances close to your alliance rating *rank*.

    In other words, if your alliance rating is 1000, you'd assume that "close" alliances might have ratings near 1000. But suppose that we sorted all alliances by rating and for whatever reason there were no other alliances with anything close to 1000 rating. Suppose the next highest alliance was 1200 and the next lowest alliance was 800. Those are very far away, but the system would consider them "close" because they are just one rank higher and one rank lower, in terms of overall rank by rating. Of course, in the middle of the ratings that never happens usually because there are so many alliances near that rating. Near the top, however, there was some weird match ups that can only be explained this way.

    Getting back to alliance rating. If you assume that alliance rating equals strength, then if the game matches first by war rating and then by alliance rating if possible all 3 million alliances will get easier match ups than all 8 million alliances so long as they keep fighting each other. But that's not a safe assumption. If you assume that win/loss record is a better measure of alliance war strength then when two 1000 rating alliances get matched up that's considered a fair fight regardless of alliance rating.

    What happens if the game matches by both: rating first and alliance rating second - and only if that is possible (meaning there are lots of options when looking for close war rating matches)? In that case you could get temporary striation. Meaning, it is possible for a weak 3 million alliance to not get "sorted" to a lower tier by luck because they face a bunch of other weak 3 million alliances that temporarily make them look better than they actually are. But that can't last for long: if they win too often they will rise in tier and face stronger competition, and if they don't eventually those other weaker alliances will lose too often and drop in rating, and eventually they will face stronger competition. This should happen in a timescale of about a half a dozen wars or so.

    Keep collecting data, though, as it would be interesting to see what happens next season. It is possible my estimate for striation breaking is wrong, or it is possible that some other effect makes the rating system have chaotic attractors that make it less fair than it should be.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    @DNA3000 yes it is based on war rating

    But my point is sime the 3 mil ally only ever faced opponents rated 2mil to 4mil
    Whereas when the larger ally was 7.5 mil our matchups were between 6mil and 9mil
    So far since becomin 8.5 mil we have not had matchup lower than 8mil.

    Whilst it is clear that war rating is the key factor this eveidence also shows that alliance rating is also a considered factor.
    This is something that is clearly apparent in the lower teirs as i said making it easier for a small ally to
    Climb.
    I am saying this from experience.
    Once you get to tier 4 or higher of course a weak ally cannot sustain this level and also the pool of potential matchups is smaller.

    Lets say for example.
    In tier 3 the smallest ally is 10 mil and the largest ally is 20 mil then obviously you will not be matched against a 7 mil ally. Also there is only say 200 potential opponents with a similar rating so this lowers the chance of a matchup being similar alliance rating also
    In tier 9 there are alliances that range from 1mil to 15mil.
    In this case a 7mil ally will likely be matched against a similar opponent
    A 10 mil likely against a similar opponent
    And a 1 mil also against a similar opponent.
    Also there would be a much larger number of alliance in the potential pool at this level so the chances of similar matchup are much more.
    Stronger alliamces are almost always more organised amd will always beat a defence easier than a weaker one will
    I am saying matchmaking is based on war rating so you will always get a similar match but alliance rating is also considered to make as many matchups as possible close in the same regard.
    As i said this i more apparent in lower tiers where there is a larger pool and variation of ratings.

    I have provided evidence to back this up.
    In approx 24 hours once my alliance find next match up i will also post the results here

    What you have said here is exactly what i am saying
    And i believe that only once you get to the higher tiers of 5 and upwards does alliance rating seperate further.
    jfkgeuwe4c73.jpeg

    And although the weaker alliance may eventually lose and begin to drop
    1. How long have they been climbing and getting better rewards?
    2. How many extra season points scored due to highe multipler?
    3. How many more wins?
    4. How far will the drop before they stagnate??

    All this may affect the lower rating ally however they still manage to sit higher than the stronger ally as you can see we got 95% bg clear yet we lost... matchups like this if we can ever climb it will be a very slow climb whilst best case scenario the smaller ally has had a up and down roller coaster ride with many more wins and higher multiplier along the way.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,158
    edited April 11
    @DNA3000 alos if you are saying it may take 6 weeks to balance....
    For one i have seen this going on for much longer than that.
    Also with a season of only 8 weeks that is almost an entire season where the weak ally has a huge advantage

    Also i showed you the scores to the most recent... to show it was easier... i showed you 1gt won with only 1 bg clear and 77k score meanwhile tcr lost and we got 3bg clears and 95% clear....

    And in no way is it fair that a 3mil ally only ever sees similar strength opponnets... it is not fair that a 3 mil ally could sit higher than an 8mil ally. In no sport would this work. Stronger teams always rise whilst weaker ones sit at the bottom. Skill can mix this up a little but bottom place will always play top place at some point
«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.