The rewards for top 300 are pretty nice and then totally drop off for gold tier. This will create a huge imbalance and top 300 will continue to stay on top 300. 301-1500 will never leave that tier. Guys got to fix those gold tiers to include T2a and t5b’s shards. Not just those crystals that will award an insignificant amount.
Maybe the huge imbalance you are creating will be solved by 7*’s?
I don't see how you could possibly know how much shards will be in the black crystal, but okay let's say you're correct, and it is an insignificant amount. In that case, let's ignore them when comparing Platinum 3 and Gold 1. Gold 1 has zero T5B shards. Platinum 3 has 4500 shards, which is one tenth of a T5B crystal. Every two months. Please explain how this "huge imbalance" is something every single player in the Platinum 3 tier will be able to parlay into permanently locking out everyone in Gold 1 tier from being able to advance into the Platinum 3 tier.
Just wait bro.
How long does it take to type an answer to that question?
@Kabam Miike Gold 1 leaderboard shows 700 Alliances instead of 1200 ( From rank 301 - 1500) . Does that mean the Tiers brackets changed or is this a glitch that will be fixed prior to distribution of ranks and rewards ?
@Kabam Miike Gold 1 leaderboard shows 700 Alliances instead of 1200 ( From rank 301 - 1500) . Does that mean the Tiers brackets changed or is this a glitch that will be fixed prior to distribution of ranks and rewards ?
Because of you I checked and my alliance is supposed to be in Gold 2.
In the announcement it was written that the first season should end at 3-rd of April, but in the game it is showing end of the season in 48 days.
Bug? Or change of plans?
In the announcement it was written that the first season should end at 3-rd of April, but in the game it is showing end of the season in 48 days.
Bug? Or change of plans?
In the announcement it was written that the first season should end at 3-rd of April, but in the game it is showing end of the season in 48 days.
Bug? Or change of plans?
My alliance is in pos 687 but we are in Gold 2. Am I missing something?
I believe the rank you see is your relative rank within the bracket. We are also in Gold 2 and our rank is about 1200 something. That probably means our real rank is about 2700.
4 wars in and matchmaking has given us some pretty rough match ups. We're a 9.5 million pt alliance and we've faced off against:
11.5 million pt alliance
9 million pt alliance
10.5 million pt alliance
and now we're vs a 12.8 million pt alliance
Alliance rating has no direct correlation to how strong an alliance is in alliance war. Saying you were matched against a 12 million point alliance is like saying you were matched against a 150 foot tall alliance if you added up the opposing alliance members' heights.
If all our alliance members sold all their 2* and 3* champions, our alliance rating would drop by at least a third. We'd go from being a ten million alliance to about a seven million alliance. But our ability to win wars wouldn't change at all. Matching by alliance points would just encourage strong alliances to force their members to sell off their weaker champs to lower their alliance rating and get matched up against much weaker alliances.
You're matched by war rating. If you got matched against a 12.8 million alliance, that means they had a similar war rating. That means they historically have won about as often as you have against similar strength alliances. That is as fair as anyone should expect a war to be.
Plus, prior to the 12.8 million alliance your previous three match ups were against alliances with an average alliance rating of 10.3 million. Verses 9.5, that's also pretty close. The 12.8 match is just one outlier, and not a huge one.
Our last three matchups were against alliances with 14.2, 10.2, and 9.2 rating. We lost the wars against 10.2 and 9.2. We won the matchup against 14.2. Rating is almost meaningless when it comes to how strong your opponent is likely to be.
4 wars in and matchmaking has given us some pretty rough match ups. We're a 9.5 million pt alliance and we've faced off against:
11.5 million pt alliance
9 million pt alliance
10.5 million pt alliance
and now we're vs a 12.8 million pt alliance
Alliance rating has no direct correlation to how strong an alliance is in alliance war. Saying you were matched against a 12 million point alliance is like saying you were matched against a 150 foot tall alliance if you added up the opposing alliance members' heights.
If all our alliance members sold all their 2* and 3* champions, our alliance rating would drop by at least a third. We'd go from being a ten million alliance to about a seven million alliance. But our ability to win wars wouldn't change at all. Matching by alliance points would just encourage strong alliances to force their members to sell off their weaker champs to lower their alliance rating and get matched up against much weaker alliances.
You're matched by war rating. If you got matched against a 12.8 million alliance, that means they had a similar war rating. That means they historically have won about as often as you have against similar strength alliances. That is as fair as anyone should expect a war to be.
Plus, prior to the 12.8 million alliance your previous three match ups were against alliances with an average alliance rating of 10.3 million. Verses 9.5, that's also pretty close. The 12.8 match is just one outlier, and not a huge one.
Our last three matchups were against alliances with 14.2, 10.2, and 9.2 rating. We lost the wars against 10.2 and 9.2. We won the matchup against 14.2. Rating is almost meaningless when it comes to how strong your opponent is likely to be.
I know all about how war matchmaking works.
Rating can be a good indicator of the strength of your opponent.
4 wars in and matchmaking has given us some pretty rough match ups. We're a 9.5 million pt alliance and we've faced off against:
11.5 million pt alliance
9 million pt alliance
10.5 million pt alliance
and now we're vs a 12.8 million pt alliance
Alliance rating has no direct correlation to how strong an alliance is in alliance war. Saying you were matched against a 12 million point alliance is like saying you were matched against a 150 foot tall alliance if you added up the opposing alliance members' heights.
If all our alliance members sold all their 2* and 3* champions, our alliance rating would drop by at least a third. We'd go from being a ten million alliance to about a seven million alliance. But our ability to win wars wouldn't change at all. Matching by alliance points would just encourage strong alliances to force their members to sell off their weaker champs to lower their alliance rating and get matched up against much weaker alliances.
You're matched by war rating. If you got matched against a 12.8 million alliance, that means they had a similar war rating. That means they historically have won about as often as you have against similar strength alliances. That is as fair as anyone should expect a war to be.
Plus, prior to the 12.8 million alliance your previous three match ups were against alliances with an average alliance rating of 10.3 million. Verses 9.5, that's also pretty close. The 12.8 match is just one outlier, and not a huge one.
Our last three matchups were against alliances with 14.2, 10.2, and 9.2 rating. We lost the wars against 10.2 and 9.2. We won the matchup against 14.2. Rating is almost meaningless when it comes to how strong your opponent is likely to be.
I know all about how war matchmaking works.
Rating can be a good indicator of the strength of your opponent.
I know all about how war matchmaking works.
Rating is not a good indicator of the strength of your opponent.
All you complaining about the rich getting richer, I have to disagree, at least this way they will have to earn it, if this will stop the shell alliances cheating mid range alliances out of our war rewards all the time. and if they want to spend for 2 months to get the those top rewards, that’s their issue. @DNA3000 I was more meaning at first when I saw these rewards we were discussing changing our alliance focus (we usually run just 2 war groups so this was going to be terrible for us) and that misleading graphic with all the different tiers of t5b shards and t2as, which are actually only for 1 alliance had us all excited.
once we realised the great rewards are for top 300- something as a f2p player I’m not going to strive for we settled down and just decided we will take the nice bump in rewards but for us over 300s (it we keep running 2 bgs I don’t know if we will make gold 1 or even gold 2) it’s not going to be game changing recieving even the gold 1 rewards every few months, compared to the rewards we already receive from the rest of the game,
t2a shards in gold 1 may have been something that would actually have made us strive harder for
If everyone started with no multiplier, then i'd agree with you. However, since the whales mostly started with a higher multiplier, they will get better rewards because they got more points out of the gate.
All you complaining about the rich getting richer, I have to disagree, at least this way they will have to earn it, if this will stop the shell alliances cheating mid range alliances out of our war rewards all the time. and if they want to spend for 2 months to get the those top rewards, that’s their issue. @DNA3000 I was more meaning at first when I saw these rewards we were discussing changing our alliance focus (we usually run just 2 war groups so this was going to be terrible for us) and that misleading graphic with all the different tiers of t5b shards and t2as, which are actually only for 1 alliance had us all excited.
once we realised the great rewards are for top 300- something as a f2p player I’m not going to strive for we settled down and just decided we will take the nice bump in rewards but for us over 300s (it we keep running 2 bgs I don’t know if we will make gold 1 or even gold 2) it’s not going to be game changing recieving even the gold 1 rewards every few months, compared to the rewards we already receive from the rest of the game,
t2a shards in gold 1 may have been something that would actually have made us strive harder for
If everyone started with no multiplier, then i'd agree with you. However, since the whales mostly started with a higher multiplier, they will get better rewards because they got more points out of the gate.
"Whales" did not start with a higher multiplier. The alliances in the higher tiers which are the alliances that win more against stronger competition started with a higher multiplier. Alliance war seasons would be completely unfair without the multiplier because it would penalize alliances who had a higher tier.
Plus, this bears repeating as often as necessary to pound it into people's skulls. If the multiplier didn't exist, the logical strategy would be for high tier alliances to disband at the start of the season and create a new alliance. This alliance would start at the lowest tier with zero rating. They would then get matched against the lowest alliances AND COMPLETELY DESTROY THEM FOR EASY WINS. The multiplier is not only necessary, it doesn't actually give higher tier alliances an advantage. The advantage they have is that they are stronger and would beat any weaker alliance, earning more points no matter what. If you take the multiplier away, the current top alliances would still score more points and still win, its just that instead of fighting each other for those points they would be fighting weaker alliances and obliterating them over and over and over and over again.
All you complaining about the rich getting richer, I have to disagree, at least this way they will have to earn it, if this will stop the shell alliances cheating mid range alliances out of our war rewards all the time. and if they want to spend for 2 months to get the those top rewards, that’s their issue. @DNA3000 I was more meaning at first when I saw these rewards we were discussing changing our alliance focus (we usually run just 2 war groups so this was going to be terrible for us) and that misleading graphic with all the different tiers of t5b shards and t2as, which are actually only for 1 alliance had us all excited.
once we realised the great rewards are for top 300- something as a f2p player I’m not going to strive for we settled down and just decided we will take the nice bump in rewards but for us over 300s (it we keep running 2 bgs I don’t know if we will make gold 1 or even gold 2) it’s not going to be game changing recieving even the gold 1 rewards every few months, compared to the rewards we already receive from the rest of the game,
t2a shards in gold 1 may have been something that would actually have made us strive harder for
If everyone started with no multiplier, then i'd agree with you. However, since the whales mostly started with a higher multiplier, they will get better rewards because they got more points out of the gate.
"Whales" did not start with a higher multiplier. The alliances in the higher tiers which are the alliances that win more against stronger competition started with a higher multiplier. Alliance war seasons would be completely unfair without the multiplier because it would penalize alliances who had a higher tier.
Plus, this bears repeating as often as necessary to pound it into people's skulls. If the multiplier didn't exist, the logical strategy would be for high tier alliances to disband at the start of the season and create a new alliance. This alliance would start at the lowest tier with zero rating. They would then get matched against the lowest alliances AND COMPLETELY DESTROY THEM FOR EASY WINS. The multiplier is not only necessary, it doesn't actually give higher tier alliances an advantage. The advantage they have is that they are stronger and would beat any weaker alliance, earning more points no matter what. If you take the multiplier away, the current top alliances would still score more points and still win, its just that instead of fighting each other for those points they would be fighting weaker alliances and obliterating them over and over and over and over again.
I agree that this is another reason why the multiplier is necessary.
It turns out that starting with a lower rating wouldn't help much -- we got less from wins in T4 (4.5 * 191k ~= 860k) than a good loss in T2 (138 * 7 = 966k). OTOH, that loss was much more expensive (clearing the map against T2 nodes and strong defenders took potions for many of our players); afterwards we decided that for T1-T3 we'd consider some paths optional if the required paths are difficult to clear. (For T4, we expect to clear 100% and win or lose on attack quality points; generally we don't need/use revives for T4 maps.)
In the current system with the multiplier, even if starting with a lower rating helped, it can't help for long. The mechanics of alliance war would force any alliance winning all the time in a lower tier to rise to a higher tier. The math suggests to me that there are very few circumstances where deliberately starting in a lower tier would help, and those circumstances require very specific things to happen you couldn't count on - i.e. specific patterns of wins and losses and specific match ups against difficult and hard opponents in very specific sequences. You'd be taking a big gamble that wasn't in your favor. And unless there's a mathematically clear path to victory, I don't think you could convince your alliance members to take the risk.
In studying the math, I do see a set of conditions in which it is advantageous to deliberately lose occasionally, but that's also very circumstantial. But the brief summary is if you know you're more likely to fail to clear all three battlegroups in tier X-1, you should occasionally deliberately lose in tier X to try to stay there, and you can strategically pick the wars to lose as being the ones where you are matched up against an alliance where you will clearly need to spend to win in the first place.
Basically, deliberately dropping tiers seems to almost never help. But deliberately trying to stay in one tier can sometimes help. But even that's very difficult to strategize.
From position #358 to #1100something after 3 wins in a ROW. I don't get it...
Did you move up in Tier? If you go up, you'll be Ranked lower at first.
Also, it's constantly shifting, so it could go up or down. My guess is you went up a Tier and are on the lower end.
Comments
How long does it take to type an answer to that question?
It’s always down Tuesday’s and comes back Wednesday.
Lost our first war to diversity in awhile today. Had a better attacker rating and more defender kills...feels bad.
Because of you I checked and my alliance is supposed to be in Gold 2.
What is going on here game team?
Bug? Or change of plans?
48 days from now is April 4.
Sorry, my mistake than. Thanks
I believe the rank you see is your relative rank within the bracket. We are also in Gold 2 and our rank is about 1200 something. That probably means our real rank is about 2700.
11.5 million pt alliance
9 million pt alliance
10.5 million pt alliance
and now we're vs a 12.8 million pt alliance
Alliance rating has no direct correlation to how strong an alliance is in alliance war. Saying you were matched against a 12 million point alliance is like saying you were matched against a 150 foot tall alliance if you added up the opposing alliance members' heights.
If all our alliance members sold all their 2* and 3* champions, our alliance rating would drop by at least a third. We'd go from being a ten million alliance to about a seven million alliance. But our ability to win wars wouldn't change at all. Matching by alliance points would just encourage strong alliances to force their members to sell off their weaker champs to lower their alliance rating and get matched up against much weaker alliances.
You're matched by war rating. If you got matched against a 12.8 million alliance, that means they had a similar war rating. That means they historically have won about as often as you have against similar strength alliances. That is as fair as anyone should expect a war to be.
Plus, prior to the 12.8 million alliance your previous three match ups were against alliances with an average alliance rating of 10.3 million. Verses 9.5, that's also pretty close. The 12.8 match is just one outlier, and not a huge one.
Our last three matchups were against alliances with 14.2, 10.2, and 9.2 rating. We lost the wars against 10.2 and 9.2. We won the matchup against 14.2. Rating is almost meaningless when it comes to how strong your opponent is likely to be.
I know all about how war matchmaking works.
Rating can be a good indicator of the strength of your opponent.
I know all about how war matchmaking works.
Rating is not a good indicator of the strength of your opponent.
If everyone started with no multiplier, then i'd agree with you. However, since the whales mostly started with a higher multiplier, they will get better rewards because they got more points out of the gate.
"Whales" did not start with a higher multiplier. The alliances in the higher tiers which are the alliances that win more against stronger competition started with a higher multiplier. Alliance war seasons would be completely unfair without the multiplier because it would penalize alliances who had a higher tier.
Plus, this bears repeating as often as necessary to pound it into people's skulls. If the multiplier didn't exist, the logical strategy would be for high tier alliances to disband at the start of the season and create a new alliance. This alliance would start at the lowest tier with zero rating. They would then get matched against the lowest alliances AND COMPLETELY DESTROY THEM FOR EASY WINS. The multiplier is not only necessary, it doesn't actually give higher tier alliances an advantage. The advantage they have is that they are stronger and would beat any weaker alliance, earning more points no matter what. If you take the multiplier away, the current top alliances would still score more points and still win, its just that instead of fighting each other for those points they would be fighting weaker alliances and obliterating them over and over and over and over again.
In the current system with the multiplier, even if starting with a lower rating helped, it can't help for long. The mechanics of alliance war would force any alliance winning all the time in a lower tier to rise to a higher tier. The math suggests to me that there are very few circumstances where deliberately starting in a lower tier would help, and those circumstances require very specific things to happen you couldn't count on - i.e. specific patterns of wins and losses and specific match ups against difficult and hard opponents in very specific sequences. You'd be taking a big gamble that wasn't in your favor. And unless there's a mathematically clear path to victory, I don't think you could convince your alliance members to take the risk.
In studying the math, I do see a set of conditions in which it is advantageous to deliberately lose occasionally, but that's also very circumstantial. But the brief summary is if you know you're more likely to fail to clear all three battlegroups in tier X-1, you should occasionally deliberately lose in tier X to try to stay there, and you can strategically pick the wars to lose as being the ones where you are matched up against an alliance where you will clearly need to spend to win in the first place.
Basically, deliberately dropping tiers seems to almost never help. But deliberately trying to stay in one tier can sometimes help. But even that's very difficult to strategize.
1) ppl kept reviving to get 100% should be penalised
(Should only allow to use the three champs to achieve the best score you could)
2) should award the skillful player (if ppl use a 4* champ to defeat a 5* opponent should get more points)
Did you move up in Tier? If you go up, you'll be Ranked lower at first.
Also, it's constantly shifting, so it could go up or down. My guess is you went up a Tier and are on the lower end.