War Rating Should Erode If an Alliance Doesn't Do 2 Wars in a Week

There needs to be a way for war rating to erode for inactivity now that AW season was introduced in which points are based on your War Rating tier and the top 3 tiers have more limited spots.

I would recommend war rating decreases by 120 - 140 per week in which an alliance did not participate in 2 wars. 2 wars makes up for any match making lag causing you to miss a war during a week. This drop would be roughly equal to if they did 2 wars and lost them both and allows their war rating to stop distorting some tiers (e.g. currently a few are preventing Active alliances from getting x8 multiplier as I counted several top 50 war rating alliances who didn't look to even do a single war since AW season started). The decrease is still at a slow enough pace that if an alliance had a major breakup they can take a couple weeks to focus on rebuilding without falling too far behind on rating.

Comments

Grimmbear

If they dont do a single war they will have 0 points for the season and will be overtaken

TacoScotty

The alliance won't be over taken necessarily in war rating -> only in rank for that season. Their rating stays as is which is the problem since it will continue to distort tiers for multipliers for the next season as well. While yes, top ratings continue to get higher, it will still be sometime before several of the top 50s are overtaken in rating despite them not doing wars.

The war rating should erode OR at the end of the season they should reset war ratings based on rankings in last season (e.g. #1 in rankings starts season 2 with highest rating and some formula approach to assign ratings to everyone else). In the later case, those who did 0 wars would essentially have their rating wiped

Mhykke

Why would these “top tier” alliances do 0 wars?

Just to maintain their war rating, but forgoing all the good rewards?

Is this really a problem?

Grimmbear

Mhykke wrote: »

Why would these “top tier” alliances do 0 wars?

Just to maintain their war rating, but forgoing all the good rewards?

Is this really a problem?

Agree, cant think of a squad that would be willing to lose out on rewards short n long term just to troll others

Kpatrix

There are a lot of retired alliances or alliances that disbanded or shelled in previous seasons, leaving a bunch of higher tier alliances inactive at the moment.

TacoScotty

Most of these "top tier" alliance are just shells. They will have 1-2 members. Most likely someone is saving the rating for a raining day in the event they want to alliance swap or start a new alliance. However, problem is currently they are taking up spots for the x7 / x8 multiplier etc.

GroundedWisdom

The Rating shouldn't change. If the Ally is inactive, others will pass them from gaining Rating. If you don't Fight, you don't keep up. Losing Rating for not doing Wars is a horrible idea, actually. People should keep what they built.

Grimmbear

Not to mention.. rating doesn't take up a spot in the rankings for seasons. All it does is shoe on the rating leaderboards. Seasons rewards are based off of points.

TacoScotty

Funny how this subject has come up again as an alliance used one of these shell alliances for an easy win in AW but got penalized since they milked it for maximum defenders remaining.

So I am back to my original comment but now for more than one reason.

Maat1985

They should degrade..... they save it as a shell and if for some reason they want a new start they have a new ally ready to go..... taking up spots in tiers is stupid. Think about the lower allies that will never climb enough to overtake them but are potentialliy 1 or 2 tiers lower because of these empty shells..... we know they can be used as an exploit so rather than attempting to police it why not take away the option....
It makes sense if they are not waring they should drop...
They may not take up the leaderboard from season points but they take a spot in a higher tier and a higher multiplier from someone else that stops limits their points.

Imagine this.... all bar 3 alliences in tier 1 disbanded and quit..... leaving only 2 alliances with the x8 multiplier.....
They would almost be assured top season rewards as their would be no direct competion....
So there is potential here for a big issue

Griffoplay

No.
war reating is earned by wining war. Not playing war will not grant war rating, nor will grant season points. whoever are at low war reating and asking to decrease war rating of alliances not playing war is because they are loosing a lot of war and thinks (wrongly) that punishing other can help them.
Not all allyes can afford to play all year for season rewards. We had taken the decision to skip summer season and be back for Autumn one. this can't hindrance your war rating nor your season score. We earn on the battleground our war rating. earn your aswell.

Rather then speaking about war reating, let's talk about how wrongly war rewards are distributed among tiers. 2 more war season and whoever is in Plat 2 will never ever reach plat 1.
2 more war seasons and there will be no reason to alk about war reating, Master and Plat 1 ally will never leave those positions.

Maat1985

not everyone gives a **** about only master and platinum alliances......
also just cus you earnt something doesnt mean you should keep it.....
you should need to play to keep it......
it makes sense that a rating you earnt by winning wars requires playing wars to keep it......

blynk_NZ

I agree war rating should drop, but along with that I think alliances with no activity should be removed.

Vetermio

Well. If it is possible, alliance should be excluded from a tier rating until it participates in any next war.

crogs

We're retired. We don't war. We aren't in any running for rewards or rankings. We have no ranking available. I don't see how our rating affects anyone that's actively participating in wars. How is our rating holding anyone back?

Appleisgod

crogs wrote: »

We're retired. We don't war. We aren't in any running for rewards or rankings. We have no ranking available. I don't see how our rating affects anyone that's actively participating in wars. How is our rating holding anyone back?

Holding out on other people to get in top tiers

Fluffy

I agree with this concept. I think is should be a progressive scale though. Maybe 20 points for the first skipped MM session. The next could be 25...30...etc.

crogs

Appleisgod wrote: »

crogs wrote: »

We're retired. We don't war. We aren't in any running for rewards or rankings. We have no ranking available. I don't see how our rating affects anyone that's actively participating in wars. How is our rating holding anyone back?

Holding out on other people to get in top tiers

How does just a rating affect it? Once we have no ranking, our rating should be meaningless in any kind of standing whatsoever.

Griffoplay

Maat1985 wrote: »

not everyone gives a **** about only master and platinum alliances......
also just cus you earnt something doesnt mean you should keep it.....
you should need to play to keep it......
it makes sense that a rating you earnt by winning wars requires playing wars to keep it......

What you write if far from having a sense imho.
This reasoning have no fundamentals, expecialy if you are not talking about top 50 alliances.
It makes sense also that at the end of a season, in any game, all start anew. So zero war rating for all alliance and all start with 0 points.
And by the way, just to undertand, what do you think to obtain decreasing war rating by 120/140 per week? what if allyes start to play 3 full bg 2 times a week and just one bg in the weekend with the 10 avaible playes?

djr17

From this thread

Kabam Zibiit wrote: »

Hey there everyone, I've got a quick update for y'all. Alliances that are inactive are not counted when calculating the cut-offs for War Rating Tiers, so they won't be taking up any spots or keeping anyone from moving up a tier.

I don't know if they only include war inactivity, or only total inactivity, but there's this.