I’m not against your efforts to come up with suggestions to better the current system. I’m just pointing out why it would not be a beneficial change.
Personally, I’d like to see alliances being able to choose “maps” where they can get multipliers based on the difficulty.
Map1 - 30 min timers, all defenders revealed; .75x standard score
Map2 - standard AW; no multiplier
Map3 - global buff active; 1.2 x multiplier
Map4 - defense synergies active; 1.4 multiplier
Map5 - global buff and defense synergy active; 1.6x multiplier
This would alleviate kabam needing to create defensive synergy icons/descriptions.
This would allow alliances the ability to gain more points to jump up to the next tier. On the other hand, this would allow alliances to take it easier if they have a member that cannot join for real world reasons and not have to replace him/her.
Maps would be not be dependent of opponent map selection (opposing alliances could choose different maps while facing each other).
Why do alliances need to fight in real time ? You could keep the matchmaking system as is, then allow alliances 24 hours to complete the map, starting at a time of their choosing. It may mean delayed results, but as long as teams finish in the window allowed for matchmaking it should be fine.
Alliances could start attack anytime between say 11am cst and 5 pm cst for example, which is 2 hours less than the original window we had for matchmaking, and that should allow plenty of time for the algorithm to work.
They could even introduce a complete new schedule of a day for defence, a day for attack, a day off, and repeat. It may not be perfect, but it would accomplish two things: alliances get to pick their attack time frame and kabam gets to eliminate matchmaking manipulation.
Seasons would still be comprised of 12 wars, it would just take a little longer. Off weeks could be eliminated completely, so no more tanking.
The alliance that starts the war later has a clear advantage. Many wars come down to the last 10-20 fights. Knowing if you have a chance to win the war determines if you’re going to use items or not.
Does it really though ? Most of the time we are fighting for overall season points, everyone wants to maximize them as much as possible, win or lose. It may take out some of the excitement at the end, but the goal remains the same.
Sure, if you are safely inside your bracket with no chance to move up you may strategize and not make that push, but you can still make that choice now. Or maybe it could be a double blind war, where each bg only gets to see the results once they clear the boss.
Actually, no. I mean, sure, most alliances trying to be competitive are trying to accumulate as much points in the season as possible, but I don't think any competitive alliance actually tries to maximize as many points as possible in literally every war. The reason being: resources are limited. In our alliance, our priorities are: win the war, kill all the bosses, and complete 100%, in that order. But once we have all three, we don't necessarily try for every single point beyond that, because if you're spending potions just to get one more attack bonus in a war you've already won, you're probably wasting potions.
If we are way ahead, and there's no way for the other side to catch us, I let everyone take a swing at the bosses just for practice. It is important when that opportunity arises to give players a chance to get better. But if the war is close, I try to get only the best boss killers in first, hoping to maximize attack bonus. If the war is *really* close, I would generally try to go first, and I'll pop every boost on the shelf if I think I need to in order to get the maximum attack bonus on that boss.
You do that when you have to, not when you need to. If the other side somehow completed their attack before we even started, that would theoretically be an enormous advantage in information, because we would know exactly how much we would need to push, and exactly when we could save resources for the next war.
You could fight the wars completely blind, with neither side being able to see the other, but I think that takes something important away from the war if you're still thinking of it as a more direct competition. We already have indirect competitions in things like arena events and even AQ which is an indirect leaderboard competition. But AW is more "head to head" and being unable to see the other side removes a lot of that competitive flavor.
Why do alliances need to fight in real time ? You could keep the matchmaking system as is, then allow alliances 24 hours to complete the map, starting at a time of their choosing. It may mean delayed results, but as long as teams finish in the window allowed for matchmaking it should be fine.
Alliances could start attack anytime between say 11am cst and 5 pm cst for example, which is 2 hours less than the original window we had for matchmaking, and that should allow plenty of time for the algorithm to work.
They could even introduce a complete new schedule of a day for defence, a day for attack, a day off, and repeat. It may not be perfect, but it would accomplish two things: alliances get to pick their attack time frame and kabam gets to eliminate matchmaking manipulation.
Seasons would still be comprised of 12 wars, it would just take a little longer. Off weeks could be eliminated completely, so no more tanking.
The alliance that starts the war later has a clear advantage. Many wars come down to the last 10-20 fights. Knowing if you have a chance to win the war determines if you’re going to use items or not.
not if you cant see their progress.....
then everyone fights they way they believe they will need to based on the strength of the defense in front of them.
Personally, I’d like to see alliances being able to choose “maps” where they can get multipliers based on the difficulty.
Map1 - 30 min timers, all defenders revealed; .75x standard score
Map2 - standard AW; no multiplier
Map3 - global buff active; 1.2 x multiplier
Map4 - defense synergies active; 1.4 multiplier
Map5 - global buff and defense synergy active; 1.6x multiplier
This would alleviate kabam needing to create defensive synergy icons/descriptions.
This would allow alliances the ability to gain more points to jump up to the next tier. On the other hand, this would allow alliances to take it easier if they have a member that cannot join for real world reasons and not have to replace him/her.
Maps would be not be dependent of opponent map selection (opposing alliances could chose different maps while facing each other).
Honestly I don't see how this could work at all and still be called a competition. This is really Alliance Quest with dance partners. In a competition, both sides must be on the same map or there's no good way to compare their performances. And in a competition, you can't allow alliances to choose their opponents. Every time an alliance chooses to fight a war "under speed" (at less than their maximum fighting strength) you are automatically setting up another alliance to be forced to fight an alliance vastly stronger than you. On paper you can try to normalize this through differentials, like a golf handicap, but in practice this is essentially impossible for any reasonable system Kabam could implement in my lifetime to do.
Personally, I’d like to see alliances being able to choose “maps” where they can get multipliers based on the difficulty.
Map1 - 30 min timers, all defenders revealed; .75x standard score
Map2 - standard AW; no multiplier
Map3 - global buff active; 1.2 x multiplier
Map4 - defense synergies active; 1.4 multiplier
Map5 - global buff and defense synergy active; 1.6x multiplier
This would alleviate kabam needing to create defensive synergy icons/descriptions.
This would allow alliances the ability to gain more points to jump up to the next tier. On the other hand, this would allow alliances to take it easier if they have a member that cannot join for real world reasons and not have to replace him/her.
Maps would be not be dependent of opponent map selection (opposing alliances could chose different maps while facing each other).
Honestly I don't see how this could work at all and still be called a competition. This is really Alliance Quest with dance partners. In a competition, both sides must be on the same map or there's no good way to compare their performances. And in a competition, you can't allow alliances to choose their opponents. Every time an alliance chooses to fight a war "under speed" (at less than their maximum fighting strength) you are automatically setting up another alliance to be forced to fight an alliance vastly stronger than you. On paper you can try to normalize this through differentials, like a golf handicap, but in practice this is essentially impossible for any reasonable system Kabam could implement in my lifetime to do.
It is a variation of AQ in a sense. Key differences are AQ relying on map selection and prestige, while AW would rely on map selection, defenders and skill.
Another idea is to tally how many items used for each war and grant a bonus based on not using more than “X” items. This would benefit kabam as players would spend on bigger items and not use smaller ones.
There are plenty of ways to impact scoring where top alliances could dodge each other but still lose out. Having everyone on a set time period (without increasing the energ limit or reducing the energy timer) is not the best move to address collusion and not a positive change overall.
The enlistment, and matching phase seem like a good idea. But why cant we have a subcategory that let's us choose and approximate time we want our war to start? I understand that you can't make everyone happy, but at least a choice within that 4 hour window may make things a bit easier on alliance leadership.
We started matchmaking at 630pm and when we got a war, it still doesn’t give us 24 hours to place. Our war starts at 3pm no matter what time we start matchmaking. THIS SUCKS. This is a problem for almost 1/2 our alliance. Why can’t our start and end be when we actually find a match!!?? @Kabam Miike
We started matchmaking at 630pm and when we got a war, it still doesn’t give us 24 hours to place. Our war starts at 3pm no matter what time we start matchmaking. THIS SUCKS. This is a problem for almost 1/2 our alliance. Why can’t our start and end be when we actually find a match!!?? @Kabam Miike
Mine starts at 3am, at least you’ll be awake at the start and end!
We started matchmaking at 630pm and when we got a war, it still doesn’t give us 24 hours to place. Our war starts at 3pm no matter what time we start matchmaking. THIS SUCKS. This is a problem for almost 1/2 our alliance. Why can’t our start and end be when we actually find a match!!?? @Kabam Miike
There's no "still." The 20 hour defense placement phase is intended, not a bug, and wasn't under consideration for changing. To have one war every 48 hours you can't have 24 hour placement *and* 24 hour attack because the servers need a window of time to find matches. The current system allocates four hours for match making. 24 hours for attack phase means defense placement must be only 20 hours long to fit into two days.
You don't "start matchmaking" anymore. You Enlist for war. You have two days to enlist for the next war, but actually finding matches always takes place during the same window, currently 3pm to 7pm Pacific. The start of defense and the start of attack can't be at the same time anymore because there aren't enough hours in the day.24 hours of attack and 4 hours of matching plus defense placement must fit within 48 hours. That means defense placement must be 20 hours long, and thus end of placement and start of war must start four hours earlier than when matches are found. This is why Kabam pushed match making forward four hours, so that the time when attack phase starts was closer to the original system.
Personally, I’d like to see alliances being able to choose “maps” where they can get multipliers based on the difficulty.
Map1 - 30 min timers, all defenders revealed; .75x standard score
Map2 - standard AW; no multiplier
Map3 - global buff active; 1.2 x multiplier
Map4 - defense synergies active; 1.4 multiplier
Map5 - global buff and defense synergy active; 1.6x multiplier
This would alleviate kabam needing to create defensive synergy icons/descriptions.
This would allow alliances the ability to gain more points to jump up to the next tier. On the other hand, this would allow alliances to take it easier if they have a member that cannot join for real world reasons and not have to replace him/her.
Maps would be not be dependent of opponent map selection (opposing alliances could chose different maps while facing each other).
Honestly I don't see how this could work at all and still be called a competition. This is really Alliance Quest with dance partners. In a competition, both sides must be on the same map or there's no good way to compare their performances. And in a competition, you can't allow alliances to choose their opponents. Every time an alliance chooses to fight a war "under speed" (at less than their maximum fighting strength) you are automatically setting up another alliance to be forced to fight an alliance vastly stronger than you. On paper you can try to normalize this through differentials, like a golf handicap, but in practice this is essentially impossible for any reasonable system Kabam could implement in my lifetime to do.
It is a variation of AQ in a sense. Key differences are AQ relying on map selection and prestige, while AW would rely on map selection, defenders and skill.
Another idea is to tally how many items used for each war and grant a bonus based on not using more than “X” items. This would benefit kabam as players would spend on bigger items and not use smaller ones.
I don't want to specifically discourage you from thinking about alternatives, because I think that's not a bad thing, but to be blunt this is always easy to say. But the only way to evaluate such a suggestion is in the specifics, not the generalities. We can say "magically make a scoring method that works, problem solved" but you don't know if such a thing is possible at all, unless you actually try to make one, and then see how many people think it makes sense and how many people think you just made it worse.
I'm on this map and you're on that map and my map is harder than yours, but we're still going to compete against each other. Present an actual scoring system that I'll think is fair. It is hard enough getting people to agree that the *current* scoring system is fair, even when both alliances have the same war rating, both alliances are on the same map, and both alliances fight at the same time. People still think if you fight an alliance with a much higher alliance rating that's unfair. People still think if you get one more attack bonus but the other side places fifty more diverse defenders then that's unfair. The current scoring system isn't perfect, I wouldn't say it is even good, but at least for any one aspect of it most people think it is not broken. The people who think fighting an alliance with dissimilar alliance rating are in the minority. The people who think defender diversity points shouldn't decide a close war are in the minority. The people who think defender kills must be uncapped are in the minority. That's manageable. But letting two different alliances fight on completely different maps? Good luck.
There are plenty of ways to impact scoring where top alliances could dodge each other but still lose out. Having everyone on a set time period (without increasing the energ limit or reducing the energy timer) is not the best move to address collusion and not a positive change overall.
There are plenty of ways to *impact* scoring. That doesn't mean any of them actually work. I'm not a fan of the fixed schedule myself, but it *directly* solves the problem of all match making manipulations, because players no longer have any control over match making. It doesn't address rating manipulation but that's a problem that requires changes to how the match making algorithm finds matches, not simply removing control of matching from the players.
Personally, I’d like to see alliances being able to choose “maps” where they can get multipliers based on the difficulty.
Map1 - 30 min timers, all defenders revealed; .75x standard score
Map2 - standard AW; no multiplier
Map3 - global buff active; 1.2 x multiplier
Map4 - defense synergies active; 1.4 multiplier
Map5 - global buff and defense synergy active; 1.6x multiplier
This would alleviate kabam needing to create defensive synergy icons/descriptions.
This would allow alliances the ability to gain more points to jump up to the next tier. On the other hand, this would allow alliances to take it easier if they have a member that cannot join for real world reasons and not have to replace him/her.
Maps would be not be dependent of opponent map selection (opposing alliances could chose different maps while facing each other).
Honestly I don't see how this could work at all and still be called a competition. This is really Alliance Quest with dance partners. In a competition, both sides must be on the same map or there's no good way to compare their performances. And in a competition, you can't allow alliances to choose their opponents. Every time an alliance chooses to fight a war "under speed" (at less than their maximum fighting strength) you are automatically setting up another alliance to be forced to fight an alliance vastly stronger than you. On paper you can try to normalize this through differentials, like a golf handicap, but in practice this is essentially impossible for any reasonable system Kabam could implement in my lifetime to do.
It is a variation of AQ in a sense. Key differences are AQ relying on map selection and prestige, while AW would rely on map selection, defenders and skill.
Another idea is to tally how many items used for each war and grant a bonus based on not using more than “X” items. This would benefit kabam as players would spend on bigger items and not use smaller ones.
I don't want to specifically discourage you from thinking about alternatives, because I think that's not a bad thing, but to be blunt this is always easy to say. But the only way to evaluate such a suggestion is in the specifics, not the generalities. We can say "magically make a scoring method that works, problem solved" but you don't know if such a thing is possible at all, unless you actually try to make one, and then see how many people think it makes sense and how many people think you just made it worse.
I'm on this map and you're on that map and my map is harder than yours, but we're still going to compete against each other. Present an actual scoring system that I'll think is fair. It is hard enough getting people to agree that the *current* scoring system is fair, even when both alliances have the same war rating, both alliances are on the same map, and both alliances fight at the same time. People still think if you fight an alliance with a much higher alliance rating that's unfair. People still think if you get one more attack bonus but the other side places fifty more diverse defenders then that's unfair. The current scoring system isn't perfect, I wouldn't say it is even good, but at least for any one aspect of it most people think it is not broken. The people who think fighting an alliance with dissimilar alliance rating are in the minority. The people who think defender diversity points shouldn't decide a close war are in the minority. The people who think defender kills must be uncapped are in the minority. That's manageable. But letting two different alliances fight on completely different maps? Good luck.
There are plenty of ways to impact scoring where top alliances could dodge each other but still lose out. Having everyone on a set time period (without increasing the energ limit or reducing the energy timer) is not the best move to address collusion and not a positive change overall.
There are plenty of ways to *impact* scoring. That doesn't mean any of them actually work. I'm not a fan of the fixed schedule myself, but it *directly* solves the problem of all match making manipulations, because players no longer have any control over match making. It doesn't address rating manipulation but that's a problem that requires changes to how the match making algorithm finds matches, not simply removing control of matching from the players.
I’ll throw another option. Give alliances “x” points they can wager for the season. They can bet on a certain war and will either gain the bonus or have it deducted from season points.
Consider this like a daily double in jeopardy (but not able to bet all of your season points. Say 5-10% of your season points... or 25% of that war.
You could wager in the beginning of the season while you likely have an easier matchup or you could wait and risk it when you’re in a higher tier for more points but against a tougher opponent.
I’ll throw another option. Give alliances “x” points they can wager for the season. They can bet on a certain war and will either gain the bonus or have it deducted from season points.
Consider this like a daily double in jeopardy (but not able to bet all of your season points. Say 5-10% of your season points... or 25% of that war.
You could wager in the beginning of the season while you likely have an easier matchup or you could wait and risk it when you’re in a higher tier for more points but against a tougher opponent.
Thanks for destroying our aw. If you keep this idiot system, my ally and me will quit the game. There was 1 thing wel liked the most, and you just killed it
I’ll throw another option. Give alliances “x” points they can wager for the season. They can bet on a certain war and will either gain the bonus or have it deducted from season points.
Consider this like a daily double in jeopardy (but not able to bet all of your season points. Say 5-10% of your season points... or 25% of that war.
You could wager in the beginning of the season while you likely have an easier matchup or you could wait and risk it when you’re in a higher tier for more points but against a tougher opponent.
No chance of that getting abused at all....
I’ve already stated that there will always be a way for alliances to strategize (abuse/manipulate) the system within TOS. The best option is to minimize those chances and offer other opportunities for legit (as you call them) alliances to compete.
Hi Kabam, player since year one. Listing times in PST is unhelpful. I suggest you acknowledge the world outside America and use UTC or GMT so we can work it out at a glance.
Hi Kabam, player since year one. Listing times in PST is unhelpful. I suggest you acknowledge the world outside America and use UTC or GMT so we can work it out at a glance.
As if Google isn’t helpful with stuff like that... on the flip side people who prefer PST would not want UTC/GMT, so we have to deal with this as it is 😊
First war with this matchmaking. Our opponent is 4 mil over us. This is probably the worst matchup we’ve ever had. 🤨. Thankful season is not upon us yet
First war with this matchmaking. Our opponent is 4 mil over us. This is probably the worst matchup we’ve ever had. 🤨. Thankful season is not upon us yet
Who cares? We got matched against a shell for the biggest spenders and pilots in the entire game bc prestige doesn't get factored in.
I don't really care as it's offseason but it just shows that matchmaking is still broken no matter what they do
They have already said there is still bugs in the system that they are fixing. That’s part of the reason they put season back.
But any system is going to take alliance rating and war rating into account I would think. And hopefully prestige too we need prestige taken into account for all the alliances out there that sell most of their champs.
I’ll throw another option. Give alliances “x” points they can wager for the season. They can bet on a certain war and will either gain the bonus or have it deducted from season points.
Consider this like a daily double in jeopardy (but not able to bet all of your season points. Say 5-10% of your season points... or 25% of that war.
You could wager in the beginning of the season while you likely have an easier matchup or you could wait and risk it when you’re in a higher tier for more points but against a tougher opponent.
I’ll throw another option. Give alliances “x” points they can wager for the season. They can bet on a certain war and will either gain the bonus or have it deducted from season points.
Consider this like a daily double in jeopardy (but not able to bet all of your season points. Say 5-10% of your season points... or 25% of that war.
You could wager in the beginning of the season while you likely have an easier matchup or you could wait and risk it when you’re in a higher tier for more points but against a tougher opponent.
What is this an option for?
An option to make it even more lucrative for the ones looking to manipulate scores at the top by paying off alliances to lose etc...
Who cares? We got matched against a shell for the biggest spenders and pilots in the entire game bc prestige doesn't get factored in.
I don't really care as it's offseason but it just shows that matchmaking is still broken no matter what they do
not all allies with high ratings are shells.
some are legit allies who were low rating and able to climb to the top in war rating cus they only ever fought other low rating allies.
Comments
I’m not against your efforts to come up with suggestions to better the current system. I’m just pointing out why it would not be a beneficial change.
Personally, I’d like to see alliances being able to choose “maps” where they can get multipliers based on the difficulty.
Map1 - 30 min timers, all defenders revealed; .75x standard score
Map2 - standard AW; no multiplier
Map3 - global buff active; 1.2 x multiplier
Map4 - defense synergies active; 1.4 multiplier
Map5 - global buff and defense synergy active; 1.6x multiplier
This would alleviate kabam needing to create defensive synergy icons/descriptions.
This would allow alliances the ability to gain more points to jump up to the next tier. On the other hand, this would allow alliances to take it easier if they have a member that cannot join for real world reasons and not have to replace him/her.
Maps would be not be dependent of opponent map selection (opposing alliances could choose different maps while facing each other).
Actually, no. I mean, sure, most alliances trying to be competitive are trying to accumulate as much points in the season as possible, but I don't think any competitive alliance actually tries to maximize as many points as possible in literally every war. The reason being: resources are limited. In our alliance, our priorities are: win the war, kill all the bosses, and complete 100%, in that order. But once we have all three, we don't necessarily try for every single point beyond that, because if you're spending potions just to get one more attack bonus in a war you've already won, you're probably wasting potions.
If we are way ahead, and there's no way for the other side to catch us, I let everyone take a swing at the bosses just for practice. It is important when that opportunity arises to give players a chance to get better. But if the war is close, I try to get only the best boss killers in first, hoping to maximize attack bonus. If the war is *really* close, I would generally try to go first, and I'll pop every boost on the shelf if I think I need to in order to get the maximum attack bonus on that boss.
You do that when you have to, not when you need to. If the other side somehow completed their attack before we even started, that would theoretically be an enormous advantage in information, because we would know exactly how much we would need to push, and exactly when we could save resources for the next war.
You could fight the wars completely blind, with neither side being able to see the other, but I think that takes something important away from the war if you're still thinking of it as a more direct competition. We already have indirect competitions in things like arena events and even AQ which is an indirect leaderboard competition. But AW is more "head to head" and being unable to see the other side removes a lot of that competitive flavor.
not if you cant see their progress.....
then everyone fights they way they believe they will need to based on the strength of the defense in front of them.
Honestly I don't see how this could work at all and still be called a competition. This is really Alliance Quest with dance partners. In a competition, both sides must be on the same map or there's no good way to compare their performances. And in a competition, you can't allow alliances to choose their opponents. Every time an alliance chooses to fight a war "under speed" (at less than their maximum fighting strength) you are automatically setting up another alliance to be forced to fight an alliance vastly stronger than you. On paper you can try to normalize this through differentials, like a golf handicap, but in practice this is essentially impossible for any reasonable system Kabam could implement in my lifetime to do.
It is a variation of AQ in a sense. Key differences are AQ relying on map selection and prestige, while AW would rely on map selection, defenders and skill.
Another idea is to tally how many items used for each war and grant a bonus based on not using more than “X” items. This would benefit kabam as players would spend on bigger items and not use smaller ones.
There are plenty of ways to impact scoring where top alliances could dodge each other but still lose out. Having everyone on a set time period (without increasing the energ limit or reducing the energy timer) is not the best move to address collusion and not a positive change overall.
It’s war same map as your opponent
Why remove the war part
Not saying my suggesting are the best or even good. At least it’s something to be considered.
Interesting ideas you purposed to improve AW. Oh wait, you didn’t...
Mine starts at 3am, at least you’ll be awake at the start and end!
There's no "still." The 20 hour defense placement phase is intended, not a bug, and wasn't under consideration for changing. To have one war every 48 hours you can't have 24 hour placement *and* 24 hour attack because the servers need a window of time to find matches. The current system allocates four hours for match making. 24 hours for attack phase means defense placement must be only 20 hours long to fit into two days.
You don't "start matchmaking" anymore. You Enlist for war. You have two days to enlist for the next war, but actually finding matches always takes place during the same window, currently 3pm to 7pm Pacific. The start of defense and the start of attack can't be at the same time anymore because there aren't enough hours in the day.24 hours of attack and 4 hours of matching plus defense placement must fit within 48 hours. That means defense placement must be 20 hours long, and thus end of placement and start of war must start four hours earlier than when matches are found. This is why Kabam pushed match making forward four hours, so that the time when attack phase starts was closer to the original system.
I don't want to specifically discourage you from thinking about alternatives, because I think that's not a bad thing, but to be blunt this is always easy to say. But the only way to evaluate such a suggestion is in the specifics, not the generalities. We can say "magically make a scoring method that works, problem solved" but you don't know if such a thing is possible at all, unless you actually try to make one, and then see how many people think it makes sense and how many people think you just made it worse.
I'm on this map and you're on that map and my map is harder than yours, but we're still going to compete against each other. Present an actual scoring system that I'll think is fair. It is hard enough getting people to agree that the *current* scoring system is fair, even when both alliances have the same war rating, both alliances are on the same map, and both alliances fight at the same time. People still think if you fight an alliance with a much higher alliance rating that's unfair. People still think if you get one more attack bonus but the other side places fifty more diverse defenders then that's unfair. The current scoring system isn't perfect, I wouldn't say it is even good, but at least for any one aspect of it most people think it is not broken. The people who think fighting an alliance with dissimilar alliance rating are in the minority. The people who think defender diversity points shouldn't decide a close war are in the minority. The people who think defender kills must be uncapped are in the minority. That's manageable. But letting two different alliances fight on completely different maps? Good luck.
There are plenty of ways to *impact* scoring. That doesn't mean any of them actually work. I'm not a fan of the fixed schedule myself, but it *directly* solves the problem of all match making manipulations, because players no longer have any control over match making. It doesn't address rating manipulation but that's a problem that requires changes to how the match making algorithm finds matches, not simply removing control of matching from the players.
How does it address/solve shell swapping?
Consider this like a daily double in jeopardy (but not able to bet all of your season points. Say 5-10% of your season points... or 25% of that war.
You could wager in the beginning of the season while you likely have an easier matchup or you could wait and risk it when you’re in a higher tier for more points but against a tougher opponent.
No chance of that getting abused at all....
I’ve already stated that there will always be a way for alliances to strategize (abuse/manipulate) the system within TOS. The best option is to minimize those chances and offer other opportunities for legit (as you call them) alliances to compete.
As if Google isn’t helpful with stuff like that... on the flip side people who prefer PST would not want UTC/GMT, so we have to deal with this as it is 😊
Lol ours is 17 mil lower than our match
Who cares? We got matched against a shell for the biggest spenders and pilots in the entire game bc prestige doesn't get factored in.
I don't really care as it's offseason but it just shows that matchmaking is still broken no matter what they do
They have already said there is still bugs in the system that they are fixing. That’s part of the reason they put season back.
But any system is going to take alliance rating and war rating into account I would think. And hopefully prestige too we need prestige taken into account for all the alliances out there that sell most of their champs.
What is this an option for?
An option to make it even more lucrative for the ones looking to manipulate scores at the top by paying off alliances to lose etc...
not all allies with high ratings are shells.
some are legit allies who were low rating and able to climb to the top in war rating cus they only ever fought other low rating allies.