Alliance war fixes

billyp47billyp47 Registered User, Facebook Connect User Posts: 23 Delightful Duckling D
Alliance wars are pointless right now. The game imbalance has negated any value. The formula used for matchmaking means an alliance can go a month with 1 winnable match. Take an alliance with 300,000 points, the next perk is 700,000. That alliance is virtually guaranteed not to achieve that. If a more balanced formula can't be found then the perk points need to drastically drop. Or alliance missions should grant much more in alliance points. Those matches tend to be more fair and since in missions can generate money for Zynga. Missions should be seriously bumped up in importance to an alliance.


  • EruptionEruption Registered User, Facebook Connect User Posts: 1 Not a Title, but a Star

    Our last 3 wars have been a total mismatch. Current war opponent out of 12 has 10 over 100. We have three 90’s seven 80s and two 70s. It’s a total waste as we didn’t even attack as just wasting rss. It has been mentioned many times that best way to match wars is HQ and Xp.

  • Wayne75Wayne75 Registered User, Facebook Connect User Posts: 49 Building Expert
    Wars have been mis matched for a long long time. And like above, we can go for a month or 2 with only 1 or 2 possibilities of actually winning n that's with rolling wars. Don't know how they match them but whatever system it's f*****! If only they fixed the basic problems instead of trying to add more n more rubbish it would be the once great game it was!
  • StinkyStinky Registered User, Facebook Connect User Posts: 143 Saint Spontaneous

    It’s supposed to be based on XP, but even that seems out the window. If you match in under 3 hours it should be a reasonably close match, meaning if you total the XP for both alliances the numbers should be close. After 3 hours of searching, the algorithm seems to care significantly less about XP levels and matches by number of participants. And sometimes it drops participants to make a match.

    I have long advocated for restricting AvA war participants to multiples of 5 or even 10. In this case, of course, war loot would have to be awarded to all alliance members (like in the good ol’ days) so they don’t feel left out. This would allow for thoughtful selection of participants as well as fair matches which would much improve the user experience.

    The problem is, when AvA wars are good, they are so much fun that many people “jump” alliances to participate in more wars than 1 every 2 days. This angers the less skilled players who now have to contend with highly skilled “experts” who are in 3 or more wars every day. With this much practice and all the resulting war loot, jumpers are a force to be reckoned with, so the unskilled simply cry about them being cheaters.

    This forum used to get 100’s if not 1000’s of posts every day, about jumpers. It was all pretty silly. I tried it, but it is too much work. **** I think if you have the time and desire, you should be able to fight as many wars as you can handle.

    I think the “scourge” of jumpers is preferable to mismatched wars any day.

  • meyercommeyercom Registered User, Facebook Connect User Posts: 8 Loose Cannon

    One thing I've been also noticing, the selection process seems to also pick "inactive" players and leave "active" players sitting on the sidelines. To me it should be simple game logic to immediately exclude "inactive" players before any selection process begins. If you are saddled with 4-5 inactives selected for a match, you already know you can't win. And as far as jumpers, you could have a simple setting for your team settings that exclude new users under say, 5 days active, with you team before you can reap any war action. It would be up to each team leader to make the rule and set the number of days active. If you want jumpers, don't check the box... at least the players no going in before joining what they are getting themselves into.

Sign In or Register to comment.