Current AA System

35 posts

Flag Post

Recently I’m experiencing 2 issues with the current AA attack declaration system, would like to check whether the community feels the same at all:

1. Overcrowding in the top 100. It’s forever a sea of red, green and yellow now, with certain alliances islanded without a battle due to literally 0 alliances being available within 20 above/below. There very little choice in AAs if you don’t want to wait for 12h sometimes, which is further exacerbated by:

2. Too many emptyish targets in range and dropping way too slowly, resulting in lower gold/xp/rep gain per day because there’s less fights to undertake. Most of these are empty shells of alliances that charged up too fast, got farmed to death and then the better players abandoned, leaving 1-5 members who are not inactive but hogging a position way above their capabilities, making up a crappy target that nobody wants to hit and taking farm as well with their own attacks.

I have some solutions in mind, but need to ensure that this is a genuine issue first and not just frustrations unique to myself and my alliance.

Appreciate your responses, please.

 
Flag Post

I am in an alliance with a low ranking but I have thought about these issues some. In fact the fear of pushing too high and killing my alliance as you described in point 2 is one of the reasons I have not pushed further up the ranks.

There is a simple solution to point 1. Just make a cooldown for attacking alliances similar to what there is for alliances that were defending. I am not talking about a 12 hour CD in which you can’t attack, just something small that doesn’t even need to limit the number of fights per day you can have. Just make AAs 23 hours or something instead of 24 followed by a 1 hour period in which the attacking alliance can be attacked but not start an AA.

I really don’t have a good solution for point 2. The underlying problem is that rank itself provides no real value to an alliance and in some cases can be a detriment. This can kill an alliance that pushes up too far, or even one that simply has the bad luck of having 2 or 3 key players quit in a short period of time. Since other alliances are aware of this, they have little incentive to move up which is needed to push the semi-dead alliance back down to a spot where it can perhaps rebuild.

I also would like AAs to be shorter and more frequent. Something along the lines of 11 hours with a 1 hour CD for attackers and 4 hour CD for defenders. This could help stir up quicker movement up and down the rankings. The main draw of these 24 hour AAs is that they make it reasonable for all members to participate in most AAs, but they just feel so slow to me compared to other games.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JuzzieJT:

1. Overcrowding in the top 100. It’s forever a sea of red, green and yellow now, with certain alliances islanded without a battle due to literally 0 alliances being available within 20 above/below.

Juzzie, I rarely have to wait over 4-6 hours to have a valid target, and I don’t even have 20 positions above which to attack.

Originally posted by JuzzieJT:

2. Too many emptyish targets in range and dropping way too slowly, resulting in lower gold/xp/rep gain per day because there’s less fights to undertake.

Imo, XP/gold from AA fights is ridiculous when compared to swarms. So much that it actually makes no difference to me if I fight 1 or 10 opponents. 1 run of any swarm higher than kurteys gives more gold/xp (@5x).

Originally posted by Toggler:

I also would like AAs to be shorter and more frequent. Something along the lines of 11 hours with a 1 hour CD for attackers and 4 hour CD for defenders.

I don’t think that’s a good idea. Some people can only play once a day, and wouldn’t be able to participate on AA’s that often.

JUst bringing my perspective from my current position in the game :-)

 
Flag Post

We (#1 with only 20 choices) do not have to wait 12 hours for a fight, but we end up fighting the same alliances over and over.
I can see where lower ranking alliances, even though a choice of 40, can have this problem though because of the CD. Non-active alliances never attack and will always have the 12h CD flooding the middle ranks with too many alliances on CD.
Simply putting the # of members in the alliance on the selection page would fix a lot.

I don’t like the position switching as the only means of advancing… what was wrong with going by rank points? Do you know how hard it is to fight a specific alliance to take their spot? Keeping a top alliance together and competitive for a long time is very hard and should be rewarded… every leader knows this well. How about make it so you get +5 per win and additional points equal to the # of positions the alliance is above you… new alliances would have a chance to climb to the top and old alliances will have the opportunity to hold their position in the event of some fluke loss due to people on vacation and such. Eventually everything will become much closer and more fun for all. Right now, besides being confusing as hell, rank points and position don’t mean much at all.
In addition make any alliance that does not attack for 72 hours automatically lose 5 points… with the CD this should not be a problem for active alliances and will weed out the inactive ones faster.

Whatever changes are made, please make sure they are good for entire range of alliances.

 
Flag Post

Juzzie, I don’t think you need overwhelming confirmation about the state of things to warrant you giving a solution. Just lay it out there and we will rip it to shreds.. i mean comment appropriately.

The game continues to have the attack down mentality and I don’t know quite how to fix this. Despite being #6 which is high on the food chain, we battled with #2 like 3 times in the past week and my alliance members stopped fighting the AA. Likely because we will not beat them currently and we lost the first 2 AAs by a wide marging, and because like Irabelo said you get more coins from swarms. I do like the free coins though and I make sure I do them each day.

Perhaps what is needed is just pot luck matchmaking. This way the system puts two teams together randomly so that it is not so much determined by who is available when.

Maybe what is needed is some sort of modifier that can shake things up. Like a roulette spin before the assault that says “attacker gets +1 crystals, or defender gets 100 more coins per win” Or any number of other cool advantages and disadvantages which would almost set up potential rank switching. Nothing was more exhilarating than when our alliance got sent back to spot #12 after exp4 was released due to the bug. You spend so much time in one position, it becomes stale, once you get dethroned, its time to claw back to your spot!

The only other idea I have is to reset the ranks each week and have everyone scramble to the top for a prize. Something like that.

 
Flag Post

@msr6 the problem with rank is that no one would EVER catch up to grim and pickers
@bmuell, I don’t like the roulette idea. I do like the “weekly/monthly ladder” idea. A lot.
Other ideas would be:
1. Having “leagues”, as Weshu or someone else once suggested. Top10 fight amongst themselves, 11-20 the same, etc. At the end of the “season”, best 2-3 alliances from each league get promoted, and last 2-3 get demoted;
2. Daily random match selection by alliance rating, deck scores, etc.
3. Add some sort of queue to fight some alliance, to solve the problem of not being able to “catch” an alliance above yours.

 
Flag Post

Alright bmuell, here goes.

I thought it very important to get at least a feel of what the community wants – you can only design an appropriate solution if you know what actually matters to people. Otherwise it’ll be one man trying to push an solution through when people don’t even think there was a problem to begin with.

Idea 1

Although I’ve always felt the existing AA system will never be capable of great things and needs a total revamp, my envisioned temporary fix to address those 2 issues was actually a simple one. Get rid of cooldowns entirely, and make alliances ‘swap’ places on win/loss instead of the current ‘overtake’ system. That will cause dead / abandoned alliances to drop faster, at their more natural rate. Fast fix (I think? I’m not a programmer so lots of times I need to guesstimate), solves my problem. It doesn’t seem like many people agree that those 2 things are issues though.

Idea 2

In terms of a revamp… I think the issue lies here: we want to fight other alliances of related standard regularly, but are hampered by 1) timing and 2) the desire to farm gold/rep/alliance rating instead of actually combating equals.
So a league system might work… but the current gold/rep on win might present issues.

Current flaws

Say we have leagues of 15. (For fortnightly rotation) maybe I believe I’m the strongest outside the top30 and have no issues crushing the competition in 2nd division… but I don’t believe I can compete any higher. So I deliberately lose enough AAs to stay in league 3 so that I won’t get farmed to death in div1/premier league. This is exactly the same as what I’m doing in the current AA system. Problem not solved. Both daily duels and AA are currently like this: rewards are easier to get if you’ve just entered elite league instead of being at the top. Rewards are better for hiding out at #100 in AA instead of speeding to #20 and getting farmed by top10. Not good.

Towards a solution

We need to reward both individual fights won… as well as simply being in a higher league. So a daily payout (coin? light crystals? extra roulette rolls? unique AA tokens to convert to other things? tokens?) if you finish all your AAs dependent ONLY on your current league must outweigh the losses of graduating to a higher league where you might potentially lose nearly every AA there. Another issue comes up though, the strong get stronger much faster. Well, I can’t solve everything. But at least league positions are exciting and give something to look forward to and might give things more team spirit as you push for goals together.

Getting rid of restraints

We also probably would need to scrap the current rating system. Rating grind makes people want to seek safe wins instead of challenging wars. In the new system everything would effectively clean slate every fortnight except your league position and members: if you want to swap members a-la-wildwest you now have less to lose. Less grind more compeition. Given that my alliance has worked in a disciplined manner to get to overall #9 in total rating, this would hurt. Would be nice to get, say, a conversion of 1rating to 500coin as a one-time payment for the effort and time spent. This has the nice side effect of getting recruitment going as capable people will now rush to the highest rating alliance they can find before the conversion date.

#justsomesuggestions.

Hypothetical league

Numbers are somewhat arbitrary:
top15, payout 10K/all fights completed
2nd 15, payout 6K
3rd 15, payout 3K
4th 15, payout 2K
5th 15, payout 1K
Grand melee (15 semi-random matchups amongst all other alliances, winners fight winners in a compounding winner’s bracket system. Given that 215 is 32768, it should be not too difficult to identify 3 at the end which clearly deserve to promote. The idea is to not have too many leagues so it takes a new-but-stong/active alliance forever to get to the top)
Promotion reward: 5x of the daily payout of the new league.

 
Flag Post

Definitely something is needed that rewards moving higher in position. like extra coin reward (x2?) or some kind of 24hr bonus where you get twice the rewards for attacking up. heck there should even be an option for alliances to drop out of assaults. some alliances are only for swarms.

 
Flag Post

Here to express my frustrations at the current AA system again.

All because someone ranked much higher than us hit us, we’ve been dragged all the way up into crowded territory where I have to wait 6h before I can declare a new war.

Upset mostly at the long cooldowns. Attacker-specific cooldowns may be appropriate to prevent farming but I fail to see any value in the universal cooldowns. All they do is encourage low activity because an inactive alliance has the luxury of 12h to slowly pick any war they want.

And because of the problems caused by the cooldown system, the leapfrogging system. We don’t want to be up here because crowds suck, is it absolutely necessary to make defence wins overtaking wins also?

 
Flag Post

I agree with Juzzie but perhaps for slightly different reasons.

Any ranking system that doesn’t challenge you and actually encourages you to attack as low as possible is massively flawed in my opinion.

We are top 20 but never attack higher than our rank as you get no extra bonus. One idea I would put forward is to actually have the amount of rating increase as you go up and decrease as you went down from your rank. I don’t know about numbers for the points.

I am fed up of fighting people with 3k deck rating and knowing I will 99/100% an AA and then next AA fight 8-10k decks that I normally will only get 85-90% from against the top 5 alliances. I can’t remember the last time we had a close AA.

This may sound a bit whiny but I am just trying to give examples.

Griff

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Griff18:

Any ranking system that doesn’t challenge you and actually encourages you to attack as low as possible is massively flawed in my opinion.

Griff

I think so.

When you are not in top 30, you do have about 40 choices for assaulting as there are many weak alliances below top 10. But when you are in top 30, your choices are actually much less than 40, probably 20 only.

Because you won’t bother to challenge top 10. You know that there is no good for assault alliances with higher rank/rating. No better coin/reputation reward, no more increase in rating.

Even if you have the heart, you won’t be able to encourage your members to join the fight.

Losing assault almost have no punishment and it won’t make your rating drops. Just half reputation is giving but you don’t mind as you’ll never join once you know that you are going to lose.

I’m not begging for punishment, just begging for bigger reward only. If Edgebee can give alliance a little coins or sth juicy when victory, I think our members would be activer than before.

 
Flag Post

How would rewarding a victory change your scenario? You’d aim for the weakest target possible if the coins/whatever would be high enough. And since there’s little to no fluctuation in the top10, rewards based on # would not be the smartest move either.

 
Flag Post

Best scenario is break alliances into groups of 20 (or 50). then have weekly AA ladder tournaments. Have like 10 group brackets (silver, gold, diamond, platinum, elite) which would be top 200 or top 500 alliances. Top 2 (or 5) alliances move up, bottom ones move down a group. Have coins and stuff be higher in higher brackets. Each week will be different. Repeating matches will have meaning, and alliances will try to move up. Not sure how to run the brackets but i guess teams that have not won face each other etc. then the others duke it out. Someone more into basketball might be able to offer the mechanics on this for a 1 week tournament. Maybe it has to be 20 days for 20 teams. so each team can fight once, best score out of 20 wins.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by bmuell01:

Best scenario is break alliances into groups of 20 (or 50). then have weekly AA ladder tournaments. Have like 10 group brackets (silver, gold, diamond, platinum, elite) which would be top 200 or top 500 alliances. Top 2 (or 5) alliances move up, bottom ones move down a group. Have coins and stuff be higher in higher brackets. Each week will be different. Repeating matches will have meaning, and alliances will try to move up. Not sure how to run the brackets but i guess teams that have not won face each other etc. then the others duke it out. Someone more into basketball might be able to offer the mechanics on this for a 1 week tournament. Maybe it has to be 20 days for 20 teams. so each team can fight once, best score out of 20 wins.

This idea has been out there for quite some time (I think Weshu came up with that), and I think it’s really great.

As for the mechanics: I think all alliances should play each other to avoid “lucky” results due to facing weaker alliances. Maybe make leagues with 10 alliances each and have them fight each other for 9 days. 2 or 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, no points for a loss. Top 2 rise, bottom 2 fall, no playoffs. Ties are broken by direct battle’s score. Ranking is based on last cycle’s results. Some reward to winners might be needed to encourage participation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by bmuell01:

Best scenario is break alliances into groups of 20 (or 50). then have weekly AA ladder tournaments. Have like 10 group brackets (silver, gold, diamond, platinum, elite) which would be top 200 or top 500 alliances. Top 2 (or 5) alliances move up, bottom ones move down a group. Have coins and stuff be higher in higher brackets. Each week will be different. Repeating matches will have meaning, and alliances will try to move up. Not sure how to run the brackets but i guess teams that have not won face each other etc. then the others duke it out. Someone more into basketball might be able to offer the mechanics on this for a 1 week tournament. Maybe it has to be 20 days for 20 teams. so each team can fight once, best score out of 20 wins.

I’m not entirely sure what are you head towards since I don’t watch american basketball. But I thought it was something along this line?

………………………………………………First format, dual tournament………………………………………………

A fair double-elimination bracket is called the dual tournament format, take for example, a group of 4 teams:

The 4 teams of each group are split into two pairs and play each other.

The winners of these matches will then face each other in the Winner’s match.

  • The victor places first in the group and advances to the next round.

The losers of the initial matches face each other in the Loser’s match.

  • The loser places fourth in the group and fall out of the group.

The loser of the Winner’s match and the winner of the Loser’s match will face each other in a fifth match.

  • The winner gets second place in the group and advances.
  • The loser places third in the group and fall down.

In the end we’ll get a score like this:
First place 2-0
Second 2-1
Third 1-2
Fourth 0-2

Next round of teams will get re-seeded into groups of 4 again and again. When there’s only a few teams left then it’s usually changed to a single elimination bracket. (Called playoffs)

Of course this runs into the problems that not all the allies get the same number of matches, and thus not the same amount of gold. A possible solution is to offer bonus prizes based on the finished rankings at the end of the season. Another problem is ties can happen in AA.

If you run a single-elimination or double elimination brackets, allies will complain about who you face a lot since you won’t have to fight everyone.

………………………………………………Second format, European football style………………………………………………

  • Round robin format, every team in the same group must face each other.
  • 20teams per league.
  • Winner gets 3 points, loser gets 0, tie is 1 point each.
  • Individual score within each matches will break the ties in case teams have the same score.
  • top 2 advances at the end of the season, bottom 2 falls down a division.

OR

  • top2 and bottom2 goes to up-and-down matches to prevent the same teams keep bouncing up and down every season. For example, they’ll lose to everyone in division 1, and win against everyone in division 2.
  • Up-and-downs groups are also round-robin.
  • Slight downtime between seasons for teams not moving

The issue I have with this is that each season would take almost a month to complete. This will not accommodate new alliances at all since there’re too many dead allies that we can’t possibly filter them all. And if new player joins an alliance, they’ll be blocked from an alliance for the whole season? The idea sounds good, but I’m not sure if we have the kind of player base to support this style of AAs.

Possible solutions to the above problem: since we all know who we need to play in round robin, anyone can just go ahead and play vs the AI of every team whenever they have time. Timer will be changed to weekly instead of daily, and based on a season and not based on matchups. Again, this requires a bit of commitment that I’m not sure casual players are ready to hop on board.

 
Flag Post

True MVP, so maybe smaller groups are better. If we do 10 team leagues than we only need 9 days to get a round robin winner, and have the top 2 teams move up and the bottom two teams move down. I think it will be very fun to be playing tough competition every day.

 
Flag Post

10 team leagues…stressful
and how many divisions would there be?

I prefer a 20 team league, ok it takes 19 days to complete but you will only need 5 divisions and the other teams will play as it is now to get to the top ¿3,4,5? that will let them advance
If a new alliance is good enough in 3 months could get to 1st division which is ok

Doing swarms you only need 30 minutes to earn 30k coins a day, AAs take the same time or even more and you get between 2k and 4k. We definitely need better rewards so that people take it seriously…

 
Flag Post

how about putting prizes based on the rank?
for example, once every 15 days:
20k to each player in the #1
15k to the #2
etc…
maybe for the first 40 alliances. everyone will be encouraged to have higher rank, and there’d be a bloody battle on top. :P

Edit: i disagree with dividing into leagues.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JuzzieJT:


top15, payout 10K/all fights completed
2nd 15, payout 6K
3rd 15, payout 3K
4th 15, payout 2K
5th 15, payout 1K

For a player from the top 15 who can do easily 30k+ coins a day: 10k is a good reward for 30,40 minutes imo.
However 3k..

The league system allows everybody to fight everybody else so that #1,2,3,4 and 5 will have to play against each other ;P

 
Flag Post

For all those replying, if you took the time to read through my entire post, I’m actually suggesting a hypothetical bracket system where every team plays every other single team within the bracket, rotating daily. Promotion and relegation occur every fortnight. (Because 15 teams per bracket.)

Because I believe we’ll enjoy it more and there’s more certainty as to who really deserves which place when we can actually (and are forced to) battle every single alliance in the bracket creating more variation. Plus points include no farming and no longer having to wait between AAs.

The details of the reward system are simply to make sure that #10 alliance isn’t disadvantaged compared to #11 alliance, much like Daily Duels are now. #1 should give better rewards than #2 than #3 in general etc etc, while still having sizeable rewards for fast-promoting teams.

 
Flag Post

MVP, I was lazy to explain the round robin format I proposed, nice job on that :)

My 2 cents:

- I don’t like any kind of playoff matches, cuz it may mean some alliances have to wait while the others battle;
- 10 team leagues sounds better to me, for shorter “seasons” and more dynamic ranking;
- It would take too long for alliances to rise to the top with 10 team leagues. We could have like 10 leagues of 10 teams, 10 leagues of 25 teams and “the rest”. On bigger leagues, teams fight 9 random battles. On 25 team leagues the top and bottom 4 rise and fall.

 
Flag Post

I have one idea which can help a little (help with Overcrowding mainly).

After your alliance was attacked you are protected 12h.
What about add a button to remove protection if you want ?

It’s kind of simply change (I think) and can be useful. Sometimes you don’t want to hunt for a specific AA and you are just waiting this 12h and more until someone attack you…
in that situation you would be able to remove protection and gave other alliances possibility to attack you earlier… it should help a little … at least it wouldn’t make it worse then now ;)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by weshu:

I have one idea which can help a little (help with Overcrowding mainly).

After your alliance was attacked you are protected 12h.
What about add a button to remove protection if you want ?

It’s kind of simply change (I think) and can be useful. Sometimes you don’t want to hunt for a specific AA and you are just waiting this 12h and more until someone attack you…
in that situation you would be able to remove protection and gave other alliances possibility to attack you earlier… it should help a little … at least it wouldn’t make it worse then now ;)

+1 i like the idea.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by weshu:

I have one idea which can help a little (help with Overcrowding mainly).

After your alliance was attacked you are protected 12h.
What about add a button to remove protection if you want ?

It’s kind of simply change (I think) and can be useful. Sometimes you don’t want to hunt for a specific AA and you are just waiting this 12h and more until someone attack you…
in that situation you would be able to remove protection and gave other alliances possibility to attack you earlier… it should help a little … at least it wouldn’t make it worse then now ;)

I definitely like this idea.
+1 from me as well.

 
Flag Post

Weshu’s button solution makes little sense to me; if you’re online and bothered to press that button, what reason do you have not to declare on a war of your own choosing instead?

It also does not help my particular system where the issue is semi-inactives. Personally, it also feels rather clunky and inelegant.

I would rather protection be abolished entirely except for a specific protection against ONLY the alliance which just attacked you. Unless someone can explain to me the point and purposes of the current long protection period, I don’t see why it cannot just be removed or shortened drastically.

Of course, a revamp with automated tier opponent assignments (like in many current sports leagues) is my preferred view of the future, get rid of this declaration system entirely because it just results in repeated whacking of the same alliances over and over.