Ranked War Matching and Ranks

There's no way that's working properly lol. They're sorted reverse alphabetically by ID...

Surely with the move to a more ELO-based system actual rankings could be derived across the board, top to bottom?

Right now only the top 150 factions get an actual rank, then everyone else is "Oh I'm somewhere in this block of 100 other factions, but the HOF list doesn't indicate where I could possibly be because the list is ordered Division then first number of a faction ID desc with an inner sort on the rest of the ID" 

Perhaps something to look at so people outside of the top 150 get a more granular look at their ranking. 

And would give a purpose to ranked warring, wanting to climb to a higher rank. Instead of being one of hundreds X rank factions. Can directly compare within that rank 

So with all the computer nerds out there.  I do believe 1 of the goals of this whole project was to reduce the number of "termed" wars.  Was week 1 a success?  Because week 1 is the easiest to make a success so I'm just kinda curious because we negotiated ours?

With us ranking against diamond factions but not being able to get into diamond ourselves it makes the most sense for us to term a 50/50 split if theyre willing as it will maximise everything for both sides 

If we could get into diamond then actually fighting would make a lot more sense 

If you don't qualify for Diamond you should not be facing diamond teams.  I am 100% against the 75 person rule but it is what it is.  But yeah 1 of the key "thoughts" of this change was to minimize termed wars so I'm just curious if anything changed

Don’t give people ideas, we still need people to reverse engineer CE since crimes 2.0 came out 🤣 

3 years too late. 

I continue to be genuinely impressed with both your approach and your insight. You're an asset to this game.

I want fighting factions (and even those that fight infrequent) to have more opportunities to fight fun wars. Medic!! for example fights infrequently: once every four weeks or so, with the intention of actually fighting; if they get matched with an opponent they absolutely can't beat, where's the fun in that? Atlas love to fight, but will term if they have to: I want them to be able to have a real fight whenever they want one. If ODB and TRC and Stompers are going to endanger their sanity virtually every war, I want them to have a fighting chance to win every week, rather than having a hefty percentage of wars that no amount of heroic action can win. I guess this is all to say: I'm less interested in terming over the whole corpus than I am in the qualitative experience of factions who actually want to fight...

This. This is actually what I have hoped for with this change. Having an actual chance to win the war is paramount to having a fun experience and getting people excited to fight and sacrifice their weekends to do so. By being matched with similarly strong factions most of the time, non dependent on your rank, adds a new layer where every matchup has a possibility of a real war. 

We got great matchups since the change, and actually fought a real war, having lots of fun in the process. Thankfully we ranked up, and I think ranking up/down after every war is important to happen for various reasons, mainly that dopamine hit everyone gets of going up the ladder after a grueling war. I would have been pretty mad if we stayed at the same rank and I feel for people that did. 

The only other thing I would change is making the wars shorter, by either lowering the score or increasing the multipliers to get there. I have fought in wars that lasted days and its certainly not a fun experience and I strongly believe that if wars were shorter, people would be more willing to fight them (hence decrease their terming, which is a goal anyways)

For now, even tho I was skeptical at first, I like the new changes and I hope there are more to come. In the current system, wars will always be termed more or less, no matter what, but making it a fun experience when they are not is what it should be all about, and as I understood, its what you are aiming for. I thank you for that.

I’m just gonna point out that this system will cause more insanity to stompers odb trc etc. since every match will likely be closely fought and drawn out over several days..

I lost count the number of times people have suggested the lowering of target scores. Nobody likes staring at their screens 24/7. This seems to be a quick fix to many of the issues complained of - costs, time, effort being disproportionate to the fun and rewards. We can only hope this is the next change to be rolled out. The bigger question is whether they would scale down the cache haul proportionately. If they do so it might negate the incentive to fight real wars at least partially.

Maybe target scores in Diamond, not necessarily lower down the ranks. I’d be wary of an over rotation too far the other way, as a faction that is usually out matched for stats, we win on activity over a concerted period. Lowering the scores too much basically gives more of an advantage to factions with the bigger stats.

I know I’m in the minority, but I love an attritional low scoring war in the first 18 hours or so.

Could be ideally to have a monthly Cache payput based on Rank or how well you done on a monthly basis.

And use bonus respect as a Reward for winning/losing a Ranked War as Faction respect cant be traded.

This small change can have a massive impact on Termed RWs.

I made a small analysis comparing past wars against this last week’s war link

Issue is Bomb Shelter doesnt have stable roster i think. They are inactives+strong core from other subs to cache farm. And that core rotates regularly.