7 V 10 in war?

Hi everyone, the above screenshot shows you what I saw when war begun.
We are down 3 members, and to top it off the team we are against have a +5k war score on us. 5 members are stronger than our strongest player.

One new guy joined (no def team) and forgot to opt out, so he was placed in observation mode. However, why are we still down 2 players in war and matched vs a much stronger team?

Any help or clarification is appreciated.

It doesn’t happen often but it does happen. One of the better explanations of war matchmaking:

Note things like war scores fluctuate before & after matchmaking based on players who are / not opted into wars so what is visible when CHECKED may not be the same as when MATCHED.

Another handy graphic:

And some other miscellaneous links:

4 Likes

Thanks for the response Guvnor, I’m well aware of how alliance wars are calculated. Despite the detailed response I don’t know why my team was down 2 players and against a +5k war score team.

We’re 2-1 (lost last war), so I doubt that’ll be the reason why.

Enemy top 5 players: 4.1k, 4.1k, 3.8k, 3.6k, 3.5k,
Ours: 3.6k, 3.4k, 3.3k, 2.9k, 2.6k.

Typically you’d put your best defence team in wars, so a disparity like this can’t be right.
We’ve already been flipped 30 mins into the war, lol it’s lost.

As I said, war scores aren’t static so if someone joined or left an alliance or opted in/ out the war score updates… Hence the comment about the score when CHECKED isn’t necessarily the same as when MATCHED.

As for the 8 vs. 10 that was explained in my initial response.

Regarding the “Team Power”, that’s just a factor… Not the only factor. Not even the primary factor… Depth is most important in the algorithm. Something you as a player cannot “see” nor compare… So who knows, maybe your team has a comparably deeper roster base than the other team… Maybe they ONLY have their best 3 teams…

Ultimately it’s easiest to think of it like a bag of assorted lollies… You initially sort them by type. That’s cool, now you got 5-6 piles. Now you try to match them with the nearest shape. Then size… Eventually at the end of each “type pile” you have some “odd” ones/ ones where there isn’t a perfect match… So you do the best you can…

2 Likes

Another factor/indicator is… they wait ascend/level higher heroes and or higher troops until match war is finished.
Just like @Guvnor said,… war score is dynamic.

But, down 2 players in war and matched are rarely happend though.

2 Likes

I might be mistaken but leveling hero’s after matchmaking is done, does not influence your defence team anymore?
I think this was pretty recent change…

3 Likes

Not the defense team, the total 30x rosters of strenght alliance as war score calculated.
So, I mean their war score is less during matchmaking,… after matched, then their war score goes higher because of bunch of ascening and leveling heroes, tropps, etc…

5k increase would mean a hell lot levelling in a very short time to make up those points.
But I agree with you, it could be done if everybody was holding back will that moment. But I am not sure what advantage you think you can get out it. Will be incremental.

3 Likes

Sounds like something so coordinated and drastic just for a single win. They have 3500 points on us now.
You do it once, but you can’t repeat it next war.

Alright, I suppose it’s one of those things that just happen for some reason.
I still find absurd that a strength disparity like that can occur, not using 1 flag can cost you a game but potentially being down 6 from the start?

Can you also give insight to into this situation?
4.1k def team = 215 points
3.3k def team = 242 points

Why might the weaker (3.3k) team give more points?

1 Like

Points are based on HP not on TP.

Troops are also factored in.

1 Like

Hm, see now that makes me even confused.

3.3k - 5417 HP in total
3x 3* troops (lv 5, 6, 5)
2x 4* troops (lv 4, 4)

4.1k - 7101 HP in total
1x 3* troop (lv 14)
4x 4* troops (lv 11, 12, 11, 5)

Clearly the 3.3k has a less HP and weaker troops, but it gives more points. Is there a flaw somewhere?

Whole alliance costs around 1500 points, which are assigned to individual teams propotionaly to their health.

1 Like

Sorry, better get used to it :slightly_smiling_face:
Since nearly a year we are underdogs in war, never(!!!) in that period were our combined levels or tp higher than opponents, even after 2 losses in a row (most of the time by a big gap, not just slightly and i am not talking about the warscore mainpulators/new founded alliances after filling a chest, they only make 1/4 of our opponents). Some are the games punching balls, welcome to the club! :upside_down_face:

Sorry when I said troops are included I meant that the HEALTH MODIFIER part of troops is counted into the total HP calculation.

So if hero x has 1500 HP and a 10% HP troop, they actually have 1650 HP.

1 Like

My experience levelling up heroes during AW is that it has had an impact of around 3-7 points maximum (added to the war score) per 4* hero levelled up (rarely that amount in the 24 hours that war takes place in). I doubt it has a meaningful impact at all if your roster is over 60 heroes.

Maybe possibly you should examine your attack strategy? About 4.5 months ago I was suffering from one of the worst losing streaks ever: 12 consecutive AW losses (~6 weeks). I decided to get smarter and watched and read all I could on attack strategy and team synergy and modified my attack style from a 2, 1, 1, 1 setup to a 2, 2, 1 or a 3, 1, 1 and things did improve for a bit. Then, my matches became increasingly harder but more stacking was in order; now I am winning 3-4 out of six attacks (flags) per war mostly using just 4 mono stack teams (1 strong against the tank and 3 neutral against the tank) and (3, 2’s) on cleanup (I get the same opponent for the entire war).

It is less fun trotting out the same teams twice a week than the (my) old style of play!

Yesterdays/todays war, I got flipped once and they ran out of flags; they got flipped 3 times!

2 Likes

we’re on no losing streak, just underdogs for life! And I’m not bitter, you misunderstood and/or misinterpreted what I wrote. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Sorry if I caused offense! I just wondered; with my own war score increasing so dramatically in such a short period that I was left playing catchup that it might be possible for you? It’s not that these teams were out of my reach, I just didn’t have the skills to combat them. Now I am playing the same 4-5 stacks over and over in AW, Raids, the works (it’s not as much fun). And 3500 mono beats 3900-4200 (anything) 4 out of 6 times almost without fail.

Happy gaming!! :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

No offense seen, just wanted to clarify that i wasnt complaining, i like the challenge, its just a bit weird over that long period of time to never be favorite in terms of level or strenght. And i am speaking about lv40 to lv80 (usually around 50-70) guys we meet before someone takes his time to tell me we might have the deeper bench :laughing: (we are from lv29 to 66, and i am the 66 and far ahead of my mates) no native speaker if i didnt find the right words :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Cookie Settings