Alliance matchmaking brackets

So ive been pondering how to make war match-ups more balanced. The major issue we have is with the increase in players TP levels, its getting harder for the average or new player to participate in wars. If you look at the master alliance war thread, players post alot about being overwhelmed by stronger players. We know in the grand scheme that AW is just an activity for member to participate together in. War score alone is not working. So im proposing the following.

Top 30 still to find average player TP.
Your TP gives a graded score.
Graded score of all participants gets set as your bracket.

->3200. E
3201-3500. D
3501-3800. C
3801-4000. B
4001-4300. A
4300-> X

My top six teams are 3906, 3736, 3652, 3587, 3517 and 3468. Average of all six is 3644. This would grade me at C.

Lets say its 6vs6 and they are 3820, 3901, 3332, 4105, 4231 and 4410. That be X,A,A,B,B,D. Using the higher to lower identical grade, the alliance would fall into the bracket ABXD. This alliance would only be matched via war score to another alliance in the ABXD bracket. By simple deduction you could assume or know that one side has 2 or 3 grade A players since there only six players. A and B are first because there multiple players in those grades. Either way the field is still balanced with equal players.

30 man alliance
5 X
6 A
7 B
6 C
6 D
Would be BACDX.

*ile adjust and post more examples if anyone can give we what-if scenarios…

a full alliance of random people woild always result in ABCDX bracket regardless of the team power of individual people.

I like your idea.

Funny… I’m one of the strongest members of my alliance, and using your system, I only score a B. Our bottom members would be E’s. Yet we regularly get teamed up against mostly A’s.

I believe our top 2 or 3 warring members would be A’s, or at the very least, high B’s. But none of our opponents ever seem to have anyone on their team below say C or D.

@Kairhe

A.8
B.7
C.6
D.5
X.4

You move 1 number anywhere and it changes the format. Say an A levels up and reaches X. You would be ABCXD.

The point is if you are in the bracket you mentioned, that mean that the other team has very similiar TP levels and more equal match-ups for individual players in thier own brackets.

Nothing has changed about current matchmaking algorithm. If your alliance score is XXX, your opponent is similiar XXX.

@TGW

Your sum of 30 makes you B? I’m only C which means your overall more powerful then me.

If by your list your alliance was 7vs7 (im guessing) you would fall into ABE (groups you mentioned). That would mean the most powerful matchup opponent would have no more then 5A, 1B, 1E vs your 3A, 2B, 2E. But most of the time you wouldn’t have that matchup as overall alliance scores don’t equal during matchups.

Oh and if you have a C or D in your AW teams, you would def get opponents who also had C or D. This system is designed toward more equal matchups.

Well my top 6 war teams range between high 3700 to about 4000. So yeah, I think that ranks me at B? (average around 3900ish?)

I’ve got a few members on my team who have more leveled 5 stars, they might actually fit into A. But our average war team is C or D, and our weakest are definitely E’s (less than 3k TP war team average, mostly 3* heroes, perhaps they should be ranked F as in “Forget even taking part in this war”?)

ADDITIONAL: I actually have 3 accounts in wars. My main would score a B by your metric. My first alt is a C. My second alt would probably be a D.

Ok say you fall into CDA. Your opponent would also have to fall into CDA bracket before matchmaking algorithm kicks in… more targets for the lower players. :slight_smile:

You wouldn’t go against a team with more A members then C or D members… :slight_smile:

1 Like

Be honest this should help in theory but would need trial runs probably for tweaking… :thinking:

That’s why I like your idea.

Currently, my alliance is getting matched against teams that are mostly A and B members. Hence why I think the current matchmaking system is not working correctly.

Although one could argue that it is working correctly when we are able to sometimes beat those stronger teams. The war win history is the part I would like to reduce from the equation.

guys, I am not sure about this method. In theory I could make 3 X teams and 3 A teams. In reality and taking to account hero synergies I usually do 1X and 3A and 2B teams.

Raw TP is not the best stat to be used to measure strength. It needs to be more complex.

That is already one of the main factors they take into consideration, though. They don’t take into consideration the fact that two heroes might have equal power levels, even though one is clearly far more effective overall than the other…

But I have had people on here argue with me that it’s okay for my team’s level 28 or whatever member with mostly 3* war bench (less than 3k attack teams) to have to fight against level 50+ teams with 4500 TP defenses, because “team power isn’t everything”…

No it’s not everything, but when was the last time you tried attacking a 4k+ team using all 3* heroes? It’s not pretty. And those kinds of matches shouldn’t happen.

haha, I hear you. Same thing like when was the last time you tried to go mono red against mono blue?
Even X mono red team could have hard time to beat B mono blue defense.

No, I don’t think it is fair to say “just try harder” or “everything is possible” but I think war matchmaking is a complex problem and it is not easy use simple TP to make it more fair play.

Btw. Sometimes I do all 3* against teammates on friendlies :slight_smile: For science and out of boredom.

2 Likes

Your using a 6vs6 scenario? So you mentioned an XA alliance and ABX alliance setup. Don’t see what your getting at. For XA, most an opponent could have is 5X and 1A. The more groups (letters) the more balanced the matchups are in perspective targets for all players. Plus for XA overall scoring needs be similiar so you probably wouldn’t get a 5x, 1a opponent. Not saying it couldn’t happen but would be the occasional whoops.

1 Like

I’ve never tried mono red against mono blue… but several of my war opponents seem to favor blue tanks, which causes problems for my roster that happens to be heavy on reds. I almost miss the days when everyone had Telly tanks, I had a bit of fun with those.

Hahaha… i have like 4 usable red… cant get red save my life. :thinking:

1 Like

And thats what I am saying. Imagine your average is X but most reds. Your war opponents would fall into X as well but heavy on blue heroes. It should be fair play in theory but in reality…well.

I know I have used an extreme example but as you wrote above - you are heavy on reds and that could make the most of your average TP score.

1 Like

For red I have Santa Claus (max), Marjana (max), Noor (almost max), Kelile (max), Scarlett (max), Gormek (max), 2x BT (both maxed with costume), Carol (max), and Colen (max). Plus a ton of maxed 3* reds below that.

@t79m I have at least 30 maxed 4 and 5 stars; my average war team is around 3900 TP. Just so happens I have 2 red teams vs. only 1 team in each other color (if I go full mono).

In general, my average war teams are 1-2 legendaries and the rest epics. I only have one X level team, and that is my defense team.

Ok. Gotchya. Then you selected a bad strategy lol. Next war hopefully it works out better for that player. We are currently no strangers to lop sided battles. This system would keep things relatively balanced. Plus the RNG gods might favor you and slaughter the all blue team. Stacks vs weak still so extra damage. I also don’t see specials doing significantly low damage vs weak against. Plus if you have the Norms (which is dont) you xan make weak strong against

No, no, you misunderstand, I don’t intentionally go red vs. blue. That was a last resort after I had exhausted other colors vs. other teams.

Out of 6 attacks. If all of my opponents have blue tanks, I eventually have no choice but to use reds because I don’t have 30 strong green heroes. :slightly_smiling_face:

Cookie Settings