Alliance Wars Matchmaking (Discussion & Developer Response) MASTER

You seem to be missing particular parts of information regarding war scores.

Let’s go back to basics. The war score is dependent on several factors:

  1. Top 30 heroes of each participating player.
  2. Top 5 heroes have extra weighting (assumed to be rainbow).
  3. Top 5 troops (assumed to be rainbow).
  4. Win/loss record for each participating player (previously win/loss record of the alliance).

TP is a metric which comprises the various information regarding the heroes’ stats and the troops. People who use TP as a definitive measure tend to overlook other important aspects of a team’s (defensive in this particular scenario) composition. It is possible to defeat a team with 500 TP higher than your own attack team with the correct composition and tiles.

The one part of war score missing is the win/loss modifier. As I mentioned above, a player has a base war score comprised of points 1, 2 and 3 above. If someone had the interest I’m sure this can be calculated and generalised. It’s point 4’s contribution to the war score which remains unknown as far as I can tell.

Basically, take that base war score then it gets modified by some factor to create the new war score after the war. Now it should be easy to see this: an alliance who have lost a lot (whether due to bad form or by design) will be close to their base war score.

Now suppose an alliance with a lower war score has been in good form and won a few. Their base war score is modified so it is greater. Put the two together and there’s a higher probability of these two alliances being matched.

One thing you may see often claimed is if you want to avoid mismatches then you need to be in a full alliance. I don’t think it’s completely true. One factor in this is actually the bench/roster difference between the ‘highest TP’ player and ‘lowest TP’ player in the alliance. It’s really simple mathematics: how many different ways can you add up to 20? Take this example and apply it to a player’s base war score. And then apply it to the entire alliance. Notice the potential variance between top and bottom? Personally I believe that variance is more likely responsible for perceived mismatches in strength.

The war matchmaking process is essentially aimed at a 50/50 win/loss ratio. Once you win a few then expect to lose a few. With a higher war score you’ll either meet similar base war score alliances on similar form, or higher base war score alliances on a losing streak. That’s not to say it isn’t possible to be ahead of the curve, so to speak, but it would likely require more strategising and taking the game far more seriously than some may want.

Note also, the new alliance loophole has been effectively closed by the movement of war history to be a player metric rather than alliance. Each player will carry their own war score to a new alliance, so forming a new alliance will no longer reset the alliance’s win/loss record (there is no alliance win/loss record as such now).

This isn’t a defence of how war matchmaking occurs, but an attempt to explain what I understand about it.

Additional: I wrote the above the other day but it took a while to formulate. But since the discussion has continued…

Hopefully my attempt above will go some way to explaining the war score aspect and perceived discrepancies.

Though you seem to focus on the defence teams’ TP on the field of battle a bit too much. There are level 30-something players with TP4200+ raid defence teams comprised of mostly 5* heroes. What about that level 70 player with only a TP2000 raid defence team? Do not let TP mislead you. Look to other things like the tank’s DEF stat, and the points worth of the team. Also consider their specials and whether your heroes can counteract them. There’s a lot more than just TP to consider in attack.

If you truly believe it’s a bug, then submit information to the bug thread or file a direct ticket to support. While I do believe the war matchmaking algorithm isn’t necessarily satisfactory, it doesn’t mean it is broken.

Philosopher: Thank you for the reply and details, but I still feel the War Score calculation is broken or bugged in this case. Although a player may not have its 5 best heroes on the Battleground the total Power of all Teams should provide a fairly representative total for the 5 strongest heroes and troops used to calculate War Score. Additionally, the opposing Alliance was 7.5 Levels per member ahead of each of our 23 members. There is no way their bench depth/30 strongest heroes was less than ours. We also had 6 members in War below Level 30 they had none below Level 30.

None of it adds up to our War Score being 53,358 and their War Score being lower by 2,000 at 51,112. So, I posted this to Bug Forum as it does not add up and I am aware for the metrics used for the War Score calculation.

Of Note: Our War Score was at 53,358 after losing four Wars in a row and dropped to 53,064. All members participating in the War the same so apparent drop of 300 in War Score after adding one loss to all 23 participating members war history.


Any responses??

Discussion thread rather than bug report. Given the war score discrepancy I would suggest reporting it as a bug. The original thread was closed due to inactivity, so you may need to either start a new thread (though I think someone has), or request that one to be opened.

What is the point of war these days? For alliances with open rosters it will always be a win/lose situation.

@Guvnor, can you please clarify

During match making, any time you opt in to war, no matter how brief, even if its less than a minute to check alliance ranking if you were to opt in / out, you’ll be added to the battlefield :thinking:?!

If you are opted in while matchmaking is underway, uou will be on the battlefield.

You need to be opted out BEFORE matchmaking commences.

Just wanted to chime in and report that our Alliance with 19 - 20 members opted in for war has had eight lopsided mismatches in a row. Obviously I cannot see the bench depth of both sides but the strength of the opposing Alliance’s on Battleground Teams have been 200 to 300 points each higher than our Alliances on Battleground Team strength.

I know the top 30 heroes are taken into account for the war score but I find it hard to believe that in eight straight matchups in a row that the on Battleground strengths would differ significantly from top 30 heroes of all opted in members.

If anyone from SG wants more details I have tracked pre and post War Scores after each match along with the total on Battleground strength for both sides. The opposing Alliances are just toying with us in these lopsided matchups. We did manage to win one of the eight as they left 40 flags on the field to our 8 Flags.

Just trying to improve the game and provide some teams on the opposing side for our Lower Level new members to use their Flags on.

Thanks for you time and consideration into improving this aspect of the game.

New experiments with war matching?
Opponent alliance:
Opponent
My alliance:
Our

We have 4 defeat in a row. All opponents was stronges than we on 2000+ scores

1 Like

This is the part 99% of players don’t get or understand…

We are quite a strong alliance with an average of 27 members and our lowest opponents defense tp is usually around the 4100 to 4200tp mark and highest in the 4600 to 4700tp plus…

But as you stated tp of a défense team isn’t the way to go about worrying who is stronger or weaker as an alliance as like most players they will use their strongest team in war defense even if it is their only strong team of let’s say 5* heroes and the rest of their roster may on consist of nothing but 4* heroes…

The more you win wars the more likely and surely your next team will have a better war score than yours in the next war as they will be the losses of the last war who where already fighting in a stronger arena than yours to begin with and thus by having lost you both meet up in the middle and match up.

WHAT a lot of players don’t realise about wars is that their is NO prize for winning or losing NORE do you get better rewards for winning or losing in your chest. Wars are meant to be nothing more than an alliance participation activity to enjoy as a group.

Your war chest rewards are only based on your participation of the wars not Weahter you win or lose. Trust me we fill at least 1 chest à month and our rewards are no better weather we won 6 wars in a row or lost 8 in a row and on many occasions we have gotten better rewards from the lower end than from the top end.

In actual fact we have come to a conclusion when it comes to these war rewards that are souly based on participation, and that is that the more we lose and get 1 point the more times that chest registers us as having participated in wars during that chest, the better the rewards because winning wars in a row most certainly doesn’t pay well at all.

Anyway matchmaking in my opinion is about as fair as it can be given the amount of alliances there are in this game and since that for every winning alliance there has to be a losing alliance and eventually the lowest powered alliance will always meet up with the strongest losing alliance within a that arena spectrum, this is an issue all losing team will have forever no matter what SG does fix the problem.

Have fun all and most of all opt out if you can’t use all 6 flags as that will help your teams mates out heaps.

They left to go merc and then rejoin and then you see the picture of how it’s happening

How to get legend hero like telluria?

I have to point out that they actually have a point here. A margin of 50 points is really close and indicative of a close matchup. If you take all the points from their lowest scoring player, what is the margin of win for you?

I’m guessing that your alliance have on average higher defenses than your opponent, so their lowest player probably wouldn’t be able to get many points. And your alliance probably dominated the top 10 players in the war leaderboard.

For comparison purposes, the margin of loss for us was around 700 points with equal number of players, with everyone on both sides using all their flags.

If we follow and admit your reasoning, it would amount to accepting and validating to play with a handicap from the start, because we are stronger than our opponents: then tell us what is the point of being better and of respecting the rules. play for us?

SG must remain impartial and, in pure doubt in rare cases, opt for a meditation which allows the two covenants to benefit from victory in an identical way.

So, basically, you’re saying that because you’re stronger you should have an easy win instead of having a war that tries to even out the difficulty so that you have a competitive opponent.

1 Like

No, you are twisting my point: I am saying that we should not be disadvantaged on the number of strikes on the pretext that we are stronger according to SG: in this case, rare as it is specified, matchmaking is not no longer based only on the potential and the real results of our alliance since the war is biased from the start because we are pitted against one more player opposite, so a handicap of 6 strikes to go up before the fight even begins. Would you take a fight or a race or any other competition in real life or get penalized for being better? I do not think so and it does not comply with fair play or the rules of the game …

You’re just repeating my point. I didn’t twist it at all. You’re saying that you’re better than everyone else, other alliances can’t compete. So to provide competition, SGG has balanced your strength with an alliance that is overall weaker, but has extra player to compensate.

You didn’t answer my original question:
Take out the lowest player scores from the other alliance, what are the scores?

I’ll add another couple of questions so you can understand what I’m getting at:

  1. How many of your alliance were in the top 10 of the leaderboard in the war?
  2. Have you been on an extended winning streak against other alliances with 29 players?

The less charitable part of me is reminded of the previous discussions where it was mentioned that alliances purposely limit their alliance size to 29 to avoid competing with the big alliance, so they can beat up on other alliances of 29.

Few months ago, I was briefly “on vacation” from competitive playing, and five of us made small alliance to recover resources for crafting high-level titan items. During that period, we were twice in AW 5 vs 6, and those 6 extra flags were huge advantage for our opponents.

In even number AW maximum potential points each alliance can score is 9.000. In 5 vs 6 AW, 5-member alliance can score up to 7.500 points, and 6-member alliance can potentially score close to 11k points. There is practically no room for errors (bad boards).

Let’s make this simple. Let’s say there are only 119 people playing the game right now, and they are all in 4 alliances, three with 30, and one with 119. Two of the thirty people alliances are evenly matched, and they get matched to war against each other. Since there’s only a 30 and a 29 left, should they just skip war this time and have to wait until there’s a more even matchup? What about war hits for PoV? What about their war chest progression? What if it never evens out?

SG has to occasionally mismatch team sizes, that’s just reality. Be happy the war was as close as it was given the circumstances.

1 Like

Hello,
I’m glad you talk about the POV because my brother didn’t have any matchmaking for a war : SG forgot to find an opposant to him and he lost points for the POV and the war chest…

Otherwise, let’s take an analog example with 2 tennis players: one is part of the top 10 and the other is from qualifying. As the qualifier had no luck in the draw by falling on a top 10, the referee must give him more points, games or balls so that he then has a chance of winning? … .