Alliance Wars Matchmaking (Discussion & Developer Response) MASTER

Has this been verified? Extremely interesting news if so… I was under the impression the pairing is based on the top 30 heroes, with special consideration to the top 5 from each members bench… if our opponent gradually increases in difficulty dependent upon our win streak - I have some news to break to my allies!

The last 4 wars have also been taking recent war performance into account. See patch notes Version 15.1 Release Notes. The exact way they use history has not been revealed I believe.

1 Like

I notice most of your posts point towards not liking a forced 50% result. I don’t see that at all but did see proof of 0% wins. I think the metric of previous war history will be weighted less and less as matchmaking hopefully smooths out

What is your ideal match up? Where top 30 heroes of top 30 players is within 200 TP? Well now that’s flawed as team power hardly equals Hero/Team strength.

So you’ve won 3 in a row and face an alliance on a 3 war win streak and 1 loses. 1 is 4-0 another 3-1. I think SG wants wars to be fun and a fair chance, I doubt long term they want everyone to be 50% winrate. I am interested to know how you feel matchup should look.

Try to give it time, I know we already have been but it feels better overall now.

I think it could be possible they had less bench depth. Did your team spend all their flags? How do they spend their flags? When do they spend their flags? What is the average point per flag spent?

1 Like

In our last war, we were matched against an opponent that appeared to have a slight edge in strength - I thought it was fairly even, but wasn’t sure if our mixed level alliance would come out on top.
We did, by a good margin - 3577 to 2871. But it could have been much closer. Our team didn’t use 14 flags, as some of the newer/weaker players don’t have enough teams, some had RL restrictions. However our opponent still had 46! unused flags at the end of the battle, 4 of their players did not use a single flag and these were not the weak players, they had teams 3,4K and above in defense.

So, I think the automatic ‘opt-out’ for inactive players will help the matching process - although it doesn’t seem to be working perfectly yet.

@SirDestroyer I’m curious how your war ended? How many teams were on the field on each side?

Because one thing to note, since you have 22 members and your opponent 30, they must’ve had between 5 and 11 members opted out of war - assuming no one on your side was opted out, else it’ll be even more. That’s a fairly significant percentage of the alliance, up to about one third, so you should also take that into consideration when comparing alliance scores which are achieved by all their members. That makes it actually fairly difficult to meaningfully compare the alliance score without analyzing the strength of the opted out members compared to the average strength of the alliance… but that’s probably not a very useful exercise anyway. My point is simply not to consider the whole alliance score of your opponent when a significant number of their players have opted out.

That’s not to say it wasn’t a bad matchup, I have no idea whether it was or not without more information.


Google Translate:

our alliance took into account the strength of those rivals who were on the battlefield. if they were, then they gave consent to participate. The total power of the defense teams of the opponent is 81,000. We have 74,000. We have 52 flags left with the opponent 53. The opponent’s 14 players have the power 3400 and more. we have 10 players with a power greater than 3000. we lost with a difference of 1034 points. (1995/3029) What else should be considered to say that this is a just war?

Are you in the same alliance as @SirDestroyer, or …?

Anyway from what I gather from the translation, it sounds like you did face an opponent much stronger than you. Not sure what you’re asking?

we are in different unions. do you think that distribution in wars is fair?

That’s a big question. My impression is that currently, it’s the most fair it’s been since the start.

But clearly there are still cases where alliances face enemies they seem to have little chance in beating, yours apparently being one of them. You could say that those cases, in isolation, are not fair. I do think that now there are fewer such cases as there used to be.

And importantly, with war history as part of the match making, there should be far fewer alliances facing this scenario all the time… which brings the overall system closer to perfect fairness… in my opinion, which I know not everyone shares.

So to summarize, there isn’t 100% perfect fairness all the time, but the overall system I think is now closer to it than it’s been in the past, and there will still be individual match ups that are uneven.


Since the latest update our matches have been more fairly balanced. Fingers crossed it continues that way. The wars are a lot of fun when they are competative but not mis-matched.


It seems like the previous matchmaking system was giving us the most fair matchups. However, it also seemed that system was unfair to a lot of alliances who were under 100,000 points. I don’t know what the solution is for them, but for us the new system has given us our most lopsided matchups yet. Before this, almost all of our matches were within a few points…the last two were about 1,000 points difference.

It’s crazy that the solution for one group of alliances causes a mis-match for the other group. We could all be having fun and enjoying the wars :zipper_mouth_face:

It’s amazing that several months after they stopped using alliance score as a matchmaking metric it is the first thing people go to when comparing alliances in wars, the second is cups, the third is Titan score. Yet behold, none of these are used in matchmaking anymore and haven’t been for a few months.

Quick recap -

Cups have nothing to do with wars

Alliance score has nothing to do with wars

There is no way to “trick the system”

The old “boot the lowbie teams so they can’t score” trick no longer works and now actually handicaps the offending team.

War matchmaking is based on the alliance’s past war performance, top 30 heroes of each player with additional weight given to the top 5 heroes of each player and strongest troop in each color of each player.

I’m taking bets on how many people will not read this and just post contrary to how things actually work then complain about the broken system in the same post…


Our last Wednesday war was against a top 50 team and we got crushed. But the last war we face a team with very similar number and we crushed them, while they used 100% hits and we left 20+ on the table.

I’m glad I’m not a Dev guy at SGG trying to figure all this out. Maybe the recent win/loss number should be tamed down a bit in the matchmaking?

1 Like
[quote="TylerDirtyn, post:1760, topic:27360, full:true"]

Alliance score has nothing to do with wars

That’s actually my biggest issue with AW. If alliance score has absolutely nothing to do with war, why have alliance score at all, in the way it’s currently calculated.

1 Like

Hysterical raisins. It was there before wars; not easy to remove it.

At least not until we get the long-awaited AW leaderboard … :slight_smile:

@TylerDirtyn, sorry I butchered your quote, but I saw no way to redeem myself, :joy:

Yes, the current alliance leaderboard made tons of sense before AW rolled out. There was nothing else to base alliances on previously, so total trophies + Titan score worked well I think.

Now, with AW in the mix, Titans may still have a small place in the calculation, but war results should be the top indicator for alliance leaderboard. Alliance leaderboard should be your AW leaderboard.

1 Like

I’m not sure I agree with that, a lot of work goes into holding those cups and downing those Titans. Several of 7dd must be on around the clock to keep those positions in the top 100. In an MMORPG there would be 3 separate leader boards. It’s not fair to take away the accomplishments of alliances that worked hard for those positions.


but 3 times in a row? we have been winning almost every war until this new update, so its more unfair now then it ever has been, so dont contradict me, this is the reality from before and now.

But for trophiy at least, that is an individual effort/score and as I’m sure you’ve noticed, any one individual effort doesn’t translate to a war win. It can certainly helps, but one player scoring 400 points will not typically guide you to AW victory

Cookie Settings