Alliance Wars Matchmaking (Discussion & Developer Response)

We lost with 2972 points against 3603 points. I still think it was a fair match up. Part of our loss was we had 4 players that didn’t attack, while our opponent was full on.


Can we please have an opt out, @mhalttu? So alliance members that are unable to participate can opt out so they won’t be included in the matchmaking and in the war?

This really is the One Big Thing that is missing from this feature.

Would be very great if this could be implemented.
We have several members that are not willing to play the wars anymore because they are this ‘wonky’. They do not find any joy in winning from a team that has less then half the strength or being beaten by a team you cannot hit due to the big differences.
So we have players that now are setting defence team and that’s it.
If these players could opt-out and not be calculated during match making that could make a hughe difference for matchmaking.

Opt-Out I’m asking for… for the Alliance Leader to use, to have the alliance opted out of AW. I don’t believe Opt-Out for members to use is a good idea. It should be all in or all out decision.

This is not a promise of anything, but if we did implement the opt-out for Alliance Wars, which would make more sense? In both options, the person could change this status at any point although it would not affect the current war.

  • The leader of the alliance chooses if the alliance participates in the wars
  • Each member of the alliance chooses for themselves

0 voters

I realize the third option is to implement both, but I’d like to ignore that for the purpose of this poll.


To me:
the alliance leader could not know if players could or couldn’t be active that day.

A system where you start with a opt-out after every completed war and then have the chance to set opt-in would be the best IMHO.


Is war score a variation on titan score?

Because titans have fixed attack stats, defense stats and HP but alliances change all the time.

Yes and No on using Elo’s math.

One way to deal with people changing alliances and faster response using Elo’s original math is War Medals, which solves the individual player boycott problem ( boycotting results in 0 War Medals) but still suffers from the same problem as Elo’s original math if people deliberately tank ( skipping a war against a very strong opponent to lower you War Medals or a team Elo based score or whatever Elo based number is used ).

The forum is full of war anti tanking suggestions (see Notes) but in the end this is a game.

If international sports federations with millions in funding and decades of experience cannot stamp out tanking, SGG probably will not succeed ( but if they do, big bucks in licensing).

Also, what looks like tanking to the injured party may something else for their opponent- real life getting in the way, misunderstanding of rules/ strategy/ tactics, or just a cultural difference in how games are played.

Some people on this forum want live raiding without realizing live raiding means no rerolling raids with food. War is a perfect example of the player frustration that can result from initial match, no rerolling PvP. Though how you could add rerolling to war is a question beyond my abilities.


If implemented I would prefer a permanent toggle “Always participate in war/ never participate in war” with second toggle “Join next war/ skip next war “ that resets after each war based on the first permanent toggle.

Default Opt out ( first toggle) always resets the “join next war/ skip next war” to “skip”

While a default Opt in ( first toggle) always resets the the “join next war/ skip next war” to “join”

That way you have a default preference and a next war preference.

If I love war, but am going on vacation- I can change the first toggle until I return from vacation.

If I am in court Wednesday- I can change the second toggle to “skip”. But my default toggle will auto select “join “ for Saturday.

Chest for always attacked war defense teams link

Modifying Wanted Heroes mission chest link

My propose were mainly to skip cases where players couldn’t log (like breaking the phone, vacation where you don’t have internet, various stuff) but even your suggestion is pretty good :wink:

1 Like

This doesnt work than last two wars we had a difference in player nuber from 8 and 10.

So after pissing and moaning about fairness we ‘only’ lost by 600. Well within a reasonable expectation I think given scores in the 4k range for both teams but this is 3 in a row we’ve lost by 600-800 - so it is getting old to my mates. We will see what this weekend brings.

Make a score that reflects ones accomplishments during the war. Points can be given for (for example) opponents hero killed (stronger hero is more points), opponents teams killed in one attack (stronger teams give more points), attacks made during a war, was won etc. etc. I think ‘Bonus points for victory’ should not be counted in this score because players that typically do ‘clean-up hits’ would otherwise get massive scores.

You could take the scores of the last X number of wars and weigh the recent ones heavier then the older ones. This would make the score adapt faster is a player moves to a new alliance or grows faster then average.

This scoring can be done for an alliance but even better would be making this score personal. Combine the scores of all members of an alliance and you would have a ‘war score’.

If a player leaves an alliance, he takes his part of the war-score with him. And if he the joins another alliance, his score is used to calculate his new alliances war score. Switching alliances would therefore affect the war score of both those alliances.

Matchmaking would then be done based on the accomplishments during wars. If an alliance does well, they get tougher opponents and vice versa.

This way we do not have to kick a player from our alliance who likes the game but does not like the wars. He simply does not participate and his heroes are not used in matchmaking for our next opponent.

If you would like me to make a more detailed description of this plan then please just let me know.

A titan-score reflects you accomplishments while fighting titans. A war-score reflects your accomplishments when fighting wars.
(I hope that answers your question)


I know jack beans about coding and algorithms and all that stuff, but my gut tells me you are on to something with this proposed method. Wouldn’t it take a lot of more wars to gather enough data though?

1 Like

Titans have a preset strength defined within the game… that preset strength is used to determine the score…

With alliances… you would have to be comparing some “other metric” which would determine how strong the alliance is and how your score would adjust accordingly… you couldn’t just base it off enemy alliance war score because a newly-formed strong alliance may have no (or little) war score and completely annihilate you.

Anyway, update on the latest War… we were on average 3 levels under the opponent and our defense teams were an average 80 points lower (their war defenses were on average lower than their raid defense… not sure why).

We wound up winning by under 300 points and it was one of the toughest and most enjoyable wars we’ve had. It looked like the enemy might have run away with it early on as they used their strong hits to go deep into our alliance defenders… but after halfway through the 2nd wave of team-killing they started to flounder against our medium-strong defense teams. They saved a few big hitters for the end. My alliance typically saves a lot of big hits so we can hit about equal of the 3 waves. We finally pulled ahead with less than 4 hours to go in the war and the enemy could not hit us hard enough to take the lead back.

It was invigorating and quite enjoyable for us (probably heartbreaking for them). I’m not sure if this was a Top 5 matching system though… the enemy did have stronger heroes than us, we just had much deeper rosters and could hit well 4-5 times.

Can individual players be tracked with their own ELO score?

And ignore my previous comment about being lambs to the slaughter because they were 7k higher… we actually won by 300.

We were a whopping 250 points lower in our last war (based on average defense team power) - we lost (as mentioned) by less than 500 so it was a moral victory of sorts, but still, we’re tired or losing by 500+ every war.

1 Like

Still lost by 800, and they had 3 less players and 2 more non participants (3-1) including their leader whom was faaaaaar superior to anyone we have.
Posted too early, their other players showed and ran it up to a 1400 point disappointment again.

Different war same story:

Their top 3 higher than our highest (3702). Their high 4001.
35-3900 them 6 us 2
34-3500 them 12 us 9
32-3500 them 5 us 9
Under 3209 them 6 us 9
Avg team piwer: 3375 to our 3215.
At every position their team had more power from #1-29.
Same as every other top 30 war:
Opponent goes up 500 points early. We rally and get close in the middle. They finish strong and win.
At one point we out attacked them 144 to 95 and had the lead but it didn’t last. We finished with 149 attacks them with 126. If they had equaled our attack number they would have blown us out of the water.

I’m sure the devs wont count this as a blowout loss and say it was a good matchup. But again every top 30 match has been this way.
We are always at a disadvantage in terms of top power and overall power. There is no indication our benches are stronger and make up for the difference, certainly not enough to overcome their better defensive team strength.
Our alliance score is always 15k lower than opponents.
We do not expect to win every war.
We shouldn’t have to expect to lose every war either but that is now where we are at.

1 Like

That is why I said you base it on the opponents you fight.

As I said, calculate the score for each player. If a bunch of strong players leave an alliance to form a new one they will carry the score from their old alliance over to the new one. So the new alliance will have a score that kind of reflects their strength.

Think i know how teams are always so much more powerful than ours, easy to game the 30 man roster. Keep top 25 4* and 5* and 3s to fill 5 teams , then have unleveled 1*s in the other spots, or nothing. Lowers overall dramatically and screws honest alliances over.

1 Like

3800-2100. I have multiple people ready to quit. Yeesh.

Cookie Settings