No where can we found that
Something must change in wars. We lost, ok, but 2 days, 6 attacks, 150 points and 1 grass and 1 rugose clothing. Those 6 attacks on anything else give a lot more.
Seven Days Fermented is a bit of corner case because it is so much stronger than most alliances with the same amount of members. There simply are no other alliances of the same size that are good enough to fight them. We’ve tested allowing bigger differences in member counts, but that results in more uneven matches for most of the alliances.
As I said in a different post, July is a bit challenging month because so many of us (including me) are on vacation. We are still testing things, but can’t make bigger changes. I was really hoping we could have made a more measurable improvement before that.
Things we have been working on right now:
Further AB tests using the current logic
Fix for the alliance level opt-out
Things hopefully released early August:
Personal opt-out support
Smaller iterations to the current logic
Things we are discussing:
Implement ELO ranking which was the long term plan anyway. As I said elsewhere, we still needed some heuristic to seed the rank, and that’s why we started with what we have.
Various bigger changes to the current logic, possibly still combined with ELO ranking.
From here yesterday:
2 Likes
Well fought… I honestly did not expect a 1000 point difference, wasn’t even entirely sure who would win. I think your newer players gave our newer (but less new than some of yours…) players opportunities for bonus points, so I think this is a case where having a relatively bigger spread between stronger and weaker teams within the alliance is a disadvantage. We have been on that side of the coin multiple times, where our opponent was much more level across the board than we were.
I definitely wouldn’t have classed this as a mismatch looking at it in the beginning, but in hindsight I don’t know… I think this weak/strong spread will always be a problem if it isn’t taken into account, like I’ve mentioned in the past. Anyway, the ELO system that’s in the works should solve things like this I expect.
Well played and congrats on the victory lol 
I definitely made sure to attack you hehe lol. The newer vs the less people makes it interesting for sure. Question did we have attack arrows as well? And I wonder why there was No special quest this week
Thanks, lol yup I saw you coming across the river for a little visit… I think my return visit to you would not have been too pretty, I might have decent bench depth but you’re a couple hundred stronger than the strongest team I can field… 
Yes we had the arrows too, that’s always the same for both sides. Someone’s mentioned before that all alliances get the same war rule each war even.
Not sure about the quest, that should be more or less random every 2-3 weeks from what I see… June 28 was the last one, so maybe we’ll get another just before or after the next challenge event (Guardians?) which I think will start this Thursday.
I thought I would stop by and pay you a visit 
That sucks we normally would get 1 once a week from my tracking. I guess the next event is delaying it or the glitch with the quest recently messed with it. We had like 3 gem quest in a week I wonder if that was planned
The cycle was 7-10 days for rare quests. Today is day 9. So let‘s hope it comes within the next 24 hours.
It’s there now 20 chars
Hey you talked one up! 
Shrikewood just appeared.
1 Like
Wasn’t me must have been Maaeetz. I’m just teasing I was actually tag teaming you with someone that was Participating in the war for the first time. Congratulations again on the victory 
Well, we got destroyed.
Not defeated. Destroyed.
And so did another alliance that I know of.
Ok, war loot is junk anyway, and the war chat was great. But losing by 1800 points is ridiculous. And annoying. Actually, I do not play a game in order to be annoyed.
Ever since the new matching, we have been on the losing end. Never mind that. But losing by 1800 points? Hello???
I do not have to be a genius. I only have to take one look at the opponents’ def teams and at ours, and I can predict the outcome. Good match my foot. - But 1800 points? That is no fun.
2 Likes
Same as it ever was.
We work together, have a strategy, out-attack our opponents and lose by 500-700. Nearly every top 30 matchup at this point.
In this latest they had on average 185 more def power than us. 17 fully levelled 5* vs our 2. 6-8 players level 40 and over, we have 1 at 40 next best at 36.
We attacked 156 times avg 24
They attacked 145 times avg 30
This must be considered a “fair” matchup since so many are like this. And we would be fine with it if there were some balance… We have never, not once, had a higher average defensive power than our opponents. We are always outclassed. Closest we’ve been is 72 less, which we won. Seems like there would be a better spread.
We are not clueless how to play.
Our best player has been ranked (briefly) in the top 100. He helps coach the rest of us to progress.
We have tried all sorts of tactics: one shotting as many as we can, or using bezt teams to weaken, letting our lowest players tag team their lowest or have our lowest clean up, etc. We are currently all tanking red.
Nothing we try changes the outcome in a significant way. We certainly make some mistakes, but not 500 point mistakes consistently every war. Hoping it gets better, hard to keep motivating the team…
5 Likes
Hi everyone, we lost this war. It was 3.389 versus 4.117 points.
UNFAIR MATCHMAKING!!!
So I delved deeper into the data. Of course my interpretation is limited by not knowing on which parameter we’ve been matched exactly.
Our team: 3.542 average defense team strength, 58k trophy score, 56k titan score
Their team: 3.426 average defense team strength, 54k trophy score, 53k titan score
So, before this one started, I already had a gut feeling we could win this one. Clearly these numbers were in our favour. And yet we lost. Why did we lose? Here’s what data is telling me:
Our team: 30,5 points per attack on average
Their team: 30,5 points per attack on average
So despite us having on average 115 team strength stronger teams on defense, they were still able to score the same amount of points per attack on average. An indication that their rosters might be deeper (which would possibly explain part of our matching, I wish I knew).
Our team: 109 attacks
Their team: 133 attacks
Yep. This is where we lost. It has nothing to do with matchmaking. At all.
Morale of the story: you can’t win a war without attacking the opponent.
1 Like
And less than a week later you’d be here complaining about having all these nice spiffy heroes but no ascension mats to make them powerful enough.
And if they gave you all those mats, you’d quit the game a month later because you had reached progression peak just like everyone else and nowhere to progress next, boh-ring meh.
This game’s slow pacing, while frustrating at temporary but sometimes quite persistent blocking points, or at the nth summon that gives you Da-freaking-wa or Friar Yuck, does have it’s merits. You can play it for a long time, with little to no spending, and slowly but surely you’ll still progress, be relevant to your team etc. Patience is a virtue.
Oh and this is all way off topic.
3 Likes
Regardless of what the final score was, I don’t know if you can consider a war between 2 top 15 alliances a mismatch.
I really like the idea of the alliance wars, but tbh I think they are poorly implemented and the loot sucks.
We won the first few we were in and no one in the whole alliance got anything worthwhile. The “rain of hell” was/is utterly ridiculous. I mean, when you’re down to your weakest team in the last round and you have no choice but to battle a team substantially stronger than you, the odds are already against you. Why should you get the arrows at all, it’s insult on top of injury.
And since only the top or longest running players will have 6 fully charged teams, the rules of the game mean only they have a chance of winning everyone else is on a constant downward slope with the enemy above.
Part of the poor implementation (which also plagues raids) is the random cases of the defense team being given superhuman powers:
In one battle the defense team had a Zeline at mid- 3rd tier, a far cry below my fully maxed Zeline. She was in tank and so got her special early. Two of my all 5* team were high 4th tier, Zeline maxed, and the other two were 3/70. All my troops were higher than my opponent’s. Pretty strong right? With one special, the first of the match, the defense Zeline took all my players from nearly full health to gasping deep in the red. There were no buffs or nerfs on either side. That kind of power isn’t possible even if she landed a critical hit on every player.
In another lovely battle my fully maxed Marjana unleashed her special on a mid-4th tier Cyprian. Again, no buffs or nerfs anywhere in the board and lower troops than mine. Cyprian lost 71 health points. 71.
“Glitches” like that happen all too often in the war battles. They completely ruin the fun because you can’t predict things well enough to tailor your team to be a good matchup, you can only go in with the highest team possible. And sometimes it is exactly the opposite and your team lands hits that destroy a stronger team. It’s bipolar, it’s extremism. It’s not fun.
I don’t want to slaughter my opponent, I want to go in strong and end up with one player on each side battling out to the bitter end! That’s where the excitement is. When I finally beat my opponent and my one standing player has like 10 health points, I gasp with relief and dance around cheering. If instead the last standing is my opponent’s player, wheezing and mortally wounded, I want to reach through the screen to shake his hand. That’s a competition. Extreme swings and sudden superhuman powers that defy the game’s stated rules are the opposite of fun.
I’ve opted my alliance out. 1 person wanted to fight, 7 were undecided, 20 cheered loudly.
Please fix these wild swings that grant impossible strengths and make the loot worthwhile. We will return to wars only when you do.
2 Likes
Not true. If you make a player-based war score and you do matchmaking on the combined score of the players in an alliance then this problem would not be there. Strong players leaving would automatically mean an lower combined score so you would be pitted against a weaker alliance. Strong players suddenly joining would have the reversed effect.
edited: typo
To many alliances opting out perhaps?
1 Like