Alliance Wars Matchmaking (Discussion & Developer Response) MASTER

If the war chest is based on flag use/participation that will be something all can take advantage of, if it’s based on wins it won’t be.

It’s nice to see a bunch of tips here for things to try, and I do believe you mean well, but it’s also a little condescending. We’ve been posting that the wars we have been placed in have been unwinnable due to gross team disparity prior to any individual opt out. Most of the people here complaining in this thread are trying, trying new things every war, (probably) most of us have been reading war tips. That’s why they are frustrated. Of course the upcoming war chest answer comes across as cold comfort.

I feel like you are pretty far removed from the situation, because the mono-tank strategy (while very valid and effective) is virtually impossible in a training alliance where we use the best 30 we have, and may not have a great array of tank choices in which case we should be matched up with other alliances in a similar boat;) but I digress…

Patience is something we should have, yes. I think those of us that continue to participate despite the matchmaking issues are patient.

“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”

1 Like

We can’t all be winners Peri

I think that many of us were mistakenly laboring under the impression that, like most combative forms of sport, there would be divisions, weight classes if you will, based on some sort of logical distribution.

People don’t want participation trophies. They also don’t want to be slaughtered week after week by being tossed up against a team of heavyweights, so to speak, when all they have on the field are welterweights.

That’s it. It’s not about winning. It’s about having a reason to fight.

4 Likes

I don’t know why this point always seemed to be lost and our comments just put down to “whining”.

The devs must have a way to see that it’s ALWAYS some alliances that are matched against too strong an opponent.

It’s insulting to be repeatedly told that’s it’s our own bad strategy that makes us keep losing.

Let’s not keep blaming the featherweight for constantly being put into the ring with the heavyweight. Sure, on the rare occasion the heavyweight can be beaten but really, how often do we bet on the underdog in a fight?

5 Likes

Here’s my war feedback
I like the idea of when a team is wiped out it is replaced by the next team on defense until all 5 of the preset teams are gone. This limits people fighting the same popular teams over and over and gives reason for multiple of the same hero. It also adds more strategy because as you wipe out a defense team you might face a weaker team or maybe a stronger team. It becomes all about how the alliance strategizes.

I’m also fine with the idea of only using a hero on atk teams once which again encourages multiple of the same hero’s. This will become less of an issue as the game matures.

Finally keep war screen open to defense team changes all the time except when a defense team is locked into war. There should be a timer that shows when when war prep will begin and defense teams are going to start locking. And only after defense teams are locked and war prep begins should the computer calculate war scores to prevent alliances from abusing matching as they are now.

Also I’d recommend making war once every 5 days, have it last 36 hours and increasing the rewards accordingly for both winning alliances and losing To encourage participation.

Add an opt in feature for players through setting up defense teams. Allowing players to set up anywhere from 0-5 defense teams. You can only attack if you have at least 1 defense team set. However you need to encourage each player setting up multiple defense teams by weighting points so that the more defense teams you have set up the less each individual team is worth. You could do this through the bonus points that is awarded for clearing teams. For instance let’s say clearing all a players teams are worth 50 points. If I only set up one defense team worth 50 points and you clear it you will get the full 100 points for the clear. If I set up 2 defense teams each worth 50 points it is then worth 75pts to clear both teams. If an alliance fully clear all of the defense teams from another alliance then the defense teams are reset back to the beginning and are killable again.

Doing the above provides much more strategy to both the attacking and defending alliances. Discourages a lot of bad habits in the game such as kicking members who can’t play for a short time since they become liabilities and instead allowing them to opt out of war by not setting defense teams, etc.

Also grant all 6 war flags immediately. This with the above design increases strategy. You might have people immediately blow all thier flags or save them until another alliance member clears a defense team in the hopes to spawn a weaker defense team.

Finally After a defense team is cleared put in a small 60min respawn window until the players next defense team spawns. This means to completely clear a single player who has set 5 defense teams it will take at least 4+ hours. Again this is all about encouraging strategy and prevent just ganging up on players with weak lineups.

I think the above adds much more strategy. Personally I would likely have my strongest team set up as my 4th team becuase my 5th team is a bunch of unleveled alts. Hoping my strongest team acts as a roadblock from me being completely cleared. Again it’s about making war into a strategic game instead of just another raid and giving all quality of players an alliance a chance to participate. If you only have one decent team that’s fine you can set up 1 defense team. If you have 3 then That works too. If you are going on vacation for a bit you won’t be much of a liability to your alliance since you won’t give up any points by setting zero teams however it makes each of your alliance members defense teams worth more weighted points. So it’s still better if you are active but not as much of a liability as it’s now.

Two other ideas are also add in a spectator mode so players can watch other players battles in war and add a cross alliance chat option in war.

4 Likes

I couldn’t care less about any war tweaks until the match making is done properly and would consider them as a slap in the face. “Here, we’ve found a new way for you to be brutally thrashed in wars.”

7 Likes

Our Alliance is currently at War. The Alliance we are battling with has INACTIVE Teams, from 1 day to 253 days, on the Battlefield.
Seven out of their 18 Teams to be exact. Our Stronger Teams, and less equal Teams have already battled against every one of those absent 7 teams.
How can inactive Alliance Teams presently battle in War? Is this allowed? If so, how is it done, and why is this allowed?
I have taken screenshots of each Team, including the Alliance’s information.
I’d prefer some discretion if asked to share the proof with you.
Thank you for your time. I’ll be waiting for your reply.

Since titan score stopped being the matching parameter we were able to win just one war. The usual scenario is that about 10-12 of us do not have the team power to face our adversaries weaker teams. We do try our best, but sometimes it is pretty hopeless from the start.(like this war, with arrows). Our alliance is mixed, most are f2p, we have 7 with tp 4000+, 10 between 3500 and 3900, and 11 between 3000 and 3400. It is demoralizing, and by now not many are too keen on war, and we already lost 5 who quit the game because of it

5 Likes

Whatever you’re currently using, it doesn’t work. Our alliance has never won a war. Not one since I’ve been there, and not one that anyone remembers before. We are consistently HUGELY outpowered, and it’s always clear from the start who will win. It’s never even close.

We do have a high turnover of new members. We also have members who don’t participat because they’ve given up or shot because they were never interested in wars or have become inactive but not for long enough to be kicked yet.

Your algorithm NEEDS to take that into account and make wars fair to all alliances. Newer members have zero power below their top five heroes for quite a while, so having more newer members means we always have many players who have only one team and some cannon fodder. We’re trying to come up with some kind of strategy that might make a difference, but it seems pretty pointless. It’s not fun for any of us. It’s no wonder some have given up.

War matching NEEDS to be based on past war performance. A simple ranking like is done for chess should work, and then only allow matches that are very very close in ranking. NO OTHER MEASURE other than PAST WAR PERFORMANCE is going to give you any kind of accurate ranking or fair matching.

5 Likes

The rewards for participating for losing alliances are also far too low. There is no way I’m going to continue participating, with zero hope of winning, for one or two pieces of minor loot per war, when each war includes six rounds of carefully looking for a team or partial team remainder I might have hope against, putting thought and time into picking my team from my handful of remaining weaklings, and then getting my ■■■ kicked again trying desperately to just take down even one enemy hero. It’s way, way too much time and work for practically no reward at all.

Also, how does it even make sense that while you are using weaker and weaker heroes (assuming you start with your top team), those weak heroes always have to fight against the opponent’s strongest defenders?? Or that your best heroes have to be retired after a single battle even if they have full health left, while the defenders keep going in repeated battles until fully dead? I guess these are supposed to balance each other out, but when the defending teams are resurrected with full health while there are no real heroes left in the weaker alliance to attack with, it’s a bloodbath every time.

3 Likes

I think all the complaining alliances have players that outbalance the matchmaking algorithm. We had 2 players that spent a lot of money and have many 5* unleveled. Since they went to another Alliance we had better matches.

We had about 7 straight losses fighting teams far. The last have been even matches. Far more enjoyable.

Most close ever

Thank you so much for sharing this Absolute fact!

After some months. Not a good solution either.

Inactivity shouldn’t be a variable. If you have members that don’t like wars it will be solved with opt out function. If you keep players that don’t communicate absence for days, it’s not SG problem.

So frustrating, lost 2 members because of AW.

1 Like

I’m no mathematician. Ok now that we’re clear on that, 1 alliance is always paired vs 1 other alliance correct? Ok, but somehow it appears, 95% Are always overmatched and have never won.

It has to be that top 5% Are the defenders randomly assigned to up to 20 other alliances to have to face. Meanwhile the 5% actually battle each other because everyone claims that’s who it is designed for. So they have amazing fights while 20 mirrior images of themselves are run by robots and sent out to slaughter hopes and dreams. That might be the matchmaking issue.

Or to quote politicians, “that seems like fuzzy math” seems like it should be about 50/50 with a few Ties sprinkled in. Or still possibly 95% Are screwed based on dillusions while 5% Are laughing at this everyday asking when will they figure it out. …I’m onto it or need some sleep. Peace

And you expect that the people routinely winning are going to complain that it’s unfair?

Sure a few people have mentioned landslide wins but I’m sure the majority of people cruising through AW aren’t particularly worried about whether it would be improved or not.

Well, I’m guessing they get bored slaughtering everyone and have opinions of their own. I used to see lack of loot as a bummer to winners.

Most people prefer a challenge I think. Perhaps a lot of the winners use great strategy and structure, therefore don’t see themselves as overpowered compared to thier foe, just skilled to make it look offset in the end.

Some alliances that went from winning a lot when wars first released to we have lost 10 in a row since update, they struggle to see why. Perhaps they are now more evenly matched and are struggling versus worthy foes. They don’t look to where they can improve but look to what changed matchmaking and point blame there.

Who knows we have lost more wars then won since latest update, but we have had some neck and neck fights decided In last hour. I enjoy it but hope for additional features and rankings perhaps as opposed to entire reboot.

See, that’s why the algorithm needs to take into account that alliances often have people at very different levels. Seriously, no other measure other than past war performance is going to predict future war ability. Only wars use more than one team of heroes and the way things pan out in a war can’t be predicted only by looking at the total strength of an alliance’s heroes at a given point in time. A ranking based on war performance and then allowing input very closely ranked alliances to match would make much more fair matches.

Plus, better rewards for participating at all might keep so many from giving up and dropping out. I thought at first that since you get some loot no matter what, there was nothing to lose by trying. I was wrong. I was expecting the losing loot to be more on a par with what I got from titans that got away. Turns out losing war loot, at least for me, has been on the order of two common items. Wtf, anyway? And selecting teams to fight and teams to fight with takes time seems thought and work. Combined with the fact that each war involves six battles per player, that makes wars a lot of work. It just isn’t even worth my time if this is how it’s going to be.

I really, really hope the devs are listening here.

1 Like