Opt out only lets the whole alliance opt out. Doesn’t work when only some members have given up on wars.
Our alliance requires some kind of participation from everyone, but doesn’t require all to do wars. I realize that won’t make us high on the leaderboards for wars. That’s fine. But surely there must be many similar alliances where there is a range of participation and a range of strength due to differing amounts of time and money spent so far. There should be plenty of alliances at our level to match us against. So why are we only getting matched with alliances that far outrank us??
Well, I AM a mathematician. What we’re seeing is a self selecting group, because people who win all the time aren’t here to complain. If you surveyed the entire game population, obviously you’d have half wins and half losses. The problem is that what it SHOULD be is EACH ALLIANCE winning about half the time and losing about half the time. That’s what would happen if they were all WELL MATCHED with other alliances at their own level. But what we’re seeing instead, apparently, is some alliances winning all the time and others losing all the time. That’s what happens when they’re NOT WELL MATCHED.
In my main alliance, we have definitely had our share of frustrations throughout the different iternerations of AW matchmaking. But the last month or so, and I know this will be the shock of all shocks, it seems to have improved for us. We ACTUALLY had a couple wars where we were the superior team using alliance ‘score’ metrics.
I personally, as the highest-power player (by 500 cups or so), decided to swap my accts by bringing my alt acct over to my main, and taking my main to my alt. I don’t know how much difference this swap made, but perhaps removing the ‘spike’ team for one that compared to the top 5 other teams in our alliance helped our overall war matchmaking.
We also have excellent participation, and contrary to popular notions about boards and the matchmaking itself, I believe this is one of, if not the most important, variable in winning wars. After all, we have been the underdog in 90% of our matches and have won our fair share due to participation.
I don’t think people with the ‘take my toys and go home’ mentality are doing their alliances any favors. Happy gaming, all!!
War matchmaking still sucks. My alliance tends to be one that has un-winnable matches most of the time and maybe 1/4 of the time has a close war, and win one once in a while.
If there was GOOD loot for winning a war, I’d be a lot more upset about it. What I’ve seen is that war loot is low value, (more like Mystic Vision loot than elemental chest loot or even titan loot) and also doesn’t appear to be all that much better than loot from losing a war.
If winning got you something like an elemental chest, the bad matchmaking would make me actually upset, rather than kinda annoyed and able to a bit and get back to enjoying my game as I do now.
So please make the matching so that we have a fair shot of winning … or keep the loot similar between won and lost wars.
I really like one idea that was suggested by a previous poster (sorry, couldn’t find it again to give credit).
They suggested that a war chest be like a monster chest and you can fill it with the heroes you kill in a war. That would encourage more participation.
If a war chest were implemented for wins, as it stand right now our alliance would literally NEVER get one point in it.
Every time we’d see that empty chest it would be salt in our wound
It takes too much away from the devs wanting wars to be team focused experience. The killing blows contradicts that, unless you refer to heroes, or teams killed by the alliance and it then opens at say 300 kills? I hadn’t thought of the latter example when people have mentioned fills by kills. Kinda dig it
The war prep lockdown at 24 hours isn’t a good thing for our alliance either; it interferes with recruiting. (We don’t have members that go out mercing or use mercs so that doesn’t impact us)
But we do have occasional members to replace, and if somebody leaves during the war prep lockdown, we cannot add a new member who gets to participate in the war.
Further, it is harder to recruit during lockdown because reasonable, well behaved players try not to leave during either lockdown or war, after matching, as it would put their old alliance at a disadvantage.
The only real loss I see is it is a bit harder to set up a war chat without some prep time…but 2 hours would be sufficient for that.
Don’t worry D, we have the war chest now! The people currently stomping us will fill chests and get phat loot (ascension mats) and after a few months they might be classified as sufficiently stronger to not be matched with us anymore
Perhaps dividing alliances into two pools before running the matchmaking procedure would add some fairness to the process; one pool for teams that won the previous war and a second pool for teams that lost the previous war.
In this manner, any unbalances in the current matchmaking algorithm would be lessened, and the likelihood of extremely long streaks would be mitigated.
That is an interesting suggestion. I’d still definitely prefer a true ELO/Ladder based matching system, but this would be WAY easier to implement and could be used as a stop-gap measure until the harder one is in place.
I would very much like to know this too. Many in my alliance are cranking out heroes with TC20s, and I wondered how they (and any lucky pulls) that aren’t leveled up are affecting the top 30. I have one completely un-leveled 5* myself, (Magni) and he is still at 1-1 (based on power rating) ahead of some of my maxed 3*. Just based on power rating on the heroes, I would have to level up at least 5 more heroes to boot him out of my “top 30”.
But if a 5* is just rated as equal to any other 5* irrespective of leveling status and practical power (as in some 5* are better than others, by what margin can be argued) that would go a ways to explain the horrendous matching we’ve been facing.
a bit and get back to enjoying my game as I do now.
