I’m not going to accuse this alliance of cheating, because I don’t know of they are. But it seems very suspicious. (I can’t upload photos because I’m on mobile, but I have them if required or requested.)
One member in particular, his/her trophy score is 534 and team score is 2080. Then his/her Alliance War team score is 3659.
So I guess the idea is to lower overall team score to get matched against easier opponents? Nice addition, this Alliance War.
With the latest update, which seems to use the alliance titan score rather than the total alliance score including cups, dropping cups won’t allow an easier match.
Given the cup total though, from personal experience I think your example opponent is dropping cups for the purpose of raiding for food and easy hero chest filling. When I was about and slightly above that cup range it was pretty easy to get 45 to 50k food per raid. At higher cup levels players tend to be more active so there’s less less food available to raid, and the fights to get it are harder.
So instead of dropping cups, they can let a few titans escape. Good to know; that’s much easier to do. Is there any way to opt out of this nonsense? The alliance members are already pissed enough at the rise in raiding losses and this will be our fourth AW loss out of four battles.
Some folks in peer support just told me that apparently AW cheating is a thing that is known, so I guess right now I’m just venting. I wish it was possible to have fun with this game and at the same time not be so serious about it.
If someone is genuinely planning to pass up on titan loot for a better chance at alliance wars victory rewards, well I would say that from past experience they’re not thinking very clearly. The regular rewards from 1* titans beat anything I’ve gotten from Alliance Wars so far, so dropping loot from a higher level titan just for this seems rather counterproductive.
The matching system is a work in progress so far. The original implementation based on alliance score was easily gamed, the new one is a lot better but still far from perfect, even though it fixes a number of issues using alliance score total did.
The biggest problem sadly isn’t the fault of SMG. It’s the fact that so many of the players would rather work their tails off to find loopholes to give themselves any perceived advantage than put the same amount of effort into winning a fair match as the designers intended.
In this war my alliance is matched with way stronger one: 58k vs 72k
This is issue by itself, but main problem is that I (2500team/1400cups) can score 94 points for their top guy (3500team/2200cups), but he scores 92 for defeating 2800team/1400cups guy.
How its supposed to win a war with weaker team and lower point rewards?
Which is the consequence of weeks of players complaining in the forum that using Alliance Score was inappropriate. If you were of the opinion that Alliance Score was an appropriate matching tool, perhaps you should have come to the forum to make your case before SG responded to players’ concerns and changed it.
And of course, simply comparing power, cups and points for the “top guy” on each team, as you have apparently done, tells us nothing about whether the match is balanced or who is more likely to win. There are 29 other alliance members on each side to take into account.
If you really think you have been mismatched then you’re going to have to make a much better case than that to convince anyone. And quoting Alliance Score, when the talk of the forum since the update is that it is no longer used for matching, does nothing to bolster your credibility.
It’s still not ideal IMO, but it at least filters out dead alliances and inactive players to a large extent, which helps improve the matching. It still doesn’t take into account titan killers who aren’t high enough level to participate in alliance wars though.
If you can’t compare teams on given data, then really you CAN’T do simple math… or you just want to be cool guy and be rude… or something else…
Both teams are worth even total point count and points are distributed between players according to heroes strength. If player from one team is worth around the same points as other, but is way more stronger (3500 vs 2800), then its obvious that one team is way stronger. I wouldn’t complain if 3500 power guy was worth 100/120/etc points, then its obvious that other guys in alliance are weaker, but that was not this case.
Also, as previously mentioned - alliance score difference is huge. As Paulon explained - only titan score was used in matching, then it means same thing: all difference from alliance score was generated by trophy score. And average player can not get high trophy score without strong team.
All this makes pretty obvious that in my case matchup was complete trash.
p.s. all data was given in first post, so you could simply see picture and there was no need for “stuff - read manual” stuff.
Of course you can’t compare the teams based on the data you have given. If you don’t understand this then you have very little understanding of the mechanics of scoring and the meaning of team power.
2000 points is distributed among all an alliance’s defences, weighted by relative power of the teams fielded. If a player from one team is worth the same points as a player from the other team but has more power, then all it means that one team has fielded stronger aggregate defensive power than the other.
The first key dimension this omits is bench strength. It tells us almost nothing about what attackers each alliance can bring to bear - but we know that both alliances have the same Titan scores, so if you have no choice but to field weaker defence teams then you probably have a significant advantage in that respect (otherwise how did you match their Titan score?).
The second key dimension this omits is healer value. Alliances are now regularly fielding two or more healers in their defence teams, sacrificing team power for durability and relying on revenge arrows to wear down attackers. Perhaps you’re a smart alliance (haha!) and do that, thus reducing the aggregate team power you field in defence.
The third key dimension this omits is team power distribution. Just because you have fewer aggregate defensive team power points does not necessarily mean that your power is not more efficiently distributed. 30 teams of similar moderate power are likely to be a more effective defence that 10 extremely highly powered teams and 20 weaklings, even if the latter alliance had much greater aggregate defensive power. This sort of imbalance, incidentally, might explain why your alliances have similar Titan scores.
All this stuff is pretty obvious, really, if you’re paying attention. Perhaps you just didn’t notice any of it. I wonder why not?