The ALLIANCE Wars are a constant conversation on chat. Do you folks read it? The mismatches are constant and outrageous. Here is an Idea break the alliances into groups. All groups should be within 5k power of each other. Then match opponents. I don’t understand how you can have 20 to 30 people talking about the mismatches and have such a great level between them. Let the alliances that are 15k over their opponents fight each other and the same with the outmatched alliances. the AW are becoming a real drag.
We do not know how the current match-making system will perform when individuals can choose to opt out of the war. The input is drastically different. I think it is a bit hasty to write-off the current algorithm based on the time period when alliances were paired as monolithic blocks. Inactive profiles, or ones that refuse to participate in war, were not accounted for in the old method; leading to real mismatches.
I think it is very easy to predict. Very poor matches will continue to happen. The mechanics will not change, and we have seen them in action for a while now.
I would think the majority of the opt outs would be from players who are discouraged by always losing to much stronger teams.
Why would those stronger teams opt out now that they can fill a war chest for even more rewards.
That will leave we poor losing alliances, who still enjoy some aspects of the wars, to face even stronger and highly motivated alliances. Doesn’t bode well
It is up to each alliance to tolerate non participation in it’s members not an algarythm that is what is known as game play either way people can cheat but the current method makes it much easier when there are 3 or 4 allianced group interchanging members.Some alliances use Titans to get lower score matching nobody said running a game was gonna be easy but a blatant off balance matching system is not what people want and anything that frustrated players to the point of quitting the game entirely can’t be what the game makers want. Less players less money simple economics
You make a good point, and I would expect the individual opt-out to improve war matches for some alliances.
But there are also alliances, mine included, that are seeing bad matches (in our case not all the time) even though everyone, or nearly everyone, is participating and fighting in the wars. I still suspect the matching algorithm doesn’t handle alliances with greater spreads between their strongest and weakest players very well.
Thank gods they’re working on this. But I agree that matching should have been a priority over chests. My alliance has no hope of even beginning to fill a chest with wins until matching is fixed.
Our latest match… well, if you marched us up player vs player (which is how the wars must be fought) top to bottom and compare power and cups, we would have maybe two wins and the rest are clear losses. Wars as they are very much favor alliances that are all near the same level, while ours is very spread out. At the very, very least they need to be basing matches on past war performance. Nothing else is going to predict future war performance since wars are so different from anything else – the only thing that uses more than the top one team from each player. I could probably come up with a fantastic and complex making function – I’ve got a master’s in math and last worked as an actuary – but I doubt they’ll offer to hire me, so I only hope they’ll come up with SOMETHING that works. Remember guys, the goal is to have each team winning about half the time, not half the teams winning all the time while the other half always lose.
