Aw matchups

Obviously the team power nor titan score matching system are working. A war scoring system would solve the whole issue. Maybe try the intial setup with a score based on alliance score to get closer matchups to begin with and then each team gains points for each victory and loses points with each loss. Maybe a set amount of points plus or minus bonus points for the spread. After a few wars, every team will be facing teams that are close to them in AW matches. With every win, you would likely face a stronger opponent until losing and losing teams would face weaker opponents until they win.

Makes more sense thanwhat we are we facing now. If we use their system on fighting titans to describd what’s happening here, then we’d be fighting a 7 star titan (still too sttong for us), lose three times, and then be placed against a 9 star titan. We keep being matched with stronger alliances, even though we keep losing :persevere:

I agree. The alliance I’m in has been crushed in the last 2 wars facing teams with an avg 3k player while we only have 3 to 5 player anywhere near that. Our alliance can’t even take out a 6* star titan yet. These issues were supposed to be fixed but…

If I understand your system, you take alliance A and alliance B which are fighting 3 stars titans in battle , alliance A win.
Alliance C and alliance D are fighting 10 stars titans, alliance C win with same score.
Second round, alliance A against alliance C, wow ! That a matchup :))

No, it wouldn’t be tournament style. It would be based on the team’s war score. If you are fighting 3* titans, with this system, you wouldn’t get your score near high enough to go against a team fighting a 10*. You would lose to some fighting 4* and stay in that range until your team gets stronger.

I don’t understand, so the score of two winner alliances not necessary equal ? Sorry english is not my natural language

No, for example, a team with 50000 alliance points may start with a team war score of 500 while a team with 75000 alliance points would start with a 750 war score. A good system would gain 10 points plus 1 for every hundred difference in war points and the loser would lose the equivelant. Alliance score would no longer matter after the first war. Just a starting point. It would level off after a few wars to where everyone was fighting near equal wars. Only problem might be that the very top alliances may repeatedly face each other every two or three rounds.

Something has to be done. 7 losses in a row is getting real old

Especially after 17-0 start. Team was built for wars but screwed by the changes.

When we were matched by alliance scores our matches were very close. Sure a couple of alliances tried to rig the outcome (we beat them both times), but 98% of the matches were fine. So if feels like the system was re-jigged to avoid that 2% problem.

They changed the system to appease the ones who were complaining about getting stomped by the ones who quickly built depth instead of one really strong team. Now, because we have lots of mid level heroes, we get matched against maxed teams most can’t take out. The new system satisfies them but ensures we can’t win now. Our alliance score this time is only 20k difference. This system would make it fair for everyone and keep everyone fighting within their range.

Exactly! In the words of one of my members:
These wars are sucking all my desire for this game out of me, so ridiculous they didn’t work this all out in beta.

1 Like

Given the smaller size of the beta testers, and that they would have to reform new alliances in beta to test, I’m not sure a beta test could really show up all the problems the live servers are showing. There apparently just aren’t enough players for a really robust test of multiple large group matching.

Two other factors that would make it harder testing matching on beta are that they apparently give fully levelled new heroes to every account for testing which would skew the hero and team power matching tests, and that it’s been almost six months since there were new beta testers, so there also won’t be many if any weaker players left in the beta, since they get stronger with time, to show up issues with alliances with a mix of player power levels.

I really hope they manage to get things right soon. The new tests have been wildly unbalanced in my favor to date. Not fair to the other side at all thus far.

Actually, a few of the problems were present in the original beta testing, at least in my opinion. But due to the small sample size (limited amount of beta testers, most of which already had a relatively good roster, which meant there were only a couple of alliances for testing) these problems were not magnified, as most were confident that the matchmaking would work… It was already apparent in beta that match ups of alliances with discrepancies in player numbers would lead to the smaller alliances likely to loose by a large margin. It was also apparent - if it had been scrutinized - that matching alliances with mixed level players against those with largely homogenous player levels would favour the homogenous groups, as lower level players - who may also not be as tactically skilled in combining their heroes and would not have a deep roster of high level heroes - would not be able to to score points as easily as their opponents.

In all fairness - the sample size was very small, so these problems were easily overlooked. And the testing period was very short. Other problems, such as cup dropping, could not even be encountered during beta testing.

I’m losing confidence that it can even be fixed. We had two good match ups in a row and I thought, maybe this is it. Now we have a 30k disadvantage. I’m trying very hard to not get discouraged. A 20k difference was bad enough, this is just a massacre.

We have not won a alliance war since change we have been up against alot stronger alliances were 10:to 15 of there players have been over 3000 in strength this one most are 3400 .but we only have 2 members over 3000
So this time we all pulled are teams out so when war started it forced a draw.
So I urge more alliances to do this that way no alliances get rewards so they will have to change the way match ups are done

Why not just write a few lines of code that takes the average score of all the members plus the alliance score. Divide it by two and match alliances based on that number + / - 200 or so points. Less or more if it is deemed necessary, but I’m pretty sure the alliance matches would be considerably cliser[quote=“curt, post:1, topic:31020, full:true”]
Obviously the team power nor titan score matching system are working. A war scoring system would solve the whole issue. Maybe try the intial setup with a score based on alliance score to get closer matchups to begin with and then each team gains points for each victory and loses points with each loss. Maybe a set amount of points plus or minus bonus points for the spread. After a few wars, every team will be facing teams that are close to them in AW matches. With every win, you would likely face a stronger opponent until losing and losing teams would face weaker opponents until they win.
[/quote]

I don’t think the matchups work that well right now. We match against teams where 15+ members are over level 35 where we only have 6 members over level 35. It just makes sense that higher level players will typically have a deeper bench. Additionally, there are player skill levels involved as well. Just because I have the same team as someone else doesn’t mean they know how to use them as well as I might. They need a ranking system that is dependent on if you win or lose wars. Depending on the results, you will match against others that have had similar experiences.

I think they could at least make improvement by counting the 5 teams of each member’s roster in addition to making sure team score within 1000 points or so of each other. I’m tired of fighting teams with a score 10000 to 15000 points higher. We’re losing every time. If they don’t want to change the matchups. Please give us an opt out button so I don’t have to endure this for a joke of rewards any longer.

Cookie Settings