Constructive feedback and considerations for improving alliance war matchmaking - please post your ideas!

I am absolutely right with the TOP 5 heroes system… Because during the last was we saw as two the most strong players of our enemy had Zero raid score!!! how could it be? it was an obvious cheating…

1 Like

Let’s set aside Top 5 as a matching system for the moment. There are some good things about it, certainly, and some bad.

How do you think that your enemies two top players having zero raid score was cheating? You understand that raid score is no longer used for matching, right?

1 Like

I like Top 5 heroes system too for the reason that it potentially highlights the strongest war defense team that could possibly be assembled by the player while still retaining the incentive to level 30 heroes for use in the war to gain advantage over others with a similar defense strength who haven’t done that. Earlier concerns/knocks against the idea were mainly because hero power and team power mean very little as useful metrics to assess the actual strength of a team, especially at the 4*/5* level. If Top 5 were to be implemented for its benefits, I wonder if the hero power could be assessed by comparing levels and ascension chevrons of the heroes.

Let me elaborate here… At each ascension chevron, the hero can only be levelled up to a certain point (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80). In my scheme, I propose that two heroes are of the exact same power when they are the same level AND on an ascension chevron with an identical max level. So a tier 3 level 50 3* is the exact same as a tier 1 level 50 5* and a tier 4 level 70 4* is the exact same as a tier 3 level 70 5*. More details would have to be worked out on exactly how much more powerful heroes get as they are levelled through each chevron, but I think it could work.

Suggestion: lock alliances that met for a month i.e. they can’t meet again as AW opponents for 4 weeks. Give time to change dynamics between opponents a little.

Ack! No! I want 7DD every second conflict. We can have one between each of our Wars against 7DD. That sounds fine to me.

I’m new to the chat. But I’ve noticed a lot of the teams we’ve faced have put out a single player defense team as an attempt to keep the possible points the opposing team can earn by defeating them. I think a way to stop that and keep the spirt of the AW is to make it where you can only attack with the same number of players that you field on your defense team. This way if a player only fills a two player defense they will be limited to only a two player attack team. Just a thought.

1 Like

Heh. That’s simpler and fairer than all the suggestions involving power or level restrictions based on the power of the defense team.
Unfortunately all that would happen is a bunch of 5 unleveled 1* heroes would be used for defense instead of a single 1* hero though. When it comes to trying for an advantage, people can be determined cusses.

Our alliance have 6 players with power greater than 3000. We are fighting alliances with 20 players with power greater than 3000. Something is wrong. It is not fair. We are not even considering battle. You need to find a way to balance these battles better. I suggest to sum the power of the 5 top heroes of each player of the alliance

What about considering teamstrenght of all the alliance hero’s? If you have a full 30 heros it will be a lot higher then if you starting to build your war team. A 5* has more point than 4*, so all will be counted.

Just a quick update to this thread. There’s some new updates that have just been brought to the beta testing. I’m not going to give specifics, but in my opinion, the changes go a long way to addressing match up imbalances and people putting up extremely weak teams. So hang tight, because it looks like Small Giant is once again listening to the community and is still evolving this feature. (Thank you SG!!)

5 Likes

Good news thanks. I’m getting a bit bored with either total wipes of much weaker alliances by me, or getting crushed by sheer weight of numbers, with nothing interesting in between. Though good on the latter ones for working for their wins.

I’m glad to hear they are doing something. I’m a new player in a new alliance, both new enough that alliance wars were always a thing.

And I don’t think we’ve had a single war with less than double the other side’s score yet. We’ve had 27~30 active players in each war, mixed levels. Our opponents have also had mixed levels, but fewer players (our first war was against a two member alliance!), and often a fair number of inactive members that either don’t field a team, or if they do, don’t attack with it.

Current score is 2459 to 661.

With the current scoring system, it seems pretty much impossible for a 20-team alliance to beat a 30-team alliance, if everybody shows up and at least tries to attack. Seems that either the scoring system or the matching system could be tweaked to prevent this kind of uneven war.

Obviously if an alliance has 1/3 of their members not bothering to use their attacks, they will lose and should lose. (And I don’t think SG can do anything about this!)

FYI, as a member of a new alliance that started out getting 1* titans and eating them for breakfast then being hungry again before lunch time until we got up to 4~5* titans a couple weeks later, I can confirm that this version of the game does matching exclusively using the titan score portion of the alliance score. Our opponents had very close values there, but very extreme differences in other ways at first. A month later, our trophy score and titan score are in the same ballpark, and we see similar numbers in both with our war opponents.

1 Like

Being severely disadvantaged as an alliance due to having less than 30 members set up a defense team for wars has been a reality for my group as well for a little bit of time. Not only does the opposing side have more flags in total to use, the point value per target is bigger for them as well.

Some people might say that having more members in an alliance is a fair advantage and that an alliance with more members should be winning wars more often than alliances with fewer members (and that the alliance with fewer members should just “work harder at recruiting to get better at wars”). I agree partially with that, but not when the disadvantage is as big as we have identified AND the stakes for winning and losing are high with only a winning and losing war loot tier. I would much prefer that the advantage gained from having more members in war be incremental instead of the giant disparity. Titan loot tiers are a good example of this. Having less than 30 members hit the titan guarantees the group will equilibrate at a lower * titan being regularly defeated. The more members that hit the titan, the higher * titan that can be regularly defeated and the more improved the loot tier is, but at least killing the lower star titans still awards a decent loot tier. I would be right out pissed off if my alliance continued to get 8* titans instead of 6* and 7* titans when we were down 7 members and only getting 8* titan escape loot for weeks on end.

1 Like

Top 5 heroes is a horrible way to match up. Lucky newer players might have a decent first team and new coiners certainly will. The problem here is they could be matched against a team that has been playing much LONGER and has 6 teams of that caliber. Resulting war would have new team get slaughtered due to lesser troops and inability to kill each opponent more than once leading to a 3500-1500 blowout. -50/10
Simplest way to ensure fairest matchups is average time in game. 30 members that have played 90 days on average should be set against another team + - 10 days until the average time in game exceeds 365… If you haven’t leveled up 6 good teams by then you’re seriously slacking and deserve to lose.

New Alliance matching not working.

Our Alliance is hopelessly out matched. Either the matching is broken or there are holes in the process. The Alliance we are facing has mostly above 3k defense and our average is more like 2.5k. Thier power ranking was 75k and ours like 55k.

Is there a time out after joining an Alliance to be able to fight in the War? Could they have dropped 10 or 15 people for a day then rejoined after getting an easy target…

1 Like

catching the 30 best heroes of each player does not work. I think a better method would be to take the top 5.
The problem is that the defensive team is always the same. It does not matter that my heroes from 16 to 30 (for example) are better than the opponents, they still have to face their five best.
Besides, it’s no good that I have 30 great heroes if their teams, despite being stronger than ours, give less points.
In our current war a team of 3400 gives 90 points (45 + 45) while one of them gives 66 (33 + 33)

I have to disagree with you here. You can ask any of the top players in the game and they will tell you that they’ve taken 4100+ power teams down with 3500 power or less teams. I’ve done it and more than once. I’ve crippled those teams even more often. Those 16 through 30 heroes in your stable do matter and they matter a LOT. In fact, The heroes past 30 matter as well because they give you versatility in your team choices.

The system is good. The way that the power of individual heroes is determined is the problem right now and that has needed fixing for a while now. That is the next thing that needs to be addressed. There have been many close battles this week. Yes, there were a few stinkers, but there have always been some skewed battles.

I have to say that I’ve not seen as many close ones as I have this week.

2 Likes

You’re right, but I’m not a Top player :sweat_smile:

Today with my last two attacks I had to go for 3000 teams of power with teams of 2300 and my heroes were dying of a blow.

This is what I think SG doesn’t understand, 90% of us have one or two good teams, and the rest are pretty bad.

And, normally, the last two attacks we do with Heroes of 3 * or 4 * without raising.

I think when my second account was coming up he had about a 3550 strength team at the time and was getting matched up against 3950 to 4100 strength teams by his third battle. It often didn’t go well, but sometimes it did. I had the advantage of already knowing how to set up a team to beat a stronger team and how to color stack effectively though because my Primary account had a team with strength 4150 or so at the time.

The difference between a 2300 and a 3000 team is stark. They were supposed to be limiting the difference in team power to +/- 300 power. If this is happening to you, please post pictures of the match ups and let the Devs know it is happening on a regular basis.