Fair Matchmaking procedure offered, useful tools for Alliance Wars - please, support

Hi, folks.

I’m gonna be very short and succinct and present just 2 ideas in the categorized list bellow.

I wanna adress developers, SG stakeholders :grinning:, staff members, moderators (like Rook) and key players (like beta account holders): guys, please consider this post and let’s make it come true with the nearest updates.

So, this is the categorized list:

  • Alliance wars
  1. Alliance leaders and co-leaders should have the option to put/remove (activate/deactivate) status icons on 3 scales:

Scale1: the entire battlefield

Scale2: the entire enemy field
Scale2: the entire teammates’ field

Scale3: individual enemy teams
Scale3: individual teammates’ teams.

Of course, same or correlated status icons of higher scales should override those on lower scales - it is easy to implement after you build up the tree of status icons and traverse this tree.

It would be a better idea to introduce a new status of “war coordinators” along with the existing “leaders”, “co-leaders” etc. and give the rights to work with status icons to those who get this status for certain wars.

Some of possible status icons are:

  • Do not attack (for enemy & teammates’ teams)
  • Attack as first (for enemy teams)
  • Change your def. team (for teammates’ teams)
  • Attack with a weak team (for enemy teams)
  • Kill a tank (for enemy teams)

“Attack with a weak team” means you recommend to leave an enemy team for weaker members of your alliance or for those who have less than 6 strong teams and thus can use their weaker teams to attack that enemy.

  1. War Scores (thus the whole matchmaking as well) have flaws - alliances could get either a very weak or a very strong rival, based on the following 2 behavioral factors:

2.1. some members that didn’t participate in previous wars (new members, or those who unticked their participation for some reasons, or those who were helping other alliances with titans), influence the war score and could make the matchmaking unfair (I don’t accuse anybody of cheating, it just happens because of flaws in matchmaking);
2.2. if an alliance is in fact strong, but lost previous war(s) for some reasons, they could get matched (based on improperly weighted war score, I suppose) with an alliance with no chances to win against them. My personal example: our Alliance, Orcish Empire, got the opponent with 18 defence teams above 4k TP whereas we have only 8 teams with 4k+ TP. Very unfair - we are good fighters, but in this case there is no drive and no fun any more, because we are just in different strength categories.

I offer the following matchmaking strategy:

  1. properly increased weight for top 5 heroes and top 5 troops (because a hard defence team matters a lot),
  2. considering 30 strongest heroes with the normal weight, and further 15 heroes with decreased weight (because the wide choice of heroes matters),
  3. considering 10 strongest troops with the normal weight (not just 5, because it is very rare when a player attacks all 6 times with rainbow teams) and 5 more with decreased weight (because it is more offen to take 3 or more heroes of one color).
  4. after you compute the war score value for every single player based on the factors 1-3 listed above, assign a certain category to each player basing on the magnitude of this score (let’s say these categories are A B C D E F, where A stands for some monster players like Zero :grinning:, B - for less impressive ones, etc. down to F for complete beginners in Empires and Puzzles), and perform the matchmaking in this step-by-step way (just my humble advice, folks :grinning:):

For every alliance:
Step 1: compute number of players, participating in war;
Step 2: compute the number (up to the nearest even number greater of equal to the actual number: for instance, 3 or 4 players in category F should be rounded up to 4) of participating players of each category;
Step 3: compute how many wars of 5 recent ones each alliance won - results will be 1,2,3,4,5.

After these calculations are made, compile your database of alliances that should look like this:
rows are alliances,
columns are (left-to-right): alliance unique ID, number of participating players, number of players of category A, number of players of category B etc., number of wars won (of 5 recent wars) and the last 2 columns for matchmaking (will talk about these a bit later).
These are all simple, lightweight number fields.

Sort your database let’s say in ascending order, step-by-step starting with the second column, then third etc. left-to-right - you don’t need to include the last non-matchmaking column with number of wars won in this sorting - it will appear for the second (being also the last) sorting.

Now the last step: under the first of 2 matchmaking columns mentioned earlier in this text, you put for the first row some number (let’s say 1) and for every further row perform this very simple IF ELSE computation that also greatly considers priorities:

  1. if a current row (meaning some alliance that sits in this row) has absolutely identical values in all the columns left-to-right (except the last column with number of wars won - it is not that relevant and thus will be considered a bit later and not in these computations), you put exactly the same value as you had for the previous row (in our example, for the second row, it is 1 if you put 1 as the initial value for the first row);
  2. for every single difference in values you add up some fixed summand over the value that you had in the previous row (in this example - over 1 that we had for the first row) in the following pattern: if the difference was in the n-th column, we add up 10 power (1-n) meaning in particular: if difference in number of partiparing players (our 1st column to consider), we add up 1, if difference in number of players in category A (our 2nd column), we add up 0.1, if in B - then 0.01 etc.
    For instance, if we have differences in the number of participants, number of players in category A and C only, our second row will get the value 1+(1+0.1+0.001)=2.101.

At the end of this computation, you will get the following picture: all alliances with the same number of participating players and with ±1 players in each category will receive the same number, meaning they are totally matchable and the more differences they have, the more these number differ - totally fair.

Now the last 2 steps:

  1. unter the second of 2 matchmaking columns, you generate some random unique number for each row.

2. you perform the second (and thereby the last sorting) sorting by 3 columns: first by the first of matchmaking columns with those difference-numbers mentioned above, then by the the last column with unique random numbers mentioned above and then by the column with number of wars won.

That’s it: for matchmaking, you just pick pairs of rows, from top to bottom of your databases.

If you want to show us something relevant to matchmaking, like you show us war scores (by the way, they have literally no value to us), you can show us player categories (from A to F in my example) for every player - will be much more informative, I guess. You could also show us an alliance-wide number like 10-15-0-5 instead of war score, with the meaning: there are 10 members of A category, 15 members of B, no members of C category and 5 dudes of D category.

If you find some errors, you’ve my apologies - I wrote all this pretty much on the fly.

Short huh? Lol

I like it. Would definitely balance out the members against each other. Question though, would 2 Bs equal an A in matchmaking? What if your team had no opponent to match up with due to an uneven count? Think this scenario would occur?

Well, categories A-F (or less, or more - depends on the weights I mentioned in factors 1-3 for computing the better version of war scores for each player and on the resulting distributioin of these scores over alliances) should be properly separated.

And this “properly” margins should be tested and validated - these are pretty much basic tools when you model something and when you wanna introduce some categories over your data.

The procedure I mentioned gives any alliance a guaranteed rival, as soon as the number of alliances in their database is even :grinning: - no restrictions at all, I presented the framework for a way more fair matchmaking than we have now.


I hate this idea. People are evil.

I don’t hate this idea so much, but I don’t love it. Alliance leaders and co-leaders should be communicating with alliance members. If unplanned attacks happen, that’s the responsibility of both leadership and membership - I don’t think the game needs to be adjusted to make the problem go away.

There is some good sense in the ideas proposed, but the devil is in the details of this stuff, and the details are unconvincing.

  • “Properly” increase the weight for the top 5 heroes and troops? We all agree with that, but the challenge is in identifying what exactly “properly” means. The proposal offers no clues.

  • Add heroes 31-45 to the mix, with a lesser weight? Why not limit it to heroes 31-40? Or why not extend it to heroes 31-60? More importantly, what should the weighting be? No clues.

  • Include 10 strongest troops with equal weighting, and an additional 5 with lesser weighting? Why not make it the first 5 with equal weighting, then the next 15 with lesser weighting? (Or any other variation?) And again, what should these varied weights be? No clues.

  • Assign players letter classifications? How, exactly? And why, exactly? No clues.

The proposed changes to AW matchmaking are based on some worthwhile observations, but lack both a quantitative rationale and any useful detail. They would add multiple layers of complexity to the matchmaking process and we have no reason to suppose that matches would be improved. They might be made worse.


Thanks for you reply.

I’m not working at SG’s DevLab to specify every single detail - I’ve proposed rather detailed framework that will work so much better than we have it now.

Dudes who work there should understand what I mean and do the rest.

Fair Matchmaking needs exactly this kind of approaches, and not too simple ones (with hell lots of flaws), although this one is actually pretty simple and, to tell you the truth, I don’t know why people from SG could not do something like this so far.

Except it’s not a “detailed” framework, it’s a framework that lacks detail, and you have given no reasons - either empirical or analytical - that we should think it would improve matchmaking.

It’s easy to think something is simple if you don’t have to so consider the actual details. Let’s live on the moon - simple.

1 Like

Dude, I know - the details are most wanted, but as I said - I don’t have enough time and enthusiasm to work out these detailed :grinning: details, and some of them require some access to databases, which I don’t have

Guys who work at SG should know how to do the rest. If they don’t know, they are free to contact me and we could work it out a bit more, but I doubt there is something complicated in the thing I wrote - so, I’ve outlined this approach and gave enough details.

The framework is pretty standard, it’s pretty simple and it is way better that we have now.

Of course there are details still to be considered (like working with large databases etc.), but the actual war scores and SG’s progress in Matchmaking are so bad that at least this approach, which is really hell simple and which should be reasonably fast, will make things much better.

Living on the moon is by the way not that simple :rofl:

1 Like


  1. After every fight, add the text field to put a short message for the opponent - it is a lot of fun and at the same time is very useful if you get some comments on your defence team etc. This text field could be added under the loot-frame in the same window that usually appears after your fight is over."

Certainly not.
I have no interest whatsoever in being insulted by strangers.

I do like raiding, and I am a member of a very nice and polite Line group for raiding. Raiding in good fun. Posting videos of the raids, inviting the opponent for a return visit, all nice and friendly and polite.
I remember exactly one member, once, who was impolite. He was removed quite quickly.

I am most definitely not interested in being subjected to insults by total strangers. Especially not in the context of the game itself. No thank you.


You wouldnt want to leave me a thank you note? Lol

1 Like


Stop by for a German beer any time, dear :beer::blush:
And do leave drinks on the table for my return visit :beer::clinking_glasses:

1 Like

Absolutely lol a thank you note would still be a nice gesture though :wink:

I do see your point that things could get offensive quickly with players sending any kind of personalized direct messages to each other, which is why I’m glad devs have dodged that bullet pretty succesfully so far


The day the leader of an alliance tells me who I can or can not attack and manage my team, except agreed strategy, stays with your alliance. Let’s see if they begin to understand the leaders that there are many alliances and crazy to capture players.

Alright, the idea of text messages could be removed from the list, didn’t know people were so evil :grinning:

1 Like

This has been suggested in other threads and was thoroughly shot down. This is a game and not a dictatorship or job where the boss feels the urge to micromanage.

I get where you’re coming from, but this is not a system that is needed or easily accepted. If there’s perceived to be an issue with a player selecting the wrong target, that can be handled by training and just experience.


I would like to echo what @LadySuzanne has said. There are far too many possibilities for this to be a greater harm than good in my opinion. As a hypothetical how would a leader or co-leader from the United States of America be able to determine if someone was in the alliance from elsewhere in the world. My own alliance has players from the United States, but also from Spain and I believe Australia as well. The fact remains that this is a global game and for that reason I ask the developers to not create such a block ability. Good communication and encouraging people to read chat would be better a system both already in place and saving time. Also I speak as a co-leader of an alliance myself so I really do feel the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Well, to tell the truth, I don’t see some real risks with that option:

  1. Alliances could have several co-leaders who can unblock these blocks at any time;
  2. Blocks could get suspended automatically after a certain number of hours or even the duration of blocks could be indicated when putting them;
  3. probably the better option would be to put some status icons over enemy teams on the field, for example, “don’t attack” and some other icons instead of real blocks. At least this option could be a very nice thing for lots of alliances;
  4. I believe it is always better to avoid potential confrontations with alliance members and just have these options to govern war flows a bit easier, because it might get problematic to talk to someone trying to help him /her understand that he or she should not do certain things - sometimes people just ignore certain important moments in wars and you can’t explain them again and again same things, and you don’t want to kick them - so, ideally, you really need these options to have;
  5. it is up to alliance leaderships to utilize these tools or not.

Status icons added by a leader or co-leader is a great idea. I could imagine many varieties, such as

  • target
  • avoid
  • reserve for weaker teams

Just a couple things off the top of my head…

  1. The person in charge of war prep, etc may not be the leader or co-leader. This forces those positions to do that job. As you said, there can be several co-leaders, but you may not want that person in a co-leader position.
  2. I’ll throw this out there again - this is a game and not a dictatorship. One persons thoughts on how to play may be different than another’s. There’s a lot to be learned from others.
  3. The leader/co-leaders don’t have access to everyone’s war benches. If you block an opponents team for a certain person, how do you know there’s not someone out there with a better attacking team for that opponent?

That being said, status or flags that indicate - not block - a team are interesting.

  1. If a dude is good at war prep, he could be freely advanced to co-leaders :grinning:
  2. dictatorship is not a proper word to describe the stuff with blocks - you need blocks just for those who kinda ignore your alliance tactics or for those who don’t have knowledge and experience (you can’t learn from these people) or those who don’t have time to read chats and might miss you current settings - these blocks are meant for those alliances who care to be successful in wars
  3. I mean blocks for those moments when for instance you don’t wanna enemy field get refreshed over night (over certain time), so you block at least one team and you ara done.

I’ve introduced another, sort of “friendly” alternative to “hard” :grinning: blocks - status icons over enemy teams - so, if SG doesn’t want blocks, then at least status icons would be really nice.

The boot button resolves the need for the block feature and the who to hit or not hit indicators


Cookie Settings