Mismatches are out of hand. Teams should be matched up after defense teams are set. Team power should be considered, not trophy or titan score. This will make a more fair match up between two alliances.
Even this way matchmaking will still not count heroes rooster.
If both alliances have the same defending heroes but one have an overall better rooster the one with better rooster will do better attacks, winning in the end. Average team power of all heroes* could be a idea.
*Sum of the 30 highest team power heroes for each player / n° of the players
Dumb idea. Gives massive advantage to players with 5 strong heroes and 25 unlevelled 1* heroes, introducing an immediate incentive to burn all your lower tier heroes so you get matched against easy victims in war.
The bright side of your situation: your foes are only taking down the same level titans that you are. You guys must kill it every day on your titans! Congrats! Those guys on the other side of the river must be slouching against titans, missing out on the better loot they could get stepping up their game.
But, yes, big margins of victory or defeat aren’t fun. It’s not always clear what’s behind the big gap. My alliance, Crystal Palace, won the last war by over 3,000 points—against another top-15 alliance. These alliances all take down every 10* Titan every day, so Titan scores are all functionally equivalent. Clearly there’s more to winning wars than killing titans, and the matchups aren’t capturing that well.
Having 25 weak 1 heroes as “second strongest heroes” is hardly an advantage, don’t you think?
Oh, please don’t restart this discussion! @Brobb has torn out too much hair explaining her reasoning elsewhere.
The power average of 5 max 5* and 25 1/1 1*'s would put you up against newbie alliances with 2k defense teams. They’d never kill your defense team of max 5 stars, and you only need to bring 1 5 star and 4 scrubs per team to wipe out anyone facing you at that level.
To put it in tldr format, any system can be gamed.
I can’t figure how players would be positive to only have 5 playable heroes for bullying some low level alliances. They can already do it with raids by cup dropping without having to kill they own others heroes and without giving up on 90% of game’s content.
Of course it’s an advantage. It’s an insurmountable advantage.
Here are the numbers. A fully levelled 5* hero has a power of about 770. An unlevelled 1* hero has a power of about 135. So teams of 5 x levelled 5* heroes and 25 unlevelled 1* heroes have a total power of about 7,225.
Now build me the team that has any chance of competing against them, if heroes 5-25 are, each, say, unlevelled 3* (a very conservative assumption, I would say), with power 247.
The calculation is blindingly obvious.
Repeat it with a top team of fully levelled 4* heroes. Repeat it with a top team of fully levelled 3* heroes. Repeat it with a top team of fully levelled 2* heroes.
I’d like to see how your results differ from mine.
Or you are using Merc’s to get much better titans that the team would otherwise be able to get… you still win!
The minute you say “Someone would never do that,” someone is going to do that.
Needless to say (though I guess I do need to say it, because you haven’t bothered to read the discussion elsewhere in the forum [rips out another clump of hair for @Kerridoc]) players would keep more than their top team. They’d likely keep another five or ten heroes that were useful to them for Titans and raiding.
It’s heroes 15-30 that would get dumped, because they’re no use anywhere else in the game, and keeping them would guarantee you war losses. Bad result for E&P.
Instead of state the obvious could you link said topic? If I had read it Id have certainly posted my opinion there.
Also, I’m not sure that so little number of heroes are needed to be good at titans, events, raids and war.
In some fairness, you would never rationally throw away all but five heroes unless winning wars was you sole objective.
If you care about titans, you’ll have at least 10 strong heroes.
If you’ve drawn a hero that will replace one of your current team, you’ll have it under development.
But @Brobb definitely has a point: matching on bench depth will make for good wars only in a static world. When you consider the dynamics and incentives it creates, it pushes you to keep your bench as lean as possible (which for some may be 5, others 10, others 15).
Personally. I treat this game more like Pokémon: gotta get’m all! (And, yes, I have every 4* in my deck, and I’ve gotten all 3*. Still missing some 5*…) so I’d be unlikely to follow Brobb’s ruthless optimization, but others would.
Hmm… I used to think basing matchups on some kind of score over top 30 heroes would be a better way, but that’s clearly not the case. I see how this would be gamed. It would be all over the place too, like wildfire.
It’s a long read. There’s a lot of content. Edit: if you want to focus on matching analysis, start reading about a week ago.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Universal reports are that since wars were introduced, players have been madly levelling heroes 15-30. So before wars, they were not levelling these heroes. So before wars, these heroes were not useful (for Titans, events, raids and war).
Somewhat related…we noticed some of our team weren’t hitting their full 6 flags. When we asked they said they didn’t have 30 heroes to use. We suggested that they use unleveled 1 and 2* heroes. The scores kind of looked something like this not long after:
Player 1 - 3, 4, 6
Player 2 - 6, 7, 32 (team kill)
Player 3 - 2, 3, 0
Player 4 - 4, 5, 9
All made up numbers but these all helped us in the end.
I’m in that camp, without a doubt. All 6 of my teams now produce 3k power…
I see a lot of people decrying the AW matchmaking, and I am wondering what alliance scores are in play here. At 70K, my alliance has never really had a terrible match. We haven’t won every one mind you, but they’ve at least been close fights.
For the alliances that have had problems in this area, where are your scores at?
Thanks for the link.