Fixing war disadvantage

Why would you not just match to total player experience in alliance vs other method.

Example we had 2 players over 30 vs a team with 19 over.
Simple math tells you that the extra levels to those players equates to about 45,000 more energy. Much of that then turns into feeder hero’s. 15,000 of them if farmed correctly.
Seems a fair way to guauge potential much as an insurance company would.

Aslso I notice team power does not dictate score as in I’m 3414 giving up 90 pts playing a guy 3745 gibing up 92 pts. cough what gives?
Besides me giving points to a clearly stronger team.

I’d recommend reading one of the many threads on war scoring and matchups. This suggestion fails to address almost every concern about matchmaking the question shows a general lack of understanding of war scoring mechanisms.

The matchmaking is far from perfect, but they are working on it continually. The scoring is consistent.

Personal counterexample: I’m the highest level in alliance, but for 5* heroes I’m somewhere at the bottom. :slight_smile:

So I took the bad advice and discovered exactly what I thought.
So an average 4* at say 2-1 is arguably better than a max 3*.
As in most cases the mana fill is shorter slow vs average, as in Trib vs ulmer. Also I’m most cases an extra special is added. So you can’t match power. As doing so gives 2 separate advantages to the advanced player.

Trophies and Titan score would also be a joke, as most experienced players put low defense teams to fill chest quickly. Greatly distorting the team score. Where new players do the opposite and strive to raise trophies.

That brings us back to team potential. Given you’re actual time spent using energy to feed and acquire better players.

Again 19 lvl 30+ players vs 1 is a bit much, even if you refuse to see it. My horde of 3* Kalini’s is not as formidable as you seem to imagine.

A hand full of maxed 4* vs an army of them that can survive a battle when the defense team gets an added advantage. But it only takes one Trib special to drop to -60 and tile shots kill everyone on a weak team.

Maybe you read a bit of the thousands of the complaints about the system you just endorsed, before suggesting others are less clueless than…cough.

Counter is that you have fed more hero’s or at least could have. And it’s 4* vs 3* in most cases in players below 30 as few have a full bench at those levels.

So in most cases you are comparing 4* max vs 5* not maxed as below 30 the ascension items are likely not there to push or feed the players.

Again it’s not the argument, it’s the #’s don’t support the matchup… 45,000 more feeders. Vs 45,000 less feeders. That’s a lot of full 4* hero’s, only you said 5’s.

I’ll also add long respawn times 6-8-12 makes it so my last 20 players can only fairly match 21 of their possible 126 energy.
As the other 19 are way out their league with their one starting team. So bench does not come into play, as you might be thinking at your levels.
The matchup is too lopsided, to work as intended.

I have not endorsed any system. I stated the system has flaws. Your reading has clearly given you a much better understanding of how the system is designed than you reflected in your original post.

Sorry if my suggestion that you learn about the system you are criticizing was bad advice. I stand by it.

I have read almost all of the complaints. I have made some of my own. I have participated in the discussion since the start of wars. The number of people who claim to have found some simple solution to the war matchmaking problem and post it as a panacea is fairly long. You have joined these ranks.

In order for your suggestion to make sense, Player Level would need to have a very high correlation to war performance. I agree there is some correlation, but it is a much smaller one than, say, the actual heroes and levels of heroes each player has.

SG is free to set up any matchmaking scheme they wish. I believe that they are working to create one where most alliances have competitive matchups. I agree with many that this has been lacking in many ways. I don’t agree that player level will help in any way over the current system. I accept that others may disagree.

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen many players at lower levels who have much stronger teams than players at higher levels. This happens through a combination of being more efficient players in general, having better luck with hero pulls and item collection, and, importantly, spending more money. This is why I don’t think using player level as the single matchmaking method would work.

1 Like

I think the only thing that matters is how many feeders you have consumed on a given team as they do not evaporate, they are what dictates your teams potential as a whole and the main driver is experience. Not saying it’s the only. But it’s the biggest factor. Unless Ascension items were purchased and that would take thousands and not in the average player spectrum.

Remember the one thing players can’t purchase is recruits so that dictates maximum potential

I think your idea might work somewhat for lower level players that haven’t spent money, but it’s quite wrong at the top. I couldn’t have fed more heroes and be at level 57. I could have fed more heroes and be lower level by farming at 8-7 (I did farm at highest season 1 provinces). Also those that spend money get more food-heroes from summons and also they don’t need to use 3 TC20 like me, they could do TC19 or TC11 to obtain more food-heroes.

No again you are all missing the crux and the best stop gap, and that is recruits.
Sure you can get more energy and buy those things, but all that matters is energy spent and that gives experience. A lvl one player can have 40 4 and 5* from purchasing. But to advance them it takes recruits…
sure there are efficiencies and inefficiencies.
But those increase every lvl not the opposite. So again… a high lvl player should have it ironed out… not the lower players.

Well that’s a theory. I happen to disagree strongly, but my disagreement is not based on any significant data collection or analysis.

SG could test it with the data they have. Perhaps they will find your suggestion to have more merit than I do.

My position would be that current hero/troop strength will be a better indicator than player level.

That said, I still advocate for a true ladder based system that i based largely on previous performance with a visible leaderboard.

What you seem to be saying is that there is a direct correlation between XP, Feeder heroes collected/traned, and war ability. The real picture is far more complicated than that.

  1. XP is not evenly granted based on the activities that enable feeder heroes. Grinding 8-7 constantly gives significantly more recruits per XP than, say farming higher map levels
  2. Especially at low levels, users can earn XP while losing the recruits due to full houses.
  3. Recruits yield wildly differing hero leveling depending on what TC training you feed them into.
  4. The resulting feeder heroes yield significantly different results when used to level 3, 4, or 5* heroes.

Honestly the link between #of XP earned and the actual strength of your team is very weak and indirect. I really doubt basing war match-ups on this link would improve the current situation.

1 Like

So you think a handicap system is the answer. So the better I preform despite my team!! The harder opponent you place in my way till my preformancce no longer matters?
All the while the underperforming team is edged towards a win…

We are on a totally different page when it comes to what a level playing field looks like.

You are removing strategy with your approach. No numbers needed.

Also the gap is not as wide as you imagine and is more color based as 3 1* is 150 and a 2* is 450 so it’s 50 difference in building 3 players actually costing more recruits at 6 vs 5.
So you lose or gain depending on your choice but it’s minimal on any given day as either system has its limits, and bottlenecks. Again controlled by recruits. That’s my point!!!

I wouldn’t describe it as a handicap system. I would describe it as a common ladder system. You work your way up the ladder so as to challenge yourself against similarly abled opponents until you reach the peak of your ability.

Just because I’ve been playing chess for 10 years doesn’t mean I’m better or even a close fun match for a young chess phenom with 5 years under their belt. So I prefer a system that matches me against those with similar abilities based on my previous performance against other ranked players. That means as I beat people, yes, I will face stronger people. It works like this is every competitive environment I’ve ever been a part of: Chess, Tennis, Golf. It’s more fun and more challenging for everyone involved.

This is not a punishment for performing well. It is a reward. It does, however, mean I will have a harder time than I would being matched up with legions of less skilled players that happen to have been playing as long as I have.

1 Like

In golf and in chess and in bowling that’s called a handicap system. We should call it what it is… Think of it like a 12 step program to admitting you only want to play people that preform like you. Be it over or under.
I on the other hand like a challenge too but that does not mean 30 people on my team seek to be handicapped to make it fair for the underachiever…

Just give everyone a trophy, if that’s basically your goal.

Fair enough - that’s been the intent of the matchmaking from the start: to ensure fair matchups. If you don’t like that, why bother using level at all? Player level seems pretty arbitrary. Are you saying that because I grind hard and play all day, that should mean I’m forced to play harder opponents? Why? Why shouldn’t it be based on date of download? Or $ spent?

If you’re really against making match-ups competitive, why not just make random match-ups and let the chips fall where they may. Or are you looking for your Level 30 player trophy? :wink:

I tried to explain the main factor is recruits obtained… that’s so far from arbitrary, saying otherwise is avoiding reality.
It’s the main factor in building up hero’s.
I agree yours is not arbitrary it’s handicaping. Tie my hand behind my back to complete if you must. I’m just sayin I’d rather grade by potential. If you made the most of the energy you spent and the players to feed it to and did not waste it. It’s calked war… maybe you rename it to fit your system of choice. Like trophies for all, perhaps.

I disagree both with your approach and with your arguments.

You tried to say that there is a direct linkage between player level and recruits obtained. There is not. I explained that above.

You stated that recruits obtained is ‘the main factor in building up heroes’. This is true (duh) but does not magically make it the only factor that should/could be factored into a player’s potential. I provided other possible examples that could be used to measure potential (time since download, $ spent, you could argue that flags used would be better than player level since flags/xp is not constant). Your reasoning here is lazy, man. You can’t just use player level and expect it to mean anything.

I think your real issue is that you believe that before the last change, your war performance showed that you and your alliance were particularly skilled, but that the new method is simply unfair to skilled players such as yourself. You have really no reason to believe that. That is why I started the discussion by suggesting that you familiarize yourself with the actual features you are suggesting a change to. There’s at least a good chance that it is you who are arguing for an undeserved trophy. (BTW in the system I outlined, there is only one trophy - for the folks at the top of the ladder. Sorry that means you won’t get yours.)

What is truly amazing is that you are arguing for the system to BE handicapped in one particular way (by player level) while deriding the concept of handicapped systems. If you want to think of it as war, maybe you should take your beating like a grown-up and realize that you just aren’t that good compared to the team you are playing. Sorry again that you didn’t get that trophy.

Frankly too , I do no see the correlation between players level and the number of recruit pulled in determining war matching, for example I tried to limit my farming for recruits to the lower provinces so that I dont gain unnecessary experience and based on my luck on hero pulls I have deep bench though mostly not fully leveled, I easily come best attacker in most of our wars , although lately our alliance had been on a losing streak since the update. And this is in alliance where several guys are at higher level than myself.

I have read through the arguements here , but tend to agree with SG approach of using the best 30 heroes and troops of each players in alliance for matchmaking , but my question is were the heroes levels considered , because , I often check through all our opponents defense team for those who actually posed strong defense team and compare with the best of my aliance , clearly there are always mismatches , the opponents all times have more number of 4* & 5* well leveled than ours and since the update we have lost all the wars till date., we were not even close , always straight slaughter .
We all agree there is a huge flaw in the current matching anyway and that SG is working towards improvement , but whatever was being used before the update seemed better.

Cookie Settings