"Fixing" war scoring and matchmaking

Every player would have a personal war score and those scores would simply added for matchmaking. Every player should be locked into the alliance right before matchmaking starts until all matchmakings have been started.

Would immediately solve two exploits, the new alliance and the participating in two wars exploit.

The personal war score could be calculated similarly to the actual war score, but separately for each player.


In what I’m proposing any part of the war score that is based on the alliance and the alliance performance will be “carried” by the members. If you participate in wars it comes with you, if you opt out it is removed/hidden. It would have to be a rolling number over the past 5-10 wars, so if you change alliances it starts with you until it rolls over in your new alliance.

If you are in a long term, stable alliance: nothing changes.

If you are in a group that does the war shuffle: there is no incentive because if you all shift to a new alliance your war score will be the same because you’ve brought your history with you in your war score.

If you simply move on from your current alliance: the effect should be minimal because the parts of the score that are alliance based are not as weighted as your heros and troops, and you are a fraction of the total score.


Scores shouldn’t be based on titan score since many have players join their alliance just to kill one, so it shouldn’t apply

I actually think this is a pretty elegant and simple solution!


They aren’t. They haven’t been since the first iteration

1 Like

@Nyghtmare It is not based on titans, trophies, defense team, or anything else that can be easily manipulated at the player level. This is to prevent powerful alliances from tanking their war score.


Ehhhh as usual I’m out of Likes @NPNKY…I’ll eventually just resign myself to being likeless.

But he is correct @Nyghtmare. War score is based solely on

War Score:

  • The best 30 heroes in hero roster of each Alliance member opted in for war
  • Out of the 30 heroes, the most weight is put on the best five heroes of each Alliance member
  • Player count of the Alliance (also subtracting those who have opted out) - they try to get an even number of players on both sides, but it can vary by up to three members.
  • The troop strength of the best in each element
  • war history (minor impact compared to Hero Power)

You picked up what I was suggesting exactly. Thank you for the concise explanation.

Thank you @Cvs! I thought so as well, but maybe it’s not as big an issue as I thought.

My thoughts on this topic :arrow_down: I didn’t do my own Ideas & Feature Requests post back then because current system doesn’t affect me in either way. But I’ll gladly vote for such change, more fairness is always better!


Thank you @Dwimmerlaik!

As I said, I was sure I missed things at some point in the past on here. Not that this counts as a great idea, but often solutions will come to several people presented with a set of information.

Excuse me while I go catch up on that thread.

1 Like

It seems to me that an alliance that is top-heavy with primary defenses but is average with back-up attack teams is in a better position to be successful in war than those alliances that strive for quality depth even though it may sacrifice the strength of the primary defense for a few seasons. That’s been our case. We are constantly paired with alliances with 1/5 of the sub-3000 teams and 3 times more of the 4000+ teams as primary defenses. That means there is more strength at the top and fewer weaknesses at the bottom in our opponents, and that’s every war. Luckily, like a blind squirrel finding an acorn, we’ll draw a halfway active alliance every 4th or 5th war–an opponent we manage to scrape by but would otherwise kick our @$$ if they were even a quarter more active.

The Top 5 heroes weighted average is misconstrued because it doesn’t factor class, element, or rarity of heroes whose synergy can make or break a defense like someone with 2 fully ascended Margarets, a maxed Inari, and maybe a maxed Justice and Isarnia being weighed better or on par with someone with a maxed Gravemaker, Drake Fong, Evelyn, Frida, and Kunchen.


The personal war score aspect matches what I have been thinking would fix the war shuffle issue. Gets my vote. :thumbsup:

1 Like

Despite this thread not getting the traction, SADERSpanda’s thread did get a dev response which is effectively the proposal of this thread:


Thank you for the update! I’m not spending much time on the forum and had missed that response.

1 Like

You’re welcome.

I think it goes to show the idea of changing war history from an alliance metric to a player metric is likely an easier option. A good option too as the devs decided to go down this route. :wink:


This war history thing is killing me. In AW I play one on one and the opposition is just nuts atm. I have just started war dropping; go in, test the waters and if it’s not doable just concede. (this wont work for everyone as i don’t attack until they have three times)

1 Like

The proposed fix, and the one the devs are choosing to implement shortly, wouldn’t solve your situation (if I’m reading it correctly). Being an alliance war of one, the alliance war history is your personal war history.


You understood perfectly. I don’t play well with others and my friends say they can take me anywhere but out… My war history is pretty good on the whole; the war dropping is a new feature. I won’t go near the war shuffle for contrast.

1 Like

Most of the focus for this is based on war shuffling.

Even with this change I still suspect the strong alliance in poor form to be matched with the weak alliance in good form; like sports competitions. I suspect you’re in this position of punching above your weight.

But deliberately losing wars should bring you back down the ladder, so to speak.


Cookie Settings