[MASTER] War mismatch - 136k vs. 108k war score (and other similar mismatches from other alliances)

And how it’s possible? 6 more attacks?

Sorry this has happened to your alliance. It sucks. But consider how this can happen. Say there are 1,001 alliances with 10 members to match in the war. There are 500 even matches, and the remaining team then would have to be matched to fight either a 9 or 11 member team. Assuming you can not leave any participating alliance unmatched I see no way to avoid this happening to someone at times. :frowning:

Edit: interesting related question - what happens when there are an odd number of alliances total that are participating in the war? What happens to that last alliance? :thinking:

2 Likes

I fail to see how our most recent war matchup was an equitable one. The opposition’s alliance score was close to 10k more than ours at war’s start, now a slightly smaller gap because they had a member leave their alliance after war’s end. How to you plan to rectify this inequality going forward? Please advise. And make it an intellect, thoughtful solution. We deserve that much—and more.
image|690x394

Click on the question mark next to the alliance score 167214. Then you see it split into three parts where „war score“ is on what matchmaking is based on. It consideres the five strongest heroes, the thirty strongest heroes and a war success score of the alliance (in a secret algorithm, which subject to changes — maybe).

When an alliance kills the hardest titans but only two players take part in an alliance war, then these two players play against another alliance with two players maybe not killing the hardest titans and therefore having another alliance score.

1 Like

Every thing in this game is pretty much repetitive. War is the only thing that’s different because you can’t predict how another alliance will play versus the alliance you played last week. However, events, raids, tournaments, and maps are basically the same thing over and over with new wrinkles. Personally, after years of playing this game I can honestly said I sim through 90% of the maps and events because they get so dull and boring. War is the only thing I look forward to in this game because I have no idea about the team we’re going to face and mystery is exciting.

3 Likes

Hey :slight_smile:

First of all, we are experienced players, but it hit us again too.

We have lost 2 wars in a row and now we get an opponent who is even stronger, whereby the big ones (4500 + ts) only joined a day ago.

The last two wars have already been hopelessly lost, even taking advantage of all attacks, and by arrangement. I think this will be the next war with a difference of at least 1000 or more points.

Unfortunately, we do not notice any new matchmaking.

I think that maybe one should try to make changing alliances with regard to the war chest less interesting in order to prevent these 1 or 2 day alliances. Maybe a 2nd counter and only after 1 or 2 full war chests do you really get a 100% war chest. But that’s just my opinion.

Have a nice day.

Update: War is over and as expected we lost. 3860 vs. 5208. Hopeless.
War score before war 32624 vs. 32628.
Afer war 32555 vs. 32643.
The change of the oppnents ist very small, so i think they will become an easy opponent in the next war again.
Pls try to find a solution for this matchmaking problems.

Update 2: After few minutes war scores changes to 32379 vs. 32840.

Update 3: Next war:

This time around, the opponent’s choices seem sensible. The opponent has many around 4200ts and we from 2200 - 4600ts. But that’s only objective

But now comes the second problem:
The shields. In my opinion, the game at the start of the war decides who will win it. While the opponents defeat us in rows with one attack, we need 2 - 3 attacks. I also needed 4 attacks for 2 opponents, some of them much weaker. With a 4500ts vs. 4200ts and 4200ts vs 3800ts I made 30 points with 12 players on the battlefield. So basically nothing with this number.
So this war will probably be the 4th clear defeat in a row against which we cannot actively do anything and the frustration in the alliance is growing and people are withdrawing more and more from the game.

I know that the shields are a matter of luck, but it is very strange when we lose so clearly against supposedly equally strong opponents.

Like many in our alliance, after 4 defeats with more than 1500 points each, I don’t feel like it anymore.

1 Like

We normally get pretty decent matches, but not this weekend. 27 per side. Our teams range from 3522-4549 Their low starts at 4323 (higher than our average) and tops out at 4703. Most are in 4600s.

I expect they will end up over 6k, we will be lucky to break 4K

Their alliance is 30d old, with most members under 2 weeks.

Edit: war scores — 85498 us vs 88152 them.

Associate win/loss to the players, not the alliance and calculate war score off the average win/loss of all the players for the last X wars. It’s not that hard.

1 Like

What makes a good or bad matchup? Yes initially, ANY change in the matchmaking criteria is going to result in mismatches. But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make the changes.

The only thing you can do to minimize this is to throttle the changes week to week, to blend the old matchmaking in with the new. Currently, the weighting is very heavy on win ratio. If you change that weighting to be more based on roster, you have to do it slowly.

The week you changed the matchmaking was one of our best wars yet. We got matched against a highly skilled alliance, instead of an alliance with 200-300 TP larger than ours. The score was very close.

1 Like

Is there an explanation of the goal here? Is it to just improve matchmaking in general, or is it to specifically counter the “new alliances” issue?

If the latter, I made a suggestion 2 posts above that requires some changes to the player data model, but not massive changes to the matchmaking algorithm.

If the former… that’s a much, much bigger challenge, and I certainly don’t feel like I can make suggestions without far more data.

1 Like

That’s pretty much exactly what we did when we started the project. Unfortunately the point difference of the wars was clearly higher than in the old model.

I’m planning to post an update on this topic on Thursday or Friday.

10 Likes

Hi,
We have the same issue in the war today.
I have screen shot to explain the issue regarding the score war game and the number of attack!
We have 52k against 58k as war score
We have 45 attack against 54 for them

So how it is possible? Tell me how we can have a chance to not loose?
I have try to open a ticket to the support but with the update, it’s less easy! Just have a chat in the game, no answer and no mail…
I try in the forum, hope to have an answer

Ps: sorry if I have made some mistake, I’m French :slight_smile:
Reps: not possible to put more than 1 media in the post as I’m a new member…
I can send all the information if needed

1 Like

Here’s another update.

We tried something completely different since my last post. This time we copied the alliance specific war history to every member of the alliance. In other words, we ran the matchmaking based on the old data (the war history of the alliance) but using the new implementation that reads it from the player history. After this initial seeding, we kept making matches using the new player-specific history for the past two wars.

So far the results are encouraging. Our metrics show that the matchmaking quality has been comparable to the old implementation. As a reminder: The benefit of the new implementation is that it solves the issue where multiple experienced players start a new alliance and get too weak opponents.

We’ll monitor the situation to make sure that the results don’t degrade over time.

18 Likes

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly did you do the last time? I would have expected that this is approach that you should have taken the first time around.

1 Like

Hi,
Regarding my previous post, I think you have forget to take into account an important thing: the number of participant in the war and so the number of attack!

In the last war, is it logical that the team have not the same number of participant? And so the same number of attack?
In my case, my team is weaker, we have 3 members less and we have less attack (18).
You have a bug in your match war program because you don’t take into account the number of attack of each team!

Except in our case. This new method lowered our war score below the opponent we just beat in war… Looks like we will get an unfair war once again as we are lower than some weaker allies now

1 Like

Thank you for the update! Is the new algorithm already live? It would be also nice, if you could share how many past wars is being taken into account. Is it only last 2 wars or more?

@mhalttu we have 2 players in our alliance that aren’t worth nearly as many points as everyone else. Our war score has been off for about a week with no help from you guys finding the problem. There is obviously a problem with the new algorithm with the individual scoring. Our best guess is these 2 players somehow had their 20 war penalties reset as they are each worth about 3k while rest of us are worth about 4.6k. This just happened in the last week and they have been with us for months now. Is it possible they got reset somehow by leaving after war to merc titans?? If so this is a huge bug that people will use to manipulate the new system. If what we think is true we will be facing much weaker allies than we should be as our war score is not accurate. We had a 140k war score then mysteriously lost 3k after winning our war. Today’s war we only gained 80 points or so which shouldn’t be the case when you’re only at 137k.

1 Like

The algorithm has been live in the past four wars. We keep track of much longer history than the past 2 wars.

4 Likes

Thank you for the report. I’ll have the team look into it and fix it. Stay tuned.

6 Likes

@mhalttu, my theory is that our members went to merc after our matchmaking was completed, but before ALL match making was finished. Since it takes a couple hours for all the matchups to happen our members could have gotten matched for a “2nd” war in a smaller alliance they were mercing at. If this 2nd war ended up being a loss it could negatively impact their individual war score?

1 Like

Cookie Settings