[May 16] Alliance Wars Half Way Through

Source? You probably shouldn’t make that sort of assertion unless you’re prepared to justify it. No one has any way of seeing other alliances’ rosters, so there’s no way we could use logic to reach the conclusion you have set out. So it must be based on a statement to that effect by the developers. I haven’t seen a statement to that effect. Please link to it if you have - I’d love to read it.

(I’m teasing a little bit. I think it’s likely you’ve just misread something, because what you outline seems silly. But I’m open to being proved wrong if you really have come across some evidence.)

Anchor’s spreadsheet is interesting and useful, and it was very generous of Anchor to share it, but the contents are largely subjective. The grades just reflect Anchor’s opinions. Everyone else will have different opinions. That’s not a good basis for measuring hero power.

Except benches and secondary heroes are vitally important to wars, and if you have chosen to ignore them completely then you should also choose to ignore completely all the data you have collected, because it is no more important.

We won with 3.485 points versus 2.990 points.

We were ahead all throughout the war, but this morning the difference was down to less than 250 points. In our last 19 attack we scored 443 points, in their last 22 attacks they scored 196.

So what happened here? Did we score so well, are we superior attackers? Surprisingly perhaps, that’s not necessarily the case. Our average defence team strength is 3.415 +/- 248, theirs is 3.266 +/- 302. An explanation for that difference is quite probably that our alliance is much older.

They probably had somewhat deeper rosters or they’d not be matched to us, and they had similar titan scores, but we had the stronger defence. They only scored 196 in that last leg because they were up against defences that were too strong for them to score more. While we were still able to grab quite some points from them.

Also our defence strength is spread quite tightly, while their varies more. I’ve seen in previous wars that this is also an important factor. A larger spread in defence strength enables the opponent to get more points out of their full roster.

Alliances that are now losing wars, would probably do well to focus on strengthening the defence strength of the weakest half of their teams. Or at least take a good look at how the defences of both alliance compare. Overall, we won this war on defence. The points don’t immediately give that away, but that’s my analysis.

It looks like the new matchmaking could somewhat favours alliances with strong defences. I think I like that.

Source? Because this doesn’t make sense at all. I’ve found that assuming the devs here do something that doesn’t make sense at all, probably means I’m seeing it all wrong. Don’t fall into the same pitfall.

What may lead any of us astray here is that the UI doesn’t show us our exact matchmaking parameter. We have to rely on a description of how they calculate it without the actual result of the calculation. This leaves room for interpretation.

I think the matches worked out fine for higher alliances, more or less for middle alliances and a total mismatch for newbies alliances. And it seems, as pointed here, would be in the number of heroes in back burner. Many of us are developing the better heroes while the not so good just stay there, on hold for when there is spare food and resources. And newbies do not even have a back burner. Somehow the newbie alliance my alt is in ended up matched against an alliance which averaged 2k + defense against my folks, 22 of them with teams averaging between 1k and 1.7 k, and no one with resources for more than maybe 2 attacks


Overall, I would say most of the players in the opposing team have been playing for quite some time. We have a more mixed alliance, with some seasoned players and some ‚younger‘ players, having defense teams under 3000 strength, some just barely over 2000. Their alliance score and titan score (yes, I am aware that these do not affect matchmaking anymore, however, I do believe that they do offer some indication of alliance strength) were well above our scores. Definitely their benches were deeper than ours, as they were still one-shotting teams towards the end of the war.

One-shoting teams isn’t indication. Today I one-shoted team with power 3450 by team with power 2900.

There are too many factors are influencing on score. I suppose we can’t solve this problem by intuition, large statistic needed

1 Like

Congratulations, if you still have a 2900 team to attack with at the end of the war. Illustrates my point nicely

Brobb, I asked you to be realistic. What benches against stronger opponents while basic heroes are still under construction? What strategy - 4-5-6 hits against one strong enemy team? Don’t be ridiculous. It’s hitting against a wall. Or maybe should we count on more luck? I think it wasn’t the point of the new “improvements”. Get on the ground and listen what normal players say.

1 Like

We were matched well, we won by 250 points (both alliances scored almost 4000 points). It was very close, our alliance had both the highest tp defence team as well as the lowest, their tp’s were more closely together and so were their benches if I have to guess.
But in the old matching system we only had 1 great mismatch, and I think there will be mismatches with every matching system.

Someone proposed somewhere else a system based on tiers, where you are in a competition pool with a set number of alliances and play every other alliance once, and then either stay in that tier, get promoted to a higher one or demoted to a lower one. I kind of like that idea. It is going to be a while before alliances reach the tiers they are best matched in, but after that probably some equilibrium will settle. Although, alliances can get new members, fall apart, or start anew, not sure how that should be handled. So maybe the elo system @Little_Infinity proposed (is it called elo? Sorry, not really at home in it other than raiding uses it :wink: ), is more appropriate.

I guess right now there is so much complaints on every system, it is difficult to determine which system works the best. Just saying that some alliances (like ourselves) have not experienced many mismatches in any of the systems used so far. Not saying there aren’t mismatches, there clearly are, just saying we don’t know how many good matches and mismatches (there will always be mismatches, no matching system will be perfect).


Our results of first war … everyone played except our members (5 of them) who do not qualify yet…! The team we played was approximately one year old… we are about 6 weeks old… in a year (assuming we don’t lose interest in being pummeled) we will be incredible

1 Like

If you think benches are not equally important to - perhaps even more important than - top defences in alliance wars, then you just don’t understand alliance wars.

We had no bad matches using Titan score - we won about half and lost about half and most of them were quite close. Some were real nail biters.

Our first match under the new system wasn’t crazy. We won pretty easily and it was more of a mismatch than any of our Titan Score Wars, but our final margin of victory was only about 1000 points so it wasn’t a total massacre.

That’s our data point.

They kicked their weakest members? That certainly speaks to the ethics (or lack thereof) of the team you faced … I wouldn’t even consider it an option to kick players just to win a tap tap game.

1 Like

@Brobb that would be because the titan score is a lot more realistic for the top teams in the game as most of them already have a deep bench. Now how SG does it you can match against weaker teams without the deeper bench. Really not sure why SG just didn’t take it one step further and do a sum of power of top 30 players and do a match based on that number.

What is happening with their logic now is you can match against teams that have 10 very strong players with a deep bench and then 10 average and 10 weak. If you are a pretty balanced team you will lose in the war.

So there change is a step in the right direction they just only took a half a step and not a full one.

Yup, that’s what they’ve done.

(I think it’s a very silly idea, by the way. Let me see if I can find the link confirming and edit it into this post.)

They say strongest heros in the roster. They don’t say 30 heros but I guess that is possible. Just can’t see how you could get a 1500k diff if this is true in a war.

They have confirmed a Top 30 approach. I was sceptical and demanded to see it in writing. I was shown it in writing. I’m looking for it now.

I FINALLY, finally, figured out what you have been saying.

It all started when I got Colen as my second red 4*. Disappointed, I went to the crappy 4* thread to complain.

THERE, a friendly user explained that Titan damage is based mostly upon tile damage, and that Colen is actually very solid for Titans.

FINALLY understanding the mechanic for dealing damage to titans, I put this into practice, and immediately DOUBLED my Titan damage. I attempted to explain this to the rest of my ACTIVE (I’m serious - they are) alliance.

Here’s where it gets hairy.

They actually don’t believe me, and a few of them tried it for themselves now. (I thought maybe im explaining it poorly, but the mrs seems to get it. I think they’re probably just set in their ways. I’ll broach it again soon, but anyway:)

I’m the 16th ranked player in my alliance. My best team power is 2500. The 15 people above me are generally flirting with 3200-3500.

But they have no clue about how the depth of their bench impacts Titan attacks.

Much like I didn’t before this week. We know we want a bench for AW, but not for titans.

This, I think, is why we were butting heads on Titan score as a match making metric.

One, I didn’t get it :stuck_out_tongue:

It SHOULD indicate the depth of a hero roster, ACTIVITY, and overall power of an alliance… but I think it’s probably missing badly on that first points as mid-low level alliances can vary wildly in their ability to effectively utilize what they do or don’t have. (There are some alliances we got matched against… they must not have even been bothering to fight titans at all lol.)

Anyway, I’m not sure what the answer is. Probably an ELO system would be best - I think we agreed on that before.

In the meantime I hope the formula they’re using is something like

[(top5average*1.5)+ (6-30average)]/2

Then sum of all alliance members by that formula

Then search for match within 10% of that number, and within 1 member of total alliance count.

If can’t find match search for count within 2 members.

If can’t find match, then expand to 15%, etc…

Anyway. Guess we will never know. But was thinking they should probably weight the top5 hero power. I don’t think this would impact you top dogs, this might help to even out matches (or at least the perception of matchups) in lower ranks

1 Like

If the devs based the new arrangement on hero power the mismatches will continue. I’ve got seven 5s since the beginning of the year that are waiting to be levelled; and all but one currently have A/D/H stats poorer than my 3/16 Bane and 3/29 Hawkmoon. I’ve got a fairly solid stable of 4s at 3rd tier and above, but if the devs instead count my 6 unlevelled 5s that get eliminated in one hit in AW against a team that has 6 better levelled 5s, where’s the equal match in that?
(edited for some clarity)