There is a thread with a very good proposal, you can go and vote there:
[War Matchmaking Issue -- Proposed Solutions (Developer response: post 107)]
@lfleurie and @Traggeter please drop by and vote if you will.
Some time ago they discovered how to take advantage of the bad coding of war pairings and it is already insufferable it is necessary for the creators to take action on the matter
many high-level players are creating new alliances to be favored in the matchmaking thanks to this they manage to quickly fill 3 war chests and win them easily after this they proceed to abandon that created alliance and make another. while the rest of the players have to suffer such abuses
I already talked in another post and I keep on wondering how this can be solved with an alliances tournament and put an end to the discussion I leave the link below
Now, if that solution is not feasible, why not simply take the 3/4 and 5-star heroes that each member of the war has, get a score from this and take that into account when matching the war?
Why is the alliance war score taken into account if it does not say anything and it is the clearest point which is being manipulated
really good news thank you very much for the reply
We finally hit our 20th war and got a top 5 match! I’m glad to see that there is a promising fix in the works even though it is too late for us now lol
4 Likes
I have a classic example of it. We lost a war. All of them where players 4400+ tp and highest 4733tp.
I don’t know if someone else has already mentioned this, but I thought of a great solution earlier today. The devs could make it so your alliance can’t go to the next war (or two) after creating a new alliance. Simple fix.
Think it’s been proposed before.
But it looks like you’ve missed the devs actual response to how they’re going to try and resolve the issue:
2 Likes
A newly created alliance of top players gonna need more than two months until they get properly matched. Proposal is not good. You can’t expect a whole alliance of war orientated members to wait that much.
Only “solution” in such fights is matchmaking do not take under any consideration past war history. Instead just 30 strongest heroes and troops. That way it wouldn’t matter if the alliance is 2 years old or new. That means SG has to find a way to somehow exclude war history from matchmaking process but still count it in the total war score (for rankings).
My solution is not to eventually get them properly matched, but to dissuade them from forming new alliances all the time to get the quick loot. Instead of immediately being able to get more loot, they would have to sit out a couple wars, and not get the loot. It could amount to them missing out on a lot of loot if they do this all the time.
Edit:
I do like the idea though of having match making based off of the top 30 heroes only.
1 Like
Missing a couple of wars won’t fix the issue.
As far as i understand, here and in a couple more similar topics, the main issue is unfair matching in Wars. I don’t think people are complaining that new alliances have better chance for good loot.
I personally know a few newly created alliances of good and strong players. Some of them have been created around 2 months ago and still can’t get properly matched, winning every war with 2k-3k points difference. It’s not that they want to face those unfairly matched opponents. It’s just SG matching system sucks in terms of newly created alliances.
War history plays a huge role in matchmaking. You can get a match where newly created alliance of 30 top players, who have been in top 5 alliances, match agains 2 years old alliance with same war score (because of their war history). The result will be terrible to watch - probably up to 4k-5k difference in favour of the newly created future top alliance 
2 Likes
This doesn’t fix anything, but it sure annoys “legitimate” new alliances. There are many reasons why a new Alliance might be created that has nothing to do with manipulating the matchmaking. Why should they suffer?
It’s ironic that this focus on the rosters is exactly what got SGG into this mess. Previous to this:
what you’re proposing is actually how it worked. War history tracking was added because not having it was terrible.
The Raid ladder is 100% based on outcome, not roster, and works considerably better. It’s called an Elo ladder, and Gryphonknight has been pushing for its use in war for years. I agree, matchmaking based on rosters is complex and has many loopholes, while matchmaking based on performance is fairly simple and less open to manipulation.
Technically true, but these things are related. By manipulating the matchmaking, the “new” Alliance gets a 100% win rate, and opens a new War Chest every 5 wars. The point for them is that the loot comes faster; and you’re right, nobody is complaining about that directly. It’s just really hard on the Alliances they are matched against, who are forced to lose constantly, and that’s where the complaints come in.
It could fix it IF was enough of a deterrent. If the alliance does this all the time, they are going to be doing it for the quick loot. If they do the math and realize they will be missing out on quite a bit of loot due the the amount of times they do this it might work
Plus not allowing a team to participate in a couple wars isn’t a big deal, so there is no reason to say “ Why should they suffer”. That is in no way suffering. Yes they missed out on the chance to get the loot from two wars, but if that is all, it isn’t very much.
I’m not sure you’re following how the exploit is generally used. Your plan is no deterrent at all. 0. Nada. These alliances are generally set up a War or two ahead of time by a sleeper alt account that is opted out. Having to set them up a little earlier isn’t going to slow them down at all.
Brand new players might not see it as a huge disadvantage, but experienced players will. Basically it time delays the recruiting effort, and makes finding a new alliance annoying because you gotta look out for those ones that can’t participate in War.
So, 0 advantage, some disadvantages. Not a good equation.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification. I have been playing for about three years now, and have only been with three alliances. I had no idea that is what those “new” alliances were operating.
Edit:
Now that I think about it, if they didn’t have a sleeper creating the alliance in advance like that, my solution would cause them to come up with idea anyway.
I thought this issue was supposed to be resolved or at least going to be resolved soon? One of the devs themselves commented somewhere saying that they were going to change it to where war history was tied to individual players themselves instead of alliances. Therefore the whole exploit of creating new alliances in an attempt to “erase” war history would be rendered completely moot… without actually having to punish legitimate new alliances in the process.
I’m guessing that since this topic is still being discussed, the idea has not been officially implemented yet…
They said they have implemented the individual tracking, and said they’d “keep an eye on it”. I’m guessing that means they’re compiling actual matches made, and comparing them to what the individual system would have done (reject or accept).
If it would have accepted too many mismatches, or rejected too many “good” ones (by some criteria), back to the drawing board. If enough mismatches would have been rejected, while “good” matches would have been kept, the change will go live.I personally wouldn’t expect to see an announcement before the end of the month, but I’m cautious on codebase changes that way.
In the meantime, I’d keep reporting your mismatches, as our Alliance does. The devs may not get the information, or may not care even if they do get it. But if they are smart, they’ll be backchecking complaints against their criteria. I do have some faith that since they have announced they are taking action, they are actually doing their best.
2 Likes
Yes, the devs put in the new system in with version 31 as I linked to above (seemingly ignored).
From that it’s going to begin as a hybrid of alliance and individual war scores, with war history being a part of the individual account’s record rather than a pure alliance metric.
On a technical level, it would have enabled any war shufflers to actually reset for one last time before the new individual war history tracking began. If it works as some of us proposed, what this means is they can win their first war but no longer reset their war history by joining another alliance - their war history follows them.
I’d imagine it’ll take those 15 wars before they settle at the level the devs deem ‘fair’ before we know whether it works as intended.
2 Likes
IKR? I’ve not even been here two months, and already I’ve almost entirely given up on linking. The biggest problem with this forum is that there are people reading it. Eww.
I love your optimism. You must be under 40.
40 was a long time ago. Nearly lv. 60. 
The 15 wars reference is what people who are far higher tier and competitive suggested starting the war penalty at 15 would make war shufflers hit their ceiling quicker. It would also let legitimate new powerful alliances to be matched up with their peers without going through less powerful alliances (and for those alliances being soundly beaten).
1 Like