Team power is misleading across star levels (considerably improved as of version 15.1)


Team power is a crude way to compare relative hero strength, I know … but it is particularly bad comparing heroes with different numbers of stars.

Team power 327: Layla maxed 3/40 vs Chao 1/1

Ok, Hu Tao is 327, instead of Chao’s 329, but their specials compare a lot better.
Layla has noticeably better attack, defense, and health. Her special is a higher multiplier on the greater attack strength. I know which I would rather use, and it isn’t the one with 2 more TP points.

Team Power ~425: Thorne 1/1, Bane 3/50

Thorne and Bane are hitters (Bane’s special is 6/8; think he would gain 10 points maxed or 5 at 7/8. Thorne is average but does more damage with splash; Bane is fast. Similar health. Bane has better defense and way better attack, making up some of the special damage differential.

Justice 1/1, Cyprian 2/26, Carver 3/42:
Justice and Carver are hit all, easier to compare; Cyprian is the only 4* I’ve got in that range…

Cyprian has similar defense to Justice and way better attack and health. Carver has the same health and way better attack and defense. His special is weaker, but average instead of slow.

Again, the lower star heroes have way better stats for the same team power.

Alliance Wars Matchmaking (Discussion & Developer Response)
Who is getting reasonable AW matches?
ALLIANCE WARS....... Frustrating, Boring & definately unrewarding
ALLIANCE WARS....... Frustrating, Boring & definately unrewarding
Minor Adjustment to Hero Powers

I very much agree with your assessment, and this is likely the issue at the core of AW mismatches right now. How to fix it, though, I’m not entirely sure.


Thank you for saying this!

I never thought how this was harming people like me and others in my alliance in war matching due to this specific thing before. But yes, it does bias the matching against players that pay to have the pulls for a deep roster before they get it organically.

Note: I’m actually not too upset that we are effectively handicapped this way—I get so many other advantages from my purchases that I can live with it well enough. (Especially given the current [lack of] quality of war loot!) And it is temporary anyway…my roster has less than 30 well developed heroes but more than 30 “keepers” in it. As I catch up on hero development over the next month or two, I’ll outgrow this problem.

Alliance Wars Matchmaking (Discussion & Developer Response)

My rule of thumb is that the listed power of a hero is a big fat lie, at least before the final ascension stage. When I tried my first 5* with a higher listed power at 2/60 as a tank instead of a more leveled 3* with a lower value, I got skinned alive on both attack and defense, and promptly went back to the 3*.

When I was raiding against platinum level opponents, I actively looked for 5* heroes at 3/70 because they are weaker than 4* at 4/ 70 despite the power values.


I think you’re looking at this the wrong way… You need to think of each hero’s suggested power as “potential” power. Or correlate the power level to the potential value of that hero… A 1/1 4* like Chao is way more valuable than a maxed Layla. A maxed Layla power will never be more than 327, whereas a basic Chao is at least as valuable as a maxed Layla because his potential is light years away from that Layla’s. Granted, at this stage it’s untapped power as he hasn’t been leveled up at all.

The hero power is also more of a strategic power value, not just brute strength. Take Zeline for instance, she’s one of the highest (Maybe only second to Alby) powered hero in the game. Sure, there are many other heroes that inflict way more damage, but that’s really all they have going for. Zeline’s ability to severely cripple an entire defense is second to none. Strategically speaking that can mean the difference between losing or winning a battle. Very few other heroes can help determine the outcome of things. That’s what makes her so valuable.

I still see no issue with this sort of grading.

Playing from my son’s account, I see more and more novice players with barely fed 4s and 5s heroes. I think they’re doing themselves a disservice by acquiring and starting to feed these heroes vs maxing out a full roster of 3s… On paper, all those 4s and 5s are of equal or greater value as any maxed 3s simply because of their potential and overall game value, and I’m ok with them being grated as such. If they chose to start feeding those 4s or 5s before they have a full deck of maxed 3*s that’s on them. Chalk it up to life lessons…

Raiding my Dream Team - Red Hood, Hel, Guinevere, Zeline and Alasie, ... what's yours?

The current grading system encourages newbies to make pulls. Game makes money, we all get to play our game.


Wormwood, I completely agree that Chao at 1/1 has a great deal more potential than Layla does maxed. But that’s not how I see team power being used in the game.

OTOH, when I’m down to those two choices for my final attack in AW, Layla maxed is more effective than Chao at 1/1 is. (discounting specific opponents where a yellow is more powerful/useful than a purple)

I see the team power metric is intended to be used as a measure of how powerful your heroes (and team) are now, not how powerful it could be. If it wasn’t, team power wouldn’t creep up as you level a hero.

It is used by the game as a measure of what you can handle (suggested team power for quests), used for AW matching, and used if you do “autofill” in an AW attack, picking the top 5 team power heroes. (Note: I’m not suggesting that using autofill is in any way a good idea, or that fixing this would make actually using autofill a better idea!)

Your example of Zeline makes my point of how non-useful team power works out to be. At the same level, Zeline and Thorne get nearly identical team power scores, but I’d really rather pick on the raid target with Thorne!

Since I’ve got Alasie, Thorne may never get past level 1/1. And I really wish I’d started the game in time to get Zeline, but that was the month before I started playing. As you said, she is exceptional. Maybe I’ll get really lucky when SG makes a way for us to get old HotMs…


Yeah, I’m only saying that their 4* or 5* status should be factored into the value of their power… It is by no means an absolute value, you’ll be greatly disappointed if you treat it as such… Not to mention that once you spent enough time in game play you learn to completely ignore those values for the most part and learn to focus on their stats, specials, etc… If find that power value more of a general guideline and nothing more. Your sanity will be in jeopardy if you give it any more weight than that.

As for the event suggested hero power… This is exactly why it’s more of a general guideline, it’s by no means a perfect system, lol, that much is a proven fact. You wouldn’t go into an even with nothing bu healers would you ? Even though you meet/exceed the suggested team power.

Be happy, hero power is sappy ! - I’m putting that on a shirt !!!



I do take hero power with a big grain of salt. Effective teams do so much more. Teams with a color doubled or tripled to attack something specific hit way harder even with a much lower TP. (And 5 healers is pretty worthless. Even in AW when they had revenge attacks!)

I’m pretty sure team power is just a weighted average of attack, defense, health, and special 1~8/8, and there is so much more to making a good or even competent team!

I made this grumbly topic because TP doesn’t even do that one sappy job right!!!


Agreed that this among the major problems with having war match ups based on Total Power.

Thanks for taking the time to bring it to the surface with specific examples. It’s something most of us know is there but the differences are pretty stark.

Like @BarryWuzHere I don’t really have a problem with teams that bought a bunch of high level heroes losing to teams that grinded out a bunch of 2/3* maxed heroes. But I can see how that is colored by the fact that I’m a grinder and not a buyer :wink:


lol - Since we’re done here, we can move on to crappy boards…
hahaha jk, we don’t have that kind of time… :rofl:


I would argue that the starting power rating of 4*/5* is above what it should be so that new players don’t feed them to their 3* heroes. If they are going off of power, not stats, nor future ability, then this might be a safeguard. Maybe…?


Future potential could be accounted for by displaying the maximum power level of the hero alongside their current level like “327/535”. That would lessen the need for a safeguard and hopefully mean less Wu Kongs fed to Dawas.


I have a feeling this is impacting my alliance right now. We can’t seem to get an equal pairing. Particularly since a number of us got really hyped up over the HoTMs and some event heroes. Now we’re sitting with unleveled four and five star heroes who’s base power is higher than the three stars we’d been playing with.

On the one hand I’m very close to having a dynamic, fully leveled, four star rainbow team and that has been kicking butt. On the other hand I have two Khagan, two Azlar, and a Gravemaker whom will all be inflating my total power level for the foreseeable future with no real benefit to war.

Should we work on our three star teams in hopes they will surpass the power levels of our benched five stars?

Should we level the five stars to 50 so they have more use in war? Somewhat offsetting their base power level?


My alliance has a different strategy than either of the above:

  1. Level our heroes so they are effective against titans, raiding, etc. and also to be more useful in fighting wars. (AKA hoard good heroes to level later, and develop 3*s only if we need/want them for rare level challenges, or as a 3rd of a strong color against titans/etc.)
  2. Have fun doing silly things with war, knowing that the matches are mostly so uneven that we’re pretty much certain to lose.
  3. Find some peace knowing that war loot is crap whether we win or lose!


I found this reverse engineered answer of how team power (CP he called it) is calculated. Kerridoc doesn’t claim it to be 100% accurate, but it looks close.

I would suggest that in order to fix this missmatch which badly over-ranks partially leveled or unleveled heroes with higher stars, the calculation could be tweaked, perhaps like this:

The component which is 40.26 * stars could become 40.26 * stars * (current ascension tier) / (total ascension tiers). That way a 4* or 5* hero would be ~30 points lower at tier 1, ~20 points lower at tier 2, and ~10 points lower at tier 3.

I’m guessing that most 5* heroes not yet maxed will still hit a bit under their team power with this system, but not as badly.

No idea what the impact there would be on non-maxed 3* heroes or 1* and 2* heroes, but I seldom pay attention to less than maxed 3* heroes or any 1* / 2* heroes anyways; they are all food, not heroes I use. :smile:


The 15.1 update took some big steps to improve this. My initial example included a maxed Layla vs a Chao at 1/1, who had team power of 327 and 329 respectively despite Layla being stronger any way I could compare them.

Now Layla is stronger at 338 and Chao weaker at 312. (Edit: with no changes to stats or special skills)

This is clearly a step in the right direction!!!


Yep, a very good way forward.