Unfair Matches in Alliance Wars

  1. 15 members
  2. 4 don’t want to play war. They opt out.
  3. The others Joins 10 vs 10

Even if it could be as suggested below if it turn too hard to implement the fairness of playing vs the same number of opponents.

That seems to be a different idea to the one proposed, but it’s interesting. Obvious questions spring to mind:

  • How many alliances do we expect have will have in each bracket? (Why don’t we focus on 1-6 members?)

  • What will be the range of their strength (using whatever metric you like)?

  • Will it be a good idea to match alliances with one member against alliances with six members?

In your answer above I first got the impression you were indeed proposing that alliances be matched against other alliances with the same number of active war members, but then it seemed like you immediately reversed yourself. I don’t think you’ve explained what you intend. I am certainly not clear on it.

But if we’re now focusing on 10 vs 10 matchups, the question to hand is: how many alliances with 10 active war members do you think there will be?

If a member is active it’ll leave WAR/ON
If a member its not active it’ll have WAR/OFF

I don’t have reversed myself, I was writing about the chance to join war with less member than the 100% of the member’s alliance.

Once that you could join wars with less player that the 100% of the alliance it’ll be a war with only interested players (WAR/ON and WAR/OFF).
No matter how many members it’ll have, even the one members alliance here above could join war to face another similar one man alliance.
Fighting 1vs1, that its.

Fighting a war with the same number of opponents and with similar rooster.

You appear to be making a case for something that has no relevance whatsoever to the issue we are addressing.

I ask you repatedly how you propose matching alliances, and suggest that the numbers of alliances, their active member numbers and distributions - and their power distributions - present extremely challenging issues to overcome. I then invite you to explain how you think they might be overcome.

You respond by talking about WAR ON/WAR OFF buttons and mechanics that are trivial at best and blindingly obvious in any case.

We might just be struggling with a language barrier here, or there might be something else going on; whatever the reason, we are not having a worthwhile conversation.

Go with my best wishes.

Yeah, maybe we are not understanding what we are trying to say.

1 Like

To summarize:
I think that to achieve the fairest war possible the matchmaking should take into account

  • the number of member (possibly the same)
  • the win rate (to avoid veteran vs noob wars)
  • the bench strength/depth

All the part about X vs X fall under the first point.
Its were all start: have equal n° of flags and have to kill the same n° of defense to make them respawn.

Even all the part about the opt out is included on the first point: uninterested players who’ll don’t even attack should be able to not join the war.

Both X vs X and opt out leads to war with a setted number of members, to make easier looking for a war. If alliances could search for all the numbers from 1 to 30 the system could find too hard to pair alliances of the same weight, so I was proposing a (for example) 30vs30, 25vs25, 20vs20, etc system.

The part about the alliance leader to start the war is to make possible to choose how many players will play the war (X vs X).

The bench depth/strength is to solve the MM system with the opt out button: thr titans score as MM parameter (that to me it seems to work only on top alliances atm because they already have a great bench depth are fighting the same titans and usually have the same number of active players. “End game”)

Now, to me trying to pair alliances with titans score seems to only be the first step, like to test the war on a larger playerbase, because for a MM system it isn’t enough to provide fair match in the majority of the cases.

In the end the n° of the war matches will oughly be the same. The active players minus the number of uninterested players, small scale war instead of big ones… but with fair fights.

I’ve tried to explain at the best of my possibilities, to have a better wall of text I should try on italian :joy:

Hi, I agree to avoid a word like cheating. optimization might be much better. anyhow for our clan war is over in the second it starts. last 3 opponents have been up to 48 % stronger in power and 30 % more in members… this means 30 % more first strikes to gain double points. there is urgently help needed to have selections which are comparable. I understood that the levels of the players are considered as well. why not just to use the team strength calculated by considerning trophys and titan hits. of course this can be optimized as well but not in a range which has a big impact. the total alliance would need stop playing to gain a huge better result…

I think we have to wait a little bit and SG will come with a solution to make wars more fair and entertaining. There are a lot of complaints ,more people are unsatisfied than happy with this. Maybe in this forum we find more opinions that the war is good enough,but the majority who express their ideas here are generally in top ranks where the war is more fair and stable. Believe me below 100 k is not so nice to have a match up in war. In the last weeks we get some good results in Titan, and that affects us on wars. Definitely this matching system have to be more complex and based on other things too,not only on Titan score.

well… yes… good things will take a while. we are in ranking in middle of nowhere (43500 avg). our alliance contains fun players, quite active but not having the target to become top team. most likely we will stay whare we are. todays war did start an hour ago and is most probably lost. but maybe we discovered another issue which could impact the selection of teams. in our Alliance there are 24 members. 1 player with good ranking is excused due to private problems and he won’t show up soon. 6 other players don’t have minimum level (12) to participate at war. so at the end we can go in having a team of 17… our opponent has 27, that’s 37 % more first strikes… the result is quite clear despite they mage huge mistakes. If I remember well, during selection phase our total team (24 ) has been shown in the defence and of course 24 vs 27 won’t be unfair. somebody in the forum did state that no team member will be kicked out just due to war, so we don’t as well. but the players which cannot participate at war needs to be deducted, or the points we can gain at won fights needs to be increased by 37 %. this would align at least the mismatch of first strikes

Just to contribute some feedback, our alliance has really enjoyed the Wars so far. We’ve won a bunch and lost a few, but have really enjoyed the opportunity to strategize together. War scores have always been close, no one blowing anyone out of the water, and have simply been fun.
However, our last War has us singing a different tune. We were matched with an alliance who at the time had over 30k alliance score difference. We were absolutely destroyed. We don’t care that we lost, but there’s certainly no fun in being matched so unevenly, for us or the other alliance.

My alliance has been having similar issues it seems like we get alliances that seems a lot stronger or a lot weaker either way I’m not seeing how we lose or win by such a margin and my team is confused on how our opponents seem to be losing and when not even halway thru we lost by a lot there is no coming back

I will not try to translate something, it takes time, and it still does not give anything, I will use google translate, excuse me.

Nothing changes, our alliance loses without chance in 90% of wars. And this is seriously annoying. People are leaving. The matches are as follows almost every time:

In SG’s opinion, should we be comforted that the opponent has a small Titan account? How nice of them.

I will not paint why this happens, the clever man himself will find the reasons, the fool does not care.

Just tired of all this.

I see what you’re saying I think the AW is based and matched by your total alliance score. So they match you with another alliance that’s within a 5,000 point score difference. I’ve never battled another group with more than a 5,000 point difference. We’ve won against alliances that have had a higher alliance score than us as well. It’s all about strategy and defense. People have come up with clever ways to battle high power teams.
-They set teams to 1*hero,

  • they remove members after the other alliance has defeated their team (( ei- energy spent and 1 less team to defeat and win more points for after Revived and defeated again))
  • they change their troops to the lowest * so it will lower the total points earned drastically.
  • they’ve called out to mercs in the chat room to come join and fight in the war for them

It’s all about strategy.

While originally the matching was done on total Alliance score, it has been changed so no it is done on Titan score only. It still has significant issues, but it’s helped weed out some of the dead alliances from matching.


Is it possible to resign from firing (revenge) during the struggle of alliances? It does not make sense. You can not fair fight. In the course of the war, the opponent with the attack of 1200 overcame me with the attack of 2400, also the higher level of units. The opponent inflicted minimal dmg and I lost only by fire (revenge). That’s why, in my opinion, it just does not make sense and is unjust. Equally, the opponent’s choice may be random.

You’re making the mistake of assuming the strategies you use for normal raiding would also apply to AW attacks. There’s nothing insensible or unjust about AW attacks, but (and this is kind of important) the Rules of the game are different: you have the extra Rule of the Revenge bar!

The reasoning behind the Revenge bar is that it gives the defenders the upper hand. The sense behind that is to throw a bone to all the beginner players. Because in AW they will be matched against much stronger players from the opposing alliance. And that would be massively unfair if it was done under the same rules as “normal” raiding. So the Revenge bar, believe it or not, is actually very just.

Reminder: the Revenge bar is active on your side as well, should an opposing alliance member choose to attack you.

So when attacking someone in AW, you’re going to have to deal with the Revenge bar as well. You know it fires more often the less heroes on the defence team are standing? I recommend browsing some of the threads about AW for tips and tricks. @Dante2377’s thread here Dante's Alliance Wars Primer (with Video from Beta) - #2 by Dante2377 has some valuable pointers. Hint: if you’re stretching out the fight over a long period of time and/or do not have healing capacity to deal with revenge damage, you’re likely not doing it right.

1 Like

Ok so please explain. If the matchups are done by Titan score then why has my alliance been facing much harder teams. we haven’t had a fair war the last 3 times and this one is no different. We haven’t been able to beat a 6* Titan in way over a month and the team we r facing should be able to take down a 7* with ease

We have a horrible match in this war, the rivals have more than 4000 points of titan, I do not know if it is a significant difference, but what it is is their teams, they are going to annihilate us, although we will die killing

We just killed an 8* titan and our score jumped up 3000 points