Unfair war matching! Extreme! How is this possible?


Ok i very seldom post in forum, but my alliance has been unfair matched for the past few wars, and even more unfairly matched this time. Pictures speaks a thousand words

We love this game, but has been very disappointed with unfair matching. 20k diff is quite alot to match


Yep, that war score has very big difference. This is just a quess, but maybe someone in that alliance has opted out in last minute and score didn’t update, but if not that seems missmatch to me.


No one opted out. We have 29 members all in the battlefield


I meant someone from that other alliance. :wink: Maybe they have 29 also.


Maybe they waited until matching was complete, then did some coordinated speed levelling? :slight_smile:

… and/or made several 5* pulls … not that that would benefit them much; just drive up their score.


So correct me if I am wrong, but its my understanding that “matchmaking” is solely based on the “war score”. And, this is calculated based on most powerful heroes and troops. What does that mean exactly? How many “powerful heroes”? Does it consider all heroes? Top 5? Top 30 (based on 6 teams)? Maybe this is where the flaw is.


Top 30 heroes with extra weight to the top 5, plus top troop per colour for each participating player; sum up and add a little extra representing the recent war history of the alliance.

But no, this does not explain the disparity in the war scores of two alliances matched. After eliminating alliances that have been recently matched against each other, and alliances with a disparity of members fielded greater than three, the matches are made to minimize the difference in war score.

Fielding 29 members, this alliance should find plenty close matches; even if recent matches are excluded, one should hardly expect the closest remaining to be this far off. It seems highly improbable.

So, my guess is that the scores have changed since the matching took place. Either the one alliance has dropped their score considerably (but they haven’t lost members, and I assume they’re not so stupid as to feed away their top heroes or troops); or the other alliance has improved their war score, as I speculated:


Thank you for that. That does seems fair.


As a percent, even under 10%, it is one of the larger differences I have seen.

But is 20K a lot?

Lets assume all 20K is based on just hero power, which it isn’t - hero power difference would be less than that.

divide 20K by the number of team members, and the number of heroes and you get about 23 points of difference per hero.

As stated elsewhere I think that how the power is distributed is more important than the total power. Alliances that have a lot of members in the top and bottom and not much in the middle (dumbbell shaped) will be at a disadvantage to those with a clump more in the middle (ball shape).

Let us know how it works out, I would be interested.


Hi guys, thanks for all the replies. The outcome was a fairly close war. Victory margin was 300. Matching was good. It was 29vs29 although they had 30 members. So i do assume someone opt out, but was not reflected in the war score.

Giving us a glimpse of the war score is good, compare to the past where only titan and trophy scores are visible. What was misleading is the war score that was displayed- it MIGHT NOT be the score they used to match.
As such, what matters again: i am not interested in their total war score. What i am interested is what is the war score that was matched.

Hope this could be an issue they would want to think about



I would not assume that; it would not make sense. The war score is advertised as what is used for matchmaking. Opting out is advertised as affecting matchmaking, and we’ve observed this elsewhere. With your assumption, both cannot hold.