War: 22 vs 21 > unequal number - unequal strength

21 stronger vs 22 weaker in AW

The war MM allow for a player or two difference between alliances. And isn’t it supposed to be that the one with fewer fighters is stronger. Don’t see a bug here.

1 Like

it gives you 6 more flags but against stronger defenses with weaker roster - i see a bug :slight_smile:
after 3 wipeouts it is very visible the stronger rosters

I don’t suppose you got screenshots of the two alliances’ War Scores at the time of the matching? It’s possible,that your alliance has deeper teams but weaker defenses.

1 Like

nope sorry. fact is they had 10 flags less (1 guy left after using 2 flags) and won by 59 points
i dont feel is ok… :slight_smile:

but devs can check (Russian Army [RA] vs Global Ice Gems)

Bravely fought to have it be that close! The devs do,look at posts in #bugs-issues, so I hope they’ll take a look at how your matching occurred.

2 Likes

i hope too. first time this happens :slight_smile:

With that kind of point difference I feel even more strongly that this is matchmaking working well instead of working wrongly.

2 Likes

and what if we just had a good war? ( since we used all flags - opponent didnt 10 flags +2 unused)

i would be more ok to fight 22vs 22 than have doubts over the entire war… at least let me sleep without that thought :slight_smile:

And what if they just had a good war?

The fact is that the matchmaking can’t always pair alliances with same amount on warring members. That’s why it is possible the face a few (1-3) member disparity. When this happens the system tries to compensate by matching a little stronger team with fewer members.
And judging from the outcome, the system works pretty well. Even if the leaving member had used all his flags it would’ve still been pretty close war (<300 point difference), which is better than a average match up from what I’ve seen.

3 Likes

you have your point. perhaps if we would have won i wouldnt be talking about it. sincerelly i didnt even noticed it (leader did) - but still should be avoided - i would like to be avoided… for me… and i think im not the only one

but your point is fair, just not fair enough for me with 600.000 alliances out there

1 Like

ofcourse us being in top 200 narrows it to couple of thousands :stuck_out_tongue:

going a little bit offtopic now :smile:

Good thing I can see the edited out part :wink: I was about to bring the same point up.
How many alliances do you think can match you in a war? And how many of those have the same number of participants, I mean, top alliances are pretty active, don’t think that many have only 22 players in a war.
This makes it reasonably hard to always match with even numbers.

1 Like

yeah. i dont know what happened. guess i presed the wrong button. (hmmm strange…)

1 Like

I hear that this was frustrating to you, but 59 points is less that 0.5 points per flag separating you two. That’s basically identical not performance. You came out slightly the worse on a really close fight, but it looks to my eye like the matching algorithm was working pretty well here.

@Garanwyn

so they were down like 2 mmbers > 22 vs 20 and still won; they basically had 1/11 less flags and won

That’s still half a point of difference per flag. You were a little weaker, but a little larger. 2-3 boards going differently would have flipped the score and the outcome. That’s what I call a close fight.

I wonder how this works? Penalty?

Looks like he’s saying they apply a penalty to the war score of the smaller alliance in order to offset the intrinsic advantage of having more flags. The larger the difference in #, there more severe the penalty.

This seems intrinsically pretty risky, since it’s the bottom-most teams of the larger alliance which go unmatched, and so have extra flags. If you’re an alliance where everyone has 30 maxed 5*, this works fine. If your top-bottom TP spread is 1500 points, this is going to be really suboptimal.

That penalty is the compensation the MM does that I mentioned earlier :slight_smile:

1 Like

Cookie Settings