War Matchmaking Issue -- Proposed Solutions (Developer response: post 107)


Anyone could have figured this out on there own mate…

  1. Leave alliance, rejoin. War score different even though the other 29 members stayed.

  2. Or by tracking X amount of top War teams or at a bare min your own and noticing random (not so random) drops.

This was one of the very first patch’s to correct war system “bugs” after game switched war systems.

If you want >proof< or a list of all the bugs they double backed and fixed in first update…maybe ping a Dev.

PS. Massive War Change: Moving from 10 Penalties to 20 Penalite war system wasn’t adjusted with a “Patch note”. It was a Dev on the board mad at @Rigs and hit [enter] on his computer and casually mentioned it on a thread that he changed it.


For those new to “war matchmaking” and may be thinkin the loopholes discussed in the OP are just speculation or exaggerations etc

Think it should be pointed out that devs were aware of these type of loopholes and pitfalls and predicted them a long time ago:

Just wanted to make it clear that these “loopholes” are more than speculation…

So with devs knowing these loopholes exist and now we’re seeing more and more teams/players figuring out ways to take advantage of the loopholes, i suspect devs have something in the works to start closing them

All @SADERSpanda and others wanted to do was suggest something from player(s) perspective before devs just looked at a chart of data and said “ok this is what we’re goin to do”, since players and numbers are both involved in the matchmaking process, it’ll take more than just data to help figure out solutions to the matchmaking system…in my opinion.

I know some people are wondering why teams/players have a sudden interest in taking advantage of matchmaking to chain war chests and miss out on titan loot

That’s pretty simple. War chests reward emblems. Rare titans reward emblems. Teams taking advantage of war matchmaking don’t miss out on either, especially with the current cap being +20 for wars.

Once players get to a certain level, ascension mats hit a back burner. Once a player has more than 30 maxed 5s, each new maxed 5 after that just adds another 5* they don’t use.

So just like with troops where players hit a progression point of shifting focus from heroes to troops. Players also hit a progression point where emblems have more value than ascension mats.

Improving 30 most used heroes > increasing amount of unused heroes

Just from simply observing players focuses/priorities in public game chats, line, this forum etc


Seems to be a common timeline players go through with their shift of focus

As more players reach the “emblem priority” timeline we’ll see more and more players/teams taking advantage of the current loopholes which in turn makes the current problems progressively worse

Hence how you can look at many “new(ish)” teams but see familiar faces from leaderboards and big alliances

Panda’s solution doesn’t have to be the only proposal(and isn’t the only one as far as i know)

Any player that has another idea is always welcome to start a new thread in the ideas/suggestions category for voting to take place and garner some attention.

It’s not like Crew-Saders has any pull on devs or their decisions or that we don’t think there can’t possibly be any other better suggestions for solution, this is just the one we felt was best from our discussions but a small group can’t rule out that a bigger group/audience with more perspectives can’t come up with something we may like better or may be better even if we don’t like it.

Hence how devs can’t rule out that a group of perspectives bigger than just the development team may have worthwhile suggestions & ideas…and why this category exists and how some player suggestions do see game implementation(even tho typically not implemented the exact way they were originally suggested)

When a team wants to compete with the 7DD, Aggressive, etc type teams but can’t win as consistently as they do to fill chests then the next option is to drop out of the top and increase their growth through emblems then eventually jump back up top to try again, if fail again then repeat.

Troops, heroes, mats are much easier to increase through purchases than emblems which are much more scarcely offered up for purchase and are not offered as rewards for pay ranks in challenge events or elsewhere and even tourney divies up random amounts to random ranks etc. Rare titans can appear as early as after 7 consecutive titan kills…which is how teams don’t miss out on rares by dropping and climbing back up the titan chain since by the time they would normally be due for a rare titan, they’ve already climbed back up to 5* titans and will see a rare sooner than later

It’ll help some teams. I think some will run into the same win trade brickwall they ran into before because they believe winning consistently comes from alliance strength in depth and not from coordination/teamwork which they severely lacked while up top as more teams without their depth figured out how to compensate for that.

None the less, the exploits effect matchmaking from top to mid to bottom. Takes longer for the top to be effected, mid & bottom see more immediate impact, but impact is still game wide

So basically current system actually punishes alliance longevity rather than rewards it more which is a** backwards and why we simply suggested reversing that effect.


@SADERSpanda We fought an alliance this week that had the following teams:

These guys apparently are the weakest players in the alliance, and left those teams for war defense.

With such disparity, the victory bonus points went from 17 to 10 for these players.

I think bonus victory points shoud be equal, no matter the HP of the team.

It seems as though you have found an alliance that exploits the system. If you look closely at their name and several alliances and banners… If the OP proposal were implemented this particular problem goes away as the exploitation of new alliances for war goes away…


It’s not AI stupidity, it’s PEOPLE exploiting a loophole.

It seems to me devs are not worried about this, haven’t seen any kind of feedback from them.

Meanwhile, the number of alliances exploiting the system grows by the minute, at least in Brazil there’s even people recruiting players specifically to shuffle alliances.

Either devs don’t care, they think shuffled alliance will eventually end up facing only other shufflers… or they just started to accept the end of E&P…


Prime example of what’s being discussed in this thread

@mhalttu @KiraSG @Petri

Do u guys have any intents on ever fixing these loopholes?

1 Like

Without reading the full thread: What are the main loophole(s)? Powerful players starting a new alliance so their streak resets and they get easier opponents?


Yeah, pretty much that. And not limited to powerful players only. To be perfectly honest, i couldn’t care less about them. But implementing higher tier rewards for consistent alliances which win wars at their war score cap would discourage that exploitative behavior


Yes and no. The problem is the incentive to not keep an alliance with a history at any level. It doesn’t matter if it is a top 10 alliance or a top 1000 alliance or a top 10000 alliance. Resetting the alliance war history provides a skew to the matchmaking process. As @Rigs mentioned, alliances dropping members to continually get “easier” wins is another issue. As it skews matchmaking. If these loopholes are acceptable, my solution is to give the “honorable” full alliance competing with their true history a reward.

The initial proposal addressed it by giving incentives to not do that.



And alliances capping the number of members they have to streak wins vs easier teams aka casual/new alliances

We’ve seen it in and out of the top 100. Example of that was in the latest post i tagged you in if you read that recruiting thread.

Some other info:

All i have time for at the moment I’m at work

1 Like

The problem is that this behaviour is extending to middle level players through ads, videos, there are whole tutorials about ir around.

I can send you some screenshots of some of those players building several alliances just to face only weak players in all wars.


In version 31 we start to track war history on a player level in addition to alliance level. After we’ve collected some data and if everything seems good, we can start using the player specific war history instead of alliance specific war history, which should resolve this issue.

Does that make sense to you?


That makes sense

So all players will start at 0 then each win or loss as alliance will be tacked to each individual player as well?

That could fix the war shuffle strategy along with the hit 20 and startover strategy

Any ideas on how to deter alliances from dropping to and sitting at 29, 28, 27 or less members to chain wins?

Teams are pretty open about that. We’ve seen top 100s sit at 29 to avoid facing opponents they would lose to if they were 30/30.

We’ve seen alliances recruiting with winning wars being their main focus but capping their player limit to 20 instead of 30


In another thread when i brought it up, you extended penalties from 10 to 20. Which you said then that change wouldn’t address the issues me and others were talking about.

So curious if it is somethin you guys are lookin into or if it’s just a “it is what it is, nothing we can do” situation


This makes a lot of sense !
Thanks for paying attention to this, because we feel “abandoned” and impotent a lot of times!


Thank you so very much for taking time to begin to look into and endeavour to rectify alliance war matchmaking issues.

Communication, even just acknowledgement of an issue, is vital.

Please keep the forum in the loop as much as you can regarding the individual war history tracking you’ve outlined. It would be greatly appreciated!

A secondary approach I’d raised a few weeks back is to consider using “carrot” as a means to potentially disincentivise folks from jumping through loopholes for war chests. Increase the quantity and quality of titan loot at higher titan star levels.

It may not work for all, but currently the cost-benefit analysis determined by some sways folks to abuse the war matchmaking over stable and progressing Alliances; so make the carrot for stable alliances through progressively higher titan loot too tempting.

Just my two cents.

Anyways, thank you again for looking into this issue.


Shufflers have developed a “method” to keep high star titans, keeping alive their original alliance and spawning a new one every 5 wars.

@mhalttu it makes a lot of sense. Is it possible to keep alliance history as well? I think the most factors come into play, the harder is to exploit a loophole, and less the benefits of doing so.

I’d say consider player history and starting at +15 penalties will leave practically no room for exploits.


Player knowledge of the match making algorithm to set up 1x to 3x alliances to artificially lower their MMR.


Methodology :+1: :triangular_ruler: :straight_ruler: :desktop_computer:

Very nice methodology :+1:

The Perfect is the enemy of the good enough

Still not great, but good enough. And likely cheaper in Development cycles than a full overhaul.

Multiple use

You may want to revisit War MMR if Tournament MMR is ever adjusted.



I understand your frustration.


This is how abuse stops. Not vigilantism.

If you suspect something, report it through customer support. They are the proper authority.

In your example Player D was a zombie leader, Player C was a parked Alt account.

Players A and Player B had recently joined the alliance:

To game the system

To help Player C

To take a break from the game

Because they were disruptive and booted from their alliance

Because their alliance was dissolved

Reasons not listed above

Without further information, my alliance looks more suspicious than theirs.

Please, use the system.


Support does not solve anything at all. They only know how to say “good luck next time”.
My alliance is facing another totally uneven one for the third time in a row.


Cookie Settings