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

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.

  • Loot rolls need to be better. Loyalty is great but the items need to be the 4* ascension materials we actually need and not those chosen at random. Currently, I see absolutely no benefit nor motivation to remain within a so-called top 100 alliance – I can get bear banners and gems from the 1-5* titan range much cheaper than those at the 10-14* range. This applies to war chests and war loot also. Bottom line: for me, I just don’t see the benefit currently.
  • The war matching algorithm should be straight-forward to improve the match-up in terms of teams, available heroes, troop levels, etc. It’s simple statistical fitting.
  • The boards / RNG is fundamentally the problem. When raiding, tournament or war participating – the feeling now is that the player is “allowed” to win or “not allowed” to win. Bad boards. From top to bottom – this is by far the single most repeated phrase “sorry about the low score – bad board – it’s just not my war”. Simple fix: 5 colours; 35 tiles – always maintain 7 of each dispersed randomly. Nothing is deflating as going mono, 4-1 or 3-2 and having only 2 or 3 of the tiles you need – everything else is exactly the colour you didn’t take. With the prospects of unattractive loot at the end of the 24 hour wait – people leave to look for fun elsewhere.
  • Features like “Path of Valor” actually destroy alliances. The rewards are tangible and players immediately see “oh, if I kill 2 more titans I get the tabard” – this is seen as preferable over less worthy loot from war chests or others.
  • New features to encourage alliances should be available – including:
  1. Leaders, co-leaders and elders being able to “take over” the unused flags of other team members during war. Nothing kills the alliance spirit like unused war flags. Same should apply to titans – if others have titan energy and choose not to hit – leaders should be allowed to consume their energy flags.
  2. Allow alliance members to “spar” with each other – so, you can select a member, enter the spar room, battle – nothing really to win as it’s just there to “test defences” during war preparations for example. This would also help new comers to understand in real terms the effectiveness of their defences and how defences can be combatted.
  3. During war, you should be able to watch other battles on-going. Select X vs Y and have their attacks played back to all alliance members.
  4. Exchange or donate your loot within alliance members. If I have a deep bench and have, say, 29 trap tools – but other alliance members need just one more trap tool – I would be happy to donate trap tools in this case. This creates a more caring and supportive environment which naturally encourages loyalty.

improved loot rolls for alliances not loopholing the system would be nice

better matchmaking is always welcomed


Some of your points are totally valid, some others are debatible, but there is a thread for those proposals.

What we are discussing here is mechanisms to prevent alliance shufflers to exploit the pairing system to face only weaker alliances.

If you have any siggestion on that it will be more than welcome.


Apologies- I misunderstood “alliance shuffling” as those- myself included- who regularly hop from one alliance to another- and I thought the problem space was how to retain and fill up an alliance.

When I understand correctly- when the target state is such: both alliance defences are equal, points per opponent is equal in relation to their defense (so you don’t earn less points for taking down a strong defense), boards are always fair- always seven tiles each, no artificial bias, no ladder system to allow others to win next time if they lose this time then- alliance shuffling cannot work because there would be no benefit gained, this is the target state?

No prob!

Well, the ladder system was designed originally to build up a war score, so every alliance meets others as equal as possible, but today alliances start at +0, which allows exploitation.

We think that starting at +10-15 matches might be more fair.


I don’t believe people should be punished for leaving an alliance. Loyalty bonus is wrong.
There are many reasons a person leaves. The most prevalent is growth. You are growing and it’s time to move on.
Or, there are consistently flags floated.
Or, you can’t stand someone in your alliance.
Maybe you aren’t big enough to hit the size of titan you are facing while still trying to build yourself up.
There are a ton of valid reasons.
Calling something a bonus doesn’t mean it’s not a punishment