Happy to leave it here- but I’ll setup a new thread later
Happy to leave it here- but I’ll setup a new thread later
Very late reply here, apologies for that. I haven’t been watching this thread (or most threads, really) lately.
But the reality is that most alliances ARE eventually “forced” to lose. The only exception being top level alliances who never have to face any stronger opponents, because there are no stronger opponents.
For me and my ragtag team? Where two thirds of my warring members are still below player level 40 and below 4k defensive TP? Yeah. Pair us up against a team of 9 level 50+ 4k+ TP players. Yep. We done lost that one for sure. Unless all of their interwebz suddenly go out for 24 hours or something, or half of their members say “ehhh this game is boring anyway, I just gonna use 1 war flag then log off, cuz who cares…”
Yeah, that actually does happen sometimes. But I can’t count on it. I have to expect that our opponents might actually try.
And for anyone who wants to say “there’s no way in hell that an alliance of mostly level 30-somethings would ever be paired up in war against a bunch of level 50+”…
Stay tuned, folks. That’s exactly what my alliance is looking at right now.
Will provide screenshots later for “evidences” since nobody on this forum ever believes me, “pics or it didn’t happen” etc.
Yes, absolutely, once again (this is not the first time and won’t be the last), my alliance is being forced to fight an alliance that can easily destroy us.
But that’s only because we won our last 3 wars in a row. So… par for the course, really. You win too much at lower levels, eventually you get pushed up into unwinnable territory. That is how it works in this game.
That’s not me lying or exaggerating or confirmation bias. It’s simple reality. Once you beat everyone at your level, the game pushes you up to fighting higher levels. Continues to push you up into scarier and scarier territory until you eventually lose.
Now I don’t know if that’s fair, unfair, or by design… I mostly just assume the latter. And that’s okay. I’ve accepted that. Yeah, yeah, we beat up everyone in the minor leagues. Time to send us to the major leagues, even though we still have a bunch of rookies on our team. Our rookies are better than all the other rookies. Only way to really test us is by pitting us against the big boys. That’s how it works. I’m okay with that!
Only thing that irritates me is when a group of veterans quit the major leagues to form a “new” minor league alliance.
Thus far they have been referred to as “new” alliances, but I think there is a more appropriate term… “ringer” alliances.
That is my biggest irritation in terms of alliance war matchmaking.
I believe they are currently working on that issue (or supposed to be anyway)…
AND for the record, I don’t believe that to be the case in terms of my own alliance’s next opponent. Our next opponent just flat out overpowers us fair and square, without exploits of any kind. And the reason we’re getting matched up against them is because we pretty easily beat up our 3 previous opponents who were all considerably stronger than us on paper.
Fair? Unfair? Nothing about this game is ever 100% fair. Never has been, never will be.
Reality is that my alliance smacked around some stronger alliances, so they sent an even stronger one this time.
We have to lose eventually. Nobody wins every fight.
Maybe we actually will win this one. In that case, they’ll probably send someone even bigger next time. Ad infinitum until we’re eventually “forced to lose” as you say.
That’s how most ranking systems usually work though. So that’s okay.
Just for reference, my last war i was paired with two lv. 51 against me (lv. 76) and my alt (lv. 12).
Apparently it should be totally mismatched against me, and in fact i was prepared to lose.
Result was a win 4900 - 3100.
On the opposite, a war before against two lv.38 was a very close 5100 - 4800.
So even level is not really a good meter to understand how much is mismatched.
Matchmaking gets really screwy like that when you only have a couple of members.
I know, I briefly ran a couple of alt/training alliances with tiny wars.
Currently my alliance has 9 warring members (21 total but most have opted out due to either busy schedules or having no desire to war in the first place)…
Now hang on a minute, I need to double check this to confirm, I hate it when I post wrong information and have to come back later to correct myself…
Yep, confirmed. 6 out of 9 of my warring members are below level 40.
5 out of 9 of them have defense teams below 4k.
Haven’t seen what our opponents will be fielding yet, but based on an initial assessment of their alliance, I’m guessing they will all be over level 40 and probably their lowest level defense team will be 3950.
Majority of our previous opponents have been average player level 50+ with average defense team level at or above 4k.
I know, I know. You bigger guys will shrug and say, "so what? A level 50 with a defense team of 4100. What’s so scary about that?’
Doesn’t scare me personally. But again…
6 out of 9 of my war teams are below level 40
If opponent fields 9 level 50 players with 4100 TP defenses?
Oh sure! You top players think that’s weak sauce. It might be weak sauce to me personally and my higher level partners as well. But try telling that to our lowest teams who are fielding 3* heroes for their backup war teams. When was the last time you tried to take on a 4k+ team with all 3* heroes? Let’s not pretend like that is fun or easy, because it’s not.
And before anyone asks… yeah. I have a low level alt myself. So yes. I know how hard it is firsthand trying to take down war defenses that are 1500+ TP above my own.
So, I am not sure if it has been suggested or mentioned before, but an idea keeps popping up in my head about the matchmaking, and especially for the mismatches with newly created alliances and/or less than 30 people alliances, or even full alliances with differences in strength/depth between players. I am definitely NOT the best at calculating out consequences, so this might be a completely stupid idea, please be gentle, hahaha.
One of the criteria for matching is the top 30 heroes with the top 5 more heavily weighted… What if they increased the top 30 to 40 or even 50? I know that won’t make a difference to a lot of the player base/alliances, but could it possibly take out the super strong players/alliances being matched with much weaker alliances/players? My thought is, that while only 30 heroes can be used in war, those with a much deeper bench have more flexibility in team building, etc.
Would increasing the number of top heroes used in matchmaking help get things more evenly matched? Would it help prevent super strong new alliances from being matched with weaker?
Clearly something went wrong with this matchup
Their war score was 34K and ours is 23K. They have had their alliance for over 2 years…we have had ours about 90 days and we have had 20 wars so I know we are now “aligned” without the exploit so yes…this is fundamentally broken
How can we have a fair war if the opponent teams are much more stronger? This makes no sense at all!!! The opponent war scores are 15,000 more than us and their teams goes up to 4500-4700 TP. This is really frustrating!!!
Has this been corrected yet? At any white collar profession an issue like this would of either been corrected right away in a matter of a few hours or the developers working on this would be out looking for a new job.
1.) either put a region lock like all popular games and this way NA won’t get matched up with EU/OC and vice versa. Literally takes a second to implement.
2.) Put a numeric variable that checks for alliance with members that have been in an alliance for over 100 days and then their alliance matchmakes with a similar alliance. No other alliance that do not meet the criteria are taken into account. Literally takes a second to implement.
p.s. also make it so you can’t replay rare event stages more than 3 times. Maybe this way we can see new players on top, not just whales. It would literally take a second to implement.
Am confused here about your first point region locking. Why would this be a good idea and what would you do with alliances made up of members across regions?
Maybe I should, but of the alliances I’ve been in, this one is funnier and close knit. They sincerely care about each other and I would most like have quit if not for them. They are upbeat and keep me in stitches. I don’t mind being in an alliance with membership numbers in the mid 20s. I also don’t think an alliance should be discriminated against simply because they’re not full.
therefore don’t mind sacrificing loot by not being in a full alliance
and we’ve come full circle lol
Am trying to follow your thinking here. Are you saying that ladder systems are rigged, or boards are rigged. Just about every game uses a ladder system.
In this case you climb the ladder through upgrading troops and heroes, and winning wars. Many games don’t even include the first part. It is just how you fight. Because the stakes are, well, high (I guess) having team strength adds a factor that should reduce huge mismatches in most cases.
Like in anything competitive, if you beat someone, your next matchup will be tougher. That is what competition is.
Bad boards are a thing. That is very true. Sort of.,…
A good project when you start to feel that way is to take a screenshot of all your boards in raids and in wars, and once you have collected quite a few, look at them. Count the tiles in the colors you brought with you. Frequently there a lots, but if we don’t see the starting diamond, we think negatively. In retrospect, consider what would have been a good starting move to get things going your way.
Uclapack put out an excellent video on what she looks for in the board’s she gets.
Wars happen twice a week. How many times do you believe you are unfairly matched? How many times do you think your opponents feel that way? This would be a good stat to track.
The heroes and troops don’t really change much- from one war to the next, the heroes you have available for this war are largely the same as you had in the previous. More so relevant in big alliances and generally the more experienced you are.
Hence, the factors applied to your roster are artificial- resulting in your roster strength being either over or under inflated, depending on where you are in the ladder. By example, if the only heroes available to attack and defend is just Sonya- then the ladder effect would be Sonya +10% vs Sonya -10%.
Regarding so-called proof- two things: if we assert that “the system is fair” and by fair we mean hero and troops are comparable- then by invoking “proof by contradiction” it is both necessary and sufficient to demonstrate that cases of imbalance exist- be it bad boards or unbalanced AW matches.
Regarding “you need data, histories, statistics etc to prove…” etc - first, statistics don’t prove, second, statistics are by very definition inductive reasoning. Bertrand Russell gives an excellent critique of the limitations of inductive arguments- e.g. for 100 days, each morning the farmer feeds the chicken. At this point statistics “prove” that chickens are fed each morning. Next day, the farmer kills the chicken and eats it. Hence the “statistical proof” is no longer valid.
So, in the words of Donald Trump, it is what it is. If an unbalanced closed system represents value to you and it’s what you buy into- good luck.
Saya dari Indonesia, bolehkah saya mengajukan pertanyaan tentang pencocokan lawan war?kenapa Aliansi kami terlalu sering dapat lawan tim dari Rusia? Power tim kami selalu lebih kecil dari lawan, tak bisakah lebih adil dalam menetapkan lawan war? terimakasih atas penjelasannya
“I’m from Indonesia, may I ask a question about matching war opponents? Why does our Alliance get against teams from Russia too often? Our team’s power is always smaller than the opponent’s, can’t it be fairer in determining the war opponent? Thanks for the explanation”
(Translated using Google app.)
Would be nice if you could translate to English for general comprehension.
Alangkah baiknya jika Anda bisa menerjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris untuk pemahaman umum.
I’m from Indonesia, may I ask a question about matching war opponents? Why does our Alliance get against teams from Russia too often? Our team’s power is always smaller than the opponent’s, can’t it be fairer in determining the war opponent? Thanks for the explanation. I’m so sorry if my English is not good
Guys… this is really too much. Their lowest team is 4500,our lowest team is 3500! They have 20 teams over 4600TP, we have only 1! We will abandon this war in sign of protest! Can someone explain what is happening here?!! These kind of warmatches are ruinning alliances!
Lots of funny match ups this war in particular. Our poor opponents are going to be obliterated lol. Last war seemed ok. We know that war history by player has been going on since v31 but do we know if and when it’s being used to match alliances differently? Surely this isn’t the usual matchmaking system?
Our alliance is matched against an opponent with a War score 30000 points lower than ours this time - or about 33%. We had a couple opt of this one so only at 23 in war, but this seems crazy. Hard to see any scenario where this match makes sense from a competitive standpoint. We haven’t lost our last 20, or newly formed, or done anything other than win a few more than we’ve lost over the last several months.
That’s right… We have the same problem with your Alliance,and make we too long to open war cest