I can’t remember which thread (thought I had it bookmarked) but apparently it has been confirmed the algorithm actually allows a difference of up to three for such ‘matchups’.
EDIT: found it.
I don’t know if anything has changed since.
Feel your pain . We were hammered our last 2 wars. So what do we get matched with, 10,000 + higher war opponent with 2 extra teams on the field and 5 4,000+ teams to our 1 and only 4000 team.
But matchmaking is working 
for the opponents perhaps 
1 Like
Geez! I thought we were having it tough.
How does that even happen? How many are on your team currently? I keep hearing this excuse that there aren’t enough teams out there to generate fair matches, but I know for a fact there are over 100,000 alliances in the game, and that includes alliances with 1 warring member, 2 warring members, 3 warring members, 4 warring members, etc.
Don’t tell me there aren’t many alliances with 11 warring members! My alliance got plenty of different 11 v 11 matches when we had 11 opted in (some easy to beat, some impossible to beat, several in between).
Don’t tell me there aren’t many alliances with 13 warring members. My alliance’s last 5-10 wars or so have been 13 v 13.
And we’ve done 10 v 10 and 9 v 9, and 12 v 12, and 5 v 5, and when I was in a larger alliance, we did everything from 25 v 25 to 30 v 30; some teams overpowered us, others were seemingly underpowered compared to our team.
I do not buy the excuse of “no suitable opponents found”. That doesn’t fly. There is almost always at least one suitable opponent for virtually every alliance in the game.
We had 13 to our opponents 15 last war. I say last war, as one member has opted out due to RL time conflicts with the present war schedule .
Am still trying to comprehend how we were annihilated last 3 wars, lost one member and our war score increased by more than 2000 points 
1 Like
Yeah, that’s weird for sure. My alliance has been doing mostly 13 v. 13 wars for a while now. There are several alliances in that range.
Strange that your alliance hasn’t been matched up against ours? Though you did mention only having one member over 4k, and we have several, so full disclosure: it would not be fair to you if they matched us up against you.
But still might be better than having to face a team with 2 extra players…??? That’s just crazy.
EDIT: actually one of our members might be opting out, so we might be doing 12 v. 12 now. Maybe they’ll match us up against your 13?
1 Like
We’ve been thrashed about enough last few soooo, believe I’ll pass on that pleasure, for now.
You don’t need that easy of a win 
1 Like
Nah, we don’t need an easy win, and we rarely get the pleasure.
Last war was an unexpected win for us, our opponents all looked stronger than us, but apparently all they had were defense teams. Their bench depth was shallower than a kiddie pool.
We do have several warring members below 4k though, and usually our opponents are nearly all well above 4k (except for maybe one “lowbie” sitting at a 3950… but somehow that “lowbie” has several rare 5* heroes - all stuck at 3/70 LOLLLLLLLLLZ… so I guess that’s like, “paying to try to win”)
In all seriousness, my team probably wouldn’t thrash yours too badly. We’ve got quite a few low level warriors who go in bravely with their Banes and Priscas and they do the best that they can with what they’ve got. Mostly mopping up the scraps that our stronger teams leave behind.
Ah, I stand corrected, one of our members just jumped above 4000tp So there is 2 of us now .
We are a stepping stone alliance allowing members to build their teams at their pace and offer all the help and advice we can along the way . AW is optional so we run the gambit when it comes to tp .
Personally, I only have one unyielding rule for AW, to never take it seriously because RNG is a vicious, drunken trickster that doesn’t care about your feelings or what you think is fair . 
1 Like
LOL I like the sound of your group!
We have quite a mixed bag ourselves. Mostly semi-casual. My Alliance War rule is that if you opt in, use all 6 flags if possible. Try to use them wisely if possible, and hope for the best. If you don’t have enough teams or enough time (or desire) to use all flags, opt out. Wars are not a mandatory element of my alliance, voluntary army only. 
I expect (hope) that everyone who opts into wars will at least give each attack their best shot, but I don’t shame anyone if their hits don’t go as well as they’d hoped. I’d love it if I could claim that I almost always one shot most of my opponents, but nope. Sometimes I go into a fight that I think I have a chance to win, and the board just laughs at me and plays keep away with all the tiles. Happens to everyone.
1 Like
They are a fun bunch and we do have a few casuals whom avoid AW and that is fine .
Last month and a half, has been mostly the +3000 teams that have been doing quite well … better than I and am happy for them but boards have been savage on me . That and no luck when it comes to getting some decent snipers . Just shy of 2 years and only have 1, only recently was able to max 
Can’t fight, bargain, bribe or circumvent rng
Why have they not just done away with the “past wins/losses” aspect of warscore. Doesn’t this seems to be the deciding factor regarding mismatches and the easiest way to manipulate a warscore?
I don’t get why its not as simple as this team, who are the power and number equivalent to this team face each other. May the best team (who get the best boards ) win. Allow strategy, dedication and teamwork to be rewards for the effort it involves.
I feel silly because I’m guessing it can’t be that simple, or it would have been done already.
I guess it’s my time to come up with yet another bad machmaking example.
Enemy team: smallest defensive - 3200+ team power
Our smallest defensive teams: 1755 / 3153 / 1957 / 1814.
I mean, can you see how many flags we basically lost?! The enemy team has at least 18 more flags as those under 2000 team power won’t even do a scratch.
How is this fair?!
Edit: please check the alliance scores. No ex-member on the battlefield
They don’t want bad alliances to get discouraged, I think is the reasoning. I assume the theory is that would lead to more people quitting the game? (Note: I’m not saying I believe that too! Just what I think SG’s thinking must be.)
if they did away with past war history, it would lead to easier manipulation…not less manipulation
yes war history is leading to mismatches and being exploited but that’s because teams have to jump through such hoops to exploit it
take away the hoops and…yea makes the issue worse i believe
honestly the biggest factor in mismatches is having a less than 30/30 alliance.
if you look through majority of posts and threads where an alliance had a mismatch, count how many are a full alliance…
in a ladder system where every alliance has to have a match, there will be mismatches. the parameters of the matchmaking will have to stretch as the system goes down the ladder to make sure every team has an opponent to war with.
SG is trying to minimize it as much as they can and prevent further exploitation as well
but there will never be a fault proof system in this type of game.
either all alliances fill up with similar strength players or SG tightens the matchmaking parameters and creates Bot alliances to fill in the voids for those without exact matches. bout the closest ways to “fault proof” i can think of and even then I’m sure there would still be mismatches and flaws either intentionally exploited by players or just natural flaws that occur with everything on the planet ever…
2 Likes
well how many alliances do you see coming to the forum to complain about a mismatch?
out of how many total alliances in the game?
think they may fall into the “almost” part of that sentence
1 Like
For Developer Consideration …
I believe the problem lies in the way that the War Score is calculated which assumes Low and High level players are of equal value in the Alliance based on the strength of their heroes.
I have read most of the posts on War Matchmaking and I know what components make up the War Score. But the system seems to breakdown and makes the War Score for Low Level Players wat too high relative to stronger high Level Players. In 11 wars now we have had five Low Level players with defense team power less than 3000 while the opposing Alliance has had only one and sometimes no Teams on the field with a TP less than 3000. Outside the one team our 5 to 6 low level players have no targets. Most of their Teams would barely be able to take out a max level four star (even with stacking) and will never take out even a single 5 star hero.
The goal I have is to think about a matchmaking improvement that makes Wars more enjoyable and fair for all the new comers to the game because right now the matchmaking systems is broken in that regard.
What I do know from recent additions and departures (WS is War Score):
Level 68 player WS of 3700
Level 50 player WS of 2400
Level 25 player WS of 1600
There comes a point and time (about Level 30 for me) where you can obtain about the same number of points in a War as the opponent gets from killing you defensive team. In other words I started to get 200 to 260 points in the war with my 6 Flags while the opponent killed my team three times for about 200 to 260 points.
In the early stages I felt terrible and allmost stopped playing because I would watch my team get taken out three and usually four times giving the opponent 150 to 200+ points while I was lucky to get 10 to 50 points. It took about 3 to 4 months to build bench depth to start to earn the 200 to 250 points per war.
Possible idea/solution: Have the War Matchmaking break each Alliance’s WS into two parts for matchmaking based on the number of participating players with a WS above and below say 2000.
In other words if you have 6 members with a WS less than 2000 and 16 members with WS greater than 2000 the matchmaking algorithm would try to match you against a similarly composed Alliance.
Based on the data I have put together over the past two months I think this simple change would make wars a lot more enjoyable and provide more targets for the beginning players and make it lees likely to lose interest in the game due to the current WS matchmaking system.
Just my $0.02…
3 Likes
Currently there is a definite issue going on imo. Just had a loss but calculated after the previous win, we have to lose 4 wars running just to get back to that level that produced the nailbiter win where an actual functional strategy matters. (oddly we were using the same one but they just blew it).
Ohh and most of our war team has opted out until the system is fixed. Great job SG, would definitely recommend your coders/devs 3/10!!! 
1 Like
Closing this topic as “Implemented” as the OP’s request has been implemented and operating since August 2020 (approx).
Developer Responses:
- #108 – Initial queary
- #113 – Response to use Player not Ally history in matchmaking
- Progress Updates Here, Here
- And update to the in-game tool-tip Here and Here
1 Like