War; matchmaking; masking alliance strength and score?

Hi everyone,
This is my first topic so if I did it wrong, please correct me!
So, couple last matchmaking we noticed that alliances we got at first seemed at least equal but then, we noticed how most members are new in those alliances.
Even Lider and co-liders too.
So question is:
Did people started using tricks with creating second alliance and by moving players back and forward between those alliances, they are somehow messing with score and matchmaking.
Two wars ago we lost from alliance who seemed same as us (alliance & war score) for more than 1000 points! 4500-5500

I agree, @AquaMika. I’ve noticed a couple of issues in the past few matches:

1). In the past few wars, Alliances will have high cup levels but have teams that are VERY low levels. I haven’t taken screen shots, but it’s a bit frustrating being matched with Alliances that are QUITE a bit higher than us, when the war actually takes place.

2). In the last 6 month’s of wars, I’ve noticed Alliances have a VERY high amount of “visitor” players that are well over 3k. Sometimes even in the neighborhood of 4500. And when the war is over, they are no longer part of the Alliance. It very much over-balances the war.

I don’t know how or even IF these issues can/should be addressed, but it makes for an over-balanced and frustrating war, sometimes. Sorry about throwing a “monkey-wrench” into this discusson. I just wanted to make your programming team aware of what seems to be beginning more and more commonplace…

“New” members are accounted for during the matchmaking process.

It’s not uncommon to see people jump from alliances, especially after a war.

Some are kicked for not participating in thre previous war.
Some are kicked for not sticking to the game plan.
Some leave their alliance because there is no game plan.
Some leave because their previous alliance sucked or didn’t participate.

I see leave or get kicked all the time after we beat them in War. Losing invokes frustratuon. And those people have to go somewhere.

1 Like

@AquaMika You’re not alone in wondering about this.

As @Kayo said, the join date of members in an alliance has little practical impact on matchmaking, since they’re taken into account during the match-ups. And there are many reasons people jump between alliances, like visiting friends, helping out on titans, or moving between alliances in multi-alliance families.

Speculation about alliances’ intentions in regards to movement of members into and out of alliances often comes up during War matchmaking, since we’re all always looking to see if we got what looks to be a fair and fun match.

This particular question you’ve asked came up quite recently, just a couple Wars ago in this thread:

(@Kerridoc @Rook @Coppersky Possible Merge of Topic)


Yes, I do understand all that but…
Thing is how someone change alliance and he becomes leader in new one? And there are members who also had been kicked out because of reasons this and that and they became co-liders same day in new alliance?
I would say it’s coordinated and planned for a reason.
What I think is that players have really good heroes in roster and war points were based only by that, because they maybe had one war before us since the whole alliance was not more than four days old but the war score was almost same as ours!

When I was in a multi-alliance family, it was quite common for leaders to hop between the alliances, and swap around leadership roles.

It’s also possible they just created a new alliance.

Most likely they weren’t kicked. It sounds like it’s either an actually new alliance, or several of the members popped out and back in — again, that’s quite common for some players to do, and doesn’t manipulate or affect matchmaking.

This is where your question is similar to the other thread — you’re wondering about the impact of win/loss history on War Score.

While we know that’s a component of score, we don’t (I think) know exactly what portion of the score it is, or how the devs approached handling matching for cases where two alliances have a different length of win/loss history.

It’s certainly possible they didn’t handle those cases well, although all signs point to the devs having made tremendous effort over the last year to refine matchmaking and take many factors into account to make better matches. So I suspect they have a solution in place for that.

Judging by my own experience in my alliance, and the multitude of forum posts about matching each War, I think it’s safe to say that quite often, people look at their matched team and feel it may be an unfair match.

Nonetheless, those matches are often winnable. It just requires strategy and teamwork.

And, of course, the more you win, the harder your matchups will be, since that’s taken into account in War Score for matching.


We have a pretty good strategy and yes, more wins, more harder it gets. That’s why we were surprised with 1000 points lost.

They had almost every attack from try.

Three times reset us.

And we do have more than half alliance around 4000 TP (+/-100)

Thank you!

Out of interest, how many of the last 5 wars did you win?

Sounds like they were well-coordinated and well-practiced. Their own work on strategy must have paid off. :slight_smile:

1000 points is 2/3 of the board’s points, so that extra reset likely gave them a lot of mileage to being able to rack up such a big lead. Sounds like a hard War, but you did what you could.

You’re welcome! I would have given your post a :heart:, but the forum limits how many you get each day, and I’m out of them at the moment.

1 Like

3 wins, than that big lost, than one win again and then lost.

Thank you!


If I’m reading that right, then you’re 4-2 over the last 6 wars. I don’t think SG considers margin of victory in the calculation, but I’m not 100% certain.

Even assuming there were a benefit to the strategy you’re describing, it would be very mild in your matchup. After all, the best record some other alliance might be making over the same period is 6-0–so just 2 more wins.

When you have deep rooster and you can attack only strongest (3900 and higher) six times and do 340 points, strategy is not that important lol

And I’m not talking about just one or two players.

And that is great of course but how can alliance like that be matched with us?

Does anyone get what I’m saying?

I am glad and happy for players who are doing so well but, we should still not be matched.

Thank you!

1 Like

To my mind, I think you’re showing a reasonable record and I would expect a potential loss when you did. Our alliance is running about the same win/loss scenario.

1 Like

It does sound like they did extremely well killing your teams repeatedly. But the fact that they cleared you only 3 times means they presumably used multiple flags on one team some of the times. Even if it were only two, that coordination of effort can make it far easier to take out big teams with weaker heroes.

So strategy can still come into play, though as you said, a deep roster makes things far easier.

For them to be matched with you, there has to be similarity in the overall average rosters of your alliance, since top 30 heroes for each player are taken into account.

One big challenge is when the distribution of the strong heroes is substantially different. If you have some players with deep benches, and others with shallow ones, it may average out the same, but it requires a lot more teamwork and coordination to win. The current matching system is somewhat poor at addressing that.

Another challenge is some players may have strong rosters well beyond 30 heroes, which can give them options to color stack aggressively throughout the War. The current matching system is blind to that.

So it’s definitely possible to end up with “fairer” or “less fair” matchups. But that goes for everyone.

Strategy is Probably Always the Answer

It’s probably worth noting that if you get an extremely fair match-up — let’s say, for argument’s sake, an exact clone of your own alliance — you’d have no intrinsic advantage.

So it would all come down to strategy.

And if you get matched against a stronger alliance, or one with better distribution of their player strength, then strategy is even more important.

So I think really regardless of how fair your matches are, making the most of what you’ve got is what it’s all about.

And since you’ve won more than half of your recent Wars, it seems like you’re doing pretty well at that. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I agree!

I’m just saying they were unbelievable strong!

Alliance score was 131000 us against 128000 them. War score was almost the same but we lost war 5500 over 4500.

Both sides used all attacks

Don’t you think that is little bit too much?

Scores like this were more often in the beginning when it was possible to match with alliance much stronger or weaker or different number of players or inactive players.

Thank you!

1 Like

I think the wars are better than they were, and they are still working on them.

Alliance score and trophy count are not figured into war matching. It goes by war score only, and looks at each teams’ top 30 heroes and 5 (?) strongest troops.

Only members who have joined before matching starts are counted and allowed to participate.

The teams showing on their member list are not always who they will have on the battlefield.

We have noticed after we win 2-3 wars, we are matched with a stronger opponent and usually lose.
So it seems to be balancing out better.

But we have beat stronger teams too, and I think @zephyr1 said it best:

Good luck in the next war! (unless you’re fighting us, then well, have fun!)

1 Like

This sounds like deeper benches to me. Do all of your alliance members have fully leveled 6-teams (30 heroes) each for war?

Also, were their tanks in a color you’re weak in? I mean, if you have no strong purples, did they come in matched yellow tanks? This will affect the final score, over the course of the war, as you struggle to quickly bring them down (more points).


It’s like I have to start from the beginning explaining what I’m talking about.

Again, we are 28 members alliance with 131000 alliance score, 80% of members have 30 and more heroes.

Point is, after three wins in the row, we expected fourth war could be hard one.

But loosing with 1000 points it is big difference in score.

That sound like really deep bench with all fully ascended heroes.


P. S. They had mixed tanks. We were all blue

Thank you!

Ultimately, none of us players are going to be able to answer that for certain, and SG hasn’t really commented on individual war pairings in a long time.

To my eye, the new alliance thing likely had little to do with your match-up being lopsided, for the reasons I outlined above.

At this point, all we can really do is give advice about the things that are within your control. But it sounds like you’re not finding that helpful.

You could try tagging mhalttu to see if he will answer. I suspect he won’t, but that’s probably your best bet.

1 Like

I apologize and appreciate every advice!

I wanted to hear did other players-alliances had same experience.

And as I saw in couple answers above, I’m not the first who posted about this.


More complains, more chance someone from SG will be able to reply maybe.

This is not huge problem lol

When was war ever fair?

Let’s play and have fun is most important!

Good luck to everyone!

Thank you!


Cookie Settings