War matchmaking strikes again

Year I think I would prefer no war history but don’t think that is what SG would want to do.

I think I cool down period would have to be quite long also. If it was only one war missed then I think they would just take the pass on the one war and win the next 5 and still use current loop hole.

The larger question at hand is why not propose a system that doesn’t have a very specific loophole that can be exploited. Why not implement a system that rewards teams for being their best? Incentivize better play. Incentivize behavior that helps the already in place algorithm.

3 Likes

Agree :slight_smile: (just don’t know what that would be)

But rather a loophole that doesn’t really give them a large advantage if any then what we have today.

1 Like

Agree as well, but also don’t know the best way to proceed with current conditions.

Much of this thread is about complaining about the process (not often a good discussion breaks out). And much of those complaints are about the perceived inequalities of the matchmaking. The further problem is even incentivising staying in an alliance (or fair play) wouldn’t address some of the very real inequalities seen in matchmaking. This would still remain an issue unfortunately.

The degree of the advantage of what is available today is much larger, i agree. But my point is that literally every alliance could easily subvert the individual war score loophole. So on a shear number of match ups i would think you would have a bigger problem.

2 Likes

@ThePhilosopher

I am going to be posting a comprehensive proposal soon. Be sure to be on the look out for it.

Panda

1 Like

Will do. :slightly_smiling_face:

Maybe I’m over thinking this… But I’m still confused how my team got matched up with a ridiculously overpowered team. Half of my enemy’s team was stronger than our strongest member. Their average team power was around 4600 and my team’s average was 4000.

When the war ended, literally 15 of my enemy’s team members left their alliance, and now their war score is significantly lower. I’m also noticing most of their members joined the alliance within the past 7 days. Is there some sort of loophole?

No, just some kind of stupidity.

:wink:

1 Like

With respect to TP: it’s not the only measure of strength of an opponent, but it is the only one we can see. It’s plausible they have a really strong defence team but a weak bench. Remember the best 30 characters are taken into account with the top five being weighted.

As for leaving… yeah, that can happen. One of our recent wars had an alliance who had a few members join before matchmaking, and when they used their flags they left the alliance before the war ended. I’m guessing war mercs, if such a thing exists…

Loophole? No. Just unfortunately bad in some circumstances. If discussion is to be believed that’s any time when it’s not a full 30 vs. 30 war.

I have not seen the info thread you are referring to either. We are around 22-23. It shouldn’t matter, too much emphasis on the score which leaves matchmaking open for too much exploitation.

There is no thread, only data that myself and a few others have tracked. But I can explain it like this:
Fact - Alliances are matched with other alliance based on how many members they where possible.
Fact - Each set of Alliances, depending on membership, has its own pool for opponents.

The way I describe matching is in a ladder basically everyone in the pool is sorted and ranked based on hero roster, troops, and war history. This gives you a war score. The alliances are the sorted, from highest to lowest based on that war score, the war block is applied and match ups are made.

The total number of alliances in each pool, will effect the “spread” of possible match ups. Because there are more alliances in the 30 member pool than the 22 member pool, the rungs of the 30 member ladder will tend to be closer together than those of the 22 member ladder, just by the nature of the data set.

For example if I ask 4 people to pick numbers between 1-100 vs asking 25 people to do the same, the separation of the selections will be on average less in the 25 person group than in the 4 person group.

2 Likes

I like your analogy and am not knocking it in any way but it would be interesting to see a chart that groups all alliances with the number of players opted into war. I’m wondering if 30 active warriors is indeed the largest subset. Certainly at the upper end but over the entire player base I wonder. I think there would be some surprising high values beyond 30.

War boards are terrible. Please fix the averagIng AI machine.

Several of my alliance in this war have either been booted from attacks, ‘connection problems’, which all happened coincidentally around the same time, or have had unbelievable bad luck with 0 points scored against teams ranging from 1000 points greater teams to 1000 points less.

I can’t prove that you
developers favor certain players…but the coincidence is uncannily obvious.

We are an alliance of f2p veterans and players from countries not allowed to buy gems due to gambling restrictions, fighting opponents who are clearly p2p players, all have several HOTM in their lineup. Our average level is 48, there average level is 32. We are down to 3 attacks Left, they have 38 left. We are down 2000 points in the war.

Being the top player in the alliance, I literally know how the war will be during the match up stage. In opponents raids, I either loose 500-1000 cups to match a lower team that we crush, or I gain 500-1000 cups which puts us against this kind of team and we have no chance.

I have guessed the victory status correctly 8 out of 10 times because of this disparity.

You clearly favor the players who pay. Please fix this ‘Randomness’ problem. It appears that the developers and employees only care for money and the only way to win is to give over a bank account.

This is the second war in a row where it was obvious to my teammates what you do. Now you’re not even being discreet.

Absolutely horrible feeling to have the game favor the purchase type player. That is exactly what is wrong with the world.

Fix it or put it on line one of your ‘free to play’ disclaimer. You can play for free, but you will never be able to compete.

Clarify this point, because what we know about the war matchmaking algorithm is as follows:

1 Like

By my fluctuating DEFENSIVE raid scores during the matchup phase, I can successfully predict how the war will end (If both sides give a solid effort).

If my defensive raid scores lose more than 200, my alliance will be matched up in our favor and generally win.

If my defensive raid score gain anything, we are matched against much more powerful alliances…usually in character strength and not level totals.

The only times my prediction is off,
is if a fair portion of participants do not spend war flags.

This last war was no exception to the coincidence. I gained 200+ cups prior to the matchup and we significantly were outmatched character strength by significant lower leveled players…pay to play players (obvious from their hotm lineup).

Promptly after the match up, I lose a significant amount of cups.

I’m convinced that the system does this to certain players (that make a difference in their alliance strength, us outliers), due to a matchup issue between available alliances.
That the system could not match up certain alliances unless something minor was adjusted…such as my cup totals.

got any…data?

4 Likes

I will collect some data/screenshots prior to next war

FYI, the sort of assertions you’re making would require MUCH more than one war’s worth of screenshots to verify.

3 Likes

You’re right, it will take more data…so we will wait for wars to progress.

Are there any other f2p players who are outliers in their alliance? ie 75 to 100% levels above the average alliance member level?(including yourself)

If so, do you also get vastly fluctuating cup scores before the war? I’d encourage you to monitor those in relation to matchups and war boards.

Cookie Settings