War matchmaking strikes again

ok i have a remark \ question, why every war we have much stronger opponents than us? if we consider the 5 strongest heroes of each member, they are miles stronger than us. if we take into account the 30 strongest heroes and troops, they are miles stronger than us. if we take into account that they are strong and have no tactics, no, they play properly and know how to play, so everything that is written on the E&P page how to count ws is incorrect, the only thing that comes to my mind is our alliance does not spend enough money so here are your stronger opponents until you start spending money, correct me if I’m wrong …

1 Like

I spend hardly anything, probably average $2 a month over three years.

And I’ve fought across 10 different alliances. I see no correlation between spending and winning.

I’m currently the third top scorer in a top 500 Alliance, way above some who spend lots more than me.

1 Like

Our most recent War was a horribly mismatched event. Our group “Some Cheesy Alliance” with a war score of 43,795 was matched against “Titan Academia Renegados” with a war score of 48,708. Usually the teams are matched within 100 points of one another, sometimes more. But this one was absolutely ridiculous. Our Alliance was nothing more than “target practice” for this enemy.

hi, if you think that the program does not work properly look at this picture. How come 1 alyer attack to 2 different enemies ? …

this happened this morning spanish time.

Same situation here !
This is if not ridiculous is trully unfair…

I would like to know if any moderator or developer of the game can answer this.
What is the point of this forum if we don’t get any answers?

Drazmor from Hellas Fighters 8, here

I don’t know. That’s why I submitted the query. I’m asking if there is a bug in the system. I thought this was the way to ask questions, is it not? Our team has a war score of approximately 43,000 and we were paired up with a team of approximately 48,000. Normally the teams we face are all within 100 points of each other, and this time it was a team score difference of 5,000 points. It seems as if there may be a bug in the system and I am writing to make the admins aware of it. Is this not the right way to do this? If I am doing this the wrong way please let me know so I can address it properly. Thank you. And you’re right, that picture does not look right. That picture appears to also have a bug issue. Thank you for responding.

I think it’s time the matchmaking take into consideration the best 25 troops and not the best 5 troops of a player.

The current system is based on a defensive point a view but troops considerably improved the attackers.

How can we say a matchmaking is fair when you have let’s say only one troop of each color level 29/30 when the opponent has multiples troops in each colors >23?

1 Like

We keep getting matched with teams that are far stronger defensively than we are. It’s ridiculous. This war our opponent had no one under 4290 TP and only 1 under 4300 TP.
My alliance has 11 under 4290. 2 are under 4000. This has been going on for weeks. Thank goodness we run strategy and work well as a team because we win more than we lose. But the system is bogus. What they say goes into account can’t be at all true. We face this bs every war.

Not sure why I’m posting about it. Nothing gets fixed in this game or is read by the devs on this forum.

1 Like

I think you’re suffering from the same curse that follows my alliance around.

That… that right there is why teams like yours and mine are being punished.

Instead of rewarding us for beating stronger teams, they punish us by pairing us up against even stronger teams the next time around.

Meanwhile, the strong teams that lose battles simply because they’re lazy and/or uncoordinated, end up getting coddled by the system, and matched up against teams that they can easily one shot. Because “aww poor babies couldn’t handle fights at their own level, let’s give them some lowbies to pick on instead so they can have an easy win.” :roll_eyes:

I know that’s how the system is designed, and as such, it is ‘working as intended’.

Elo rating system - Wikipedia

This system, however, is utter bull :poop: IMO.

It punishes weak teams with good teamwork and strategy while rewarding strong but sloppy teams.

Just because a high level player is too lazy / unskilled / uncoordinated to take on other players his or her own size, does not mean they should be “rewarded” by being matched up against players half their size.

If you ask me, they should be forced to fight players at their own level ad infinitum, even if it means losing every single damn time, until they learn how to play properly.

If someone with a 4500 TP team can’t win a single raid in diamond tier, you don’t send them down to bronze tier to practice. They’re not going to learn a goddamn thing there, except how to easily roll over lowbies. You want them to learn and get better? Force them to fight at their own level.


Any official responses for this fine matchmaking???

Unfortunately, these kinds of errors can sometimes occur… :expressionless:

Level 60 player with level 22-25 troops stands little chance against level 80 player with level 30 troops… And yet sg says the war score is the same… This is like putting a level 1000 alliance against a top ten, which you will never do and yet the “war score” calculation is the same… Do some research, get your poop together, this should be a fun game…

I played single player wars for a while and currently 2 and ocassionally 3 player wars. While there can be a big difference in teams/players, I would never complain about match ups. War match ups are designed for alliances and not single players and it was my decision to go it alone.

The community would rather complain about complainers than the game they pay/gamble on… This is part of the problem sir

I rarely post in complaint threads and usually just avoid them but this is something that I have had experience with and just posted my opinion.


War score has nothing to do with player level or troops. Yes troops factor into power, but it’s probable the higher level player with better troops is just worse at war relatively.

It just happen to us too. Without an actual tier for alliance rank placing, we will always get these wacky matchups.

Titan score is not sacrificed if players bounce between two alliances. They kill Titans in their long term alliance and only war in their fresh alliance. Just faced a team doing this. The war history plays too large a factor. The team we faced dwarfed us on all measures; TP, player levels, troop levels. So much larger than us that there is no mathematical way for us to beat them. Yet matchmaking had them as severe underdogs. Our recent 20 war history was 9 wins, 11 losses. They all left after matchmaking to go back to their Titan alliance, all came back before war started, all left again after throwing flags. There is no downside to Titans.

The only downside matchmaking has created is for those honest and loyal players that actually stick together for any period of time, and don’t look to exploit a broken system. Having some honor sucks sometimes.

1 Like

We took our example to SG and they told us to take it to the forums so here it is. We faced a team named FastKill. At matchmaking we looked at their raid Defenses and noticed how big they were. Our matchmaking score was 129,602. Theirs was only 116,533 though.

For every war, we track data. They had 3773 more TP on their defenses than us, or 125.77 per team on average. On average, every one of their players was 11.23 levels higher than us. Their defenses also posted 1240 more troop levels than ours. That’s 8.27 levels higher on every single troop (30 teams, 150 troops).

By all measures they were much larger than us, yet matchmaking had them as underdogs, by a lot.

Between matchmaking and war, most of their players left alliance. They came back in time for war, but left again right after. As of this post, they only have 8 members left. We believe they hold a longtime alliance for Titans to maintain good loot. And then continually create fresh alliances for war.

What this shows is that war history is too big a factor. The fact that this team was so much larger than us, yet got matched against us simply because they have no war history is absurd. We weren’t even .500; 9 and 11 over last 20.

Matchmaking is broken because by design, it punishes teams that stick together. I don’t need SG to stop alliance shuffle strategy; just stop punishing teams for not shuffling.

1 Like

I can share my experience as an ex war shuffle player. I say “ex” because i no longer do it after losing 2 wars in a row.

I’m not a bad loser, simply it was not so convenient anymore.

From 2 months or so, matching was quite different from before. And for different i mean fair.
It is my believe that war scoring does not consider only the alliance anymore, but player war history as well.

In those 2 months, my matching were much more close then brfore, until on the second war after rebuild an alliance, i lost.
Not the fifth war, the second.

And the war after? Lost again.

Curious enough, my war performance was almost perfect in both wars, but that was still not enough to win. The second even by a large margin.

I used to be the favorite, and in that wars i was the underdog.

So nope, matching was never as fair as it is now for me. Surely sometimes mismatch may occur for lack of good pairing, but that’s just normal.

Cookie Settings