War matchmaking strikes again

It’s possible that they had a bad losing streak to other stronger alliances and well it was time for them to get a “bounce-back” victim.

1 Like

Right at the moment I’m going to be a bit of a dissenting voice (again). AW matching does not seem overtly fair but my alliance is on 5/6 with the loss the last by 29 pts (my mess up). Today we destroyed our opponents by 1500+ and they were technically superior by a lot at face value, in fact, the last 4 have been superior but they seem to lack any kind of communication or co-ordination which my alliance finds important for winning.


Our little 3 member alliance had lost two wars in a row so we were looking forward to an “easier” opponent. It looked like we were matched with an alliance that we could beat, until they hit the field and ended up fielding 4 teams to our 3.

We fought well but couldn’t overcome that 6 flag deficit :zipper_mouth_face:


That almost never works out.


Yes, that is the likely scenario - but that shouldn’t be the scenario.
We don’t want to have to lose a few times to have to face an equal strength opponent, we just want to be matched fairly. We’ve never been matched with a weaker team, (as in comparable defense teams) and I’m glad - it wouldn’t feel like a win if we don’t have any competition. But if they kept the top 30 heroes/troops, scrapped the past wins losses and put more weight on each players top 5 heroes (granted those may not be used as dt), I would hope that would match alliances more accurately.

1 Like

You do realize that originally they didn’t keep track of wins/losses, and that matchmaking was MUCH worse, right?

No? Didn’t think so.

War record encapsulates so, so many things that aren’t otherwise accounted for.

  • Roster depth (not just top 30)
  • Troop depth
  • Skill
  • Coordination / strategy
  • Use of flags
  • Etc.

And yet, according to what you’re saying, all your opponents are being matched against a weaker team (aka, yours). That seems… odd.

They’ve tried several iterations of matchmaking. There is no such thing as perfect, but they have the data (we don’t), so I’ll assume each successful iteration improved things on the whole.

While I’m sure you’d love to win every war, how would you like to be in an alliance that NEVER wins? Because that’s what would happen. Some alliances would win all the time, some would lose all the time.

Or you try to make it so that it’s 50/50. Which appears to be their goal.

1 Like

Exactly my point. They shouldn’t get easier matches just because they don’t know how to beat players their own size… rather, they should keep practicing on players their own size until they learn how to win. They are not going to learn anything of value by beating up lower teams.

I don’t like that idea though, because who decides which team is the prey and which one is the victim? If it’s decided by an algorithm, that algorithm could easily make one team the “victim” several times in a row, and that is not cool.

Feel free to dissent! And yes, right now a part of me kind of feels guilty for complaining about matchmaking when we have done so well against these higher level teams in the last month or so. I guess I’m still annoyed by the 3+ months or so prior when we were getting kicked around by huge team after huge team every single war, even after long losing streaks.

Maybe we just got better ourselves, to be able to rise up to meet the challenge? I believe we have.

But if that’s the case, it only further emphasizes the point that sloppy alliances should not get easy fodder targets in their matchups just because they can’t beat other teams their own size. They should not be rewarded for being bad at the game! No other game that I know of does that, not even single player games. Never played a game where I was trying to beat the boss, and after 10 losses in a row, the game just said “okay, okay, okay, clearly you can’t beat this dragon… for your 11th try, we’ll let you fight a fluffy bunny instead.”

Our own alliance has never gotten to beat up the fluffy bunny.
We have, however, on multiple occasions, been the fluffy bunny ourselves.


Condescending much??
Yes, I’m aware of how matchmaking works.
Yes, as “odd” as it seems, we have NEVER been matched with a team that has a lower average dt than us. I did not say we were weaker - we can’t presume to know what the opponents bench holds.
We don’t want to win every war. We want to have a fighting chance, every war. With the current system in place, we get to a point of it being impossible to win.

Many of the posters here cannot relate, because they are usually all in top tier alliances with all top tier rosters where nearly everyone on both teams is 4500+ TP, and they have completely forgotten what it was like before they reached even 4000 TP, and they seem to believe that it’s completely fair for a team comprised of a bunch of level 30 players with average 3500 defense teams to be paired against a team of mostly level 50+ players with average 4500 defense teams… they’re just looking at that like, “I don’t see a problem here”

LOL right. Like they ever attempted to take down a team that was 1k+ higher than their own. Many of these same players complain when they have to face teams that are 50 TP higher than their own, then they complain twice as hard when they can’t even manage to one shot a team 500 TP below their own.

Blame it on the boards? Maybe, yes, boards are usually a very significant factor. But no team should ever be faced with a situation that is 99% unwinnable because every single opponent is 200+ TP higher than their corresponding counterparts on the opposite team.

I am not in a top tier alliance. 18 of us participate in wars. only 5 of us have D’s over 4k. We nevertheless fight alliances where 15+ have D’s over 4k.

Recently my alliance won 5 in a row. oops?

After that, we are currently 2-8. this is not a complaint. merely an observation.

Then you’re advocating for going back to the original, horrible matchmaking because… ?

Because you’re apparently better on a number of the things I mentioned. My point was that your opponents consistently ARE being matched against an apparently weaker alliance, but you’re still winning against many of them.

That was a compliment, not meant condescendingly, but it obviously came off wrong.

Yes, done that. Do that still. My sixth team is usually about that far below the teams we face.

And no, I’m not in a top 100 (or even 1000) alliance, and my roster is anything but “top tier”.

You’re now stooping to ad hominem attacks instead of debating the points, and you’re better than that.

Cookie Settings