I’m curious about our next war. The war score is equal - haven’t had this before - but their player levels are way ahead of ours and so will be their defense TP. We’ve won several wars now, I think that will change tomorrow…
1 Like
So, we won that last matchup with an alliance with 2k higher score than us. Then we got matched with an alliance with a similar score and won that. Now they’ve decided to go back and match us up with an alliance 2k higher score again.
I really would like to know what’s going on. BTW, we’re only on a 2 war winning streak, it’s not like we’ve been running the table. Up until now, we’ve been matched up to teams with similar scores.
Well, it could be several different things …
Have any members opted out of war (or left the alliance) recently?
… without (battlefield) replacement? With smaller battlefields, the field of potential opponents is more sparse, so in order to avoid getting the same over and over again, you need to reach farther from your score (up or down – clearly you’ve had two cases of “up”, but statistically, well, it’ll have to be 50/50).
… with less powerful replacement? I don’t have statistics to back it up, but the impression on the forum is that matching is more accurate for the top alliances than for the bread-and-butter alliances, so if you lose power, that might also lead to more variation.
Or, it could be random chance. So you’ve had a series of close matchups? You could still run into a statistical outlier or two; with enough alliances participating in wars, someone is likely to encounter unlikely situations. 
I’m pretty sure your streak is calculated into the war score displayed (“The War Score is […] adjusted with the past performance of the Alliance.”), so that’s actually not all that relevant to this observed difference.
Nope, our alliance has been stable for a few weeks at least. We did lose a member some weeks ago and gained one then, but the new member doesn’t participate. We have about 25 members participating, so we aren’t a small alliance.
It’s not small, but it is smaller than it was, right?
With that confirmation, I do believe this is at least part of the explanation behind the greater differences in team power you’ve encountered in recent matches: There are near your war score fewer alliances with 25 than 26 members to choose from, hence at 25 fewer of your matches will be close than was the case at 26. (Likewise 24 vs 25, if one week another player happens to have opted out, etc.)
It might seem too much of an effect of so relatively small a change, though, so it seems still likely to be something of an outlier, but again, I don’t have statistics to back that up – just general observations from the forum. (And it would take considerable effort to collect such statistics, so I doubt we’ll be seeing it.)
Just my two cents- my alliance has been dead evenly matched war score-wise in the last 5 or so straight wars that I can remember for sure (within 100 of each other). Mostly really close wars too.
One of our members opted out of this war (traveling) but said they immediately checked the box after the match to opt in for the next war. So, our alliance war score appears 2800 higher than our opponents’- I’m guessing that’s why.
I remember in a war I opted out of once, I toggled the opt in/out button and checked the change in my alliance’s war score (just to see how much I directly contributed). Def a possible skewer in alliance war score unrelated to war matching.
(Future suggestion- Alliance War score should include teams from your alliance of only those that opted into THAT war, to avoid confusion and provide more accurate information during the war.)
I wasn’t aware that you even could opt into (next) war while a war is in preparation or ongoing. But yes, this could make the war score wildly inaccurate, and might explain some of the seemingly bad matches we’re seeing reported.
Post it to Ideas & Feature Requests perhaps? (A quick search didn’t find any such suggestion.)
Like I said, it has been this size for about a month, and it has only been in the last week that we’ve seen this difference in matching war strength. As I’ve already said, in between these 2 large differences, we were matched up pretty close (maybe within 100 or so), so size should not be a factor unless all of a sudden there was a drop in alliances with 25 participants.
But you’re not seeing it constantly, even this last week – just two of three matchings, right?
That makes it two of nine or so matchings over the last month – since circumstances changed.
Plus, when you dropped one size, you got a new pool of opponents. There might well have been half a dozen close matches in that new pool, and you would expect to get those better matches first, before having to reach further.
But if what @Anonymous reports is right, this might well have been caused by members of the opposing alliance opting in (for the next war) after the matching has been complete.
Actually, I think that is what happened. I just checked their roster and there is one member who joined yesterday, presumably after the matchmaking. When the war starts, I’ll see if he is an actual participant. If he is, then there is a problem with how the game is treating people who join after the matchmaking.
Yes, obviously, so that’s why I’m bringing it up. There is something that may be an issue if there are these anomalous matchups. 2/9 is one thing, but if starts to go to 3/10 and then 4/11, there is an issue. Plus given how many alliances there are, there have be be more than just a dozen near our size and war strength.
What @Anonymous has stated is true as far as I can tell. I remember a previous war where we matched up well in the score, but in the middle of the war I took a look and saw they jumped 2k which possibly attributable to a new member. However, we also lost a non-participating member and our score did not change. So, from that example I would say that the war score and matchmaking does depend on participating members.
Oookay. Exactly equal war score. Opponents with an average team power of 3998, we have 3656 - I’ve never seen such a large gap, the largest so far was 298. A gap greater than 180 points we’ve always lost. We had 3 wins before, maybe they had as much or more losses. But I think that won’t be fun for all of us, but that’s life.
1 Like
So he is a participant. It looks like there is something wrong with the matchmaking as both sides have 25 players.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.