War score should be less effected by your war history

The problem my alliance is having is that we’ve won a fair amount and now we’re constantly getting matched up against alliances with huge hero and troops advantages. It seems like the system is trying to give us a 50/50 win rate.

I think the system should be matching us up against other alliances with similar hero and troop power, as well as similar win rates.

From what I understand, the war score is calculated based on:

  • The best 30 heroes in hero roster of each Alliance member opted in for war
  • Out of the 30 heroes, the most weight is put on the best five heroes of each Alliance member
  • Player count of the Alliance (also subtracting those who have opted out) - they try to get an even number of players on both sides, but it can vary by up to three members.
  • The troop strength of the best in each element
  • war history (minor impact compared to Hero Power)

I think that war history should be less of a factor in the war score than it is currently.

So I’m asking that alliances get matched up against other COMPARABLE alliances with a similar win-loss record.

It used to be based on the last 10.

As expected, analysis before and after the change (published by the Small Giant Staff in APL, which is not accessible to most players) shows no noticeable difference for alliances who are in the -10 to +10 range, since it effectively makes no difference to matchmaking whether 10 Wars or 20 Wars are tracked, until an alliance manages to win or lose 10 in a row.

So the change just smoothed out matchmaking for the uncommon case of having a long win or loss streak.

Changing to 5 Wars would effectively mean that a 5 win streak and a 20 win streak would be treated the same — resulting in such an alliance being more likely to be mismatched with a weaker alliance.

That would seem to be the opposite of what you’re hoping to accomplish.


Maybe you’re right about using less wars.

The problem we’re having is that we were on such a huge win streak, we’re now getting alliance after alliance that are just so numerically superior to us. We’ve lost our last 3, I thought we’d be seeing an alliance in our power range, but not so far. We might win, but it’s getting ridiculous.

Sometimes you lose, sometimes the others win…

Our alliance is constantly facing overly strong opponents, I have made my peace with it.


If you win, someone loses. If you lose, someone wins. Essentially, for entire set of alliances in the game, exactly half of them loses, and exactly half of them wins. So, 50/50 win rate the system is trying to give you is there, because you can’t win more than you lose without some other alliance losing more than they win. And losing wars constantly is depressing and feels uneven and that “the system is rigged and matching is not balanced”. War history is there to prevent this negative experience.

So, war history part in your war score is a form of self-adjusting difficulty setting, the same thing as with Titans. Removing it would be the same as sticking to the same Titan star count all the time, which is either too hard for you or too easy for you.


If the system is always making you win 50/50, what’s the point of trying in war? Just slack off enough and the system will send you an alliance 200-400 TP below yours.

And don’t you think if you’re a bad player that you should lose more than you win? If you suck, why should the system prop you up so you’re still winning 50% of the time?

Maybe my sense of fairness is different than yours.


Fun? Team spirit? Aren’t team games supposed to be fun and raise the team spirit?

Now you understand, good.

There is no “bad player”, this is all relative. If you lose more than you win, you will get matched with players that also lose more than they win, and then you can win more.

There is no “you suck”, there is a match system. The system will find you matches that “suck” exactly as much as you do. Against these matches, your win rate should be 50%. The system doesn’t “prop you up”, basically it lowers you down to the difficulty level you belong to.

Your idea of fairness is basically “If I feel I’m good, I’m entitled to win all the time”. My idea of fairness is “If you feel you’re good, you need to be matched with others who also feel they’re equally good”. Against such matches, your predicted win rate should be 50% (that’s the definition of “equally good”).

Speaking in your terms, “those who suck/slack off are matched with equally sucking enemies, and those who win are matched with equally good enemies”.

Fair enough?


I’m actually okay with war history affecting war score. Even though it totally wrecked my alliance’s win rate. We went from winning 80-90% of our wars to barely winning half. And yes, all of our opponents were stronger than us “on paper”. But only a few of them performed as well as they theoretically should have. I mean, when their leader is 500 TP and 30 levels higher than my team’s strongest players, and they’re only squeaking out single digit scores on their last 2 or 3 war flags? Or worse - not even using all of their flags? LOL, it’s obvious that they don’t have what it takes to compete against teams “their own size”. So they get matched against mid level teams like mine instead. Which of course means that we have to fight 10x harder for our victories, but that’s the way it works.

The alternative is that my own team could just stop trying so hard and lose a bunch of wars until we get matched with some poor low level saps who don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell against us. But what fun would that be?


I think we’ll just agree to disagree.

All I’m asking is that alliances get matched up against other COMPARABLE alliances with a similar win-loss record.

I think this is exactly the case now.

1 Like

It’s not…

If you’re winning, you get matched with bigger teams that are losing. If you’re losing, you get matched with smaller teams that are winning. Which sounds ok in theory but in practice not so much cause the limited brackets screw up when it comes to member counts, less members you have the more likely you are to be mismatched. But even if you stay 30/30 and climb to the top, you’ll still get a kick in the nuts when teams above yours get bored of facing each other

But you’ll rarely(if ever) see 2 teams similar strength both at 70% win rates out of last 20 wars get matched together

You’ll typically see a 70% match a bigger team at 60%

Or a 50% team match with a 80% etc


Yeah, I’m pretty sure most of the teams my alliance had to fight got matched with us because they had lost the vast majority of their previous wars, whereas we had won most of ours, so we were supposed to be their consolation prize.

Except for the times that we beat them too. :laughing:

Now that I think about it… the real victim here is the next team they had to fight after losing to mine.


Just stop the cheaters and the war matching world be fine. War after war we are coming up against alliances who are using the cheat to get a weaker war opponent. If you look at the time members have been in the alliance it’s just a day or two for all of them. Just fix this cheat and all would be fine, people would face teams at a more evenly matched level. Personally i dont get why you would want you cheat, but people, i guess. It’s not like war chests give loot worth cheating for anyway.

1 Like

War chests are actually one of the best loot sources in the game when compared to other sources

Typically better than titan chests, tourney loots, regular chests, mystic vision

Wouldn’t say they’re better than titan loot of 8* and higher so they do sacrifice that source for the war chest in return so for that i agree it’s pretty dumb when they could just form an alliance with all 4500+ defenses and squat at 20 members to chain wins or some other strategy

But additional war chests are as(if not more valuable) than additional elemental chests

One other way i can think of to keep the additional chests without sacrificing titan loot(possibly getting much better return for the effort on titan loot honestly) is through the current reset performance method but also mercing rare titans which is a pretty decently sized trend right now with alliances coordinating in Line and letting mercs know when they may have a rare titan show up so mercs can skip loot for current titan and hop into the rare titan alliance before it spawns

If i had an alliance that was wanting to climb the ranks, i would probably take advantage of the exploits above. Mainly because they’ve already been mentioned 1000x and devs have yet to give a :poop: so if you’re wanting to be competitive in this game sooner than later, i would get the gettin while the gettin is good

1 Like

You miss half of the picture here. When you’re winning, you get matched with:

  1. Bigger team that has lost (your case)
  2. Equal team that has won

When you’re losing, you get matched with:

  1. Smaller team that has won (your case)
  2. Equal team that has lost

As you can see, the system is completely fair at least 50% of the time, matching you with equal team strength. Other 50% of time it will match you with overpowered/underpowered teams that has worse/better performance for some reason, which, as I argue, is also fair most of the time, unless we’re talking about very small alliances, which are the cornercases.

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Can you get some statistics on that? I don’t see any theoretical bias in the matching system to account for such mismatch rate.


Should clarify that i do think past war perfomance should be taken into account

But i believe it has too much weight now compared to what it used to.

Once devs raised it from 10 to 20, it increased war cap scores pretty significantly which therefore also increased the scores under war cap signficiantly which has in turn made mismatches that much more possible due to extending the matchmaking brackets

And again, you can take that as opinion, fact, both, neither, however you want. No sweat off my back


From my personal experience, the individual war score will attached to players in-and-out the alliance, but the team war performance will remain with the alliance.

I always find that if a member opt-out of leave the alliance after a war, the next war would be very difficult and have high possibility to lose. On the other hand, if a member opt-in or join the alliance before the match up, the next war would be easier and have higher chance to win.

I think because the team historical war score is the key in this case. With reducing members, the team war score stay the same and cause next war match up with relatively strong team. Meanwhile, with increasing members, same logic, working the other way around, next war match up will be with relatively weaker team.

I am not sure that my feeling is right or not.

1 Like

Really, my experience was the other way around. My alliance always lose when reducing number of players and usually win when increasing number of players.

1 Like

I look around the forum and see a topic about tiles not being random, which is classic example of confirmation bias, since basic statistics proves that it’s random.

Honestly, I understand nothing in that sheet, or what it is meant to prove.

Here, in open forum, we have an audience, and we’re presenting arguments for them. I’m not addressing you personally, rather I try to appeal to your arguments, because many people can think exactly the same way as you do, and it is important for them to hear counterarguments.

As for me personally, I don’t feel any mismatching bias in AW, and I find pleasure from winning over the overpowered team from time to time, and each my loss teaches me something about possible AW tactics and how to improve it. In the end, I have a lot of fun with AW (and tournaments too!)

It’s harder outside the top 100 because you can’t see the teams above you or below so harder to guage or track without sitting at x members for x amount of time and snagging the names of possible opponents and individually tracking their scores

Top 100 is the easiest place to do it because all that info is readily available

But it’s not impossible

Cookie Settings