Alliance War Matchmaking

The algorithm for automatic matchmaking doesn’t work.  2 alliances in every war are greatly outmatched and have no chance of winning. You should consider the number of members in each alliance and the rankings of those members, not just number of torches and Alliance Level.




sorri but he is rigth… We kent won if the enemy ally have only 8 players whith 20 lvl more than the best of our ally … And the war now in a fuckin shit… Is to short… I dont like it any more … I wanna a longest war… 2 or 3 days of war… And u have resolve this…

i am an active player and i spend my money in. This game but dont like it any more…

here is the prove that alliance matching in war is rong … Shit i am frustrates this war is lost… Becouse we have no chance against the other ally whith lvl 60+ we are an ally with 30+ players … And no more than one player 70… Sorry guys but u have to fix this … Is RONG


Alliance War matchmaking is based 100% on torches, with a small random element thrown in. So number of players, blessings, or trophy count are all non-factors. It means that sometimes you end up having “unfair” matchups, but basing the matchups on any of those other factors wouldn’t necessarily deliver “fairer” matchups any more often. Fairness is sort of a subjective term here. An alliance with 15 members who all communicate well and function as a team might be able to beat an alliance with 30 who are uncoordinated.

The biggest downside to this system is that the matchups at the highest level get very repetitive, but that only affects an extremely small percentage of players.

Hey everyone!

Upon checking the support forum I have decided that this is really a suggestion rather than an issue. The current war matchmaking is centered around the level and torch count of the alliance. Usually this works just fine, yet sometimes you can get things the unbalanced way. The 145k+ trophy allaince with lvl 100+ for the most part is matched with 30-45k trophy allainces with members centered in their sixties-seventies, thats what has just happened to us and thats what I am talking about.

Now, this is not even a tough opponent game mode, this is a GG WP kind of scenario. They will eat whoever happens to be close to them, not simply winning the war, but making that unlucky neighboring alliance loose even the slightes chance to end up somewhere above the last position. That alliance can only hope to gain torches at the rate of loosing them, nothing more.

Maybe it is wise to consider using trophies or mean player levels during the matchmaking too? After all, the game is not interesting if you cant even scratch your opponent.


P.S. i can share screenshots upon reauest, for some reason they all esceed 1.95 MB and the thing does not allow me to attach them.

Not thropies … since that’s the one thing that can be (and had been) easily manipulated… 

I think it should use in the algorithm:

  • the number of torches of the alliance and pick others in the nearer range possible
  • the max number of members the alliance can have as an adjustment (as it impacts much the gold bonuses)
  • the current number of members and their levels, in a way so  most players can have fun in the war (if possible)
  • perhaps a comparison on the global damage done by the alliances in the previous (or the last X) war(s) - if not even of the single players

All those things to some degrees.

The logic would be that to have fun … you want most of your alliance members to be able to face a fight. And you want to have a chance to win or to fight something in your reach. On a side it’s true that if your ally is little, even if strong, you will reach a point in ranking where if you have 20 members levels 70-80 there won’t be around other alliances that qualify and you’ll be placed vs ally with 45 people levels 110+, of course, and you’ll be kicked back where you belong.
But one thing that sometime is irritating, imho at least, is when you see in the ranking around you, say a bit up and down 2-3 torches - alliances that have ± 2-3 members than you and that covers most of your level range, but still you get teamed with folks that have ten people more than you and which lower levels are +30 levels than yours. Which means a part of your ally will not even be able to fight in the war.

I don’t think the current matchmaking is totally broken at all. But I think it if it would consider also (or weight more) the number of players in the ally and their ascension levels (or somehow their performances in previous wars), this could lead to kind of wars that are more … fun.


There’s two backdraws to consider tho, if you make a matchmaking that’s so “tuned” that only very similar alliances gets teamed up together .

The first is that probably at the top of the rank they would start getting teamed up always in the same way, as I doubt that there’s drastical change in values between them all the time (but here they could even have two different algorithms … one for the top … 10 ? 20 ? alliances, and another for the rest maybe. Could even pick 'em randomly every week between the first 12 or 16 or 20 perhaps). 

The second is that if 4 alliances are perfectly matched and equilibrated, it also means that whoever gets attacked by two at once will lose, no matter the war tactics you may develope.

But still, it can be more frustrating having weeks where half of your alliance can’t even fight, or when they have only 1 single target in a doable range and have to fight the poor soul 60 times in 3 days.

Alliance level has no impact on matchmaking. It’s strictly torches. 

To say that it only affects a small portion of players in a misnomer.

The problem I am seeing it that player level is most definitely NOT taken into account and it absolutely should be.  In my opinion, torches, quantity of members, and member level should ALL be taken into account.

Trophies absolutely should NOT be taken into account.  Here is my reasoning:

Player level cannot be tampered with.  If a player wants to keep his level down, he doesn’t get any stronger

Torches cannot be manipulated without losing or restarting an alliance.  THerefore any sandbagging is only short term

quantity of members is what it is.  Yes, organized small squads can beat unorganize large squads, but why even set the possiblity of a landslide either way?

Trophies absolutely CAN be manipulated.  This happens with this type of stat in many MMOs and always causes the same problem. Sandbaggers.


Because Olympus RIsing has so many different level aspects (torches, trophies, prestige, dominance, level, etc) it would be quite easy to select only the unmanipulatable ones to set matchmaking from!

Right now, my fledgling alliance of relatively new players from other games is struggling against obviously sandbagging alliances and poor matchmaking…both!  We are very organized, using external chat apps since the in game chat mechanism is not very robust.  Yet wer have been matched against unbelievably strong alliances.  This war for instance we have 11 players ranging from level 41-68.  one of our opponents has 13 players, most between 80-120 with a 67 and 49 for good measure.  They are just as active.  They are slicing through us like butter and half of my alliance can’t touch them.  It’s absurd.  

What is odd, is the last two wars, when these macthups happen, the opponents trophies are all under 2,000.  THis leads me to believe trophies are indeed being used as a match up and that some are using this to their advantage.  A level 120 player with less than 2,000 trophies?  Thats ridiculous.  

We are holding our own pointswise, but obviously they are crushing us with torches.  Even when we hold attacks to defend on a 4 skull and throw everything we have at them, they kill us because they are quite literally twice the level as us.

It also makes it tough because we always seem to luck out and be positioned right next to the monster alliance on the map.  So it seems that the layout is set in a clockwise format (Strongest to Weakest) in a circle.  Seems like a “seeding” with the 2nd strongest set across from the strongest would make more sense.  Because if the strongest alliance gets like 150,000 points, the 2nd place has 120,000 points then the 3rd has 60,000 and fourth has 30,000 the end result of torches is insane.  1st place 150,000 12 torches, 2nd place 30,000 and 10 torches, 3rd place 120,000 and 9 torches, and 4th place 60,000 and 8 torches.  The weakest and least active alliance got second plance just because their location on the map.  First place smoked second because they were next to them and the only “threat.”  Fourth place got fourth becauyse they were the only alliance thrid place could beat while they were getting slaughtered by first.  THat seems pretty weak…  Seeding 1st and 2nd cross from each other and 3rd and 4th across from each other would ensure that this strange outcome can’t happen.


In closing, it seems relatively simple to fix the matchmaking using an algorithm that considers torch, average player level, and active players.  But maybe my new alliance is just a small portion you speak of…even though we are matched with double the player level.  

We can’t gain torches if we keep being fodder for sandbaggers.

Player trophies have zero influence on war matchmaking. 


And when I said it affects a small percentage of players, I was SPECIFICALLY referring to the fact that war matchups in the top 10/20 get repetitive. You end up playing against the same alliances very often. Reread what I wrote. 

MIsunderstood that part, my apologies.

As far as the trophies, why is it that ever single mismatch we have had, where opposing alliance player levels are over 100 when ours average 50, their trophies are all below 2000?  Like they are purposely keeping them down to influence a matchup?  Maybe it is just a coincidence afterall.

That said, the matchmaking is a hot mess.  No way should alliances face competition that is over twice their level.  Mean, median and average.  It’s not just one big player, anomolies happen, it’s entire alliances.  


Also, I want to say, I do not want it to seem like I am arguing or disrespecting anyone here.  I’m not.  I am just frustrated with the situation is all.

I started my forum life with a similar frustration in heart and suggestion in mind, so the issue is advocated on a “bottom->up” basis. I can not say whether and when any changes would be implemented, but the devs are surely reading and considering things. If you really wanna see changes - bring members of your alliance here, so that they can voice their concerns too, for there were at least 3 attempts to start the matchmaking convo already. This isnt too relevant for the general population of this forum due to their lvl, they have things like allied ganking to worry about, so dont expect large involvement from them.

The war system is very flawed. I think some improvements are part of the long term goals, so I hope they’re good ones. 

I understand what others are saying but it gets frustrating really. Like right now, we are being tagged team by a lv 27 and 24. We are lv 18 with 13 members, more than half cant even touch our opponents. 

Pretty sure this is an example of trophy fixing. Good for me though?

I’m upset about our last alliance war. We are 14 members. 4 inactive members. 7 members between level 20 and 50. 3 members above level 80.

Two of the opponent alliances next to us have 20 members. All active. Minimum level 30 or 40. Many above 90. That means we have to fight against 40 people with mainly 5 guys in our alliance. It’s impossible to win any isle… No chance. No isle left over to defend.

If possible think over the matchmaking system. Thanks.

Why not kick the inactive players and some of the super low level ones? It’s nobody else’s fault that you’re housing inactive players. We’ve got a long week coming up, do some recruiting

The low levels differ a lot from what they presumably looked like back in your days. Recruiting is painful to conduct, the only guys who are easy to come by are useless low-level, low-troph silent war point bags. Decent ones are always an issue

In a perfect world, stronger alliances will advance in rank and fight other strong alliances. Weaker alliances would drop rank to face a fair challenge.

This current system is flawed because rank/matchmaking is based on an alliance’s total amount of torches and the amount of torches an alliance can gain or lose in a war can be as high as 10 torches.

Currently the alliance war matchmaking system is like this… If a strong alliance1 is fighting other strong alliances2/3/4 and ends up losing 10 torches, then alliance1 would end up in the same matchmaking bracket as alliances5/6/7. But after many wars the brackets are mixed and jumbled with them looking like one war consisting of alliances2/5/1/6 and the other alliances3/4/7/8. Then you also have the fixed placement of alliances in the war. 4 positions, in a circle of somewhat with one alliance on the opposite side of the other forcing the alliance to fight its 2 neighbors. Also, you cant forget about alliances gaining or losing members lf varying strengths/weaknesses…

Now, several posts have suggested matchmaking to take into consideration alliance levels, total trophies, player levels and total players as well as alliance rank (number of torches). This doesn’t sound like an easy task. They would have to stop using an alliance’s amount of torches as their sole factor to determine rank. They would have to implement a different type of ranking system. One that would be based off of ‘skill’ vice number of torches. A ‘true skill’ system. Or maybe an Elo ranking system.

Did what I say make sense? I think it makes sense so im going to post this.

Edit: Im fine with the current system. It’s simple. If you want to win, then you and the other members of your alliance will have to get stronger. I prefer having decent members with high donation amounts than solely strong members… 'Cause eventually they’ll get stronger and you’ll also have all the blessings to have. So winning is priority 3 in my alliance, right after ascension level and donation amount. Although, we’ve managed to place first in every war except two times in second place since the alliance was created.