Alliance War Pairing System Flaws

Dear Flare Games, I hope that you guys have sincerely been listening to the feedback of players in regards to Alliance Wars. It is a fun concept, but in order for it to remain fun, there are elements of Alliance Wars that need to be addressed. I outlined some of these in a previous post about a week ago, but today I wanted to mention the flaw in the pairing system. In the first war, the pairing system seemed to be more fair, as my alliance was paired with 5 other alliances with similar member capacities. However, in the current war season, we were paired against opponents who were far out of our league. Take a look attachment below. The screenshots in the attachment were taken on day one of the current alliance war. My alliance did very well in the last war and won a lot of Fiefdom. However, based on the screenshot, it appears that we were paired solely on our Fiefdom count.

This is a problem because, as you can see from the images, we were paired with two other alliances in our league (Polish Warriors Meet Your Maker), while the other 3 opponents were far out of our league. Pairing alliances in such a fashion instantly sets the weaker alliances up for failure, as we are simply not capable of defeating alliances with 10+ members than us. The stronger alliances can simply pick off the smaller alliances before battling each other, which is exactly what happened. I don’t mean to sound like I’m whining, but I feel that this pairing system is simply unfair and my alliance members deserve better than this. We found ourselves “giving up” after day 2 because the other two weaker alliances had been eliminated and we knew that we stood no chance of survival against alliances with so many more members than us. I feel that alliances should be paired with other alliances who are around the same level, not based on the irrelevance of how many fiefdom they have won.  I don’t know exactly what the solution to this problem is, but here is an idea. What if alliances were paired by the maximum number of members instead of by rank or fiefdom. This would be the fairest method of pairing that I could think of as you would be paired with other alliances around your level, instead of it being a landslide victory for the far stronger alliances. This would also help ensure that alliances could not exploit any loopholes in order to gain the advantage over an opponent; they would simply have to recruit and work hard to have a fair fight. The only problem with this proposal is that alliances within the top 100ish would likely be facing the same opponents often, as it is a slow process to grow and move up within that range. However, I don’t think that this is a huge deal as it would create a healthy rivalry among alliances and would invigorate them to continuously improve themselves.  Of course, perhaps this is not the best method of pairing, simply an idea worth exploring. Additionally, perhaps this issue is not as widespread as I imagine because I have not seen a lot of posts about it on the forum. Forum members, if your alliance has faced a similar situation as I’ve outlined above, please post here so that Flare Games will know that I am not alone in my concern regarding the pairing system. However, regardless of what direction you decide to move, it should be known that ranking based on Fiefdom is a broken system. I hope that you guys will take note of this problem and work towards a solution in the future.  Respectfully, - Chris

They have taken steps towards balancing the system in the second season. Higher-level kings getting higher rewards helps. My alliance has 36 fairly strong members. Next to us on the leaderboards are alliances with 40+ members , with a lower average trophy count. We can overcome that disadvantage, because our Stronger kings can get more skulls.

However, this problem is not fixed. Others have suggested taking some percentage of top scores, and maybe average them out.

I know that they have taken steps to making the raiding system more fair in Alliance Wars, but the pairing system is still flawed. If the variations in member count are not too significant and only vary by a few members, then that’s fair enough. However, to be paired with alliances 8-15 members more makes it virtually impossible to win an Alliance War.

you cant win wars all the time, you should reach point where you cant win anymore ,at this point you should lose to be paired with weaker alliances or you have to upgrade your alliance ,

so i think this system is fair enough .

I agree that the system NEEDS to be fixed because it completely wastes the gold and efforts of the Alliance and practically hands away the rewards to the higher Alliance. In United We Stand’s situation, the bottom 3 Alliances with less than 30 members got Eliminated within 3 days to the Alliances with members 35 to 40 and mainly 3,000 trophied players.  I like the fact higher players get more but it can really wreck the score because then Alliance Leaderboard placement affects the War since the other Alliance could have 15 to 20 players in the 3,000s and rack up the score to 70,000 skulls like Our War where We only get at most 30,000 Skulls since We only have one 3,000 trophied player and only 27 members compared to 35/35 or 38/38 members. 


I see your point Massive and it is right that you can only go so high before falling but the way the War is set up is not for that, it’s set up now to allow the Alliance with the highest rank on the Leaderboard or the highest member count or both to win every time.  Do you see where my jumbled point is?


I agree that Flare needs to see this and fix this before the next Season or even at the extreme post-pone the next Season until they fix the system; they won’t do this and that is why it is an extreme.

I can only confirm what Master Diaz said. We started on the board against alliances with much more members and had bad luck we started from the middle. In the competition only one alliance seemed to have almost same members. Strongest one even had 12 more members, so only way of winning that is having luck that all our members attack and a lot of them don’t.


To make it even more unfair… I was only king 3000+ and rest of my alliance is 3000-, and we even have some members under 2000, but that is fine, they are loyal members and that’s what important. Opponents we were facing had many 3000+ members so how can this season be fair? Even the elite blaster couldn’t compensate this disadvantage, since two others also had those blasters. As expected we were directly under attack by th two strongst alliances with a lot of more members.


We did whatever we can, but I can’t expect that members are going into suicide wars against players that are way stronger than them and wasting food on battles that can’t be won, because opponents also had some boosts on making it even harder for them. Result after day one was as expected. We were fortunate to win one war against the alliance which was eliminated first, but lost our other matches.


It was already obvious we had no chance of winning any longer, since we were surrounded by stronger alliances. We could have made a chance if the other aliance with less members didn’t have stronger members plus all possible elite boosts up 24/7 which makes it even more suspicious since they managed to even increase their members, but let’s not talk about that, that’s already discussed in another topic.


Result is that we were beaten after day three. More strange is that the east europian alliance with 32 members was able to beat the alliance having 39 members.Later their trick became clear. they were eliminating the third alliance and since there was almost no resistance they started to kick out 10 people. When war was declared the 39 membered alliance had to fight against a lot of switching troops and lost the war. To prevent this make it impossible to join an alliance during war season, its more fair.


What really bothers me is the skull rewards and unlimited attacks during war seasons. If I check the skulls rewarded between a 3500+ ranked player and a 2000- one. The difference in skulls is not large enough. What sense does it make to attack a high ranked player giving about max 100 skulls more than a 2000- ranked player. In first war season many players attacked my base and lost gems by heavily scrolling and most of them even not able to beat it. What we see in the second season is that only a few of them try, because it’s better to make a certain win with a few skulls less and make that up with two or three additional attacks, then to risk not raiding 100%. They literally don’t try to beat my base! Come on, force people to use scrolls and beat a base. Lower ranked players are in huge disadvantage, I don’t think it’s fair, low level kings should be more protected and endless attacks should be impossible. I think some opponents got sick from it that I literally used all my food to knock on their gate. Since I was able to beat most players, I just selected the one giving me most skulls and kept attacking him and I guess that’s what a lot of players do. People leave their alliance just to let the attacks stop! There is no fun if you log on and see that you have been attacked a rediculous amount of times.


What we see now is that our lowest members are constantly under heavy attack by almost every opponent player. Why even be rewarded for such a heinous attack? Skull reward for lower kings should be much lower and for higher kings higher. The gap should be significant so that it’s more interesting to attack a high level king. The skull gap is just not big enough. I sincerely feel bad for the lower members, they even lose trophies a lot and fall back too fast on the leader board. If this goes on like this, I foresee a lot of players quitting, because there is no fun, when a person is assaulted by much higher ranked kings over and over again. Trophies should be left out of the war season. I know skull is calculated based on hero level, but it would be better to also hold reckon with max rank that a player achieved.


My suggestions for war season are:

  • Get rid of fiefdoms, it’s unfair that some alliances have to fight on several fronts at same time while others can concentrate on just one front.
  • Match alliances based on members plus their strength
  • Make it a competition where alliances can battle all alliances at same time. No disadvantages any longer because everyone is under attack and needs strategy to put energy where effort is needed.
  • Change 2% bonus after three different attacks to 5-10% skull reward 
  • Make it impossible to leave/enter alliance during war season
  • Better skull mechanism to protect lower ranked players. Rewards for beating high level players should be increased, for low level players decreased. Off course hold reckon with hero level, so a low level king should be rewarded more for beating a high level player. Skull gap must be much larger. Players should be encouraged to attack high level players and not the ones who are easy targets.
  • Make rest period between war seasons longer. Elite boosts won during war season should be gone already or cost a fortune to keep alive.
  • Give reward for alliances for skulls collected. For example 10 times the skull amount in gold rewarded to alliance gold. Then it makes sense to fight on, even when a war is lost.

That’s probably easy for you to say when you are the leader of an alliance that is nearly at the 60 member limit capacity… Therefore, your perspective is slightly warped compared to the “middle class” alliances that are facing these issues.

Regardless, I disagree and feel that every alliance should have a fair opportunity at winning. Would it not be more fair to give all Alliances in the war a fighting chance rather than the higher alliances having an overwhelming advantage?

We are constantly upgrading our alliance and I do not expect to be able to win every war, but my members deserve a chance to at least compete for an opportunity to win the war. We knew from day one of this war that we stood no chance of survival, as did the other alliances in our same situation (Polish Warriors and Meet Your Maker).

Any pairing system where you have to lose simply to get the fair fight is flawed, period.