# [Conquest] - Matchmaking algorithm changes

As it stands right now, just like noticed and experienced by several people…

The Conquest mode current matchmaking algorithm is to say the least… “insufficient”.

My suggestion is not only to pick alliances by tier, but also to add the following rules:

1. Level requirement:
All 4 alliances shall have at most, a 10 level difference from the lower to the higher level alliance.
Example: If the lower level alliance is level 40, the stronger of the 4, shall be at most level 50.

Explanation: At the moment, alliances are battling others of 20 or even 40 levels above! (Which is nonsense)
This is aimed at fixing the “alliance bullies” problem.

2. Worker requirement:
The difference between the lower and maximum number of workers, shall be at most, 2 workers.
Example: If the weakest (workers) alliance “A” has 3 workers, the stronger of the 4 can have a maximum of 5 workers.

Explanation: Some alliances are conquering the map really fast because they have a lot of workers…
The problem is that such wouldn’t be “expected”, due to the low tier they’re playing at. (pay 2 winners, jesus christ…)
This is aimed at fixing the “alliance-2day-maxscore-GG-WP” problem.

3. Troop requirement:
Between all 4 alliances, the difference of lower and maximum amount of troops per soldier shall be at most 100.
Example: If the worst alliance can have 300 troops per soldier, the best of the 4, should have a maximum of 400.

Explanation: Sometimes, there’s a few members of an alliance guarding a WatchTower but besides them being weak…
Since their troop count is much much greater, even if the number of defenders vs attackers is equal…
You either: A) Get stalled for 24 hours in a boring fight, B )Lose the fight, since they only need a dumb low skull count to win the fight
This should fix another “pay2winner” problem, but also fix the max 24 hours boring fights…

But I didn’t want to complicate more, as this seemed to solve the bigger matchmaking problems right now.

What do you think @everyone / Madlen?

Feel free to discuss the rules/values mentioned (some were just thought in the moment after all  )

Most of this can be resolved simply comparing the stronghold level and Alliance Level of each team. No more than 1 difference on the first and no more than 10 for the second. Do this after sorting by previous 3 Conquest scores.

Indeed, the stronghold level could be enough alongside the alliance level.

Since the stronghold level limits the other buildings max level.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks for your proposal. I will forward it to the relevant person.

Really, all issues can be traced to Alliance Level alone. That determines what level the Stronghold can be, which determines the levels of the other buildings - troops, builders, etc.

Alliance Level needs to factor in the matchmaking to a much greater degree.

Seems like if they will implement it- VL will be a fools. It will be very good lesson for everyone- stop invest money, cuz Flare aupport the alliances who dnt want to invest.

its easy to make whole buildings at 10 level for everyone. Just one months

Why would VL be fools?

I’m suggesting this so alliances fight others of similar strength…

The way you’re talking seems like you’re one of those bullies, who loves beating weaker alliances with a score of 200-0…

Are you telling me that’s what VL stands for?

I’m glad that at least it will get heard by someone

We are stands for same rules for everyone.

if the levels was implemented, its mean who reached the better level has the advantage. Easy.

i dnt like to support weak players, i like to support the players who want to be better. To play in the better alliance, to be stronger and etc.to support players who want to be weak ? No way for me

we have 555 score this war. Its good? Not. But the alliance attacked us first even when we said we would be neitral this war and just will take our first. They decided to play with us we beaten them. Its top 3 alliance if you interesting. Does it mean we will always beat everyone? Ofc not, next map we will lose if we will face 2 vs VL.

we like to have the strong enemies, but we will take max we can if we have the chance to do it.

as i know tge VL is only alliance with max everything. And we want to use this advantage cuz we bought it by command work. We did subs( like every alliance can do) and we got a lot of gold in a month to make the upgrades

Then you should have no problem, because the rules would still be the same for everyone.

This isn’t a matter of supporting weak or not.

With my suggestion, weak would face against weak and strong would face against strong.

So you would start facing alliances of your “tier”.

You should have no problems with that.

Then you guys should have no problem, facing enemies near your alliance level…

Are you trying to say that people getting beat very badly will then want to invest money so they can do better for the next Conquest? I think you are mistaken. People will just either quit playing or skip the Conquest.

Much better to make the matches so that strong fights strong and middle fights middle and weak fights weak. Match people based on Alliance Level. Everyone would enjoy things much more I think.

Why we need to care about tge players who will leave the game or will skip conguest?

its their choice. Good mm is not bad, for us its nof a problem.

For low alliances it will be balanced soon.

The way to make it balanced for low alliances is to make alliance level matter for matchmaking.

It’s one thing to not worry about people who will skip or leave. It’s another to offer gameplay that encourages it.

Really, Wars are matched up by Alliance Level and number of fiefdoms. All that is asked is that Conquests be matched up by Alliance Level and average conquest scores. Almost the same criteria. What’s wrong with that?

Nithing wrong

vut its not important

Matchmaking will get better the more conquest events are played. It was probably the same way when everyone started at zero fiefdoms or whatever for wars?

Fiefdoms was totally different. Based on rank we got a certain number of fiefdoms assigned. So who won first war season with 4+ fiefdoms in mid/low range teams, suffered next season, due to the fact they were matched against teams having originally 8- fiefdoms more before first season. Having said that, those days the frenzies plus mummies were incredible strong. With them, you could beat heros 20+ levels higher with ease. And due to a bug with frenzies (blizzard, swordrain plus all other instant spells not taking them out, while they should) it was a nightmare. Lasting spells, like bladestorm, firestorm and sonic blast were just neutralized by the frenzies. But that’s another story.

Now we also got a calculated first score with conquest. How can it become better when it’s based on last three conquests?

Say we are in 200 layer and we scored 200 last 2 times. Then we are matched against a team that heavily lost in 250 layer, just because another team had problems last conquest and was bullied, they dropped and do same to our team. We score even less than 50. Consequence of the formula is that we drop to 100 layer. How is that fair for other teams in conquest layer 100+?

The other extreme. Due to circumstances you scored 100 average last two times and are in layer 100+. Now you meet a conquest where you are way stronger than any opponent. You start building watchtowers like crazy and score 550. Is it fair that you then end up in 250 layer and very likely face very strong teams that wipe you of the map?

There should be a maximum and minimum on dropping, for example you can only drop one layer or climb one. That’s why I said, there should be no layers, but divisions. When you become first, you promote, becoming last means demotion to a lower division. Within a couple of conquests you would be in the right division and then it isn’t based on previous scores.

Scores depend on opponents, when a clearly stronger team is bullying you, your score will be extremely low. Is it fair that as a result of this, next time your team can bully another team? Nope, you want teams that almost have same strength, so that strategy determines who wins.