Conquest Matchmaking Calculation

Short and simple question, hope to get an answer from Madlen and the Devs if possible to understand how we’re getting sorted.

Is it based off of your score average, or most recent score? Say a team gets 246 and gets matchmaking into much higher tiers due to a single map favoring them, but then scores 176 or say the others who were against teams who did not relent (say 35 or something), will it be much lower matchmaking, or still 200+ because the average is still 200+? Thank you for any clarification.

I think it’s the average of the 3 most recent scores, no?

You would think so, but with how mismatched the matchmaking has been I’m not quite sure.

There has only been 2 conquest so far, so it’s not a mismatched. If you score well in the first  conquest you’ll meet tough opponents in the next. That’s how it is and that’s how it should be.

Hello there, I hope this is the answer you desire 

For the second conquest alliances were matched amongst other data based on the conquest score from the 1st conquest, meaning if top alliances haven’t scored very high last time, they were now matched against mid alliances, who finished the conquest really well last time.

For the very first conquest only, we calculated scores based on the total trophies of each Alliance. For the current conquest, matchmaking used these scores together with the results from the first conquest. For example, if an alliance had an initial matchmaking score of 250 and earned 150 conquest score, their score for matchmaking is 200 (250+150/2).

Starting with the next conquest, the last 3 scores will be used only.

If you have another question regarding that, please let me know :slight_smile:

That doesn’t seem like a very fair way to do things. Sure, some high alliances may have done real bad in the first conquest, but that doesn’t make them on the same level as the mid alliances that did really good! Higher alliances have higher members meaning they’ll always win when matched against mid alliances! We at Alpha Guard stood no chance the level 78-80 alliances that had 20-30 (maybe even more) 4000+ trophy and 110+ level members

Perhaps you could make the matchmaking where alliances are only faced against other alliances in their radius. For instance, at Alpha Guard, the lowest ranked team we would face would be 200th and the highest would be 115-125. Something like that

Then alliances could drop members at a certain moment to drop in the rankings, and reinvite before the start. I think the current matchmaking will work better and better as time goes by

It should be based on Alliance Level (not trophies or members) as well as conquest scores. No gaming the system that way.

So, if there are some high level Alliances not in the 250+ tier, they should face each other and not get mixed in with lower level Alliances within the 150-200 or 200-250 tiers. (At least, as much as it can be avoided.)

Same with lower level Alliances in the 250+ tier - they should be facing each other far more often than having to face a level 80 Alliance.

It’s interesting, because that means trophies and indirectly alliance level (often correlating to trophies of alliance, though not always) played a part in the beginning but now will no longer matter, with the biggest difference being rewards. This encourages alliances to be as low as they can in their respective target tiers it would seem and to maintain that, regardless of their alliance level to ensure easier competition.

It’s the easiest way to sort things, to be sure just like fiefs, but not a balanced way to do so. No room to show competitively who understands and performs the strategy of conquest better, but rather who can win wars by sheer brute force and activity rather than strategy from being on a similar playing field. Tile advantages and even towers in forests stand no chance against an elite team to comparatively weaker alliances without necro boosts or other advantages. Not a complaint, just the facts of the consequences of such systems in place. I did like the idea of making things cheaper for lower level alliances, wouldn’t make it any more likely for them to win, but at least they’ll have lost less when trying in the face of adversity or impossibility.

Thank you regardless for the information, I’ll keep it all in mind! I do appreciate it, but like much of the community am looking forward to see this game reach the full potential it is capable of. We have a passion for RR2 and all of us want the best for it! ?

There is no such thing as perfect matchmaking. I have observed this across many games. Each method can be abused in some way or the other. The current method is agreeable to me. If alliances score low points to have easier next conquest, they might end up in lower reward tier which is not desirable. The reward tiers should encourage alliances to go for more points(Maybe flare could make reward tier more appealing). Also it shuns away alliances from being too greedy to go for too many points as they would face tough opponents in the next conquest. So there is a balance there. The matchmaking should get better after a couple of conquest as alliances would end up in their appropriate tier. And for people claiming that high tier alliances should not face mid/low tier alliances, what if there are not enough high tier alliances? The high tier need to move to their appropriate tier by having a good conquest. It is the fault of mid/low tier alliances for being greedy for points in their previous conquests.

Strongly disagree.

First conquest pairs us by trophies, so it’s an even match all around to all alliances. Say top 1-4 alliances AND alliances 201-204 score as follows:
1st - 300
2nd - 250
3rd - 200
4th - 150

Now assume alliance #201 had initial matchmaking score of 100, and alliance #4 had it at 250. As per flare’s formula, both will now have 400 pts (#4 = 150+250; #201 = 300+100). And then you have alliances rank 4 AND 201 placed together on second conquest.

That’s not to mention big deviations, as would happen if alliance rank 1 completely skipped the first conquest.

It’s just a random formula that does not work at all, and despite the most obvious of imbalances, flare insists on using it.

Our alliance roams around 50-100, and we just got matched with a top 10 alliance. 60% of our players won’t be able to attack more than 10% of their players. Now we just pray they are in a mood to let us build, or we wait 8 days till another bad event is over without touching conquest mode.

So far, first conquest was the best balancing. But guess what, why use something that is both SIMPLE and WORKING when you can come up with a new and random formula, never test it and throw it at the players just to see chaos do its thing.

Average last 3 conquests will continue to produce unwanted results sadly. And the more imbalance you have now, the more imbalance the average 3 conquest will spit out. Because big imbalances mean alliances scoring 300+ while others score 0. Shouldn’t be hard to emulate what this very complex formula of averaging 3 numbers will cause to matchmaking.

Average score of 3 conquests seems okay to determine conquest tier, but beyond that, the actual match-ups within the conquest tier should be based on things other than average conquest points.

Agreed. Alliance Level seems a good pick as an ‘other thing’, imo. I suppose, in theory, you could have a low level Alliance full of high level players but that is unlikely. But they’d meet another version of someone trying the same trick in the 250+ bracket so it would even out.

Sorry, the draw process is total garbage. We are ranked 608 and face an overwhelming alliance with rank 253. they are so strong that we do not have the spark of a chance. so the conquest is really no fun!

Here is absolutely nothing fair!
We fight against alliances that are 30+ Lvl higher.
Absolutely no chance and time wasted …

Extremely bad Alli team balance !!!

 

4 levels in our conquest. 75,58,43(us),37. Something needs to change for matchmaking I think. Sure, it will even out on points in later Conquests but still seems bad.

To enjoy the game we do need balanced match ups. But I am against less powerful alliances wanting to go against each other in a higher reward tier than they deserve. They simply don’t belong there. Some powerful alliance might have had a bad couple of conquests and ended up in a lower reward tier. How is just for them in this case? Either flare needs to find a better way for assigning tiers or wait for the law of averages to catch up and things to even out.

our alliance Level is 21 with that we are ranking around 809.

one alliance that found us is Level 24 and is ranking 739.

so far Ok.

the second alliance that found us is level 70 with a ranking 192!

Serious? We get a shut out due to a mismatch last war season because we had to much fiefdoms. We lost 3 and had still around the same or more amount of fiefdoms like the other opponents at the begin of the war season. So we are looking forward to another mismatch next war season.

an now the second event in a row with an alliance with level that is 50 higher than our. What a happy conquest ?

 

 

 

 

 

It isn’t just the alliance level that is a problem.  If your opponent has just one member nobody in your alliance can really touch (say your best player can only get 500 skulls), then they win.

They can attack any tower you have built, get 6k skulls, and just wait for the timer to expire while you scrape together maybe 2k skulls.  So you lose.  Yup, just one guy, and nothing you can do.  

Our defender rating on one attack was 1800 vs their 165; we couldn’t win because we couldn’t get skulls.  Even though they needed something rediculous like 300k skulls to get supreme victory, they win simply by waiting for 24h.

The enemy alliance members traveling with him never occupy the same tile, because if they did we could score skulls and win. 

This is the second time in a row we have encountered this.  It blows, because it makes playing pointless – loss is guaranteed no matter what because one opponent has an overpowered (relatively) defense.

Alliance participation this time is less than 1/4 of our members this time.  This needs to be fixed soon or there isn’t going to be anyone left to play.  Heck I keep telling myself I’m not going to do another one of these but for some reason I keep trying.  :frowning: