Pairing of opponents in war

Are you working on how you are pairing alliances against each other in war? Seems odd that 2 easy and 2 advance alliances pittted against each other but the two advance alliance can only launch against the less advance alliance and not against each other. This has been going on a lot. I can understand one easy and one advance but both less advance alliance with low trophy members are being attacked by two well advacnced alliance seems unfair combo. Trophy count and member count should be taken into consideration when you are pairing them for war or else you’ll have those who are advance before war started continuously will win and the less advance will never experience winning a war. 

+1

Member count is taken into consideration to some extent, where only 80% of the team with more players get to score in an individual fight. It’s still and advantage to have more players, but it’s balanced a little bit.

 

Trophy count can also really be manipulated before war. I agree that if everything was on the level, trophies would be a good factor to include in the war matchmaking, but it would absolutely create other problems (teams dumping trophies right before war to intentionally get weaker matchups).

the last war my alliance fought against alliances whose members were much stronger and nore numerous than the members of my alliance. How can the playing field be leveled to be more fair? We were decimated!

I’ve found that over the course of 4 or 5 wars they tend to balance themselves out. You’ll have a few where you can dominate all opponents, a couple where it’s back and forth and you get 2nd or 3rd, and one where you just get creamed (except when you get up to the top levels and then it’s different).

It’s very very difficult to take 1st place week in and week out, but that’s how it should be. Learn from losing, and try to develop ways to make your team smarter and more organized. Get your alliance talking using a chat app out of game, it’s very important. Develop better defenses and offensive strategies. Talk to your team so they don’t get frustrated during a loss. Sometimes you just lose, but you can still go after chests, and the gear you earn can make you stronger next week.

Good luck this week!

This is not entirely correct, it appears some significant undiscloed changes were made to the game which make it very difficult to play even after spending lots of gems. The magic no longer works properly  and the defences seem to have been buffed up during the war including the final gate making it impossible even for stronger players (who had no problem before whatsoever to complete the battle). Dumpster, by the way do you play for Texas team? 

You offer a lot of general words like “talk to your team” etc but a lot of people were very frustrated last war and close to 10 left the game, it appears already at the start of this war that many more will leave after this one. The game seems to have been ratcheted up on constant basis in accelerated manner and not even accelerated receipt of gear (including by using crystals to get both titanium and gold chest) will ever suffice in this arms race. Carry on like that Flaregames you will see a lot of people leaving very soon…, I am expressing the opinion here on behalf of top team as my team members asked me to write that they are very dissatisfied with constant tweaking and ratcheting up of the game.

Confirm. There was even a case when Ajax was not able to damage the gate. Got to half and stopped. About 15 seconds I couldn’t do damage, even with the prayer of fire. Generally no damage. The scale stood still. And therefore was counted a loser

I think the high level game is really unrewarding right now and I really, really hope that the upcoming versions of the game do something to fix it. All of your criticisms are on point, I think!
My advice was directed at a lower level alliance, where you face different alliances every week in war. I also have a lower level player and there’s a lot more variation in who you face from week to week. It’s A LOT more fun, and it only gets better when your alliance communicates well and forms friendships.

This week I faced alliances who had many more members, than my alliance, which resulted in defeats of 100,000 to 200,000 battle points. I lost  5 members of my alliance as the result of this mismatch. I was fighting alliances way above above my class. It’s like athletes who are competing against other athletes that are taking performance enhancing drugs. The athletes who do not take the drugs will lose. The alliances who do not spend large sums of money will lose. How long will players accept this coercion?

hi there,

I also have to complain about this issue, because the balance has not been noticed …
What are the criteria for choosing alliances for war?
I’m general in the tugawarriors alliance, we are in level 224 and we oscillate between 10 to 11 members. In the last 4/5 wars we have alliances as adversaries with twice the members!
In this, for example:
One with 20 members / 19 active, their weakest member is stronger than our weakest member. So they have 8 more members than we do.
The other has 24 members / 23 active and only one member is weaker than our weakest. Therefore, they have 11 more members - the twice!

We are few, but we are good and we are committed, but it is frustrating because it’s a sitation that has been repeated. and it’s not fair!

I do not understand the criteria …

The matchup in war is entirely based on your Alliance’s number of torches, with a little bit of random chaos thrown in. But no other factors influence it (number of players, trophies, blessings, etc…)

dumpster,

that means to remain “few but good” we must lose torches to have a fair war… It’s a countersense, isn’t it? :wink:

but, thank you very much for your answer! I’m enlightened now…

 

 

I think that makes sense. The game corrects somewhat for alliances with fewer players facing alliances with more players, but in general alliances that have more players, stronger players, and are well organized/disciplined will rise to the top. There’s nothing particularly odd or controversial about that.

We learned that lesson in one of our alliances recently. We were being carried by a handful of very strong players at the top. It was enough to win every week and climb the leaderboard extremely fast. However, we got to a point where the lower level players on the team were completely ineffective against the enemies we faced (not their fault, the alliance leveled up faster than they could ever hope to), and finally to the point where the team as a whole was too weak to compete. So we’ve been losing for a few weeks and settling back down to a level of competition where we belong. It’s no big deal.

yap, you’re right dumpster…  but the downward path is always a great test for players’ loyalty to an alliance.

can you tell me if the minimum limit of players for an alliance going to war remains 8? (i´ve been looking for this information in the forum, but I didn’t find it)

I think it’s 8, yes.

And you’re right, losing in war is a good way to lose players. Even in alliances that have a strong culture and community, you will come across players who will leave as soon as you lose blessings or when things get tough. I think it’s important to recognize who the loyal teammates are and take care of them, and don’t get worried about losing players who are just along for the ride. Monday morning comes around and you send out a billion invites, that’s all there is to it. If you can pick up 1 quality player a week you’re doing real good.

Great name and av btw!

Thanks a lot!!
(for the information, encouragement and compliment) :grinning:     

An alliance with 98 torches is facing alliance much higher alliance then its self in ranking and in torches how are u supposed to put a team that have 190+ torches and team that has 98 torches.i know weed is good for health but please not all the time …