Same Stuff different day. War matching

And… same exact problems, just a  different day. 5 very evenly matched teams. And 1 completely domainant team that is way over the level of the other 5? How can it be this difficult ? To put 6 teams on map that are basically in same range?  5 teams all ranked from 150-130 good matches!!.. and 1 top 100 team? [72] … this was what was needing fixed before the upgrade. Yet it still is the same problem.

How do you determine that the number 72 team goes in the group with the 130-150 teams?

Ughhhhh

I totally agree with you, I could be glad cause we are by a long shot the strongest alliance on the map, but what is the accomplishment in beating smaller opponents? Doing that in RL would mean you have toxic behavior, something that I just read recently should not take place in conjunction with the game. Or maybe this only counts in the forum …

We are around place 140 on the leaderboard, here the locations of the other alliances on the map: 3 teams around place 200, one 230 and the last one 300.

Ughhhhh

 

Sounds like you should be on our map. I just do not understand after all the waiting for the upgrade. How this can still be this way?

Just because these top 100 teams manipulate their fiefdoms? It is just basic math that the 1 team does not belong with the others. Like big birds song from 1st grade.

“One of these things is not like the others?”

So do we waste resources to even battle the other similar teams? Or just go congrats on being on the wrong map to the out of place team?

I have yet to have a developer or a forum manager Reply or discuss how these matches occur???

  I believe we would all like to know why it is done this way?

 

Probably. Would indeed be a better match. First thing to do is simply take the average trophies of the last week so you cant bring them down just before war. Easy. And divide this count through the average members in that timespan. That way you would have an indicator of the strength of an alliance. That way it would not make any sense to not win wars or try to keep your fiefdoms low.

But I am afraid we will not life long enough to see Flare implement such an easy solution …

I never could figure out why they match Alliances in wars based on fiefdom count anyways.  The only real number I think would work would be your Alliance ranking.  This would match Alliances with all sorts of fiefdom counts but hopefully about the same strength against each other.

Seems easy enough doesn’t it? Why even keep an alliance rank if your not going to use it? Ahh the top one now went up 2 . Now ranked 68 as they smear on the other teams.

I don’t like the fiefdom system to match alliances in war. But use the rank could be a mistake even bigger, cause a lot of people would come out from alliances a few days before the war to loose trophyes and give a lower rank to ally to have an easier war.

That’s why I proposed to take the average of the last week. That way you can easily defeat the “leaving the alliance before the war to lower rank” problem. Because that would mean they have no reason to get rid of stronger players short before the war, it would not matter. 

This could be nice.

 

Fiefdoms should be only considered a bonus that you can gain after winning war to have more gold bonus - thats all.

Every single system that is suggested here is going to be exploited anyway.

 

Based on ranking? - drop trophy

Based on average for the week before war? - drop trophy AND join the last day before war

Based on alliance level? – you guys will still complain when you face level 130 kings in low level alliances

 

And for those who are fighting way lower level alliances, if you intentionally dropped fiefdom, well… that’s what’s going to happen… duh…

 

It’s not that the fiefdom system is bad, it is because there’s not enough incentive having extra fiefdoms that alliances are dropping fiefdom. Otherwise, the current system has lesser avenue to be exploited than at least anything that has been suggested here.

It’s not an easy matter, thrue. Maybe to use all this sistems in a random rotation, without ANYONE (neighter FG) knowig which one in used in each war season. A random chiose between three or four differents system. 

Don’t know, this could be a way, for sure they have to find a better one.

Update… guess which team is winning? Ah yes and as they started to battle turns out they are OVER 100 LEVELS  HIGHER in rank than the other teams!!

Bravo… great job with 4.0 fixing the match making for wars. I can see a ton of effort really went into this matter!!

Almost as much fun as the conquest from hell. ???

The rank of the other teams continues to get lower as people quit and jump because of the war matching. 

BRAVO FLARE, Shame you can’t match teams for competative play. 

Disappointing after long wait for the upgrade?

 

If it’s by random, and when you question why your match-up is so weird, Flare will just answer “it’s random, you’re not supposed to know… but trust us, we use the system recommended by you, but unfortunately, you’re just not lucky this time when we used the random system”.

What do you expect that alli to do? Is it their fault? They can only play against the opponents on the map …

Well it’s obvious they have purposefully dropped fiefdoms.

So it’s still flares issue for not properly matching the teams.

Fiefdom counts should not be a basis for war matching.

Agreed not the teams fault entirely.

Flare should be able to do math? As we all can see from 4.0 math is not a strong point!! ???

And if they would lose again their fiefdom count would go down even more. So, either they win or the will face even lower ranked alliances next time. 

So what would you expect them to do in this war?

No idea…  just a real flaw that has been exploited for well over a year with no noticable attempt to change the system. 

Not really mad at anyone??? just really thought 4.0 was going to concentrate on making wars more fun. 

Instead of the same wars and the dreadful conquest mode.

Just disappointment and frustration. :v::v:

OK, I was asking because if this, that sounded different.