Several questions about the Alliance War matchmaking

Can anybody answer which parameters are regarded when the enemy is selected in Alliance Wars beside the fact of being in the same league?
Are there any parameters that are considered?
The rank of the alliance?
VP gained in the current season?
Average level of the alliance member?
And, probably, the most important thing - the number of members? Does it matter?
Maybe there are some hidden stats that game mechanics operates such as overall power of all active members? The data, which is not evident but tracked by the game?
Or this is just the random result? The blind monkey takes out the lottery balls - the main thing is to have them in the same box?

The question refers more to the lower leagues. There the spread in the density of the alliances varies considerably in contrast to the upper leagues, to which all are moving and where the pressure becomes relatively equal.

After league of mortals, this is the only matchmaking used.

League of mortals uses torches, so alliances will be matched with other alliances who have similar torches. Once you graduate from League of Mortals, torches basically reset every season (although there’s a vestigial total torch count you can see. It’s leftover from old wars and is now meaningless).

People have often complained that there can be a huge difference in ability between the top of a league and the bottom of a league. Some seasons it even seems like there could be more power divisions within a league. This is true.

There have also been suggestions that wars should be matchmade based upon some other metric besides league membership. These suggestions sound reasonable on the surface, but would have severe negative consequences. When you’re in a league, you have to expect that you can face any other team in that league once per season. If you’re overmatched on a war by war basis, it’s a strong indication that your alliance is not powerful enough for that league and will probably be relegated.

I would be very interested in seeing a proposal that doubled (or nearly so) the number of leagues. I think this would go a long way to providing fairer matchups.

I cannot give a precise answer but with what I have notice in the previous War 2 week ago. Matchmaking work with I think the number of torchs you have gain last time. if you have 11. Good chance you will match with others 11,etc… We was matched with a alliance 10 times more strong then use full of 6,000 trophy. 0% chance to win but because both of us was new into the War formed with new alliance with 0 torch

Last War few days ago matched with the same alliance around us.

So look in your leaderboard and look alliance around. Good chance they are next to match with you

I don’t know if there is others factors but to me torch seem the only one

0 with 0, 1 with 1, 10 with 10, 11 with 11 and so on…

It’s total torches, not just the torches you won the previous war, but otherwise this is correct. This only works for League of Mortals, though.

ok, now I see that there is no clear, confirmed answer. There are some observations, according to which only the number of torches received in the previous war is regarded.

In this case, let me share my observations on the example of the last season in the League of Warriors, according to which not only the number of torches works here.
Let us begin with the fact that the number of torches that can be gained in the war is limited with a number of possible strikes (as far as I understand in accordance with the current rules:
In the Campaign - 7,
In the Confrontation - 6,
In the Duel and Incursion - by 3.
Plus 1-2 bonus torches for overall activity (and the more of these - then, less likely, you’ll receive them for the islands. It is clear why.)
The case is more complicated with the lost torches - you can lose more torches than declare strikes (Campaign and Confrontation ). But we will not regard the extreme cases of defeats either.
In this way, before any single combat (Duel or Incursion) we have a range of hypothetical groups of alliances, united by the number of received torched from -5 to +5 torches (for the previous war). That is 11 groups. Ok, we will add the 12th group for “extreme cases”.
So each alliance in the League of Warriors should have about 5 of potential enemies. Then, what is the probability of being always matched up with the alliances two or three times bigger than yours? Constantly:

I can show you the screenshot from the previous (before the last) war season (I usually do it) - there is the same story there. And there were more alliances with a number of members closer to ours there.

I do not regard the comparison of alliances by the power of its members. The war is an issue of tactics and activity (see the results on the screenshot), therefore the main thing is the number of members.

Here is the table of the League of Warriors before the last war. It includes enough alliances with a small number of members. At least, not 3 times bigger than ours:


There were the alliances with obscene names below, so I cut off at 64 on principle. (By the way, this is one more omission of developers - the names and nicknames with obscene vocabulary should be moderated.)

If you sort out this table by the number of alliance members, you get 3 groups: 8-16, 17-24, and 25-37. And there are 24 alliances in each group. Then 85% ‘members score per strike’ will have some meaning here. Because now it is useless when you meet a bigger enemy as you see on the first screenshot.

In this way, I think that the number of torches obtained in the last war is not the only parameter.
The only thing we can state: The number of alliance members is definitely ignored in Matchmaking. And it is a huge drawback of the game.

No…I gave you a clear, confirmed answer. Once you’re out of league of mortals you have an equal chance to draw any alliance in your league you haven’t fought yet that season. It’s well documented if you want to look in older threads. 

I have found the only confirmed answer from the developers:

If they haven’t changed anything since then, this is just random… and this is very bad.


They haven’t, and qualifying into a league means that you can face any alliance in that league. It’s not really random at all. It doesn’t guarantee you will face hard or easy competition. If you’re one of the weakest alliances in your league, you will probably rank at the bottom and might be demoted at the end of the season. If you are, you’ll likely face easier competition next season. But further matchmaking within a league brings with it all sorts of negative consequences that artificially boost weaker alliances and hurt the stronger alliances (who should be winning and getting promoted up and out of your league, not held back. Likewise, the weak teams should be encouraged to be relegated to an easier league to face better matchups, not propped up to stay in a league they’re not ready for).

If you want to be successful next season, work on getting more players. You’re hovering around the point where you barely qualify to participate in wars. You obviously have some good players or you wouldn’t have made it this far. Don’t lose them. Fill up your roster. The good players will leave if you don’t. 

The principle of the operation of the league system “the strongest wins” is clear to me initially. The question was about the criteria for determining strength. After all, there is no definite answer to the question: Which is stronger – an elephant or an ant? Unless you ask who can smash whom?

For me, the stronger alliance is the one that didn’t give a single torch to the enemy 3 times larger. Even if it lost by VP. But the game does not see these dramatic nuances.

Don’t tell me that this is a pure competition - there are different weight classes in any boxing league. And it is hard even to imagine the sports games without the equal number of field players.

The main question that made me start this thread is solved for me. There is no variation in the concept of alliance power in this game. The bison herd rules. Probably, some other aspects of strength start working in the top leagues where the number of members is approximately equal. But if you are a small alliance, even if you play in a smart and courageous way, you are still forced to increase the number of alliance members even if you do not want it.
And we all love games where we are forced to do something we dislike, don’t we? I am not quite sure you get what I mean. Let me explain this.

The developers assume that everyone wants to get into the league as high as possible. This is not true. We want to enjoy the game and not turn it into the virtual corporation.
It is so as if you come to the rink to play hockey with your children and you are forced to play three halves of 20 minutes against the steroid bulls.
However, the logic of developers can be understood from the corporate point of view. It is more useful for profit to drive the players into the endless race.
"We must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.” ©

But we don’t play such games :grinning:

You are right about the good players in our alliance. Each of them is good enough, otherwise we would not be where we are.
As for the rest, unfortunately, your advice is based only on assumptions. But thanks for participating, and your detailed and smart answers.

Strength doesn’t determine who wins or loses wars; torches do, and in the case of a tie, VP is the tiebreaker. These aren’t judged contests, so simple, easy to quantify metrics have to be used. To your sports analogy earlier, a basketball team may choose to only put 3 players on the court. If they could beat a quality opponent that way, it would be all over ESPN the next day. But they wouldn’t get more points for doing it, and the games are decided by points, not news coverage. This game is scored on torches, not how many players you have.

You’re allowed to have up to 50 players in your alliance. You can choose to have less, but it’s usually a handicap. The only advantage to having a small number of players is if all or most of them are higher-than-average level for your league and all with excellent defenses. Then the lower level players on your average opponent can’t score against you without using gems (and even if then sometimes not). Some players consider that to be cheating, just a warning. I don’t, but some do.


this is what he trying to explain to you,that the number of players should be considered 

otherwise it is quite demotivating .

players are leaving  the aliance and new comming hardly. How fill the number of players to 50??? Good rank of alliance in Hall of gods ,good position in league, be in strong aliance (more players , players with high level, more trophy, or more blessing .This are the things, what “adept, new player” looking for.

And players no leaving only the aliance, more end the game, will be inactive.

this is one of the proofs of abandoning the game too

He won 1st place in 3 out of 4 wars against alliances with twice as many players. He’s being promoted to the next highest league. Why should he only fight against other alliances with small numbers of players, that would be a huge disadvantage for them. The number of players doesn’t provide an accurate picture of team strength. 9000’s alliance is a great example of that.

1 Like

It seems to me there is a person on this forum who can’t imagine a thread without having the last word.

Since we were talking about our alliance, I will allow myself a small digression that refers to the issue under discussion.
We, most likely, would not have lost even the last war against IRONHAND if it was not for the betrayal.
A week before the war, a new member entered the alliance. When after tough campaign we were going to take away the island, that guy betrayed us. He grabbed his chests and just left for the enemy’s alliance. The story is dirty because the enemy’s alliance is of “Invite only” type.

By the way, the traitor’s nickname - paradox0413 - and he still remains there. You’d rather remember him - who knows what other alliance he will join in the future :


It is worth saying that despite the disgusting situation, I consider the possibility of such gaming moments a good thing. It brings funny drama to the game without a plot.

I am telling you this only to confirm my moral right to assert that IRONHAND played badly. Having 28 active players (5 of them > 130 lvl), the team could not take a single torch from us. There were only 9 of us with 118 level the highest. Moreover, in order not to lose the island, they took such a dirty step as to invite the only member of the team with the option to get invite. It seems they were pretty scared… if this is not the norm for them.
Their manner of playing is a silly mass rush, without a clue about tactics and accurate internal maths of strikes.

All this is not off-topic! I am getting to the point.

So, Dumpster thinks that a small alliance should not have preferences in the choice of enemy of its weight class. Even if this alliance plays well and the overwhelming number of opponents becomes the ONLY reason for its loss. OK.

Then why a big, badly-performing alliance gets these preferences, even if its number becomes the ONLY reason for its victory?
Do you really see the logic of this question?
It happens because there is an opportunity to increase the number of alliance in the game, but there is no opportunity to get a fair opponent.
During three seasons (12 wars) we had only one enemy that was close to us by number. Therefore I started this thread because I doubted that this was a pure random.

Each our war turned into “300”. And this became rather tiresome for us.

There are no ideal games (probably). There are well-balanced games. The system of alliance wars (at least, in lower leagues) is entirely imbalanced in this game. Matchmaking is its weakest point.
If the system of leagues became a mechanism, which makes the players leak to the top, then the developers should do something to compensate this convection. And matchmaking that considers a number of players could be a good solution in this case. Even the simple checkbox “Skip the war” in the alliance control panel could be a solution for the teams that do not have enough players for effective performance.

Finally, I’ll say why some tips given in the comments above are superficial.
First, a blind recruiting of players can bring to the situation like the one I described with paradox0413.
Secondly, somebody does not increase the number of alliance simply because of being introverts like us.
Thirdly, no one is going to leave our alliance – our decision is to freeze the alliance – to become inactive one by one and log in just to avoid auto-kick and not to participate in war.
After a while, if there are changes, we will come back.
If the system of rat race remains the same – we have a lot of other games to play together online.

And I think there is no sense to continue the discussion here. If somebody wants to be really useful and knows this forum well - he can share his opinion in the thread tracked by the developers.

All Alliances within a League must have an equal chance to win that League. This is why the matchmaking is random and all Alliances within a League need to show the same level of strength to survive within that League. We will not give a disadvantage or advantage to any Alliance, and any kind of preferential matchmaking is an advantage.

It is not fair to say that one Alliance has better players, so it should not be beaten by larger numbers of weaker players who are working together to make their Alliance strong. If Alliances with fewer members get easier Wars, simply because they have fewer members, then it is a disadvantage to have more players in your Alliance. In fact, as mentioned in the last paragraph, if any Alliance is given easier Wars for any reason, it is a disadvantage for the other Alliances.

The Leagues are not a test of how strong players are, they are a test of how strong Alliances are. If your Alliance is not strong enough to compete it will go down, if it is stronger than the competition it will go up, regardless of whether you have the 3 best players in the game or 50 of the weakest.

The fact that you have already proven that you could fight against overwhelming numbers proves that you are deserving of your spot in your current league and is an awesome achievement! However, in order to rise, you need to continue to win. The top Alliances are full of amazing and dedicated players which absolutely deserve to be where they are.

1 Like

What I’d like to see, and this has probably been discussed elsewhere, is a greater spread in VP depending on level difference. i.e. more points for beating higher levels and less for lower levels. 


Firstly, it would encourage high level people to attack similar or higher level people to get the most VP. At the moment there isn’t a lot keeping people from just hitting the lowest levels and easiest targets.


Second, it would encourage alliances with a lot of dedicated mid level players fighting against the small but very high level alliances. We faced several teams the last couple of seasons who either had only 10 high level players (135+ in kings league) or who kicked all their low level players in order to reduce our targets.  Both scenarios are frustrating for active alliances with mid level people.

1 Like

Amen to this. There’s almost no VP difference between a level 145 and a level 140, but there’s a huge difficulty difference. 

maybe not only the player level should be considered but also the number of upgrades of the defenses. e.g. high level can also have badly upgraded defenses and vice versa. 

Don’t know if its already done or not.

May also include a difference between the offensive odyssey point of the attacker and the defensive odyssey points of the base raided. 

Idk could give an acceptable solution to the odyssey differences in war.

from what i observed is that the VP difference is only player level difference dependet and approx +/- 6 points per level. every ~5 levels +/- 7 maybe due to roundings. (maybe its also 1 point less, did not check screenshot to be sure)

We will discuss this point for a near future update.