Terrible Matchmaking in Conquest

we have been matched with very strong alliances rank 34, 168 and 186, while our rank is 217. its been long 5 annoying days of conquest where we had the least fun of all alliances.

we would like to ask Flare, please repair your match making.  it shouldn’t be depending only on tier rank, but also on alliance rank.

 

ct.jpg (0 Bytes)

I think you should not complain. I mean look the 3 others they have do 213,273 and 301 points Its really awesome. The majority of time we have same power and same ranks and same with that you have Rank 1 who do 300 points, Rank 2 at 250 and the rest with low amount of points like 115 and 60 

So its really impressive what the 3 others have accomplish against a 34. The rewards its more than appreciated I guess when they receive it. So I think no complain here

I will not care if I face one day this situation and my teammate can do 300 points and give us all the rewards. So for me I don’t see the problem

this was because the 34 ranked Team were very kind not to abuse us and agreed to let us win the rewards.

we have been before in similar situation where a Russian team prevent us from getting even 1p, we  couldn’t even  leave the stronghold!
this shouldn’t happen, players are frustrated, no one wants to play conquest anymore.

Drop a tier.

No we won’t :angry: , they should fix the game instead of making dull event such as that

Then you should expect to have harder battles.

I think Rank doesn’t really matter because easily abused, lvl player is better.

I don’t think there exist a perfect matchmaking, in every case there will always be an « unfair » match.

A 100% random matchmaking would be perfectly fair. Same rules for everybody.

You can’t get any more fair than that.

Yea I agree and I see your point, but I prefer the actual matchmaking. It limits the damage.

What if that is the best matchup in your tier?   

 

Set tiers according to trophy range instead, like in Ninja event. You don’t see beginners complaining about highest tier, because they aren’t there and will never end up there by accident.

 

This way, lower level alliance will never be in the highest tier because they will never reach that amount of trophies.

 

The reward, of course, is based on the tier list as usual.

 

The only way to get to a higher tier is to collectively get more trophies as a team.

 

Sure, the entire alliance can drop trophies to go to a lower tier just to bully people, but they’ll get less rewards as a team too.

I would agree with this if the rewards were according to trophy range as well.

But they’re not, so everytime you introduce a new criteria wiithout adjusting the rewards accordingly, you’ll only be introducing more unfairness into the system.

That’s exactly what I meant with what I proposed. Alliances get into tiers according to their collective trophies and the rewards are based on the respective tiers, just like Ninja.

 

So a level 50 alliance will never get into the highest tier to enjoy the highest reward unless they somehow, as a team, get as much trophies as the top alliances. Otherwise, as a matter of fairness, they will never have to complain facing top alliances, but neither will they enjoy the same reward the highest tier has to offer. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

 

I think match up is weighted by tier and level.     We just played a team that was clearly stronger and they had a relatively lower trophy count so our alliance was ranked a little higher.  It was not a gross over match like we saw in week 2 or 3.   

Ok,

So for example this case :

Alliance with 60 members 1k trophies =60k (total)

Alliance with 30 members 2k trophies=60k

Alliance with 20 members 3k trophies=60k

Alliance with 15 members 4k trophies=60k

So each alliance gets into the same tier and have a match.

The 4th alliance will surely win the conquest with ease.

The 3rd will also have more or less ease, while the 2 others will strugle.

 

So the 1st alliance should do what kick members to have easier conquest ? This is unfair, just to have a better matchmaking.

The 4th alliance will get easy and extreme good rewards(based on their trophies), while also having a « fair ? »/easy match for them.

So ok they get (with what I’ve understood), « poor ?» conquest tier rewards and also very good rewards with their trophy range(like Ninja).

Maybe less reward as a team but good individual.

This will just create a bigger gap between top and mid alliances… and also (maybe ?) break the alliance spirit : « It doesn’t matter if I lose or win, in the end I get my good solo rewards ! »

Well this can be seen as an extreme example but can happen :).

So I must disagree with it.

your argument is only good for players starting out way below level 80 which is outlier. few alliances on low tiers consist of friends or officemates that has good trophy count and only handful of members that dominates the specific tier.

piece of advice level up to 90 and get some skull perk bonus items and move to mid level alliances it will be a different story.

 

This is just an example to show that it would be unfair to mid alliances.

New ex:

2500 x65–>162500 // 3000 x55–>165000 // 3500x47–>164500 // 4000x41–>164000

This doesnt change the fact that the matchmaking would still/could be unfair.

Yea, but would Flare go for this?

Would the player base be happy with this? I doubt it.

If you read most replies, players don’t want a fair system, they just want a system that gives them the maximum benefit possible. They want to play in the highest tiers possible, but they want the matchmaking to save them from the best alliances that compete in that tier.

when you join a mid level alliance with min. level 100 members im with good coordination its possible to win.

My alliance in max tier last conquest dealt with better team with few stronger players but on paper we should not be beaten easily but they very coordinated to the point they declare war and after 4-5mins we lost a tower every single time. 

conquest is about teamwork low tiers really will have bad time playing this specific event due to most players rarely online. mid level alliances its normal to have some teamwork. in higher tiers their will be better synchronization. 

Yea i agree its all about strategy, good coordination <->more chances to succeed, but its not the point here. Yea ok,you can challenge the odds but you will still strugle compared to the counterpart. This is why the actual matchmaking is good. It’s not good a matchmaking based on total alliance trophy count.

It’s about having people willing to lose their jobs or real lives to sit online 24hrs a day for 5 days…