Trophies dropping and unbalanced war season matching (and suggestions)

Hi, In this current season (the 3rd one yet) we are struggling against an alliance that has dropped throphies like crazy. Their general is last arround 1200, but against a similar king (1350 throphies) it gives me 700 medals. Imposible to get any amount of skulls from him. I’m guessing they have dropped arround 10.000 thropies in total before this war.

Now only 3 of the members of my alliance can get past 50% in their bases…  this results in a clear disadvantage in the war matching. No matter how much we attack… we don’t stand a chance…

 

Besides the throphy and fiefdoms amount… is there any way that the matching could avoid this kind of unbalance? Maybe considering the level of the kings in an aliance or including the same algorithm that is used to calculate the amount of medals won… since they both seem to be the only real measure to compare two kings. 

 

Regards, Toto!

I think the first war only fair.

2nd and 3rd quite unfair.

:angry:

I think it should be based purely on alliance level (which is proportional to the number of members you have).

 

100% agreed.

 

It’s pretty clear the pairing system based on fiefdoms isn’t working…

Berliner is only in your bracket because we kicked their butts so badly in Season 1 and Season 2. Sorry about that!

 

On Topic: The pairing based on trophies won’t work, period. Trophies can be actively manipulated by players, and strong kings will gladly drop trophies before a war, just so they can abuse lower ranked/level alliances. Forget matching based on trophies. Fiefdoms seems to be a more reasonable and balanced way to handle matchmaking, but again, higher ranked alliances with low fiefdoms will end up in a weaker bracket. This isn’t fair to the alliances they have to fight, as they will have an insurmountable advantage. That being said, the only fairly logical way of handling this is to match us based solely on strength. That means matching us based only on our number of members, with a 1-3 member difference to leave room for flexible match making.

 

This will completely eliminate the advantage gained by dropping trophies to cheat, as your number of members will not change. As I type this, it has occured to me that there is STILL a loophole, even with this. I will say it now, because if this alternative is actually put in effect, people will find the loophole, use it, and abuse it all the same. Here it is: If this were to be implemented, I can already see certain dishonorable alliances (No names) kicking members to get into a weaker bracket, then inviting them back after the season has started. However, this problem can easily be fixed by LOCKING alliances at the start of a war season. This means that as soon as the season starts, no one can join an alliance. I see no other alternative if we want to make wars as fun, and as fair as possible. We know exactly when the war is going to start, so there should be no reason that an alliance can not figure out who will be able to participate, who they need to kick, who they need to invite, etc. BEFORE the war season begins; as we have advanced notice.

 

Please take this into consideration. The current matching system is making wars a tedious chore, not an exciting part of Royal Revolt. It is no fun when you go into a war season just to find that it is going to be completely one sided, and you already know from day 1 who is going to win, because they have 15 more members than everyone else on the map.

 

/rant.

Well, fiefdoms are important too. For example, you don’t want a whole bunch of 5k players crowding into a smaller alliance to win all the time. It should be based on both fiefdom /and/ level. That way, if you’re in a Lv.3 alliance that has 50 fiefdoms, you’re going to be paired with other Lv.3 alliances that also have 50 fiefdoms~ ;D So you’re always matched with people who, for the most part, use the same tactics as you.

The alliance war is based on fiefdoms so you can find an alliance level 50 with 15 fiefdoms and your alliance is level 20 with 15 fiefdoms because have the same numbers of fiefdoms. This is the first point. This because the priority set by the matchmaking is fiefdom, then i don’t know but i think there is a little % of rank otherwise you would have found as i wrote maybe a top alliance with low fiefdoms (15 for example) against low alliance with same fiefdoms (15 for example).

Of course they must implement the matchmaking because it sucks a lot.

I made a thread regarding this same issue last war season when we were paired with alliances who greatly outranked us.

Additionally, I agree that  Sentinel’s suggestion makes the most sense for pairing. If Flare were to pair by Alliance level, then the number of current members should not be relevant (so that alliances can not take advantage of the system). If Flare wanted to take it a step further, I think that Sentinel’s other suggestion is very good:

 

 

Flare, if you are listening, this is a real issue that needs to be fixed. Last season, my alliance was among the outranked and were swiftly defeated. However, since we lost last season, we are among the few alliances who outrank other alliances in this current war season. While I do like winning the Elite Boosts for my team, I don’t feel good about picking on smaller prey. There needs to be more balance in the pairing system to give everyone a fighting chance. 

 

  • Using only member count will also lead to unbalance, In my alliance y dont mind having lower level kings. I like to keep people that are commited to supporting the alliance, no matter what their throphy count is… and I think that wars should also reward that. We have 24 members and 45000 throphies and are currently fighting an aliance with 27 members and 70000 thropies, thats quite unbalanced as well for a three member diference… - Fiefdom count is also wrong as a main parameter… Currently there are several alliances that won one and sucked at the next one, or viceversa… (because of the unbalance) and are currently paired together dispite the rank differnce… (we have a rank of 500 and are fighting a 180 one…)

 

  • As I said before, the only way to measure a king is by its level (time spent atacking in-game) and by the level of his defensive structures and waves… medals seem to be the most reliable way to measure a defence when attaking, so why don’t use the same algorithm? Alliances shoud be measured and matched together using the sum of the level of their kings (not throphies nor fiefdoms, only xp) Member count also should be considered to avoid total skull sum unbalance. As I see it, its the only way that alliances with similar posibilities are matched together and avoid any attemp to tamper with the system. Similar amount of kings and similar average king xp level, that’s seems the most fair way to do it.

 

Some sort of stronger member locking would also be helpfull. Besides the 30 hour attack lock**, when a member leaves an alliance (by choice or kicked out) he/she should not be allowed to return to said alliance for 7 days, give or take**… that way if he/she leaves before the matching he/she won’t be able to participate in the wars for that alliance.

 

Hope they read this. 

 

 

 

 

You’re gettin’ there. But this can still be abused. Two alliances could just swap members every 7 days without consequence.

As for pairing by King Level, no. As stated, the leaving-member loophole is still at-large.

The only way to make things /completely/ fair, would be to pair up according to Average Skull Count of the last season. Two alliances who made 30k per battle last season, are paired together. That’d be the only way.

 

I dont think that this would be a real problem, It would take huge coordination to make it work, and members are usually loyal to only one alliance. Anyways, they could fix that by modifing the 30 hour non-attack rule and make it 3 day period, between joining an alliance during a war season and being able to attack in that season. 

 

I don’t think that skull count is a good measure, It depends too much on the balance of the previous season, Last season we ended with 200K skulls, and this one we are loosing our last fiefdom and have only half of it (102K) Also, where do you put new alliances?  If they fix alliance hopping, leveling by king exp is the way to go

No, I mean average skulls. Like if I get an average of 24k per battle, even if I have 30 battles, I still get put in the same league as others who usually get 24k.

 

It still depends too much on balance on the last seasons. There has to be a way to match alliances evenly, independently of past wars performance.