unfair war matchmaking

Hello everyone,

I’m here to talk talk about the war matchmaking system. The war system is unfair. It still happens every war that alliances face opponents with 10-15 more members and of course they don’t have a chance to win. Our alliance had a 60 member alliance on the map last war and this war, we have 2 60 member alliances on the map and we don’t have a chance against those alliances (we are a 46 member alliance). This is very demoralizing for all the members of alliances that have to face those higher level alliances. It is not much fun to look at the when the war begins and see 60 member alliances on the map. The war is over before it has begun. Flare said that that they have improved the war matchmaking system and have made it more fair and that was the case at the beginning. We have had really fair wars at the beginning of the update in which they have had it improved, but now the same problems are here. It is unfair again. Flaregames has to change the war matchmaking system. Make it fair, so that all alliances have the chance to win. It is not much fun to wait two weeks for war and then don’t have a chance. This system really hurts alliances, especially lower level alliances. This causes a lot of people to leave their alliances cause they see this at the beginning of war. It’s not a problem that just we have, it’s a problem that a lot of alliances have. So Flaregames, I hope that you change your system as soon as possible to make the game more fair and fun! I hope that flaregames sees this and changes the system.

Similar for us at Great Lakes Alliance, had little choice but to make the decision to opt out of fighting,to deliberately lose fiefdoms,aware there are other thing in forulae.

It has been like this for a number of war seasons,we are lucky to have great bunch of team mates that understand.But is none the less very frustrating.

You need to do better with war matching flare.You are way off at the moment.

Thank you.

Steve18.

The system should look something like that. Alliances face off against other alliances at the same or similar level, +/- 2. That should be fair, but not against alliances with 15 more members. That’s not fair and not fun. It can’t be that you have to lose 2-3 wars in a row, in order to have a easy war that you can win. With the system that we currently have, doesn’t the stronger alliance win, the alliance with more members wins. Make the war fair and then you’ll see which alliance is the best.

Hi Dehock!

We are on the same map. In fact we have two wars against you today. I’m the general of United Invincibles. Agree. 45 can’t beat 60 at all. These team purposely drop fiefdoms.

All the best to your team, may the better team win.

Thx kkstar. This isn’t just about this war. This happens to alliances every war. Good luck to your team too

I’d say - whole system is flawed. However, only way to avoid this 45 vs 60 matchmade seasons, is to add a rule that alliances cannot meet unless they are nearly even in number of their members.

Which would lead to other kind of problems - your lower tier with 45 members would have a “roof”, there would be alliances who deliberately do not level their alliance (and I think FG fear that they would lose money that way), and are collecting strong members to always win and never face 60 members alliances, since they would not have any rivals as long as they do not have 56-60 guys. Or, people would be just choosing their numbers of members they like, 20-30, and stay there, always winning and ruining experience for all the other players (imagine if 10 players with 5000-6000 trophies would create 10 people alliance to always win without any chances those below them, just for fun, could be even 2nd accounts. Right now, at some point, they would start facing 20-30+ members alliances, and lose by numbers).

So, in the current system, excluding 45 vs 60 wars cannot be done without causing other problems.

Only thing that could be done - completely different war system. However, FG never listens, so, I feel for you, but I think this whole topic is a lost cause :slightly_frowning_face:

There is a stronger team, there is a weaker team but they can at least try to not make the gap so wide.

It is ok to face alliances with 2 members more but not 10-15

At some point, after a constant wins, team with 45 members would reach unbeatable enemy teams. With current system - there is no way around it, without hurting the system even more.

I’d say - either FG need to make reaching 60 members cap much cheaper, or revamp current system, otherwise, all the changes would just cause more problems.

But what if you always win those teams with 2 members more? You would keep gaining fiefdoms. At which amount of fiefdoms you feel like you would need to start facing teams with 10-15 more members? If you want to always meet those just 1-2 people above you, what would stop high ranking players from creating a mirror alliance for themselves, just to farm fiefdoms to make maximum strong war boosts in the semi-low alliance, without any efforts? Or maybe to reach max number of fiefdoms and then level up that alliance, practically catching up with 120 fiefdoms alliances without lifting a finger.

The problem is the ‘FIEFDUMBS’.

Also fg has never told what is player activity. You cannot have that as a factor. Punishing for being active. :lol: 

They have to make the war fair for everyone. Their fiefdom system is stupid. It is only good for the high level alliances. It’s not fun with the system they have now. Plus that system doesn’t make sense. There are so many alliances with similar fiefdoms, but we get 2 alliances with almost 10 less fiefdoms but 60 members. Don’t know what kind of system they have.

There is no new factors xD In fact - FG changed nothing. There is a bugged level 40 alliances with 50 slots, which gain fiefdoms each time they lose a season. They have 10 low members with 600-2000 trophies in their ranks, yet - they keep getting top maps. This is a proof, that FG are saying that matchmaking had changed - while in fact it did not. Maybe there are some deciding factors if too many teams are the same, but in general - ONLY fiefdoms actually decide who you would face.

Only good solution here is a complete revamp of the whole system. Many games have much more fair and less punishing systems.

Example - tournament system. One season takes a few months, only 58-60 members teams participate. Teams that won - move foward up, those who lost - move lower, facing each other. Getting boosts in the each round (6 places, 6 boosts on the table). After a few months - final ranking would take place. Revamp the map, add more conditions, maybe even dueling style. This system would not be hard to implement, however - would take some time and work. At the end of this “few months season” - each team gets their reward based on which % they are (1st place prize, 2-3 places prizes, then prizes for those in upper 5%, then for those in upper 20%, then for those in 40%, then in 60%, and the rest could get the same prize).

Would it work? - Surely. But even in this system (as in any other), leveling an alliance to the max level must be much cheaper, since competition cannot haven equally, if many alliances are low.

It is “not only good for high level alliances”. It just works for only high level alliances. Only other way around it is to make like levels brackets for alliances to meet, however - it would not solve your problems, you would then face those who exploit it to win and make themselves feel better.

If there are many similiar alliances - those who are stronger, would meet those 60 people teams*

Current system cannot support what you seek. In fact, only if FG would make it much easier to get level 55 of the alliance, you could be satisfied.

The simplest solution to this problem would be to leave alliances as 60 members, but only allow 50 to fight each war. This would allow weaker alliances with less players to compete on a more even keel, also it allows full 60 member alliances to let people have holidays etc as and when required. I have suggested this before, so I am guessing its not a practical solution for FG.

If you go back to Update 2.2. They apparently improved the war matchmaking. Three factors would be took into the scoring system -

  1. Fiefdoms

  2. No. of members

  3. Player Activity

Are you Punishing players for being more active?

They said that, yeah. But deciding factor is still fiefdoms - so it changes almost nothing, except that now the most active alliances would be selected into unfair wars in a case when many are even in members and fiefdoms.

I believe i can tell you, what FG had in mind with the changes. They had good intentions, but like every system it’s abusable.

Before the changes you were matched by fiefdoms. That seemed to be the right decision:

If you wanted the boosts, you had to take the fiefdoms and face stronger opponents. That way the boosts were not forever,
because it was more and more difficult to get them. It was interesting, because the boosts were not for granted. You had to win.
The system was abusable, because you could deliberately drop fiefdoms (even not losing the war chests by using the member
trick), if you weren’t interested in that seasons boosts. Or you could use the two alliance strategy to have boosts all the time.

To improve that situation, Flare added the “member component” to the matchmaking. You shouldn’t be able to “hide” behind a
low fiefdom count in a strong alliance with lots of members. In mid to high level alliances the members are all (more or less)
active, so using the member count would be sufficient to achieve that goal. But for the majority of alliances (the low to mid level)
that would lead to impossible wars and frustration. My alts are in an open level 32 alliance, so i can tell you that: there are a lot
of casual players, that often don’t participate in wars. Maybe because they think, they are too low level to compete, or they don’t
want to invest too much time in the game and use it just to level up their kingdom. As a result, not more than 20 out of 37 players
actively participate in wars (often less). The “real strength” is more like a level 15 alliance with 20 active members. Being matched
as a “virtual” level 15 alliance against a fully committed level 32 alliance is not fun and not fair.

So FG added the “activity adjustment” to the member component. It should reduce the member count for the matchmaking to an
adequate number to represent the “real strength”, supposedly not counting inactive members and those not participating in wars.
It can be a more complex formula to also adjust for players, that fight only partially in wars.

Given that, the system is still abusable. The fiefdom strategies still work, only to a lesser extent. And the activity can be manipulated
too. Just let some players not fight in easy wars or not at all, if you aren’t interested in the boosts. Bottom line: it’s understandable,
from what a situation with 45 and 60 player alliances on the same map can arise. You cannot prevent that. Just get over it, maybe
use some strategies to your advantage yourself. Or come up with a better solution, that is not abusable and always correct in every
situation. I bet, this doesn’t exist :grinning:

I just want to correct you there a bit - what you are saying is how system should have worked. In the end, it only uses “inactivity” as a tie breaker. We have 115 fiefdoms bugged russian alliance, following top maps for 2 months now. As long as they have at least 8 members to enter - their fiefdoms bring them straight to the top map.

So, in fact, either FG told us that changes are there, while in fact there were no changes at all, or those changes were only supposed to be a tie breaker.

im currently in a war games with 10 active players 3 of the 4 other teams have 13 out of 15 players active and one teams alliance upgraded twice since we started and have higher level players, you can guess who is dominating?