War Matchmaking System

Hi Flare , kudos to you for the war cool down period !

But your match make for alliance to face each other in war seasons is just Extremely screw up :slight_smile:

Waited waited … Hope it will get better… But it got worst :slight_smile:

I’m from open team, a 180plus alliance. We didn’t win any boost last season so was in a bad shape:)

Allow me to name you our opponents bitch,

INDONESIA STRONG - gold plating - won 1st place last season with 36 members rank 130plus.

Anadolu Selcuklular - gold plating - won 1st place last season with 48 members rank 50plus. (LOL?)

Immortals ll - silver playing - won 2nd place last season with 24 members rank 370plus.

0rder 0f PhoeniX - gold plating - won 1st place last season with 29 members rank 270 plus.

Deutsches Königreich - silver plating - won 2nd place last season with 27 members rank 370 plus…

LOL? You match us with such opponents? Rank 50+ and all got at least mummy arbs boost ? Screwed system

I think Alliance Wars should be based on how much alliance slots members there are in an alliance and not put priority on amount of fiefdoms, because the result couldn’t be so beautiful: for example in this war season i’m facing alliances all good with only 1-2 different of alliance members slot but also an alliance with 51 members which has 34 fiefdoms like us but we have 40 slots only… Do you think it’s normal Flaregames facing so much different on alliance member ? Do you think it’s normal do 1 win 1 lose 1 win 1 lose without being able to progress ? Let me know because it’s not the first time happen this thing but in each war becomes more often and often. Seems you did on purpose, i’m bored of this jokes. And again (i repeat to prevent someone come out): i’m not saying to win always i want only a better matchmaking because seems that all matchmaking (leagues, normal raid, alliance wars) are made only to remove the fun from our face, that this is not what we want.

You can take this as a complain, but the truth is here. Probably you will not agree but i think that you can do set the priority on alliance slots and not fiefdoms. I know that you create alliances wars for this purpose: “fiefdom” but this is not the right method to matchmake alliances.

So many times has been talked about this argument but in the meantime the time goes on and flaws remain opened…

Let me know what you think guys and specially flaregames. 

P.S.: I think this thread must be pinned.


Funny enough:

At lower and medium level, alliances are exclusively paired by fiefdoms, creating very unbalanced matches with up to 20+ members count difference, and generally making most seaons a “we already have won or lost the whole season before even the first day is over, just from looking at the pure member count differences” kind of thing, which is boring, annoying, frustrating and feels infair. 


At the top however, where all alliances have 60 or near-60 alliance member slots and thus matching by fiefdoms would be fair, alliances are NOT (I repeat: NOT!!!) matched by fiefdom count anymore (since 2-3 months now, without ever any kind of change being announced or explained), and not by leaderboard rank either, but by some strange “dark magic match making” instead. 



E.g. Todesritter most of the time faces SK faction alliances with 20-40 fiefdoms more than we have, with the gaps widening, despite several other alliances with 0-15 more fiefdoms than us are not on the same maps. This season again, 3 SK faction alliances with 74-84 fiefdoms on same map as we (45 fiefs), as well as another 45 fief alliance and a 42 fief alliance. At the same time, other alliances with 62, 50, 48, 45, 44 fiefdoms are not in the same league, despite they’re all above us or at least above some other of the alliances on our war map, and all below the 3 SK alliances on our war map. Also, several of those alliances between us and SK but not on same war map, are above us in leaderboard as well, so that can’t be a matching criterion either… 


I already know now that we will end this season with 0 fiefdoms, as well as both the other 45 and the 42 fief alliance, unless SK suddenly start to eliminate each other on day 2 (which they surely won’t)…



Now, it is one thing to lose 1vs1. But it’s another thing to lose 1 vs heavily cooperating alliances. Still, something most high lvl alliances got used to by now. 


But, seriously, what really makes me mad is being matched with (several) clearly superior opponents on 4 out of 5 seaons when according to the official rule for match making, “by fiefs only”, none of those matches would be even possible or allowed. This is, to lend the word of some recent topic, “open discrimination of players”, for all those who REPEATEDLY GET MATCHED AGAINST THE OFFICIAL GAME RULES, BY THE GAME ITSELF OR ITS CREATORS

(Please note I don’t use caps easily, but this is getting so absurd, it’s earning the caps…)


Heck, at lower levels there’s many complaints about purely fiefdom-based match but still nothing changed! Then, at the top where this rule would actually make some sense, you inofficially just completely removed the rule by either completely random, or (following the laws of probability) more likely by now, very bad “manual matching”. And you neither mention, admit, or comment it despite this issue was brought up many times during recent months… 

I would have loved to get another 5 fiefdoms but instead will get only 3 …It is not really a business is it?

well sk are not the only ones cooperating you have u v t and feq and solidarity and burninator so wyou can stop whining about sk imo we faced feq a few seasons ago . i opened the roster to decide who to attack and who was there vanguard and uvt players did we cry no . we faught hard and lost.you do realize this war matching was brought about by your faction 's constant complaining

Well gypsyrose , if flare adapted to any body’s complaining by taking their suggestion I think that faction can be flare :slight_smile:

maybe people could just stay in their own alliances and fight their own wars instead of crying about the other faction being so mean to them

by surrendering your own fiefs to those big bad bullies and going to protect your lower alliances you are trying to bully their competitors so stop sounding so hypocritical

I agree and am kind of surprised Flare has not changed it already. Our alliance got full itself and we went for tiles the last two war seasons. This cost us this war season as we a level 44 alliance are matched with four level 55 alliances and one Level 53 alliance. I guess I cannot complain about matching since there have been times we have been the strongest alliance on war season map. Maybe this is Flare’s intent. Sooner or later every alliance will fall to the point that they can win free boosts every now and then. However, this disparity shortens the war season and thereby the amount of food and gems spent on raiding. So, I do not see the benefit Flare gains by creating these disparities in the matchmaking process. Regardless, we will go back to our former strategy of winning 2nd or 3rd place with the minimum amount of tiles. Again shortening a season. (btw, we are quite happy winning mummy boost with only 2 tiles which we previously done )

SK were the first and the most successful. Also, they happen to be at the top, where this damn broken absurd matching takes place, so there’s no way to explain the broken-ness of the “official by fiefdom count” matching at the top, without mentioning SK/RL/Apo/Nato, but also e.g. VL of course. But please notice that this post of mine above was not directed against SK faction, but against flaregame’s broken match making. And nowhere did I say SK are the only ones having a faction.

And I don’t know what you mean with “you have u v t and feq and solidarity and burninator”, because we definitely have no faction whatsoever, and have actively thought against e.g. Burninator in the recent past (from season 1, to the very last season, and again in the future when we face them). Moreover, we have fought against solidarity and uvt so far. And, sorry for my lack of knowledge, but what does feq even stand for? 

Anyway, let me repeat this: This post was NOT directed against SK and allies, but against the broken match making at the top, which hurts the match making rules made by flaregames themselves. 


Also, when you are stating “my/our faction” - which is still not existing - would be responsible for flaregames messing up their match making for dozens of alliances, I really don’t know whether to laugh or facepalm. :lol:

feq is france et quebec i am a bit further down in ranking than you r but it gets very annoying when we get paired with alliances in our ranking neighborhood to see their roster filled with the u v t faction . we were on u vt map and then i expected to fight them.but when they arent on our map it would be nice if they fought their own war. i dont see sk rl or apoc renting out their players. however we will get stronger and fight hard. OUR OWN WARS.

guys please take my advice.No matter how many of you are in your alliance.Hit every war you are in’ 2500 skulls or better,by each member. Don’t look up to your opponent with to much of respect, don’t look that you are outnumbered.Just pull all of you in the same direction.Sooner or later many will fall under your swords. This is a good start for any alliance which is dreaming of success.

agreed… words of wisdom

I see no issues with factions and/or a collaborative effort by multiple alliances attacking a singular opponent.  Besides, it would be quite difficult to prevent.   I have no direct knowledge of how this works at the very top levels but even at a lower level, leaders from unassociated alliances will friend one another to negotiate the final outcome of a war map.  Usually, this is a pact between the two strongest alliance on the board who usually end up not even competing against each other during the season.   Whether it is organized faction or temporary pact, it is part of the game but do agree it can get boring fast. 


I also strongly agree with Heroesflorian’s call for one uniform system for matchmaking.  It is hard to plan if rules are different.  Although, I also agree that basing it strictly on fiefdoms without additional changes to assist discrepancies in alliance levels is not the best policy.


Now I know it is very dangerous to “cross streams” but think the skull bonus/handicap/loser bonus etc. needs to be included when considering or discussing the Alliance Wars.  These two seem to be by far the two most contentious and relevant topics.  It seems like few players are fully happy with either feature but like certain aspects of each.  Flare’s primary objective, I assume, is to increase competition because honestly that is the reason why so many of us enjoy RR2.  To test oneself or one’s alliance, to get better, to finally beat that player that has you as favorite and attacks 12 times a day.  :slight_smile:


In way too many war seasons, the disparity of matchmaking created a system of the strong picking on the weak.  I am not talking equivalent level alliances but total mismatched alliances.  While this may be the strategically wise choice, It is very boring fighting a alliance where their top player is 1,000 trophies less than your alliances average.  No competition, no fun.  But, it is the system we were given to play.  It seems like factions or temporary alliances (the ones our alliance made included) take the same philosophy (wolf vs. the wounded dear) to win.  Again, this is the smart play given the system but against Flare’s objective to create competition.  Defending 3 tiles, and possibly attacking one is obviously difficult for an alliance.  It should definitely be allowed but think it would be interesting to consider re-working the skull bonus to provide a bonus (or handicap) to the defending alliance for second and/or third concurrent defense of tile.  Some alliances may still choose to attack but the war or outcome of war seasons would be much more interesting. 

Again, this war season we have two level 55 alliances, a level 53, level 50, level 44 and a poor level 36 alliance. So the disparity in alliance members is as great as 19 members. Although since the war started the level alliance lost about a third of its members probably because of the onslaught of attacks by stronger alliances. This has been going on since wars started, the bonus system, I assume, was partially created to help increase competition or at least interest in wars for totally overmatched alliances. Obviously, it has not due to the way teams are matched and problems with bonus system. It tough enough to compete an equivalent player with more and better boosts but when the outcome of wars impacts your alliance, elite boosts, it is as many have continued to state unfair. There have been threads, topics, comments and even polls addressing this issue but it stills remains the same. It has been frustrating and annoying but now it is becoming a bore. Boring is not good.

I am very much looking to the dragomancer but seriously this war matchmaking system needs to be evaluated so active alliances at all levels can enjoy the benefits and work on upgrading their alliance in order to reach the top tiers and not just overspend on boosts in order to hold alliance together during ridiculously matched wars.

totally agree…this season we are the bullys on our map.it is better than losing but not very interesting.our team had more fun watching the outcome of 2 other alliances on our map.war should be a contest between near equals not bulldozing across the map.

I agree with Lancelot the great, many alliances don’t even try when they face SK/RL/Apox/NATO. Probably they think that they wont be able to beat them, but how can you know that without even trying? Agree chances are low, but I know at least 1 instance,SK and VL were fighting and Todes got in the middle of it. They might have not realized it then but if they had even somehow made 2500 skulls per member, SK would have lost both fights that day against VL and Todes :slight_smile:

so go help your friends every war .it will increase their chances to get fiefs.im sorry for the others on their maps but wth if thats the game …what can you do. todes will be a frienship club and not a warring alliance.