Matching suggestion - use expenditure as well as delta


Approved user
Aug 22, 2016
I have only contributed to the forum once before. I write from an average alliance who enjoy the game and kick cheats when detected.

We have been discussing war matching in our alliance, most of the irritation we feel & the forum seems to voice is when there is a perception of unfairness in matching etc. It occurred to us that a very effective way to match war alliances would be first on the basis of expenditure, then on the basis of offence/defence in the same way that Nexon already does.

Expenditure should be defined in terms of crowns and purchased products combined: ideally this would be expenditure of each individual in war, but it could be grouped as the alliance. Crown cheats would thus be included. Pay to win would be more likely to play pay to win, purists could play purists.

The point is that alliances that expend huge amounts of crowns/cash would be far more likely to be matched with each other, so would end up spending more and more to keep up with each other, so Nexon’s income stream would be maintained or even grow, but the rest of us would be encouraged to stay in the game and pay or not pay at our more modest rates, so over time the game would grow more sustainably.

We think it would remove the need for 0SH and the disengagement we are sure many feel when matched against groups fielding multiple established SA groups hours after SA was introduced. Bluntly, sandbagging and AR/nerfing AR would lose a lot of it’s sting if we felt there was fairness in matching.


Approved user
Dec 12, 2018
Indirectly it is already the case.

Alliances that spend more have more xp and are matched to other alliances that have more xp. If they know how to play they are in the top rankings