Space Age weighting for war matching is having problems

[Flailer]

We've been encountering some big problems with war matches lately since we've added more space age accounts to our roster and I suspect it has to do with a problem we've seen with previous ages/updates that certain buildings don't contribute to the war matching algorithm properly and possibly even contribute a negative weighting. You can even see it in your own alliance roster that many of your space age accounts will be in the middle of the list rather than at the top of the list where you would expect them to be.

Our recent matchup is as follows:
Us - 5 SA, 4 CWA, 1 AA, 2 GA, 4 IA, 2 EA, 1 GuA
Them - 16 SA, 2 CWA, 1 AA, 1 IA

Plus, we stand to lose about 250 glory on the war even though they're 1000 glory higher than us. Huh?

I just don't see any condition of a properly functioning war algorithm that would generate this matchup unless something is wrong with the weighting for all the SA accounts.

Could the devs please investigate the weighting values of various SA buildings and upgrades?

Are any others seeing matches like this since SA was released or any of the updates?

 

[joelegiao]

In our last war we had 3 SA 7 CW and some atomic and industrial, the oponent highest player was a CW and was the only one the rest all atomic and under. Clearly an unfair matchup, for sure something is wrong with matchmaking.

 

[BeerMan]

I don't have any special insight into the new matchmaking algorithms, but here are my observations from the alliances I've recently been with on my main account and alt:

1. Heavy alliance (90% of war roster is space age) - tough matchups but generally fair and competitive. Occasional easy matches vs "mixed" alliances.
2. Light alliance (only 2 players above level 250, wide range of ages and levels) - decent matches, trending towards too easy (we have very experienced players despite the low levels)
3. Mixed alliance (6 or 7 275+ space age players, 10+ CWA and AA players, rest a mix of lower ages) - high probability of lopsided matches like you describe here. In looking at your roster, you guys fall into this category.

This is not based on a war or two, this is a repeating pattern. It seems that the mixed alliances are just heavy enough to be on the radar of the heavy alliances while the light alliances fight among themselves.

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

My 267 has been ranked below our alliance's 261 CWA forever. This despite me having far superior walls, generals, airplanes, uni/library researches and defenses apart from mortars, sniper towers and garrisons.

On the matchmaking front ours have improved significantly since limiting war lineups to 1 or 2 people below gunpowder. However, as we are one of the lightweight alliances BeerMan mentioned (1 space, 1 cwa, 4-6 atomics, 3 globals, mix of the rest) I don't really think our experience is helpful to your situation.

After tinkering with lineups since the Matchotron reboot I have to say that it is an improvement from our perspective but certainly not something the powers that be should be resting on their collective laurels over. Then again it took them nearly three years to get this far so I can only wish good luck to the middle/cruiserweight alliances struggling with it.

 

[DUSTY1]

Our current war matchup is crazy, Our top player is Atomic and spread down to Iron. Them: 5 Space Age, a few global, the rest spread but not really sandbagged.

 

[DUSTY1]

Would be nice if there were an online tool or determining what your base power should be by inserting elements they use. That way if you are mismatched, the players can help the game programmers debug their rating algorithm.