World War FAQ: Matchmaking

[Guest]

How are Alliances matched up for a World War?
Alliances are matched in World War based on the strength of their members. Medals from Multiplayer are not a factor for World War matchmaking.

How is strength calculated in a World War?
Strength is based on each member’s attacking power (Troops and Barracks upgrades, War Tactics and Generals) and defensive strength (defense buildings, walls, traps, and generals). Base layout does not affect this calculation. The only way a member’s strength can be increased is if they upgrade their troops, defenses, war tactics, or other contributing offensive and defensive capabilities.

How many players can participate in a World War?
The smallest war allowed is 10 vs.10 players. Other war sizes include: 15 vs. 15, 20 vs. 20, 25 vs. 25, 30 vs. 30, 35 vs. 35, 40 vs. 40, 45 vs. 45, and 50 vs. 50. Any Alliance members that are not chosen for a war will be observers until that war is over.

Why is it taking a long time to find a match?
Opponents are chosen to make wars as fun and challenging as possible. Unlike Multiplayer, you may not find an opponent right away. If you no longer wish to wait, you can cancel the search by tapping the “cancel” button on the World War screen (Alliance Leaders and Co-Leaders only). If you haven’t found a match in 24 hours please contact us via the in-game support system: Settings (gears icon)> Customer Service.

 

[Bla Bla]

Can you comment on the Offense vs Defense balance as it relates to the scoring and matchmaking?

For instance. I have a lot more defensive buildings than I do troop, barracks tactics. So, let's say I have a maxed out gunpowder era player vs an enlightenment player with maxed offense, and strong but not maxed defense. Is it a 1:1 offense to offense defense to defense comparison or is it apply a number value add up numbers apply score to a base? It would seem my strong offense players have a clear advantage. Please assume everyone's planning and execution abilities are equal.

Yes, I have a bunch of people who can't get it through their head to move on in the game without upgrading everything. I think from what you have described they are now at a clear disadvantage and I will start kicking them out of my alliance.

Thanks

 

[Excellion]

I have a bunch of people who can't get it through their head to move on in the game without upgrading everything. I think from what you have described they are now at a clear disadvantage and I will start kicking them out of my alliance.

Thanks

Actually, the reverse is true. Players SHOULD upgrade everything in the current age before moving to the next age. Failing to do such is known as "rushing" and it puts players at a disadvantage for farming and war.

Dominations is based largely on Clash of Clans and many systems, including war, seem to follow the identical model as CoC in almost every regard.

When you rush ahead, you will get less loot from players who are at a lower age than you so farming becomes more difficult. This is known as a loot penalty. Furthermore, players who could not previously attack you due to a loot penalty will now attack. It is a double hardship as it is harder for you to farm and you will get farmed much more now by high level players.

In war, advancing an age sharply raises your score so your ally will face harder opponents. You as an individual player may or may not face a more difficult opponent, but overall the ally will.

Most quality allies do not accept players who rush their bases. The game requires patience and rushing shows impatience and poor judgment. Players who rush have an extremely high rate of quitting, which makes sense since the game is significantly harder for them and they already show less patience than required.

 

[Ravenlord]

Let 'em rush. Natural attrition.

 

[Bla Bla]

- my friend the level of your assumptions are astronomical... Unless you know something I don't...

1. Lots of clash of clans knowledge and strategy does NOT work in this game. The game starts as a clone and differentiates. For instance base design and troop movements... Totally different.
2. Farming shmarming. Waste of time, I can make in 20 minutes raiding what it takes a week to farm. Farming helps make up for what is raided.
3. Defensive minded players quit, because the game in the upper levels has too long wait times and it drives you off. That's what I have seen.
4. Defense is a ridiculous way to play the game...
Here is why. 1. Your probability of being successfully raided is based 90% on how much you have in storage. If you have enough cash, someone is going to raid you. No such thing as a raid proof base.
2. Defense is good for protecting small amounts of loot, creating crowns and I upper levels, protecting loot because there is no "bigger fish"
3. Offense gains you the advantage. Now I'm not saying ignore defense you need it eventually.
4. Who showed you the war formulas? I asked for comment on offense vs defense comparison and how it's calculated. Based on the comments and FAQ, it's based on what you have, that is not "age" dependent a level 5 yadda is a level 5 yadda regardless of age... Why do you think there is an age fairy dust bonus sprinkled into the formula...

Defensive, conservative play is not how the game is setup. You are not rewarded at all by that. You are rewarded by advancing your offense and spending down your storage.

.

Dominations is based largely on Clash of Clans and many systems, including war, seem to follow the identical model as CoC in almost every regard.

When you rush ahead, you will get less loot from players who are at a lower age than you so farming becomes more difficult. This is known as a loot penalty. Furthermore, players who could not previously attack you due to a loot penalty will now attack. It is a double hardship as it is harder for you to farm and you will get farmed much more now by high level players.

In war, advancing an age sharply raises your score so your ally will face harder opponents. You as an individual player may or may not face a more difficult opponent, but overall the ally will.

Most quality allies do not accept players who rush their bases. The game requires patience and rushing shows impatience and poor judgment. Players who rush have an extremely high rate of quitting, which makes sense since the game is significantly harder for them and they already show less patience than required.

 

[Yellowmar]

Could not agree more Bla Bla.

 

[Quovatis]

Do roads factor in to matchmaking? They are still bugged and grant 30x the XP they should, which can result in very misleading level numbers. A lvl 140 IA player can have no maxed defenses with maxed roads and cannot come close to competing with a lvl 140 player who hasn't maxed roads, but maxed everything else.

 

[Eddie F1]

As it says, the matchmaking is not based on the XP, just attack/defence capability, which is how it should have been done in multi-player all along, not medals.

 

[Tower]

I'm not sure if I buy into this matchmaking theory... To me alliance score seem to weigh a lot... I've checked all our opponents and they all have similar alliance score. But very different player level. Like our last war. We had 17 GA - the rest half and half IA and EA. Our opponents had 3 classical and 3 GA. Remaining 24 were half and half EA and IA. This gives our opponents a huge advantage as 11 of our GA have to attack EA or even IA...

 

[Quovatis]

We were once matched with an alliance that had 7 maxed (cheater) bases, and our highest level was only 145, with 0 maxed bases.

 

[JuDomines]

From an global economy perpective, all players should have maxed farm and caravans. It'd inject more ressources in the economy increasing the pool of total loot available. Obviously no one do that because one doesn't have the guarantee other parties will so it. Theory of game 101. Nevertheless Your point 2. is fundamentaly wrong.

 

[Monty the Great]

I operate two alliances and I am convinced that the matchmaking has a heavy medal component. Twenty-odd wars, all opponents within a few hundred medals.

 

[Krandor]

Yep. We are seeing this as well. We are getting players 40 levels higher then us that our top 10 can't even one star. It seems that medals are the primary component if not the only component.

 

[S_How]

Weve had the opposite experience. The last war we had, we had 4k more medals than opponent. The two wars previous to that, we were matched against a team that had 20k medals (we have 14.5k). I dont feel there is a medal component to it. Though I will say, it seems we started really well (about 10-2), but after that we have been facing much harder teams. Maybe there is some sort of ranking being used based on how well teams are doing?

 

[Monty the Great]

Now approaching 40 odd wars. The largest discrepancy in medal has now been about 1200. Not convinced guys...

 

[Calliope Lynn]

Yes, I have a bunch of people who can't get it through their head to move on in the game without upgrading everything. I think from what you have described they are now at a clear disadvantage and I will start kicking them out of my alliance.

Thanks

We are willing to take those players in Avant-Guarde. They will be welcomed with open arms by people that believe in loyalty.

 

[Calliope Lynn]

I read it like you read it.

 

[Haokip]

Lately, the matching has become more and more difficult to understand. How can 4 Global and 6 IA match up against 1 Global, 4 IA, and 5 EA? Either it is a simple random matching or there are lesser alliances going to war in the game.

 

[bstogsdill]

My experience with this- I rushed from gunpowder to EA in my 1st game and my medals promptly dropped from over 1600 to below 1450 and it took maybe 4 to 6 weeks weeks of upgrading my defenses so that I could protect my base loot and get back up to 1600 medals. I then nearly maxed out before going to IA and the transition was smoother. But my walls still were not all the way up - I am building level 8 walls in my IA game.

Note my 2nd game I am in gunpowder and I am building level 8 walls at 500k each section. It is no faster or easier to get the loot in my IA game were I am building the same level 8 walls. I would say it is easier to make level 8 walls in my gunpowder game than in my Industrial Age game.

I think one is best served by not rushing and getting your defenses built up to get defensive wins and then rely on your attack skills to make up for your offense wins. Dont be tempted to go to next age for the offensive weapons. Most of them are marginally better than what you have and using smart attacks and picking enemies will get you more wins than slightly better troops and poor attacks.

 

[wallsfantasy]

Lately, the matching has become more and more difficult to understand. How can 4 Global and 6 IA match up against 1 Global, 4 IA, and 5 EA? Either it is a simple random matching or there are lesser alliances going to war in the game.

Last 3 wars our 1st rank is equivalent to their 3rd-4th and throughout the lineup we are all lower level at same rank. Two of latest opponents enlisted iron/medieval at the lowest rank. Opponent generate 60% of their points while disable the chance our top players to win theirs.

Unfair match of top rank players results in advantage of maximum 15 stars EACH town stronger alliance has (we loss 5 on arrival and 10 each for top players having to fight them desperately, skip them we'll lose the war anyway)

Frankly, only 2-3 overpowered players on top of the rest equal are almost guarantee victory in 25 vs 25. The sub 7th rank will hit far weaker towns they don't need to care much. Quick solution should be weighted "strength" score similar to calculating alliance medal. Better solution is to introduce top players parameter to matchmaking calculation.

We're regular 4+ stars average/member in WW. Now we're seriously looking to enlist a "fake" iron age town to bring down our strength score.