There is a problem with matchmaking in alliance war. There are many times when two sister alliances are matched on the same map, and one alliance feeds the sister sectors therefore artificially inflating their score. This is very unfair to other teams who play fairly since they are effectively facing a team of 50 players. Please can this be fixed?
7 Likes
Sucks but true. Sister clans feeding the main clan does happen but what can ya do. The matchmaking isn’t perfect at all but seems like it would be hard to fix. Our team faced the same 5 teams 2 wars in a row and 3 of this 5 in all 3 wars. System isn’t perfect but it’s just a game lol
1 Like
War Chat exists to help you make deals and work with or against other Alliances. We’ve given you all the tools you need to attempt diplomacy. It’s up to you to use them.
1 Like
Using war chat to work with or against alliances isn’t what this topic is about. It’s about teams that have several sister teams that seem to get matched up together ALOT so all those sister teams feed the main team and thus boosting their overall score artificially. But like I said, it’s just a game
1 Like
this is from Devs? kind of couldn’t believe how irresponsible this reply is
2 Likes
If you feel like other Alliances are ganging up on you, make some connections of your own with the other Alliances in a war to even the odds. Or, try to do the same thing you think the other Alliances are doing, and make those connections beforehand. We can’t dictate how people play the game. If you’re asking for a witch hunt to ban any Alliances that seem to know each other, that’s not a realistic solution. It’s a slippery slope that leads to anyone who sticks their head out finding it cut off.
1 Like
We are not asking for a witch hunt at all. The problem is when two sisters’ teams are on the same map. For example (names changed to protect the guilty and to avoid being called a witch hunt) team belend1 and team belend2 are on the same map. They are sister teams so are essentially 50 players. They don’t even try to hide that they are essentially the same teams, being called virtually the same names.
As soon as belend1 start to lose belend2 are used as a sacrifice giving the sister team all their tiles and thus overinflate belend1’s results. Just look at the scores, Belend1 score stupidly high points, while the second belend end up with next to nothing.
This is so unfair on other teams who play fairly, work together and form valid truces and is spoiling war for hard working teams.
Sister alliances tend to ruin gameplay dynamics in a few other games I’ve played in the past as well. How could it be fixed though? I don’t see an easy solution.
Totally agree, it’s too easy to have a sister alliance in the same group, maybe they are protecting? It would not surprise me, it is not the first time that this subject is controversial and yet the problem still exists
Make sure sister teams are not on the same map… it’s not like they even try to hide it… we have teams called things like
(xy1j)wecantwinwithoutcheating and
(Xyj1)wecantwinwithoutcheating.
It’s pretty obvious.
Doesn’t this only make sense under the assumption that alliances are working in their own best interest? In every game I can think of, win trading is against the rules and developers actively seek to prevent it for this very reason.
The problem isn’t that they have some ironclad diplomacy that helps them both win. It’s that they trade wins by being a single unit willing to sacrifice the interests of half their players at a time.
1 Like
Again, it’s hard for us to tell. We don’t manually assign Alliances to wars. Do we set the system to look for similar Alliance names? That’s too easy to game, and too easy to simply come up with a new Alliance with a different name that is still in cahoots, just not blatant.
There’s no way for a system to read player intentions, and matchmaking has to be handled by an automatic system. Any changes we make to the matchmaker to account for this rare occurrence (relatively, when considering all players) would punish more than it would prevent. Players are clever. You’ll find other ways around it.
My advice stands. Use War Chat to make allegiances and find ways to stand up against foes you think are in league with each other. That’s one of the emergent tactics of War. The only difference between you and the Alliance groups you have issue with is they’ve worked our their arrangement in advance.
I’m with you dude but I don’t think that solution would hold up long-term. Sister alliances would just rename themselves to bypass the matchmaking system. They’d still be sisters but without the similar name.
If you can’t tell by now “the system” keeps placing the same “sister” alliances or the same “family” on the same map for the passed 5+ months, you must not be paying attention if you haven’t noticed this… on top of “the system” pairing them up, they are also being defended, protected… which makes every other alliance against the world, makes you wanna get all Tupac lol…
There’s nothing they have to plan in advance, they know they gonna have the “sacrificed alliance” there…
They could be clever and change their name, yes, but letting them do it so bluntly, without even trying to make it difficult for them is like placing a red carpet going towards the throne before the season starts…
So basically, the only solution is to make another 3 or 4 alliances of the same relation, and hope “the system” pairs us in the same map like it happens with them… although for a moment there they were being paired with another group who have 4 alliances in their family as well…
At the end, we know who the true champions are… unfortunately according to the response to the initial post, there is no way to fix, they are clever, so clever “the system” pairs them together, they use virtually the same name, makes it 50 vs 25, even 75 vs 25, so it’s our fault for not being clever and have “the system” not pair them up… lol… that makes no sense at all, but that’s the response in a nutshell…
#fisrtworldproblems
1 Like
Please re-read what I said. I think you’re making some logical jumps. There isn’t much more I can add here. Will be monitoring this post for further feedback. Keep it civil and constructive.
I seriously doubt the “system” is matching by alliance name. It’s a computer. You can program a computer to do whatever you want. Could it be programmed to avoid similar alliance names being on the same map? Sure. Could it be programmed to favor pairing similar alliance names? Sure. But if you think for a minute that the programmers took, or will take, the time to have the matchmaking system do either of these then you need to take a step back. It would have been, or would be, a programming task that would have benefited the developers absolutely zero to have put time into.
Your best bet is to play fair and strategic wars and get to know other alliances that you regularly see. Maybe you and one or more alliances that you DO work well with should pool yourselves into a family and pre-arrange to work with each other in the future.
And, if anyone considers it to be “cheating” for sister alliances to work together on a war map, then any impromptu alliance made between unfamiliar alliances is also “cheating” by that same definition. It’s no different except the sister alliances already know each other.
3 Likes
Thanks for the clarity. Can we assume then that this response is an endorsement from the dev team that win-trading is encouraged?
No. Please read EVERYTHING I posted in this topic. Picking one bit out of context and using it as your platform isn’t the way.
So collusion is encouraged to be hashed out before war actually start, got it!
1 Like
3 Likes