How War Matchmaking Works?

How Matchmaking Is works when we find Alliance Wars?
Based on War Ratings? Alliance Rating? Or combination of both?

Comments

It has changed over time, but at the moment based on what I've seen and what I've heard from credible sources match making is matching alliances by war rating, looking for alliances with war rating "close enough." I don't know what "close enough" is, but it is in the dozens of points usually.

Troll_Warlord

DNA3000 wrote: »

It has changed over time, but at the moment based on what I've seen and what I've heard from credible sources match making is matching alliances by war rating, looking for alliances with war rating "close enough." I don't know what "close enough" is, but it is in the dozens of points usually.

We faced alliance with +3 mil rating than ours in last 3-4 wars. Kabam should find ideal way to find opponents as it waste of 2 days if we get unfair opponents..

DNA3000

Troll_Warlord wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

It has changed over time, but at the moment based on what I've seen and what I've heard from credible sources match making is matching alliances by war rating, looking for alliances with war rating "close enough." I don't know what "close enough" is, but it is in the dozens of points usually.

We faced alliance with +3 mil rating than ours in last 3-4 wars. Kabam should find ideal way to find opponents as it waste of 2 days if we get unfair opponents..

Alliance rating plays no role in match making at the present time as far as I'm aware. Alliance rating doesn't measure alliance war strength. War rating directly measures alliance war strength because your rating goes up when you win and down when you lose. You are matched against alliances that have a similar win/loss record against similar strength alliances.

The precise way they implement the calculations to determine how war rating changes isn't well known, and it probably isn't optimal, but in the general case match making systems that use win/loss calculated ratings are considered among the best possible match up systems that mathematically exist, because they automatically get better over time: competitors that win often are quickly rated higher, and can only face opponents of similar rating. Competitors that fail to win drop in rating and eventually are only matched against opponents of similar lower rating.

But alliance rating itself is virtually meaningless. The proof is simple: consider what would happen to your alliance rating if all your members sold their 2* and 3* champions. It would probably drops by millions of points. However, your alliance war strength - your ability to win wars - would not change at all. Thus, an alliance with several million points more rating could be literally exactly identical in strength to one with millions of points less in rating. Alliance rating can be manipulated, but win/loss record and war rating cannot be manipulated in generally beneficial ways.

If you matched by alliance rating rather than war rating, the ultracompetitive alliances would dump all their low champions to get a very low alliance rating, and then you'd be facing them. The problem is that you'd be facing them over and over again, because alliance rating wouldn't change no matter how many times they won. They could simply "hide" in a lower rating level forever, winning all of their wars.