If you get a bad war match and win, was the match fair?

We're on an unlikely win streak. It's more accurate to say that our opponents are on an unlikely streak for seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. Our typical lineup is 1-2 TH10 4-7 TH9 1 TH8 rest TH7. Our opponents have averaged one warden per war both before and after the update. When the opponents don't have a warden they often have 2+ bases with TH10 offense and TH6-9 defense.

Our TH10 and TH9s have max defenses and big heroes, so the matches are probably closer than the TH levels indicate. However, we've had a lot of wars where we felt we shouldn't win if the opponents were even moderately skilled. When the outcome comes down to their TH11 (with max lalo) getting a 1-star on our top TH9 and a 0-star on our TH10, we feel justified in thinking that the match was lopsided against us.

Or are we?

Does SuperCell take attack performance into account when matching clans (beyond recent win-loss record)? Did the matchmaker know that the enemy TH11 was unlikely to affect the outcome of the war? Did it know that the enemy TH10s would go 3-for-9 against our TH9s? Did it foresee that they would not get a single 3-star against the same TH level? Is matchmaking smarter than I give it credit for?

I have often wondered this and sometimes you are left with only that explanation. I have been in plenty of wars where it's like....Oh man we are gonna get crushed, only to realize these guys are really bad attackers.

I do have mixed feelings on the subject. I think all wars should be as close to parity as possible. The MM should not make "predictions". I also think though that in a world of clan war parity, varsity should be separated from junior varsity some how. Be it war leagues based on trophies you get from winning or loosing, or something else similar to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

I have often wondered this and sometimes you are left with only that explanation. I have been in plenty of wars where it's like....Oh man we are gonna get crushed, only to realize these guys are really bad attackers.

I do have mixed feelings on the subject. I think all wars should be as close to parity as possible. The MM should not make "predictions". I also think though that in a world of clan war parity, varsity should be separated from junior varsity some how. Be it war leagues based on trophies you get from winning or loosing, or something else similar to that.

---

We've also survived clan wars because:
-The opponents had multiple 95%-99% attacks against our TH9s.
-The opposing TH10 or TH11 lurking at the bottom of their lineup didn't show up.
-The opponents spent multiple TH10+ attacks against our TH10, when simply dipping on our TH9s would have won.
The psychics that SuperCell hires must be really really good.

Obviously, the answer depends on what you consider to be a fair match. If by "fair match" you mean a match that has even offense and defense such that the outcome is determined as much as possible by the attacking and designing skill of the players, then there is only one answer to your question: no. A more skilled clan can win an uneven match or make it close. That is why it is a big problem if SC looks at final scores to determine whether matches are fair (I have no idea if they do that).

It definitely doesn't mean the war is fair. We just won one 68-14. It was 0-2 on eagles, 10-16 on infernos, 3-4 on wardens (they had 5 TH3ish bases at the bottom in 30v30). But they never attacked. I've no idea why.

It's hypothetically possible the server is adding war weight based on skill (I don't think it is); and in this case there might be sort of fair matches that were mismatched on visible weight. But it would be a rubbish system unless the high-skill clan got some visible reward (some sort of war league badge). If winning just means you invisibly get given opponents stronger than you until you lose, it would be a silly system.

I really have to say it depends. Remember we don't know the exact MM. Maybe there are factors put into the mm that we don't know about which means the mm might read it as fair and we think otherwise and end up surprising ourselves that maybe it was actually fair all along. Now maybe other times it is a mismatch and something happens on the other side and you won anyway. It just isn't a black and white answer.
I will say this in the 3+ years of playing I have noticed multiple times where I thought on paper it was an automatic loss but somehow we came out on top. This is a big part of the reason why I error on the side of the mm being more right than completely broken. That an often time I know I could take their bases and 3* my side, another reason I don't feel the MM is just plain awful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

I really have to say it depends. Remember we don't know the exact MM. Maybe there are factors put into the mm that we don't know about which means the mm might read it as fair and we think otherwise and end up surprising ourselves that maybe it was actually fair all along. Now maybe other times it is a mismatch and something happens on the other side and you won anyway. It just isn't a black and white answer.
I will say this in the 3+ years of playing I have noticed multiple times where I thought on paper it was an automatic loss but somehow we came out on top. This is a big part of the reason why I error on the side of the mm being more right than completely broken. That an often time I know I could take their bases and 3* my side, another reason I don't feel the MM is just plain awful.

---

Having a chance to win if your clan is more skilled than the other isn't a sign of a good matchmaker in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Having a chance to win if your clan is more skilled than the other isn't a sign of a good matchmaker in my opinion.

---

I agree. As i said or maybe need to be more clear. We dont actually know how the different weights interact with each other when it comes to the mm. This means that we measure things the mm probably doesnt like number of gw or ea or th. These are things many use as a marker to determine if the mm was "fair". If the mm doesnt use these as markers then our theory of what is "fair" is flawed.
Many claim to make simple suggestions to end this or that however it is often rejected as other issues will occur and it isnt a simple solution yet we look at simple measures to determine "fair"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

I have often wondered this and sometimes you are left with only that explanation. I have been in plenty of wars where it's like....Oh man we are gonna get crushed, only to realize these guys are really bad attackers.

---

I cannot tell you how many times we've said this, like almost word-for-word

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Having a chance to win if your clan is more skilled than the other isn't a sign of a good matchmaker in my opinion.

---

THAT

It's not really close. The MM shouldn't predict anything, not that I think it does, but that's just silly to even consider otherwise

I don't like the word 'fair' in the poll. I'd prefer the word 'good' or 'even'. Be that as it may, I voted No. We just had 3 wars in a row under the new MM that were massively skewed one way or the other. We won the first (in which we had the clear advantage) by 5 stars, and lost the last 2 (where we were clearly outgunned on paper) on the tie breaker % (by 1.48% and 0.32%).

Just because war 2 and 3 were close at the end, doesn't make them good even wars.