The clan as a whole is matched against the other clan as a whole.Originally Posted by 716Wizard
You could make a very slight modification to your war rules to address the issue, rather than requesting an overhaul of the matchmaking system.
War strategy is to attack a TH same level as yours. Second is clean up.
Easier said than done...we only use that system because quite often our number 1 can't take the opposing clans number 5 in a 20vs20 war (and our number one guy is definitely not a rushed base). It's almost as if the system is modeled around a 50 player clan. When your war size average is 20, attacking anyone other than your equal ends up messing up any chance the lower people have at attacking. We are just average players, buy minimal gems, and upgrade by actually playing the game. Wars are hard when we are paired up against bases that should be in the Champion league.
The war matching algorithm is pretty good. There is little problem with rushed bases, at least when it is a second account of an experienced player that is rushed.
the only problem is with a based rushed well ahead of the player's skill. These players are nearly as bad as no-shows during war. The solution is to not let them into wars.
My clan tag is #8G08PJJ0. Recently we were paired against these clans in back to back wars: #882VYYG2 (25vs25 war) and #2C9R8RPL (20vs20 war). Take a look at the top 10 in those 2 clans vs my clan, then tell me that there is nothing wrong with the match system.
Last edited by 716Wizard; July 27th, 2015 at 02:10 PM.
My clan does not let them in wars, but that's not the case with other clans. Too many clans game the system by including a couple of rushed bases to bring down their rankings and create an unfair match.
I see them, but it is tedious to work out what you want to show, it being hard to look at details side by side without taking lots of screenshots.
Matching takes into account more than the strength of the top players, although yes, these are very important.
That is not my experience. Perhaps some definitions would help.
What is a "rushed base"? I take it to mean a base with high TH and some high level buildings, but many things left behind or even unbuilt, and many troops not researched to high level.
It was my impression, having included and not includes a few of these that a rushed based is ranked high, as if ranking looked more at the highest level defences, less at the average level defences. I saw them ranked high, saw them easily three-starred by the enemy attacking obvious weaknesses.
In most cases, the rushed town hall was a kid gemmer without skill. Obviously bad for our side.
In one case where the rushed base was an alt account of a strong player, he played the limited selection of strong troops wells, in a way that looked proportional to the high ranking of his rushed base.
Thank you you for taking the time to look...I understand it's difficult to go back and forth. Bottom line, I know the system looks at more than just the top players. It's supposed to be an overall average. But when your war size is 20vs20, and the opposing clans top 10 severely out rank your top 10, you don't have a fighting chance at a win.
My definition of a rushed base is a high TH with low defenses and low troop levels. However, what I have been seeing in wars is high TH's with low defenses, but maxed troops. If you look at my original post, there is an example of a very extreme case. I see similar things like that quite often, but not quite as bad as that. What I see more often than not is rushed TH10's with inferno towers and maxed troops that get paired up with our near maxed TH9's. The inferno towers make it almost impossible for our TH9's to get 3 stars, or lucky to even get 2 stars.
Since rushed TH10's with inferno towers are what I see the most, I think there needs to be some sort of guideline as to when a player is allowed to upgrade to that TH. Doing this will make bases more even across the board in the long run.
Try GoHo attacks.
Posting Permissions
