This is a really useful observation, one that we considered heavily in the matching system design, but that we will revisit. Thanks.
Are you kidding or not checking what is happening in wars? Two examples: Our second strongest one wasn't able to attack or spy succesful the 7.th strongest one in our last war ... and of course not them above him. Before, in another clan: our strongest lost against the 11.th strongest in the other clan... and also against the players above him ... Sorry Devs - your match up system is a peace of ...
It_burns is exactly right with his post, that is what happened during war 5 in the war B is referring to. The matchup algorithm needs drastic revamping on that exact point to get season 3 somewhat back on track.
thanks me, and yes you are correct. When people are.complaining thay they are getting drastically stronger clans because.of roster stacking, its only half the issue. The real issue is the extreme importance of bfe/bfa in these wars, because almost everyone is roster stacking now and yet the same clans are still winning. The clans that also happen to consistently bring the highest ally leaderboard players to the table. Let's for simplicity sake say that a gh at rising hawks has 3m cs and 400m bfe with 150m bfa. That is about 700m raw power from full with over 75% of it static. This gh will equally matched by current algorithms to a mid in another clan with 240m bfe 10m bfa and 9m cs. As you can see they have the same power at full troops but #1 the gh will make more plunder (hence all the complaints about gh build advantage) but will also have the upper hand more and more as the battlewages on because the gh will never lose more than 20-25% of their full strength, while the enemy will lose a staggering 60-70% of theirs. This issue is also the same for the HFBC players who are getting creamed by top 50 LB who have an entire build worth of power sitting in their allies.
Pfffft wateva admin. We were matched against a clan and they were 56mil cs on top of us! And u say our roster is screwed up!!!!???
Just for agrument's sake, I'll repost what I wrote on another thread earlier today about the war I'm referring to - this is a matchup that did indeed happen. In this war, clan #7 was matched against #19 with 16% strength difference between them. Clan #7 had 224M total cs and clan #19 had 248M total cs. So, based on stats alone, clan #19 was stronger. However, taking into account bfa and bfe, clan #7 was apparently 16% stronger. The disparity between the CS of clan #7 being lower but the overall strength being 16% higher is caused by the 11 SH with big bfe and the 4 ally LB clan #7 used. Now, a difference of 16% in CS may be acceptable and can still produce a fun war. But in this case, the CS of clan #7 was lower which means the strength difference was purely caused by higher BFE and BFA - and those had to be more than 16% bigger since the CS of #7 was lower. BFE and BFA are static, which means they won't lower during war. CS however lowers almost down to zero (except the towers which were about equal on both sides). The 'advantage' in CS that clan #19 had is therefore worth a lot less and should be weighed in a lot less. So in this case, where the strength difference is over 15% and caused by static BFA and BFE, the actual difference is much bigger. The current matchup algorithm doesn't seem to accurately account for this.