Ridiculously unfair world wars

[Justphil100]

Our alliance has recently been involved in a very long run of one sided wars where we have no chance of winning. If you can't win then there is little incentive to take part. Our opponents are regularly picking up 100% of stars and we are struggling to get 50%.

Are others facing similar issues?

 

[chris.dominations]

We've been experiencing the same thing. We have 1 Cold War base, 1 brand new Atomic, the rest are global and below. We regularly get matched up with opponents that have multiple Cold War bases (often 9, 10 or more). So, being Cold War, they can't be 'rushed' bases (I know you can get XP from roads and other non war items, but that isn't case with these).

I'm thinking the matchmaking criteria has changed and is taking into account other factors that are not listing in the FAQ. One thing we are trying to do is lower our Glory points. But, it's hard with such lopsided match ups because we typically only loose 15-20 glory per war.

The most troubling aspect of all of this is that our alliance has been around since day one and many of our players are now losing interest in the game because of these wars. I've tried adding in other fun aspects to the alliance, but it only goes so far.

Hopefully they fix it soon.

 

[Luuzer]

yeah, matchups are horrible. When our ranked 3rd player gets suggested target enemys #15 (total 25 players), then it is very bad and very messsed up. Last 20+ wars atleast have been horrible and 90% losses.....

 

[yemen]

We haven't had a good war in the last 10, and that is fairly representative of the last few months. 5 lopsided in our favor, 4 badly against us, 1 close enough that we pretended it was competitive and went all out, to lose by a few stars. But it wasn't that close - they perfected and had a huge time margin. The most lopsided loss was against what should have been a leaderboard team who had started over; that 1100 glory loss dwarfs everything else we won or lost for the month. They were full of cold war and iron age bases, but that did not put any damper on the glory they could take. And we are nowhere near the leaderboard.

Even the ones that are lopsided in our favor aren't fun for us, we would happily trade our current 2-3 wars a week for one guaranteed good match a week. The current system is so badly broken I don't know how they will be able to fix it.

The addition of cold war and all of the associated defensive buffs (on top of the SH and missile silo), and the proliferation of troop cards are making it impossible to balance this game. Pay to win teams will often have multiple bases with Saladin's Hold the Gates capstone done, and have SHs loaded with good cards. Nearly impossible for us to handle as free players.

On the other hand, running with even weaker marco cards on offense means non HtG atomic bases with empty SHs are a cakewalk, where anything over 100s is unacceptably slow. The Forbidden City has gone from a crucial defensive wonder to barely relevant, as 50% QV is the standard in time races.

Many of these bad matchups are just a question of looking down the lineup, recognizing there is no way we can perfect score certain bases, and deciding there is no point in wasting scarce marco cards on the rest. Or that the other side has no chance to match us on time, even if they go all out for the perfect score. The time tiebreaker makes an occasional good match much more interesting than it would otherwise be. But on the flip side, it puts many more matches obviously out of reach before we even start.

TLDR; war is very bad right now.

 

[pckrn]

One thing we are trying to do is lower our Glory points. But, it's hard with such lopsided match ups because we typically only loose 15-20 glory per war.

maybe try going extreame sandbags, then you can lose more glory at once. then you can resume regular lineups after skipping that war

 

[alexandria]

I find my alliance used to have unfair match ups constantly facing tough bases. Ever since I took over rosters and targets to hit we have been winning non-stop and now sit 10 glory away form 18k. We do constant war and have 25-30 players all the time ready to go. I find when you have 2-3 strong atomic players hitting - our wars get much harder for our mid tier, but proper micromanaging of the team will always result in us winning. I'm pretty sure not many alliances do this so we often see the opposition making very bad attacks. Also never go with the assigned targets, that's the best way to lose a war in my opinion. Evaluate your players and assign them targets. My goal is to reach top 100, so it will be a slow grind from here.

 

[yemen]

As you try to move up, you will find you either start hitting competent opponents, or stop getting much glory from the matchup. The problem with a lineup like you are describing is that once you have decent glory, a single bad match can result in losing a lot of it.

Great runs are a lot of fun. They typically don't last, but good luck.

 

[Bleauey]

Hey all I ran my last alliance for most part some help but we use to do any # of members in war and recently we had to lower our medal requirements and allow irons and other lowered ages. This is because we normally like 15 member wars. 2 AA, 2 GLOBALS, 5 INDUSTRIAL, 5 ENLIGHTENMENT, 1 GUNPOWDER. We did ok win 7/10 was ok bc most loses were close. Than idk we war and have our norm 15 and come against 2 CWA, 3 ATOMIC, 3 GLOBAL, 1 INDUSTRIAL, 2 GUNPOWDER, 4 IRONS. They way I see this is that match making is needing update or we all need 3 accounts having 1 main max out and 2 to stay irons we now are back to winning 7/10 but 20 members bc we added 1 iron 1 classical 2 medieval 1 gunpowder sometimes no classical and 2 irons. I have a member that has a solution that all of us contact CUSTOMER SUPPORT and also got 2 additional alliances total 104 people all write exactly same and notify it would cost development nearly nothing especially when you see here often someone leaving because they yet to even try solution