Re: Please enhance how teams are matched in wars.

I know what you mean. My Club hit a 10-war knockdown of other clubs, over a 20-week period (we war every 2 weeks) most of which had only a few active members. Then we had three cheating teams in a row which had multiple players with several level 20 disasters, which they could hardly have gained honestly, judging from their stats.

Then this last week we had a war you would recognise.... 17 opposing Mayors! Number of mayors who launched a disaster against us was 1!

Of the 16 Mayors in my club, 11 fought in the war. 1 was away on holiday, and 1 had to travel for work reasons. The other 3 didn't let us know why they weren't competing. Had the war lasted the full time, they may well have taken part.... As things were, we'd won the knockdown in a matter of hours.

I agree with you, the war matching system needs completely overhauling - but that will be of little use whilst EA does nothing to prevent the scourge of cheating clubs with multiple level 20 disasters which ruin the war environment for all those clubs who attempt to play honestly and with integrity. Of course, honesty and integrity is anathema to those clubs who MUST win at all costs by cheating.

This is what the ELO is for, to have clubs of similar rank match up to each other. If they use other criteria to match up people will manipulate the team list to ensure they get easy matchups and artificially rise up the ranks.

As far as I know the match criteria is

+-100 ELO rank (eg if you are 4800 ELO you can match 4700 or 4900)

List size band ranges of 10-13, 14-19, 20-25

Teams already make sure to have either 13,19 or 25 to ensure advantage.

Perhaps the ELO range is too high? But if they reduce it, it becomes harder to find a match, especially up in the top 100 clubs.

Maybe rather than using ELO range they should use X amount of clubs near your rank.

So if your actual rank is 50 you could match 1-100

If your rank is 10,000 you could match ranks from 9,000 to 11,000 (less active clubs in here)