“The Road to Better World War Matchmaking” aka Sandbagging!

[JuDomines]

Yes you are wrong. Until you realize sandbagging is not used by every alliance with the goal to bully other alliance

 

[poop_]

@juju, That wasn't my question or point.

I am too tired today to try to explain again.

I will ask one question: how many other alliances are there that you think you could fairly match with?

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

The outcome is the same in some instances. Even without arguing that there's a trickle down effect, complimented with a level of understanding of how math and matchmaking works, not to mention setting a positive example.

But more toward your point, certainly some alliances have different reasons for sandbagging. The outcome however is the same.

 

[S_How]

Yes, I understand your points poop and agree. But, I do think that if sandbagging were eliminated somehow (maybe by making two defenses per base, or other great ideas in this forum), there would be many more teams going in full weight which would help heavyweights. I also think they should broaden the matchmaking range. Lets face it, for the middleweight teams that have survived the sandbagging debacle so far, most of us would be just fine taking a slightly wider range of opponents...its better than what we face now lol. And for every harder match we get there would be matches where we have an easier time, too.

 

[Equal]

JuDomines but don't you think, that big alliances, who cannot match for a long times or get stalemates all the time are using sandbagging as a way to make their problem, (actually nexons problem) go to alliances they face, when they add their 'babies' as you call them. why an average alliance must suffer their problems? they are just getting rid of it to the heads of mixed and not so advanced alliances.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

I think one thing that we all agree on is that the current war situation involves poor matchmaking, too many stalemates, and whatever else, that the results of this (be it sandbagging, long match wait times etc), are currently having a severe negative impact on the game. We clearly are all passionate and care for this game and our teams. Many look at it through different lenses. Some I agree with, some I don't. But rather than going back and forth, back and forth, we should All be advocating for change. Because at the end of the day, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that for the good of the game and all that that entails, changes needs to happen. If we all worked together as players/alliances to advocate for this change, and showed a united front, perhaps we could get some movement of Any one of these issues.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

Equal, how is that decision NEXON OR BHG's problem? Alliance leaders decide who and how their alliances look with some idea of what the player base is, and the number of other alliances on that level are? Ultimately a player base that is too small does fall to the developer/owner of the game, but to sit stagnant and complain about it and say "well, it's not my problem".

outside the other suggestion of 'increasing the search metric' what do you perceive should BHG/NEXON should do about these alliances decisions to be that large?

 

[Europeos]

My thoughts too. Let's stop the blame game and work for a good solution for all.

 

[poop_]

S_How, you say this with the assumption that they will fix sandbagging.

It depends on if and how they fix sandbagging.

Because, right now, widening the range for potential matches (which I think they have done), just leads to a bigger mismatch when you get a bagger.

The problem is, right now the matchmaking is so messed up that there are too many loopholes alliances can take advantage of to get an edge (or in some cases, the whole freakin pie). Ultimately, they need to redo the matchmaking. A little tweak to address this person's problem and a little tweak to fix this other person, is only going to make things worse AND much more complicated.

Seems easy enough to set up an algorithm that finds fair matches.

1. They need to separate out offense and defense when matching. Otherwise, you get alliances going ALL offense leading to more stalemates.

2. They need to match based on one teams offenses strength (accounting for the fact that each player has 2 hits) compared the other allaince's defensive strength. And vice versa. The game obviously won't find a PERFECT match, but no one has a soul mate, and it will be a helluva lot better than the angry couples at each other's throats right now.

3. They need to find a solution to stalemates. I think a sudden death type thing or shootout would be fun (add something extra for the more elite alliances).

4. It would be nice if they redid the war weight for certain upgrades. We all know that there are quite a few that aren't weighted accurately.

5. With all that above, if there are still mismatches, the glory awarded or lost needs to take that into account. If a team isn't favored to win (based on their offense/defense being weaker, not on their past war record), they should lose less glory than if it were an even match.

The funny thing is that all of these seem simple, and yet, I read them over, and I my initial thought was, "Wow! That is a lot to ask for."

But, it isn't a lot to ask for. It IS simple. It would make wars more fair and more fun for everyone. I am just so used to BHG ignoring us, throwing us crumbs here and there, that it has become apparent that I am in a broken relationship.

BHG, don't you care about us anymore? Did you ever? You promised so much at the beginning? You never spend time with us or listen. Is there someone else? How can we fix this? I want to make it work.

 

[poop_]

I blame Prodigal Clint.

 

[GailWho]

Very well said Prodigal Clint . I agree 100%

 

[poop_]

Here is my question though: what are we planning to do?

 

[Equal]

because nexon or bhg released these world wars the way they are now. they did not planed that in so short time alliances will be stalemating all over the place. alliance leaders must adapt to gain some glory now, so they got creative by including iron-medieval age acounts to world wars and then getting an opponents, who cannot take down their top bases. glory is gained. no problem anymore for them. they make it smaller alliances problem. the reason for sandbagging and stalemates is current world war scoring system, so how it is not a nexons or bhg fault? they released the thing too early, did not tested properely, did not thought that this could be a problem. even the funny tieabraker rules are made in two minutes, if on every perfect war they are not deciding anything. we had only two wars, when the score was a tie and it wasn't a max score. look at the real reason alliances are doing it. and with a proper scoring system, even going for an easier matchup, not to avoid stalemates, iron age bases could be a problem to win a war at all.

 

[Althalus]

BHG/Nexon, it's time for some sort of response on here, even if it's were still working on it or we don't care anymore, get on with exploiting the loopholes? Show us your listening to us still?

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

spam them on their facebook page. typically short Nb4powerup they don't come here or pay attention

 

[JNation]

Just an idea, could be completely stupid but I'm willing to take the risk.

What about bonus stars on ww attacks. You could reward someone for different kinds of feats
1) One bonus star for attacking someone that is higher in age than you, but you have to win the attack
2) One bonus star for attacking within a certain time period.
3) Five bonus star (not for each person but for the entire alliance) for having 100% participation in war. So you would be 40/40 for attacks if you had 20 members on your alliance.

 

[poop_]

This is not stupid. This is a very interesting idea!

I will think on it and maybe make a longer response tomorrow.

 

[S_How]

Yes youre right. Its hard to make any sort of assumptions on matchmaking, when it is so horribly flawed and being manipulated so badly with undeveloped bases. No matter what the intricacies we see differently, 100% agree that sandbagging has ruined the game.

 

[Tenacious D]

You have captured 25% of the problem with that description. The more prevalent way to get easier matchups is to include a large percentage of lower-level players, not just Iron Age or inactive accounts. The sandbagging alliances reduce their medal requirements to zero to attract a lot of lower level active accounts. Trust me this type of sandbagging works just as well if not better.

 

[Tenacious D]

Vixen is correct. Take an alliance like The Shred. 20% of the alliance is comprised of players that are level 71 and below. All they need to do is include those weak players in the war and they will ensure that their strong players can easily defeat the non-sandbagging opponent. Inactives is a red herring.