632 Glory if we we win, - 9 if/when we lose...

[Hammer]

Clearly with numbers like this in our current war Nexon or at least it's Glory value computer is aware we are facing a sandbagging alliance.

Twenty V Twenty war, they have twelve Atomic age players, one classical and the rest all lower.

So the question is, why did they match us against them at all?

 

[Hammer]

And right now members of my alliance are talking about whether we should also start sandbagging...

 

[S_How]

Somewhere in the 30-40% range, the penalty for sandbagging kicks in. Its good that you have limited downside, though its a pointless 48 hours most likely for you, which still sucks lol.

But, most teams just use a 10%-25% sandbag which is still incredibly effective and carries no noticeable penalty or deterrent.

 

[Scuba]

We can beat that.
835 if we had of won.
-6 when we lost.

We didn't take part.

 

[Hammer]

We can beat that.
835 if we had of won.
-6 when we lost.

We didn't take part.

We aren't filling war bases and don't intend to use any attacks.

 

[snowleopard]

I hate to say but I would suggest you should use sandbags.

 

[snowleopard]

We aren't filling war bases and don't intend to use any attacks.

Actually you should attack the lower bases for NTG

 

[Castein]

I had a idea and not sure if it would even work seeing as the matchmaking is so broken that sometimes there are uneven matches between non-sandbag alliances. But what if everyone that has mixed age alliances add 3-4 sandbags of there own then by that theory we wouldn't be paired up with those mostly AA teams. And if there is a trend of the top baggers adding more low lvl's follow suit and do the same. Could be worth a try seeing as nexon is pretending as if they fixed the problem

 

[poop_]

Because there are loopholes around getting labeled as sandbagging by Nexon, mostly the glory won and lost has to do with the glory differential between each team.

 

[poop_]

What is worse when getting matched with an alliance who clarly outmatches you (whether sandbagging or not), and it being the opposite, 6 if you win and 632 if you lose....

 

[Gazza]

As expected from this stupid sandbagging war

Thier too 13 hit all 5 stars except 1 who got 4 stars

and 14 to 25 didn't even attack once

Gazza from West Ham Clan with TKOT

 

[Iceman]

Hi Nexon,

Am posting this due to frustration expressed by our alliance members at the recent unfair matchmaking in WW!

We’re currently faced with an impossible-to-beat opponent:

- 25 vs 25. Both level 10. But glory rating is 860 win: 17 lose.

- In in this case, 860:17 means we have are faced with 50:1 odds of winning this! Totally unfair.

- I am the #2 in my team and my suggested target is #10!!

- They have 2 Cold War ages in #1 and #4 position, plenty of Atomic and Global Age players making up their top 12. Then drops off from #13-20 to medieval and gunpowder ages, finally with 2 Iron Age and 3 classical age bases taking their last 5 positions.

- Whereas our team is more evenly balanced across the ages with only 1 classical age player at #25!

We have found that the glory rating is generally quite a good predictor of strength and ultimately who will win the war!

So my ask of Nexon is:

- why are we matched so unfairly?
-can you review your matchmaking algos to ensure that matchmaking is more fair?
- why don’t you use Glory factor for matchmaking to match 2 teams with similar glory to lose or win. Seems thats the best measure.


Thanks!!

 

[Quali]

Hey Iceman.

I’ll be straight to the point. They won’t do anything.

I strongly suspect the “recommended attack” is closely linked to their matchmaking algorithm. And how bad that recommended attack thing shows how bad matching is.

Our current war is a 20v for +32/-837. We have 7 CWA, they have 6. We have 6 AA, they have 9. We have 2 global, they have 1. We have 3 IA, they have 2, we have an EA and a gunpowder and they have 2 gunpowder. We searched for 30 mins for this.

I am L251 Cold War and ranked 1 for us. My recommended target is base 13, an atomic base that’s L209 and looks like it subscribes to a farming almanac. We will have a snooze of a war because these guys and gals are terrible. So how on earth is my recommended target base 13? And who is meant to take out 1-12 if I am ranked 1 on our side, where the glory says we are strong favourites?

I know we all know the recommended target thing is a joke. But seriously BHG, if that thing is tied to your war matching algorithm, can you maybe listen to it to understand how ridiculous this has all got now?

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

I suspect the same issue that was present in regards to atomic defenses is playing out again in Cold War. I'm the only CWA who wars in my alliance and yet I'm somehow always ranked 2-4, below atomics who are nowhere near my level or defenses. Then the recommended attacks are always something ludicrous in the 6-12 range.

Will agree that they'll do nothing, nor say anything. Not sure why someone thinks reviving a year plus old post is somehow going to get results now when it clearly got no traction then.

 

[Rogue Squirrel]

We're currently in a war where we could lose 16 Glory or win 1017! They have one cold war, four atomic, a global and several industrial bases. We have three fairly new global and several industrial bases. This is pretty much par for the course in our wars and we sometimes go seven or eight wars without a win! The only upside is that we're getting pretty good at taking down bases much stronger than ours and when we do win the victory is even sweeter.

A couple of years ago the matchmaking was much better but the top alliances (full of whales) were sometimes having to wait days or even weeks for a match. Nexon tried matching these top alliance by hand for a while, but that was obviously very time consuming and costly, so they gave up on that idea and instead 'loosened' the matchmaking algorithm. This meant the whales could now attack alliances much weaker than themselves. But it also made it very difficult for alliances with low ranking members such as ours, who as a result constantly find themselves fighting impossible wars against much stronger teams. I fear that lots of teams have stopped warring because of this and the pool of warring alliances is getting smaller and smaller making the problem even worse.

If Nexon want to encourage more alliances into war they need to 'tighten up' the algorithm again. I would rather wait days for a good match, than go two or three weeks fighting ridiculously mismatched wars.

One positive effect of 'loosening' the war algorithm is that sandbagging actually has less of an impact than it used to, because the relative strengths of the two alliances is less of a factor in matchmaking. But it is still a problem - we've faced a couple of Korean teams that had seven or eight, level 9 iron age bases in their wars (this must be the lowest level you can bring into a war). However in our alliance we encourage new players to join in, so we sometimes have a few classical and one or two iron age base in our line-up. I sometimes wonder if other teams think we are sandbagging too.

 

[Spaceboy]

I can only say the the number of glory points that you can win is definitely a good indication of the opponent's strength. We win mostly between 5 and 50 points. 5 points is really an easy match. We have 20200 points.

Matchmaking remains broken as we got very seldom fair wars to fight. But get used to it, as Nexon will never work on this.

 

[BeerMan]

We have lost 1200 glory to "reboot" alliances that we had no chance to beat. At least in this case the mismatch is represented in the glory payout.

 

[Iceman]

As expected we got pummelled in the last war. Just started a new war 20-20, and guess what!!! Again another unfair match up: glory 724 win: 8 loss! That makes it 90:1 odds of beating them!

The reason is so obvious...sandbagging. Their top 4 are Cold War age. We have none, our highest is AA. Their bottom 4 are Iron Age and classical age. Our bottom player is classical age. And the rest of our players are evenly spread across all ages.

I might post a new thread in the bugs section....this sandbagging issue has to be addressed!

Matchmake on glory!! It is so simple!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Iceman I wish you the very best in your crusade to have matchmaking addressed. Perhaps your post will succeed where the thousands of others since the Glory system was introduced have failed.

Considering the fact that the dozen mods we supposedly have don't even pay lip service to the long-running matchmaking issues anymore, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Anyway, good luck. Thus far, it's been a long and winding ROAD that leads absolutely nowhere. A veritable boulevard of broken dreams.

If you do get through to them though make a post about the ridiculous AI next, because you clearly have The Touch.

 

[Cannibals]

Yup 7 if we win, -475 if we lose. Where is the incentive to keep warring?