Can anyone explain medal system?

[1st Dynasty Bill]

Riddle me this:

How are medal amounts calculated? I am a mid-grade IA player, at level 151, with 2800-3000 medals, with most important upgrades completed. I'm currently upgrading to global, like a lot of people. Here's the thing:

- I almost never find targets above 1 medal. Occasionally, there is someone in the 5-10 range, and very rarely do I find anyone higher. I can go weeks without a decent target.

- On defense, if I win, it's usually 1 medal, and almost certainly in the single digits -- even if my attacker is ranked above me.

- On defense, if I lose, it's almost always double digits, even to very highly ranked opponents. Just today, I lost to a level 188 global age attacker with 2600+ medals, and lost 27 medals.

How do you explain this disparity? I may be a crummy player, but even so, the medal system should have some underlying logic. Either it should be weighted by rank, or by medals, or it should favor defenders. But if it screws me on both offense and defense, regardless of rank, there's something else at play. The only thing I can think of is that I haven't spent as much as many players on the game.

Nexon, can you explain? What stops someone like me from concluding that you're weighting the attacks of high-paying players more heavily? If not, what is the explanation? Will you explain how this system works?

 

[Mythic]

Weighted by difference between medals. Ranging from 1 to 39 depending on the difference. Since so few players at top are available to attack, you always see players way below you (up to 1000 medals below i think). At 2800-3000 medals, there won't even be many bases at 1800-2000 available, hence no opponent found.
On defence you won't lose as much to "higher ranked" opponents, but can lose a lot to more advanced "lower ranked" player (because medal system perceives him as "weaker").
I understand the logic with the medal system. Medals are an indication of a players skill level, not necessarily how advanced they are.
Good for you, for being higher ranked than your global age attacker! Is it unfair that he can attack you, of course, but thats how the multiplayer system works. Been like that at all ages.

 

[1st Dynasty Bill]

Thanks for the interpretation. If that's true, I should see massive medal opportunities if I slip down in the medal rankings -- because I just lost 27 medals to someone one league below me (but vastly outranking me in upgrades). If this is the only criterion, there must be a huge disparity in ranking between very close leagues.

 

[Mythic]

there are those rare occasions when you find someone ranked higher than you. Hopefully you got the right army ready at that time. Hence, I'm assuming you rarely lose 27 medals. I believe someone actually did find the formula for medals available in a battle, don't know who or when though. Technically if someone is ranked same as you, earns 5 stars, that is 20 medals.
Also, all those players you see at 1/39, see you at 39/1. Much higher chance of you losing lots of medals than you gaining a lot.
Similarly, at 200 medals, you will find lots of players worth more than 20 medals, because you'd be at the very bottom. That's just the nature of the medal system. Fewer players at the top make it hard to climb!

 

[USA Elite Will]

This is why last week I purposely went from 3,100 medals to 200, it won't let me go below 200 lol. At 200 medals my battles were +39/-0 (yes, zero)

 

[Ravenlord]

Weighted by difference between medals. Ranging from 1 to 39 depending on the difference. Since so few players at top are available to attack, you always see players way below you (up to 1000 medals below i think).

1000 medals ???!! I thought opponents you can attack - and vice versa - are in the same league range as you ie: only 199 medal difference. 2200-2399, 2400-2599, 2600-2799, etc ......

If it is 1000 medals difference that would explain a helluva lot. Although 1 medal for a hard fought win sucks. Hey Nexon, how about a ''1 medal per star'' system in place of the current 1 medal minimum ?! We then choose whether we go for a 1 medal quick win or take the chance for 5? Obviously if the opponent is higher than us in medals there would be much more medals available than just 5 - as it is now. Even a minimum 3 medal system is better than 1!!

 

[_Flash_]

Just my view on this subject. There should be something in the game for everyone, to keep them interested enough and to be engaged. Medal system is very likely designed for the very late game, and completely maxed out scenario. When every upgrade has been completed, and everything is maxed out, players can take pride in fighting each other out to the limits, and compete on medals. Medal system seems to be designed to reward skilled players in such a maxed out scenario.
As long as there are upgrades to be completed, and resources to be gathered, staying in higher medal leagues shouldn't be something which players should pursue, in my opinion, based on how the medal system is designed.

 

[Mythic]

1000 medals ???!! I thought opponents you can attack - and vice versa - are in the same league range as you ie: only 199 medal difference. 2200-2399, 2400-2599, 2600-2799, etc ......

If it is 1000 medals difference that would explain a helluva lot. Although 1 medal for a hard fought win sucks. Hey Nexon, how about a ''1 medal per star'' system in place of the current 1 medal minimum ?! We then choose whether we go for a 1 medal quick win or take the chance for 5? Obviously if the opponent is higher than us in medals there would be much more medals available than just 5 - as it is now. Even a minimum 3 medal system is better than 1!!

Yes, I think it's 1000 medals based on the leagues I find some of the available bases at. I would agree that min. 5/35 system would be more helpful at the top. I think system is fine, but the reward scale could use some tinkering.

 

[GoldDS]

the system is completely crap and the most ridiculous and worst planned/implented system i ve ever encountered. to just go quite dumb on league position and not considering player levels or player win/loss ratio makes the whole system pointless and useless. why then do we just see 1/-39 on own attacks and on defenses also just 1 medal bonus all the time, but maxed global players hide in low/medium ranges and get "full prize" for beating standard high league but low level players.
what did they achieve? it s nothing special. they mustnt get any but 1 medal for their win. however, if i manage to 2 star a level 188 as level 147 i should at least see 10 medals.
i also pointed many times how useless and demotivating a 1/39 only system is if there are 5 stars to achieve. whats the driver to get 5? makes no difference.
a ranking should really express how strong/good players are. coefficients must be used like in sports ranking (FIFA) or chess.
but the medal system as is, should be stopped at all. causes too much frustration and annoys players (also reffering to the crap "fix" which punishes crashes and network problems with a high medal loss now, great job nexon amateurs)
never wondered why maybe 1000 out of 200000 players just care about medals?
this game is about competition and fighting spirit. without proper ranking it feels like farmville or settlers

 

[Chris Coley]

Other posters have already explained this one much better than I could, but I'd like to say from experience that floating between 1800-2500 is the best place to be for multi medal raids.

 

[Nathan Win]

1000 medals ???!! I thought opponents you can attack - and vice versa - are in the same league range as you ie: only 199 medal difference. 2200-2399, 2400-2599, 2600-2799, etc ......

If it is 1000 medals difference that would explain a helluva lot. Although 1 medal for a hard fought win sucks. Hey Nexon, how about a ''1 medal per star'' system in place of the current 1 medal minimum ?! We then choose whether we go for a 1 medal quick win or take the chance for 5? Obviously if the opponent is higher than us in medals there would be much more medals available than just 5 - as it is now. Even a minimum 3 medal system is better than 1!!

I think once they run out of bases in my league (Kingdom 1), they matched me up with Empire, Silver and Gold leagues players.

 

[Martine]

In a word .... no

 

[Mythic]

In a word .... no

sure it can be explained. No one said anyone had to like the answer

 

[Yellowmar]

No Title

Maybe I can explain on this black board

 

[Martine]

That makes perfect sense

 

[Martine]

I just go with the flow .. 1 medal at a time and 39 steps backwards :/

 

[_Flash_]

Just attempting a possible explanation here. Might not be perfect, but, this is what I've been able to think of as a possible explanation. Trying to explain it by drawing a parallel to the stock market.
The levels in the game is analogous to the fundamentals of the company (profits made, revenue, etc.). The medals in the game is analogous to the stock price. Not exact, but close.
The stronger the fundamentals of the company, the higher can be the stock price. It's possible for stocks to stay at inflated prices for a while, but, the market dynamics kick in eventually, and effect a stock price correction, and brings it down in-line with its fundamentals.
Similarly, it's possible for players to climb very high on medals without being supported by higher level of upgrades. The +1/-27 is the system that's trying to effect a correction - if a player who is at a higher level but is lower on medals attacks a player at lower level but higher medal count, and if the higher level player wins, the medal system is trying to effect a correction - by pushing up the medals of the higher level player and pushing down the medals of the lower level player.
So, it's best to stay at a medal range that one can comfortably support, given one's level of upgrades - to ensure that the stock price is in-line with the fundamentals. By "comfortably support", I mean, being able to get enough resources to support the pending upgrades. Once every upgrade has been done, and say, two players at similar levels of upgrades meet up in battle, the system is designed to reward the more skilled player in battle, with the increase in medal tally for the victor.
As I said earlier on this thread, it's a system to keep players engaged in the game, once they have maxed out all of the upgrades. The higher medal leagues can be targeted when all upgrades have been completed, and is a place to compete purely on skills. But, as long as there are pending upgrades, it causes pain to stay in the higher medal leagues - not many players out there (no opponents found), difficulty of gathering resources, and the system trying to effect a correction to bring down the medal tally in-line with the level of upgrades.

 

[Mythic]

Regardless of all said here, medal matching is very bad. I have been looking in my attacks and people that attack me.
Last two attacks on me are players from Empire 2 league, same as my league. One took 8, other 19 medals.
Now, looking at the fact those attacks happened while I was on 2860 and 2840 medals, the difference in medals could not be that big to justify this imbalance.
In my attacks, I attack Empire 1 and even Dynasty 3, both cases could only take 1 medal. And that was on the first day of league, so I doubt that they lost so many medals in 10 hours after league restarted.

Not sure about this! Usually if someone is more than 250 medals (just a observational guess, i haven't tracked it; don't care enough) below you, only 1 medal would be available. If someone has same medals as you (not "same league"; big difference), then 20 medals would be available. So if they 5 star you, of course you can lose 19 medals against equally ranked player.

The medal reward scale is very sensitive to differences in medals.

 

[Jolly the Wise]

The OP started this thread a week ago. The question asked ought to be easily answered by the moderators. I note that not one moderator has posted here to help explain. Their silence on this as many other questions raised by players (aka customers) baffles me.

 

[Equal]

Hello. I think, that everything starts with what opponents are available for battles. As i noticed i get only + - 1 age difference and + - one league difference. E.g. i'm sitting now in a kingdom league and i get only Gold, Kingdom and Dynasty leagues opponents. And possible Win/Loss medals number is a combination of age difference, league difference and actual medal count for both players. E.g. when i get attacked by enlightenment age players (i am IA) i loose more medals then from Global or Industrial age attackers, even they are in a same league as EA attacker. And as people mentioned above, there is not a lot people by % who sits in a dynasty leagues or above.