So how are stalemates handled? Hopefully you are aware that perfect-score stalemates are very common for the top alliances. And if we're only matched against other strong alliances, we'll never get any glory points, despite being able to slaughter everyone else.
Design Spotlight - WW Leaderboards and more!
- Thread starter Nb4powerup
- Start date
GailWho
Approved user
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,014
I understand some being upset over the new system but shouldn't we let this play out and see if it works before we totally disrespect all the work that has been put into it? I have to be honest... I wasn't all that thrilled when I first read the original post. Our team had finally found our niche in the 20v20 and 25v25 brackets having won the last 9/10 wars with 4 perfect scores (5 if you count our last 5star that crashed in last 5 min of war and wasn't counted). To find out our 20v20 win will be rated at 111% when the big multi-alliances that can come up with 50 players to war could potentially count double that at 222% it seemed totally unfair. Alliances with multiple teams could rotate people around fill in the 50 spots with viable players (technically only needing 25 great players and 25 noobs that do nothing) while giving other's a rest for RL stuff and upgrades just didn't seem right. Meanwhile, my peeps who have war attacks every other day non stop even when they have crucial upgrades like war academy and fort fight hard and we still win. How is that fair? Then I read your post bsharpy and realize why they did it the way they did. It is harder to get a 50v50 war if you have to wait days to get a match (which personally I think will change now that the incentive to play big is there)then I guess it is fair that you get twice as much glory. And yes our alliance may be playing in a pool of easier opponents but after reading the last part of the original post again it seems they have come up with a solution for that as well. I have noticed a difference in the bases we are up against since the maintenance. So let's see how this plays out. If I remember correctly there were a lot of complaints about war when that was first released and if people still hated that so much we wouldn't be having this update now would we? 
Prodigal Clint
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 129
Don't the last two metrics (player war rank and elo ranking based on avg xp of alliance) reward upgrading your base and advancing in age? Thus encouraging upgrading...
Prodigal Clint
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 129
Very well said @GailWho
PS- Any interest in a 40v40 or 45v45 H2H with ProdigalThieves as a little pre-ranking practice session? : )
PS- Any interest in a 40v40 or 45v45 H2H with ProdigalThieves as a little pre-ranking practice session? : )
Last edited:
ccfoo
Approved user
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Messages
- 218
I agree with the rest, matchmaking should not be based on upgrades, but on the glory points earned. U reach a different tier and face harder alliances as you climb in ranks.
I could think of an exploit of this system, is that higher players creste a second account which is Low in level and join wars. Not only it lowers your rating and match you against weaker opponents, u can get more points too with more players, even if those Low level accounts don't even put in a single war shot as the higher accounts can clean up for them.
I could think of an exploit of this system, is that higher players creste a second account which is Low in level and join wars. Not only it lowers your rating and match you against weaker opponents, u can get more points too with more players, even if those Low level accounts don't even put in a single war shot as the higher accounts can clean up for them.
GailWho
Approved user
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,014
Thanks 
Well that would be awesome Prodigal Clint but we don't have that many players most we can do right now is 25
Well that would be awesome Prodigal Clint but we don't have that many players most we can do right now is 25
GailWho
Approved user
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,014
We are experiencing that in our war now. Two bottom ones are Iron Age and obvious alts that are probably never played. They don't even have an organized war base. There should be some kind of penalty for lowest level players not attacking. Our low level guys always attack even if they know there's only a slim chance of getting a star for rss. It's great practice for when they are a higher age.
the point of an elo ranking is just that, a ranking. If you're shielding certain teams from matching up w/ other teams by limiting matchmaking to similarly upgraded teams, then there is no point to this entire game. There's an opportunity to game the system and move up the proposed ladder by not fielding the strongest team.
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
Well, Fable, since you've called me out and asked, here are suggestions from the community which have been incorporated:
1. Leaderboard rankings are going to be based on Elo rating system
2. There are incentives for fielding wars with larger number of allies
3. Glory points achieved are going to take into consideration the weight of the alliances. So, an alliance full of Iron Age players are going to get lesser glory point for a world war win over an alliance composed of Industrial Age and Global Age players winning a world war.
4. There's higher glory to be attained for beating opponents with higher glory and vice versa
Agreed, there has been no mention about fixing the alliance search algorithm and the way it returns results, to help active alliances to get recruits, but, do understand that this is a design spotlight post, which is very specific to the WW leaderboard, and not a State of Nations post, to cover a wide variety of topics and talk about multiple fixes coming our way.
If so much negativity is all that you can see from an early announcement about a WW leaderboard, God bless!
1. Leaderboard rankings are going to be based on Elo rating system
2. There are incentives for fielding wars with larger number of allies
3. Glory points achieved are going to take into consideration the weight of the alliances. So, an alliance full of Iron Age players are going to get lesser glory point for a world war win over an alliance composed of Industrial Age and Global Age players winning a world war.
4. There's higher glory to be attained for beating opponents with higher glory and vice versa
Agreed, there has been no mention about fixing the alliance search algorithm and the way it returns results, to help active alliances to get recruits, but, do understand that this is a design spotlight post, which is very specific to the WW leaderboard, and not a State of Nations post, to cover a wide variety of topics and talk about multiple fixes coming our way.
If so much negativity is all that you can see from an early announcement about a WW leaderboard, God bless!
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
It's correct that the matchmaking is going to continue to be based on the strength of the allies, instead of the Glory Points.
Otherwise, we'll end up with a system which is similar to the current medal system, about which there are so many complaints, and there's a broad consensus that it's broken.
We'll start seeing alliances dropping Glory, similar to players who drop medals.
On one hand, there are numerous complaints about the PvvP matching based on medals, saying it doesn't consider the levels of the players.
On the other hand, we're now complaining that the matchmaking is not based on Glory.
We can't have it both ways.
Otherwise, we'll end up with a system which is similar to the current medal system, about which there are so many complaints, and there's a broad consensus that it's broken.
We'll start seeing alliances dropping Glory, similar to players who drop medals.
On one hand, there are numerous complaints about the PvvP matching based on medals, saying it doesn't consider the levels of the players.
On the other hand, we're now complaining that the matchmaking is not based on Glory.
We can't have it both ways.
_Flash_
1) Again, I read the forums regularly, I don't c that many in favor of a Elo ranking system.
2) Again, clans that can and want to do 50's,,40's cool, but unless Nexon wants me throwing in 20 small acc.s that have left the game and then read ppl crying about an unfair match up system I can do that. Don't penalize clans that CAN'T realistically run big wars (or can and don't want to game the game).
3) & 4) r commonsense yes, but I am not going to tell a clan mate (especially 1 who just started) and wants to war; hey bro, could u kindly speed up your growth...maybe use crowns...cause it's kinda hurting our Glory points.
None of my posts r unrealistic as far as improvements and suggestions. My negativity stems from the fact that Nexon ignores the ppl they've taken something from. If it wasn't for Db4 or Seraphine to corral some angry posts from ppl, I've NEVER seen anyone from Nexon (Devs specifically) respond directly to those of us who've lost something from this game whether it b time,, $,, patience...hope. And I've seen just as many or even more posts AGAINST exactly what your #1 & #2 points bring. Never stated I wouldn't war or play, but wow can Nexon meet us half way on some things?
I'll be as critical as I want, I play the game, I help pay the ppl at Nexon, when I mess up or ppl have a problem with how I performed a job I hear it. Why would it b any different here?
And ty, God bless u too.
:0)
1) Again, I read the forums regularly, I don't c that many in favor of a Elo ranking system.
2) Again, clans that can and want to do 50's,,40's cool, but unless Nexon wants me throwing in 20 small acc.s that have left the game and then read ppl crying about an unfair match up system I can do that. Don't penalize clans that CAN'T realistically run big wars (or can and don't want to game the game).
3) & 4) r commonsense yes, but I am not going to tell a clan mate (especially 1 who just started) and wants to war; hey bro, could u kindly speed up your growth...maybe use crowns...cause it's kinda hurting our Glory points.
None of my posts r unrealistic as far as improvements and suggestions. My negativity stems from the fact that Nexon ignores the ppl they've taken something from. If it wasn't for Db4 or Seraphine to corral some angry posts from ppl, I've NEVER seen anyone from Nexon (Devs specifically) respond directly to those of us who've lost something from this game whether it b time,, $,, patience...hope. And I've seen just as many or even more posts AGAINST exactly what your #1 & #2 points bring. Never stated I wouldn't war or play, but wow can Nexon meet us half way on some things?
I'll be as critical as I want, I play the game, I help pay the ppl at Nexon, when I mess up or ppl have a problem with how I performed a job I hear it. Why would it b any different here?
And ty, God bless u too.
:0)
Last edited:
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
Well, here's the trouble with matchmaking based on Glory.
Here's an entirely feasible scenario with a match made using Glory points of the two alliances:
Alliance 1: 20 Global Age players with levels ranging from 150-180, 3 Industrial Age players with levels ranging from 100-150, 2 Enlightenment Age players with levels ranging from 80-100
Alliance 2: 1 Global Age player around level 150, 2 Industrial Age players around level 120, 2 Enlightenment Age players around level 100, 20 Gunpowder Age players around levels 60-70
Alliance 1 has dropped Glory points by losing wars, and Alliance 2 has glory points similar to what Alliance 1 has. And, they both get matched up against each other for war.
Sounds familiar? Remember the much maligned current medal system, which doesn't take medals gained/lost based on levels of players?
That's what it'll come down to, if the new system matches up alliances based on Glory.
Here's an entirely feasible scenario with a match made using Glory points of the two alliances:
Alliance 1: 20 Global Age players with levels ranging from 150-180, 3 Industrial Age players with levels ranging from 100-150, 2 Enlightenment Age players with levels ranging from 80-100
Alliance 2: 1 Global Age player around level 150, 2 Industrial Age players around level 120, 2 Enlightenment Age players around level 100, 20 Gunpowder Age players around levels 60-70
Alliance 1 has dropped Glory points by losing wars, and Alliance 2 has glory points similar to what Alliance 1 has. And, they both get matched up against each other for war.
Sounds familiar? Remember the much maligned current medal system, which doesn't take medals gained/lost based on levels of players?
That's what it'll come down to, if the new system matches up alliances based on Glory.
Prodigal Clint
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 129
Fair point. My thinking is that the risk/reward for fielding larger teams (40-50) to get more of a bonus will discourage this kind of behavior. We shall see how it plays out.
In the case where it's a team full of global accts is matched vs gunpowder players... Then the global team should win. What's wrong with that? They are the better team and should win unless the gunpowder team is just extremely skilled and the global team really sucks
If the gunpowder team has a bunch of glory points and somehow got to a level that their glory points match the global age team then they should play and see who's better.
In sports you say the world champion is the team that's actually best. You don't handicap the better (varsity) team and allow the JV team to only play other JV level teams and call the Jv team the best overall team
If the gunpowder team has a bunch of glory points and somehow got to a level that their glory points match the global age team then they should play and see who's better.
In sports you say the world champion is the team that's actually best. You don't handicap the better (varsity) team and allow the JV team to only play other JV level teams and call the Jv team the best overall team
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
First of all, why should such a one-sided match-up happen?
Secondly, it's the same thing which happens in the current medal system too. If a higher level player with lower medals attacks a lower level player with higher medals, it's natural for the higher level player to win. But, if that's the case (and, I've even tried to explain this and defend the current medal system on one of these threads), why are so many people considering the match ups and the outcomes to be unfair and hard to digest?
Here, I've explained how the medal system works, and tries to balance out the disparity of a higher level player with lower medals attacking and gaining a lot of medals from the lower level player having higher medals
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
Here are other threads which express a lot of discontent about the current medal system.
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/478449-love-this-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/468892-change-the-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...sion-aa/395875-how-does-the-medal-system-work
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ed-to-revise-your-medal-system-this-is-urgent
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...6-rigid-medal-system-aka-the-story-about-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexonm-games/dominations/general-discussion-aa/480726-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/477606-design-spotlight-medals
Secondly, it's the same thing which happens in the current medal system too. If a higher level player with lower medals attacks a lower level player with higher medals, it's natural for the higher level player to win. But, if that's the case (and, I've even tried to explain this and defend the current medal system on one of these threads), why are so many people considering the match ups and the outcomes to be unfair and hard to digest?
Here, I've explained how the medal system works, and tries to balance out the disparity of a higher level player with lower medals attacking and gaining a lot of medals from the lower level player having higher medals
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
Here are other threads which express a lot of discontent about the current medal system.
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/478449-love-this-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/468892-change-the-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...sion-aa/395875-how-does-the-medal-system-work
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ed-to-revise-your-medal-system-this-is-urgent
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...6-rigid-medal-system-aka-the-story-about-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexonm-games/dominations/general-discussion-aa/480726-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/477606-design-spotlight-medals
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
The current medal system attempts to set right such disparities between medals and levels of players.
In fact, I've attempted to explain the defend the current medal system, similar to your explanation
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
But, across multiple posts, players deem such matchups and loss of medals to be unfair when they lose to stronger attackers who are low on medals.
The general level of discontent with the current medal system is quite high.
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/477606-design-spotlight-medals
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...sion-aa/395875-how-does-the-medal-system-work
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/478449-love-this-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/468892-change-the-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexonm-games/dominations/general-discussion-aa/480726-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ed-to-revise-your-medal-system-this-is-urgent
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/448534-medal-system-is-broken
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...6-rigid-medal-system-aka-the-story-about-1-39
In fact, I've attempted to explain the defend the current medal system, similar to your explanation
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
But, across multiple posts, players deem such matchups and loss of medals to be unfair when they lose to stronger attackers who are low on medals.
The general level of discontent with the current medal system is quite high.
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/477606-design-spotlight-medals
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...sion-aa/395875-how-does-the-medal-system-work
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/478449-love-this-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/468892-change-the-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexonm-games/dominations/general-discussion-aa/480726-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ed-to-revise-your-medal-system-this-is-urgent
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/448534-medal-system-is-broken
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...6-rigid-medal-system-aka-the-story-about-1-39
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
Agreed that the team with Global Age players should win such a match-up, and it does balances out the disparity in Glory points.
The medal system attempts to restore balance in the disparity between levels and medals, and, in fact, I've tried to defend and explain the medal system here
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
But, the discontent with how the medal system works right now is quite wide spread
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/477606-design-spotlight-medals
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/478449-love-this-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...6-rigid-medal-system-aka-the-story-about-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexonm-games/dominations/general-discussion-aa/477213-medals-amount
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ies/487192-what-s-the-point-about-high-medals
The medal system attempts to restore balance in the disparity between levels and medals, and, in fact, I've tried to defend and explain the medal system here
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
But, the discontent with how the medal system works right now is quite wide spread
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-discussion-aa/477606-design-spotlight-medals
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...l-discussion-aa/478449-love-this-medal-system
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...6-rigid-medal-system-aka-the-story-about-1-39
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexonm-games/dominations/general-discussion-aa/477213-medals-amount
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ies/487192-what-s-the-point-about-high-medals
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
Agreed, but, that's what the current medal system does - it balances out levels and strength against medals.
I myself have attempted to explain the medal system and this balancing act and have defended it here
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
But, the discontent and problems with the current medal system is quite widespread. Given this background, we should expect the problems with the current medal system to carry over to the WW leaderboard system, if the match-making is going to be based on Glory.
I myself have attempted to explain the medal system and this balancing act and have defended it here
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...ion-aa/516076-can-anyone-explain-medal-system
But, the discontent and problems with the current medal system is quite widespread. Given this background, we should expect the problems with the current medal system to carry over to the WW leaderboard system, if the match-making is going to be based on Glory.
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...ar-leaderboard
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...sed-war-ladder
These two threads discussed WW leaderboard, and on one, Elo ranking system has been suggested by three different people.
Again, this is debatable. The original post says the following:
- Alliance Average Rating: Up to 2.7x more Glory is at stake based on all combat-related upgrades its members have made. More details later.
How is this going to be different from the current alliance ranking system, which is based on medals?
If this were true, every alliance until now would have pushed everyone to speed up their growth and climb very high on medals. It didn't happen (or, didn't work out too well for too many alliances), and so, the same will be true with this change too.
Nb4 and Seraphine are the community managers here. They facilitate the communication between the community and the development team, which is their role as community managers. Why would members of the development team respond directly to questions from the community? Developing the game is a far better use of their time and their skill-set, which they specialize in. So, what's happening here is logical and is a result of specialization and clear separation of job responsibilities.
Last edited:
