Design Spotlight - WW Leaderboards and more!

[dannemare]

Some found a way... They organize Unfairness Allies 1 vs Unfairness Allies 2 in a 45v45 to be sure max tie score does not happen. They were already the biggest fakers of the game their multiple accounts and now that. What a shame... http://imageshack.com/a/img923/6500/iFm9nr.jpg

Whoa! Hold your horses! UA1 and UA2 were regularly matching each other in searches also before glory came along. It's nothing new. We have an EXTREMELY difficult time matching other alliances in war searching (I have written about this countless times in other threads), so sometimes we have no other option.

UA1 couldn't get a quick match for the second war, and the way the glory system works, we are hurting while not getting a match, so we decided to fire up a search in UA2 in order to hopefully match, such that we could get our second war moving asap. Pausing between wars is hurting your chances to maintain your ranking.

Hard to find matches at the very top of the top. Not our fault that we only have the possibility to match very, very few alliances.

On the topic of having multiple accounts, I can add that we have nearly 200 individuals in our alliances combined and to suggest otherwise is flat out foolish and wrong. And petty. Yes, a tiny percentage of us have an extra account (me for example), but I'm sure Nexon doesn't have a problem with me putting down big money to maintain and advance an extra account. Then comes my new Iron Age account (currently upgrading to Classical Age as we speak ).

Nb4powerup, do me a favour and extract the number of IP addresses used by United Allies players during wars and post it here (just the count, not the actual IP addresses ). That will put an end to these ridiculous accusations of UA1 being run by a handful of people with a million accounts each.

 

[dannemare]

Really mature. UA3 was very close to stalemating with a 35vs35 opponent in the first war. Did a pretty decent job.

 

[dannemare]

Do me a favour and read my reply to JJU below... That explains the situation.

 

[S_How]

Whoa! Hold your horses! UA1 and UA2 were regularly matching each other in searches also before glory came along. It's nothing new. We have an EXTREMELY difficult time matching other alliances in war searching (I have written about this countless times in other threads), so sometimes we have no other option.

UA1 couldn't get a quick match for the second war, and the way the glory system works, we are hurting while not getting a match, so we decided to fire up a search in UA2 in order to hopefully match, such that we could get our second war moving asap. Pausing between wars is hurting your chances to maintain your ranking.

Hard to find matches at the very top of the top. Not our fault that we only have the possibility to match very, very few alliances.

Look, we should probably avoid too much convo here on this topic because the valid points in this thread (which will help UA too) will get overlooked. And, I do hear you guys are amazingly good at war. However, no right minded person could look at that screenshot and find it normal. I do believe you guys would naturally get matched sometimes. I do not believe one of your 'worlds best' teams would be averaging less than 1 attack per person with just a few hours left in war, and only be capable of less than 50% stars against the other. It was a fairly indefensible position of throwing a war for glory of another team.

Instead, we should probably be talking about what leads teams to behave like this so they dont in the future, like how can we improve matchmaking times (my hope was that the glory system would help because I can assure you this is not unique to the top few allies), and what can be done about max score stalemates.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

This logic is a joke. So your telling me there isnt a single person with an account in both UA1 and UA2? (in ref to the two teams playing eachother, not the multiple accounts thing) Additionally, with the remaining time and hits left, your argument is without foundation. Clearly gaming the system.

 

[Daddy Droid]

To clarify, UA1 didn't deliberately seek to match with UA2. Since everybody's War schedule was reset by virtue of the new Glory system, most alliances are now relatively synchronized in their War search. As soon as UA1's first Glory War was completed (45v45 with 한국광복군™, an excellent team), we immediately searched for another 45 and happened to catch UA2 doing the same thing. UA1 and UA2 have matched organically before, and UA1 is typically the victor. I think UA2 decided not to waste resources, Mercenaries, Generals...and just used it as an opportunity to practice with different approaches and the new Decoy Tactic. It wasn't much fun for either team, so, moving forward, we're going to be communicating better between the alliances when doing a search, and searching with different sizes.

 

[dannemare]

I don't know. I'm not in either UA1 or UA2 myself. I don't have all the little details. Just trying to explain why they likely matched. I'm in UA3 since the past two months or so, but I think I'm pretty much the only one following the forums here.

 

[JuDomines]

It's amazing even in the face of proofs and evidences, you guys at Unfairness Allies still denies being masters at manipulating the system just like TopDominators did in their high times.That and the big ego of some of your players are the reasons you were banned from the Line chat of the top team leaders... And yes this is true fact some of you are running multiple accounts (and yes we are talking about MORE than 2 accounts) in the same war, enabling the same individual to attack the same base twice which is against the war spirit, if not against the hard rule.
Now I appreciate we are largely off topic and I will stop there. At least, the world now knows what you are doing. And that your so called "Best alliance of the world" badge you are so proud of is mostly usurped.

 

[JuDomines]

'To clarify, UA1 didn't deliberately seek to match with UA2.' Come on... that's fairytale...No serious player will believe that.

 

[Fable]

Stated it before; smaller war sizes ='s faster match ups & better competition. Otherwise a variety of things can and will happen. I've thrown in dead acc.s (who r opted into war) to make matches (as opposed to sitting active members) and now that Glory favors larger sized wars I don't have a problem throwing in more dead acc.s to participate in larger wars.

Recruiting (save from here) is nill. Tbh idk how to make a completely fair and sensible WW lb, for all we know the best WW clan could run 10 vs 10 wars and never make it into the top 100 of the Glory lb because larger clans Glory rewards dwarf theirs.

Why not a seperate lb for 30's,,20's and 10's? It seems the larger the size the longer the match up time. Idk, when I gripe I try to have an example or idea that can help.

The original post was straightforward like 99.999% of Nexon's Design Spotlights like ppl previously mentioned.

 

[dannemare]

When the topic of having multiple accounts was brought up on LINE, I uncovered that four other alliances in that very LINE group also had multiple accounts. Why is it only an issue that UA members are using time and money to have extra accounts? Also, the guy who threw us out did so because of a misinterpretation of a post. You and I both know that.

 

[dannemare]

I never tried to say that UA2 did much to win. It most certainly doesn't look like it. They probably saw no point in wasting resources on coalitions, panzer mercenaries, etc seeing that they normally lose to UA1 anyway, but this is speculation on my part.

 

[JuDomines]

gosh, do you really think it's because of a misinterpretation UA get kicked out? You probably don't know the whole story. Or someone told you a wrong story. I don't want to be rude with you in particular, but your team mates behavior on this chat.... no one want to see this EVER AGAIN.

 

[dannemare]

The mass-kicking in that LINE group truly was set off by a (rather funny) misunderstanding. I have screenshots of it. I don't want to share it here because the bad language presented by people from DW, but I could post it to you in private if you feel like it.

 

[redprince]

Boom Beach has rankings based on task force size...5, 10, 25, 50...so it's a possible solution here too. For all we know this is a first iteration and eventually they will split the ranking up. It's usually better to release a V1.0 and improve from feedback instead of trying to make the perfect system off the bat.

 

[dannemare]

No Title

Haters gonna hate...

In all fairness, I want to mention that some of the heavyweight alliances we have faced and defeated time and time again deserve to be presented on the new leaderboard. Many of the new "top" alliances wouldn't stand a chance against some of them, but they risk never matching which isn't fair. Same for UA1. The new ranking system isn't as good as I had hoped. Over time, unless adjusted, it will not represent the true heavyweight champions of this game, would be my guess.

 

[dannemare]

I fully agree. This is exactly what I would have preferred. Multiple rankings somehow. Actually, all the data is already present in the backend database. It shouldn't take a skilled sql person long to extract all kinds of variations of leaderboards. It should be super trivial to do if the data is properly structured. If Nexon feels it is too much to throw into the game client, simply make everything available via an official Nexon DomiNations website.

 

[S_How]

Oh, you spoke like you knew exactly what had happened in your first post as you were talking about the decisions made that led to it.

In that case, I wonder why they didnt do much to win. Seems like a big change of heart from the last time the two met, where UA2 was within 5 points of a perfect score of UA1 in the spreadsheet you posted. This time they barely got half the points and many didnt even attack I guess. In fact, in the few meetings that have happened they've never just thrown a game like that. Maybe it was just a bad day?

 

[Quovatis]

Boom beach isn't a good comparison, because in that game, every alliance fights the same difficulty of bases, regardless of how advanced each individual player's base is.

If we are going to have a leaderboard and have it fairly reflect skill, and not just how advanced your offense/defense is, wars should be something like clash royale, where there is a "tournament standard". That is, all upgrades for the tournament will never go beyond a certain level. For Dominations, something sensible would be max industrial age base. That way everyone can compete on a level playing field and SKILL rather than money/cheats will win (multiplayer would be unaffected).

 

[dannemare]

Boom beach isn't a good comparison, because in that game, every alliance fights the same difficulty of bases, regardless of how advanced each individual player's base is.

If we are going to have a leaderboard and have it fairly reflect skill, and not just how advanced your offense/defense is, wars should be something like clash royale, where there is a "tournament standard". That is, all upgrades for the tournament will never go beyond a certain level. For Dominations, something sensible would be max industrial age base. That way everyone can compete on a level playing field and SKILL rather than money/cheats will win (multiplayer would be unaffected).

While I really, really like the idea of a tournament of sorts (I suggested something similar in another thread a long time ago), I would prefer if all the money I have poured into the game would benefit me. Domi is one of those games after all. Money is simply meant to provide an advantage (but without skills you'll still get nowhere, of course) by speeding up upgrades, etc.

​​