Extend the matchmaking

[JuDomines]

Is there a way we can extend the matchmaking so that we are able to match more alliance? When you are playing in a well advanced alliance, it’s very hard to get a match. We essentially can match 5-10 alliances without using sandbags. Meaning we have to wait dozens of hours before finding a war; I am not proposing to completely change the matchmaking. But I am asking we add another variable to matchmaking eligibility. For instance all alliance in top 100 are eligible to be matched with a top 100 alliance. Same for top 100-200, and so on. As an exemple I’d love to have a war with mysterious Japanese alliance ranked #2. They look super strong attackers to be ranked that high. But it seems no one in top 15 alliances ever matched them. I don’t understand why an alliance ranked #5 can’t match an alliance ranked #2. To me it’s a deficient approach in matchmaking.

 

[Quali]

Agree - we need leagues to come into play, you shouldn't be able to match an alliance that is more than a certain amount from your glory total.

 

[melheor]

What if Nexon introduced an optional handicap? You could choose to match with weaker alliances if you accept a temporary war-time debuff to your troops? Same can be applied to matching with stronger alliances but in reverse.

 

[Scuba]

Must be having a laugh.
The idea of leagues has been pushed around for over a year along with plenty more other suggestions.
Besides matchmaking isn't broken, it works perfectly every time and sandbagging doesn't exist since it was fixed.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

@JuDomines It seems that what you propose is a matching by glory, which has been discussed in the past (with many drawbacks of such approach). Extending the match-making is a very bad idea: it is already too loose today, meaning that we can see matching with 500 levels of difference (sums of all levels for both alliance).
There are often very imbalanced matching nowadays, this will just worsen the problem. You will get more wars probably but completely boring with no challenge.
If you want more possibility for matching, I think that a better solution would be to limit the different war sizes (10, 20, 30 for instance) and/or propose specific time windows for launching wars.
Another solution would be that you split your alliance as there are probably not many alliances with 30+ MAX AA bases.

 

[LordJestix]

Lets face the real problem here JuDomines, the player base or lack thereof. We just dont have enough high end players to meet the demands of proper match-ups for high end alliances. Then compound this issue with sandbagging.

 

[melheor]

We're not a top alliance, so we're not seeing the amplified version of this problem yet, but I definitely noticed that 10v10 matches tend to be more balanced for us than larger groups. As I already mentioned in another thread, I think allowing smaller sizes and multiple wars in parallel (this is key to make sure other people in clan don't feel left out) would help. It's much easier to make sure you have a balanced group of 3-5 players than 10+.

Moreover, how about a new mode, something like PvP where you can participate individually? Perhaps put 4-8 players in the same bracket and have them fight for top 3 spots.

 

[LordJestix]

You also bring up a point, if the other top alliances arent doing the same size war 1st Dynasty is doing, then they will never match them.

 

[Quovatis]

Lets face the real problem here JuDomines, the player base or lack thereof. We just dont have enough high end players to meet the demands of proper match-ups for high end alliances. Then compound this issue with sandbagging.

This is the real problem. They need to make it easier for players to advance, so we can match each other easier. Reduce upgrade times so we get more atomic age players. As is, there's only so many advanced age players to go around, and the number competing in war is only enough to fill a handfull of alliances.

You think it's bad now, just wait until 2 more ages have been released. If they follow the current model, only 1% of the population will be space age, and we'll never get to war each other because there will only be 100 of them total.

 

[LordJestix]

This is the real problem. They need to make it easier for players to advance, so we can match each other easier. Reduce upgrade times so we get more atomic age players. As is, there's only so many advanced age players to go around, and the number competing in war is only enough to fill a handfull of alliances.

You think it's bad now, just wait until 2 more ages have been released. If they follow the current model, only 1% of the population will be space age, and we'll never get to war each other because there will only be 100 of them total.

but how will they make money i fpeople dont crown those 14 day upgrades?????.... their shortsightedness though, because they cannot make money if they dont have any players. This game is dying and the lack of good wars at the top will mean those players start to quit the game making the situation even worse for the top players.

 

[yemen]

They definitely need to expand the war model. The current system is not working. Straight glory matching would work, but ensures that only teams with mostly high atomics filters to the top - the transition period would be brutal. It would end sandbagging immediately. Teams that pay to win would mostly end up playing each other at the top. Win-win for them getting the most glory, and the rest of us not having to face them.

Another set of options that I think go well together:
Limit the war size options. 10,20,40 would be good steps I think. Then there aren't as many different pools of players.

Multiple wars at a time would be a great complement to that. Then a full alliance can have two or 3 going at once.

Only allow a range of three ages to be included in the war - you pick the ages, but if you have an atomic then nothing below industrial. Have a different war for the Medieval / GP / EA group. And you can only match against teams with the same top age as yours.

Do all of those at once, and there are a lot more war teams in fewer pools, with better age segregation and fewer brutal mismatches possible.

On top of that, I suggest having a few specific times of day that wars are started - every 8 hours, take everyone in the pools, make the best matches you can. If there is a leftover team, guarantee they will match at the next time period as the first choice to be matched. Adds predictability for when wars will be starting, and you can start right before one matching period, and be guaranteed a match within 8 hours and a bit.

And separately, to encourage more people to participate, improve war loot. Start by giving out as much loot as you would get in a mp attack for each war attack (in battle, replace the piddling numbers there currently with 2000+ oil minimum and 400k+ food/gold for a global, and 3000+ oil/500k+food/gold for an atomic). If you do that, then the war loot you get at the end of the war doesn't need to be changed too much to allow war attacks to at least cover their costs.

 

[JuDomines]

To clarify, I don’t advocate to switch from level-based to glory-based matchmaking. I believe we should have a mix of both.

 

[JuDomines]

We don’t have 30+ max AA base. I am often ranked in the 15ish in war and I am not max. Also asking a group to split up to compensate a flawed matchmaking is not acceptable. At the core of the game, their is friendship of players belonging to the same alliance. We would have all stop playing long time ago if we hadn’t that.

 

[yemen]

JuDomines I appreciate your not wanting to leave or break up your alliance, I would also like to see you have good war options - I think smaller wars and multiples at a time could do that.

But to say you aren't maxed is disingenuous. You have maxed offense, maxed defensive buildings, level 30 generals, and nearly maxed walls at 233. Can't see your university, but presumably it is advanced as well. And you are 20th in your alliance list by XP, my guess is you would be a top 3 player in 99.9% of active alliances. There aren't many teams that can post a top 20 to match, and in a 40 player war the top 20 need to be close to make it anything like a fair war. That leaves a pretty small pool to have matchups against, and most alliances would be angry at the matchmaking if they had to face you.

Right now, the system has strong incentives to either have a mixed age alliance (in order to not match alliances like yours) or sandbag (for the same reason). A straight glory matchmaking system with limited war sizes is the only way I can see to make everyone bring all their best bases to war, and not try to reduce their average in some way. Then there might be 30 teams for you to match against instead of 5-10.