Fairer Multiplayer Matching

[DeltaB]

Several have already commented on the medal-based multiplayer matching, and I'd like to offer a suggestion. My experience: I'm currently level 27 Classical Age with 650ish medal count. When I battle, I'm constantly matched against Midieval opponents I have no chance of defeating. Even the lowest opponents it gives me are several levels ahead of me, and I might get 2 stars, and I typically lose my entire army. Battles normally have 12-14 medals at stake, so I usually get 2-4--tough way to make a living, and it makes me not want to battle. Then I'll get attacked by some massive army with generals, war elephants and 100 troops and lose 21 medals. What the heck? How are there so many medals at stake when my little town is so obviously outclassed in the match? Offensive ability is based on Age and level. Defensive ability is based on Age and level. Why then is matching based on medal count? Rather than basing on medals, the level needs to play a larger role in the matching--this will pit opponents against each other more fairly based on potential offensive and defensive ability. I also think the engine should offer a larger variety of opponents, but the bigger the difference in level and medal count, the fewer medals should be at stake. In this way, you could raid a lower class opponent for resources, but you'll get very few medals. This would also make the game more accurate to real life and history--you can pick on puny neighbors to gain resources, but it doesn't help you gain respect (medals). To gain respect and big medals, you have to tackle your peers or greater civilizations.

 

[DeltaB]

In the time it took to write the post above, I was raided by 3 super heavy horses, 1 Persian horse, 1 wall miner, 25 archers, 24 foot soldiers (too advanced for me to know what they're called) and 6 other merc soldiers--obviously a Midieval player, and even with every Classical Age defense I could muster, it was a total loss including 21k coin and 30k food. I'm fine with this, but why did I also lose 16 medals to this opponent? Should have been more like 5 based on the obvious mismatch.

 

[Unsavory]

You're right. The system doesn't really work. That said, your medals are far too high. I'm level 36ish with maxed out classical troops and towers and I keep my medals around the 500-550 mark.

You need to deliberately lose medals until you drop down to 500, maybe 450. Then you'll find easier targets and won't get clobbered as much.

There's no punishment for this, so until they stop it, go ahead and game the system. Medals really mean nothing just drop down.

 

[DeltaB]

Understand that's the strategy, but I'm puzzled why the engine would reward players deliberately "throwing" battles and disincentivize players being aggressive in multiplayer--don't they want good battles to be a central part of the game? Thanks for the response!

 

[DeltaB]

Here's what I recommend for a formula for the engine: base multiplayer on a "battle score" that's a composite of level, medals, and alliance. Level score would be 1 for 1, medal score would be medals/200, and if a player is a member of an alliance, add 2. A player at level 38 with 800 medals and a member of an alliance would have a battle score of 38+4+2 or 44. A player at level 26 with 400 medals and no alliance would have a battle score of 26+2+0 or 28. In a multiplayer battle, a match between equal battle scores would have 15 medals at stake. For non-equal battle scores, every point difference would add or subtract medals at .75x each point. In this way, if the 44 player attacks the 28 player, the difference is 16, and the 15 medal baseline would be reduced by 12 (16x.75) for a total of 3 medals (fair for picking on such a lesser opponent). Conversely, if the 28 player attacks the 44 player, the 15 medal baseline goes up by 12 for a total of 27 medals at stake. The medals risked for defeat should be the opposite--the 44 attacking the 28 should lose 27 medals for defeat, and the 28 attacking the 44 should only lose 3 medals for defeat. In this way, players are incentivized to collect medals for prestige, and they are rewarded for being ambitious. Since the 28 player is very unlikely to win more than one or two stars against the 44 player, they'll only get 5-10 medals anyway along with any resources. Likewise, if the 28 successfully defends against the 44, they should get big medals. Since gaining medals only changes the toughness of your opponents in multiplayer slightly, there's no great penalty for gaining medals. Finally, the engine should offer a bigger variety of opponents by matching you against equal battle scores first but then offering battles against players in the +/-18 battle score range allowing you to pick between glory and medals and easy victories with few medals but easier resource victories. I know this is a long post, but what are the flaws in the logic here?

 

[Whatwhat]

im lvl 90 and around the same medals as you. i enjoy smashing noobs. it gives me a real sense of power. i hope they dont change it.

 

[Unsavory]

The flaw is that strong players now have an even faster way of dropping medals to protect loot or avoid similarly powerful foes. If I'm the 44 and I'm sitting on a pile of resources I now have an easier way to drop medals AND raid weaker targets. Weaker targets help accrue resources faster because I lose fewer units and steal more diamonds and other resources.

I like your system but until they make medals worth something it's moot. The tier rewards need to be increased significantly and you should not be able to drop below a medal floor once you reach it.

 

[DeltaB]

Maybe I'll appreciate the system more when I can smash the noobs too! Ha... Unsavory, your point is very valid about making it easier to drop medals, and I agree it won't truly be fixed until medals mean something. In the meantime, you could decrease the medals for losing or perhaps take away any loot if you don't achieve victory--realistic, but I'm sure that would bring much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those trying to game the system.

 

[Showdang]

The matchmaking is perfectly fair. The problem is you like to rush to the next Age too early before your defences are upgraded. I have fully maxed defences in classical age. I don't think my storages have been touched in the past ten defences, and I can tell by the units that at least one of those was a midevil player, the rest mostly classical. Stop upgrading your town centre prematurly and you wont get owned.

 

[DeltaB]

Not true, I upgraded 100% of everything before advancing to Classical Age and will do so prior to Midieval as well. Defenses were my first priority in Classical, but there's a huge difference between early Classical defense and Midieval offense. It doesn't bother me at all that I get raided. It bothers me that I am not afforded the same opportunity unless I was to "throw" battles just to get my medal count down so I can face more evenly matched opponents. A game that rewards losing and punishes winning needs some adjustments.

 

[David Pasquinel]

It's starting to get annoying. Everyone who get their base tucked by higher tiered players comes here on the foruns starting another thread, and the suggestion area become the "sore loser lounge".

This game is about raiding more than being raided, not turtling inside your base. There is already a fair matchmaking system wich deny players attacking players who have a huge gap between them, but you guys are not even aware that it exists. Instead, you come here spamming the forums with the same complaint, over and over again.

The game have already a fair attack system, but you guys want to be inside a plastic bubble forever. Go play Tribez & Castlez.

 

[Aussie guy]

Yes, this topic about unfair multiplayer matching is beginning to annoy me. DeltaB, has 650 medals on level 27. That's high for that level and will mean that most battle matches will be with players who are of a higher level. I'm on level 105 with about 1400 medals. I have been as high as 1790 medals and dropped down as low as 950 medals a couple of weeks ago, to do some easy looting. I have been playing the game for almost 6 months. I'm experienced in the game now and have a big base with maxed up troops...yet today a level 45 player with lots of resources turns up on my multiplayer battle mode. I smashed his base in about 30 seconds and lost only 8 troops. That player has over 1200 medals. That means he has been doing a lot of successful raiding, but also means that he is going for medals and this approach will mean he will come up against plenty of level 100 plus players. Is it my fault that he turns up on my battle mode?...no it's his fault for going for medals and pushing himself into my battle matching zones. I think the game matching mode is about right and the decision to gain or drop medals depends on your approach. Sometimes I like to gain medals and knock over base after base. Then at other times I drop medals and go for easier resource raiding on lower level players...this is not unfair, it's a legit strategy to ultimately trying to dominate other players...in this game, "Dominations".

 

[TheWise]

Thank you all for your feedback! I have taken your collected wisdom and passed it on to the development team. Matchmaking is a work in progress, and we appreciate your help! Ex vulgus scientia!

 

[Flip_Cru]

lol I thought being able to balance matchmaking yourself is part of the game. If you want to farm find an appropriate amount of medals to do it. If you wanna push expect to have to compete with higher level players. Your request defeats the purpose of the game

 

[Whatwhat]

I wish they made it a free for all like real history. I mean wouldn't it be great of I could attack all ages?

 

[David Pasquinel]

By the way, the majority of towns that I burn to the ground are of players that rush through the Ages, with their wooden fences protecting outdated catapults and towers. I simply deploy my horde saying "welcome to Classical/Medieval/Gunpowder!". Then I hum "Girl of Ipanema" while my guys dismantle the whole place. If you want to stand a chance in this game, first understand the concepts and adapt yourself to it, instead of coming here asking the system to be changed because you want the game to be like playing single player.

And I bet my coin that you guys don't think that the system is unfair at all when you are the ones giving the stick on some lower tech city.

 

[mwedwards]

You have it backwards. OP is not rushing to the next age, he is simply trying to play the game well and get the most out of each age. When one does this one naturally accumulates medals. The trouble here is that this playstyle is disincentivised. Medals are a mostly a function of one's attacking skill (and defensive design to a lesser extent), which becomes completely irrelevant when outclassed like this.

 

[mwedwards]

Interesting perspective. To be fair I am in the opposite camp but am relatively new to the game (a few weeks). I am Classical, lvl 32, roughly 720 medals and getting raided by Gunpowder age opponents. It's somewhat amusing to watch the replays, but at the end of the day it would be nice to see someone equally matched in tech attack my base, which just doesn't happen - at all, ever. At the same time I am most often matched against folks up in the high 50's when attacking. Why care about medals at all? The primary reason for me is admission to a top-100 alliance, which usually requires 800 medals. After that the medal count won't matter as much (to me) until endgame.

 

[mwedwards]

I like it but it's a bit complex. The best games have simple rules that work really well together. Take Go -- a game with basically 3 rules and infinite variety. It would be nice to lose the 200g charge for skipping an attack against a player in a higher age.