First WW match after changes, please report here

[QuébecGlory]

Our first match seems fair, but we don't have all the info... In a 30 player ww, we have no sandbags. Our lowest player is industrial. Our opponents have 7 sandbags, iron age to medieval. I didn't expect that at all.

 

[BeerMan]

No match for us so far... spinning for about 2 hours now.

 

[Tsamu]

We got a 50v50 war after about 30 minutes. Match seems fair

 

[Thud_]

Was a change made? Same uneven match up with opponent using iron age sandbags.

 

[QuébecGlory]

In our present war, even though our bottom 7 players are industrial, and they use 7 sandbags, the sandbags don't seem to have much of an effect on matchmaking. Normally it would have lowered their overall average a lot, but not now. Seems like the top 20 players weigh much more heavily in the match.

Sandbagging would then have a negative effect for them. But what I don't understand is why we even matched. I thought that teams using sandbags would be matched between them. Unless industrial is now considered sandbags??

I still think that the bottom 10 players are not accounted for. More deep-dive explanations would be needed

 

[Kalmyre]

Our first 30v30 is 1 space age vs 4 and they have 8 classic and Iron Age sandbags to our 3. Go figure, no difference.

 

[Ch0s3nByG0dz]

There we go again! Complaining after complaining! Am I surprised? No!

If you give it some additional thinking... Not all alliances around the world will notice that WW is back within its few hours and start a WW... so the pool will logically be smaller... And too much waiting triggers the “match whoever is available at the time”... Also if wars are also affected by glory and glory is reset... May take some time before strong teams climb a bit higher so they dont get matched with weaker teams...

Last but not least Tinsoldier said that all alliances will be considered “new” in their first 10 wars... So may take 10 wars before the new system can start determining who to match with who...

But anyhow, never trust a 211 lvl atomic, who is not even on discord. You must be on discord and in a top alliance for your opinion to be the right on and be eligible to give complaints

For the record:

Our first war is fair

 

[ThunderD]

My alliance just started a 20 v 20 war with a team that gradually tapers down from Atomic to classical age with most players being Industrial Age or close to it. The new system seems to have mistaken us for a sandbagging alliance and actually matched us with a semi- sandbagging alliance we have no chance against.

 

[Berend_War]

20 vs 20 War.
They 1 atomic 3 globals. (3x Silo)
Us 1 Global 3 industrial age.

Still looks like a intresting match most of there accounts are rushed. Low level generals.

Would rate it as a fair match.

 

[Mountainking]

I think less explanations if not none at all should be given. The more explanations, the more people would look for ways to defeat the match making algorithm or tweak their lineup to their advantage and it's sandbagging all over again....

 

[Mixie]

So, does 'intentional' sandbagging still work no?

 

[NateTheGreat]

It depends on your delta of offensive/defensive between your top players and bottom players as well as glory. So maybe your top end Space/CWA players had a similar delta between your industrial as the opposing teams top end compared with the strength of their ''sandbags''

 

[NateTheGreat]

How many CWA? 1 Space vs 4 Space is not the entire picture

 

[NateTheGreat]

30vs30

Us +266 W / -376L Glory
7 Space Age (Top player lv282)
7 CWA
2 Atomic
1 Global
6 Indi
7 GP, EA, Classical, Iron
(7 sandbags)

Them
8 Space Age (Top player lv295)
6 CWA
3 Atomic
4 Global
0 Indi
8 GP, EA, Classical, Iron
(8 sandbags)

They are slightly favored to win, hard war but seems pretty fair

 

[NateTheGreat]

It really would be nice to see total alliance power ratings and deltas being used as a factor for us and for the enemy. Also individual base offensive/defensive power would help us formulate a better war composition.

 

[NateTheGreat]

Why is it a bad thing if alliances tweak their line ups based on better in game knowledge? It just means the more strategic alliances that are willing to make changes will gain an advantage. The more transparent the system, the more fair it is to those players willing to educate themselves and build accordingly.

I used to get mad about sandbagging... then I learned to adapt and created my own sandbag killer with limited defenses and only necessary offensive upgrades. Now my sandbag can kill 2x lv 30 classical accounts sub 40s per war.

 

[Xabar]

Looks fine.

 

[Cadmium]

10 v 10

Us - 1 Cold War, 1 Atomic, 3 Global, 1 Industrial, 1 Gunpowder, 1 Medieval, 1 Iron (this is an extra account we use as it's to get us to 10 players)
Them - 1 Space , 2 Cold War, 1 Atomic, 3 Industrial, 1 Gunpowder, 1 Enlight, 1 Iron

Their space is 272 vs our Cold 248,
Their Cold War - 245 and 236 - our Atomic 212 and Global (202, 178 and 166)

We'll lose this one but the logic looks a lot better than with sandbagging.

 

[Mat 3 BloodyBarons]

Started a WW and seems to be fair 20vs20
what I have noticed is the lost of 3 extra troop space with Alliance xp gained.

 

[kosno]

Why do you label anything below industrial as sandbags we have a mix of clasical medieval gp and ea in our lineup and they are active members that attack not a dead sandbag acc to fill lower the weight