Fixing the WW Matching and Sand Bagging Issues and be done with it.

RodneyNorris

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
16
Why not just assign a Proportional number to a base?
While the explanation below may seem complicated… the formula is actually VERY Simple.
Match Total= AXPL*(ABVT*100)

Let me explain. Let a Numerator be assumed to be 50 as set as a constant, (50 possible WW players).
Allot Base Age Values, (BAV), as follows:
CA=5, IronA=10, MA=15, GPA=20, EA=80, IA=180, GA=190, AA=200

As the current alliance WW base ranking system is, as a variable lets call it (Rank)…. you would divide that Alliance WW rank number (Rank), into 50 and add it to the above numbers or (BAV)… (Truncated integer obviously), and then multiply by 10. This total we will call the Base Total or (BT)

So, in a 10 player WW a #10 ranked CA base would equal (5 + (50/#10))*10, or (5+5)*10 for a total of 100. (Eg. A Base Age Number of CA=5 Plus the total of 50 divided by the Rank. Then multiplied by 10; 5 plus the 5 equals 10, then multiplying this by ten gives a value of 100. Simple eh?

Conversely…. In a 10 player WW a #1 Ranked AA base would equal ((200 + 50)*10), for a total of 2,500. ((Eg. A Base Age Number of AA=200 Plus the total of 50 divided by the Rank. Then multiplied by 10; 50 plus the 200 equals 250, then multiplying this by ten gives a value of 2,500.

Adding these values all up for each of an Alliance’s WW participants, a value we will call “All Alliance Players BAV Total” or (ABAVT), separates the “WW Alliance Levels” so a powerful alliance will never get pitted against a weaker one. Also, it completely eliminates sand bagging (since, combined with the below multiplication, the sand bagger alliance and the sand bagged alliance would be at two completely separate Match Total numbers so they basically would never be pitted against each other.
Continuing…
Add these values for each alliance base all up as stated above and multiply by 100. Call this the Alliance Base Total (ABT)
The ABT will effectively separate for the 9 levels of participation. Eg. for a WW Alliance Participation of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 players.
Then Multiply this value by the Alliance AXP level or (AXPL) and you get the Match Total or (MT)

Base Age Values (BAV) reference for the Example below: CA=5, IronA=10, MA=15, GPA=20, EA=80, IA=180, GA=190, AA=200

Example. 10 player WW and an AXP level of 2 with one base of each Age, but Two AA’s and Two GA’s
For simplicity, we will just say the system ranked the Ages of the bases highest to lowest as follows:
#1-AA, #2-AA, #3-GA, #4-GA, #5-IA, #6-EA, #7-GPA, #8-MA, #9-IronA, #10-CA

#1 AA base=2,500 eg. ((200+(50/1))*10), #2 AA base=2,250 eg. ((200+(50/2)), #3 GA base=2,060 eg. (190+(50/3)), #4 GA=2,020, #5 IA=1,900, #6 EA=880, #7 GPA=270, #8 MA=210, #9 IronA=150, #10 CA=100
Adding these totals up (ABVT) would be 12,340. Multiplying this total by 100 would give a number of 1,234,000 and then multiplying that by the AXP Level of 2 per this example means the WW Alliance would have a Match number of 2,468,000.
Any WW Alliances with a match of plus or minus some value…. Say 5% or 10% of this value would be considered a good match.

If no match found in 20 minutes then stop the search and send a message that an opponent not found please try again later. Better to not have an opponent found than to be pitted against an unfairly matched opponent or sand bagged.
Again, while the explanation may seem complicated… the formula is actually VERY Simple.

The (MT) or…. Match Total equals...... AXPL*(ABVT*100)

The Devs would just throw the Base totals (BT)’s into a programmed array and add them to get ABVT. And AXPL is a known Value in the game. As far as the complicated Glory points matching….. Just make them fixed numbers.... for example.... a positive 500 if you win and minus 250 if you lose… down to zero that is. And be done with it. Provide the incentive to do good and the detriment if not. No complicated weirdness that will never be correct even after a fix on top of a fix etc. Simplify, solve the Matching issues, Solve the Sand Bagging Issues, and be done with it.

Additional Note: The Proposed Matching Algorithm AXPL*(ABVT*100)takes into affect the strength of the base by incorporating the Alliance WW Team Rank System as it currently is. In other words. The current basic WW system already ranks each teammate's WW Base, based on the strength of their base. So an EA Base such as I am, can be ranked higher than an AA base. As I often am. If you look back at the algorithm you will see it is based off of this. The Weighting is for separation. Both in high vs low rank (to stop the sand bagging), and coupled with the next multiplier... to separate between the amounts of alliance participation in the WW (e.g. 10, or 15, or 20,...etc. Players). All and all it would match like strength to like strength (of the alliances as a total of their players and not reliant on a few strong or weak). The algorithm is actually So simple and efficient that someone can easily mistakenly miss the fact that it is actually almost entirely based on the basic WW systems ranking of the Strength of each individual WW Base of the Alliance. The end Matching Algorithm is Just Two Variables One of which is Alliance XP Level. Don't want Separation of Strength by AXPL? Now you would only have One Variable times 100.

Rodney Norris
GoldStandard Alliance
 
Last edited:

Patrick Bardet

Approved user
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
55
yes using Glory is the worst idea we had on the subject; first it will lead to much more unfair matching than today. As the alliances are not making war at the same pace, you will have very strong alliances doing few wars matched against low level alliances. Second, what will be the range for matching 1000 points, 2000 points ? with the low number of alliances making wars, after a while you will be matched against the same 5 alliances. Matchmaking system shall be adjusted to represent correctly the level in terms of attack and defense level and then to pair alliances with similar levels, not more.
 

Patrick Bardet

Approved user
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
55
RodneyNorris: you assume that the war level of a base is dependent on its age, as the strength is completely dependent on the age of a base. The war level of a base depends on the level of its attack and its defensive buidlings, some higher age bases are much weaker than lower age war base because they have rushed to an age without properly developing their attack and their defense. In the same way, in your algorithm you weight the same a max AA and an early AA base, which are quite different I can tell you in terms of power.
 

RodneyNorris

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
16
The Algorithm takes into affect the strength of the base by incorporating the Alliance WW Team Rank System as it currently is. In other words. The current basic WW system already ranks each teammate based on the strength of their base. So an EA Base such as I am, can be ranked higher than an AA base. As I often am. If you look back at the algorithm you will see it is based off of this. The Weighting is for separation. Both in high vs low rank (to stop the sand bagging), and coupled with the next multiplier... to separate between the amounts of alliance participation in the WW (e.g. 10, or 15, or 20,...etc. Players). All and all it would match like strength to like strength (of the alliances as a total of their players and not reliant on a few strong or weak). The algorithm is actually So simple and efficient that you mistakenly missed the fact that it is actually almost entirely based on the basic WW systems ranking of the alliance bases.
 

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
I also agree that matching based on glory would be bad for the game, and one of the only things that would make matchmaking even worse than it is now. Although, it wouldnt be too bad for my team lol.

Anyhow, I still think the most logical and easy solution is to simply not count the bottom 25% of a roster in the matchmaking calculation. It gets rid of sandbagging, slightly broadens matchmaking range, and correctly puts more emphasis on the top half of the roster which is more often than not the deciding factor, since players can have two hits.
 

RodneyNorris

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
16
Totally disagree. Glory is the worst Idea. Glory is what your after as a result of the WW. Matching Alliances based on the Glory is akin to a huge feedback loop. or matching the dinner of one family with that of another based on the desert they have.... and will get.. lol. Fun!!!
 

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
So now we will jsut sandbag with 8 bases instead of 3 or what ever number puts the sandbags above .

They have to make a change that eliminates it entirely. Basing it only glory would do that, as an alliance wouldnt want small bases in their wars as it would only hurt them.
 

LordAnubis

Approved user
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
534
just match by glory,simple and fair

Why do you and others continue to insist on matching by glory alone? It will actually increase mismatches. Matching by glory alone means you match by the rewards of war, not the opponent strength.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Bardet

Approved user
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
55
Let's take a example for a war of 5 members: Alliance 1: 5 AA all Max offense and defense, Alliance 2: 5 AA min offense and defense; According to your algorithm they should be matched, no ? If yes, then totally imbalanced.
 

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
Why do you and others continue to insist on matching by glory alone? It will actually increase mismatches. Matching by glory alone means you match by the rewards of war, not the opponent strength.

At first yes, but it will even itself out. There will be no way a all IA alliance will get to say 24k glory where fully AA alliances rest. They just wont be able to compete thus they wont make it to that rank.

If by chance they get up near there because they are very skilled, they will lose to those AA alliances on the occasion they get paired against them, thus knocking them back down to where they belong.

This is EXACTLY how the ladder works for clash royale. As a Level 1 with level 1 cards i can, with skill, get up to around 2k trophies where i face level 7s and 8s and really bad level 9s and 10s. Im drastically out matched and have to rely on my skill to get up there. But i cant get much higher because of being out matched. So ill stay at that 2k range until i rank my account up.

On my level 10 account im up around 4k trophies and face mainly level 11s, some level 12s and a few level 13s. The level 12s and 13s are at a huge advantage over me, but im able to be up there and compete with them, but i cannot get up much higher than around the 4k limit because they have higher level and higher level cards that even with skill is hard for me to win against.
 

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
No that wouldn't happen. They actually do have an effective penalty above 25-30% sandbags that results in nearly 0 glory. Combine that with not counting the bottom 25% and it's fixed in a simple and effective way
 

Imaera

Approved user
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
455
So today's industrial players will never see themselves on top, because they will never be able to catch up with today's atomic players. What's the point of playing then?

edit: Examples were offered with medal ladder, but there, an industrial player is not forced to attack atomics in order to climb. He can climb fighting with those in the same age.
 
Last edited:

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
So today's industrial players will never see themselves on top, because they will never be able to catch up with today's atomic players. What's the point of playing then?

edit: Examples were offered with medal ladder, but there, an industrial player is not forced to attack atomics in order to climb. He can climb fighting with those in the same age.

They can see themselves on the top eventually, there are probably only 2 more ages left, so once todays IA players advance enough they will eventually get to max and have a chance for the top of the leader boards. If you really wanted to get to the top of those leaderboards then you can do what a lot of those guys did and buy your way there.
 

LordAnubis

Approved user
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
534
LordJestix Here's the problem, another one, with matching on glory alone. A top alliance has mostly AA, GA, and some lower ages. What happens when several of there AA/GA opt out of war? They fill with lower levels to go to war and then are out matched. Why should they be penalized with a lopsided war and potential loss because high rank playsrs take a break from war?

Match on glory alone is fine for MP because you are matching single to single, but matching a group to group with many variables is tougher.

War matching needs to be a combination of defensive/offensive strength and glory. Adding glory to the matching will definately balance it out but glory alone matching in a game like this is bad.
 
Last edited:

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
LordJestix Here's the problem, another one, with matching on glory alone. A top alliance has mostly AA, GA, and some lower ages. What happens when several of there AA/GA opt out of war? They fill with lower levels to go to war and then are out matched. Why should they be penalized with a lopsided war and potential loss because high rank playsrs take a break from war?

Match on glory alone is fine for MP because you are matching single to single, but matching a group to group with many variables is tougher.

War matching needs to be a combination of defensive/offensive strength and glory. Adding glory to the matching will definitely balance it out but glory alone matching in a game like this is bad.

IF an alliance is worried about that, then they should require a specific age level to join their alliance.
Alliances that truly want to compete for the top(when sandbagging is removed) will not want lower ages in their alliance anyways. Those that dont care are going to be ones that really dont care about leader board position.
 

Quovatis

Approved user
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
1,454
I'm totally against glory-based matchmaking for the simple fact that there aren't many advanced-age players in dominations. The top 20 teams would play each other over and over again. That would get really boring. There aren't enough players to support more alliances to diversify the matches.
 

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
I'm totally against glory-based matchmaking for the simple fact that there aren't many advanced-age players in dominations. The top 20 teams would play each other over and over again. That would get really boring. There aren't enough players to support more alliances to diversify the matches.

We will always have sandbagging then, there really isnt a way to avoid it otherwise. If we jsut count the top X% for the calc, alliances will just add enough sandbags to get over that threshold.
 
Top