Glory Ranking and Matchmaking make no sense

[The Divine]

Lol then I guess they mean me by their lowest level is in EA =D

 

[BV123]

Buahahahaha

 

[BV123]

Hahaha The Divine

 

[GailWho]

Max_imus I'm not sayin.... Just sayin

 

[Mr Suplex]

TimTrain
Nb4powerup

What is going on here? There clearly are alot of questions and dissatisfaction with the current war system. Why are so many lopsided matches occurring?

Our latest war is another one. A 15 v 15 war and we have 3 Gunpowder, 2 Enlightenment, 3 Global, and the rest Industrial. We are paired against a team with 6 Global and the rest Industrial, with their lowest levels significantly higher than our teams. This is frustrating and makes people want to the World War system all together.

 

[Eddie F1]

Missed a 'quit' there I think.

There aren't enough players, so not enough Alliances, so the match-making parameters are very wide because if they tightened them to get fair match ups, you'd have the War equivalent of 'No Opponent Found' or in WW case, 'War search as been running for 4 days now and nothing'

Or in your case, the chances of another 15v15 with 3GP, 2EA, 3GA, 7IA is precisely zero, so they tossed you in with the first 15v15 that popped up.

 

[Equal]

Max_imus Actually they are.. we were matched against them as well..

 

[Equal]

or the closest thing possible. they could make 'strenght' score available to see, that we can know at least how one sided matchup we have.

 

[Glacier]

Again, glory doesn't get involved with match making. Ww match making never changed from what I have seen. We still blowing up alliances that we match that if went by the ages of the bases way outscore us. We just flattened three of these Alliances in a row. Lol I can hand my base over to an inexperienced player, the base's strength didnt go down because the new owner has no attack skills or knowledge of.

A combined average of an Alliance's bases optioned into the line up, is the match maker. Don't look at base age alone, look at their buildings. Are those globals pushed or what, lol. Its what I'm seeing in our match ups. I mean if anyone has any common sense at all with a global base, they wouldn't be running classic and medieval walls with the tc AND fc packed together like a farming base, come on!!! LOOTSVILLE for the lowers, lol.

Base strength, and the combonation there of within the alliance on any given war map is where the match is decided point blank ;-]

 

[S_How]

I have a feeling they expanded the min/max parameters in the past couple months. Its very hard to tell, but of our non iron age manipulated matchups, we have seen more matches where we are either clearly stronger or clearly weaker than the opposition. I dont really mind this, in the end its averaged out and I like playing the stronger teams.

What I dont like are the matchups that are being artificially made with the undeveloped bases.

 

[JuDomines]

I don't think so S_How. Otherwise the arguement from Unfairness Allies that "They have trouble to match any alliance" to justify their iron age stacking is bull****. Oh wait... Ok it's bull****.

 

[Ravenlord]

That still doesn't explain Mr Suplex 's glory point mismatch. His alliance stands to lose more than they win, as he said, and yet his alliance would seem to be the weaker one - how's that work?

It's like when I was at 2600 medals and came across a lower level base than me but I had a chance of winning more medals than I could've lost - not fair to the other guy is it? Something in the algorithm is definitely out of whack.

 

[Glacier]

Again, if the alliance you've matched has no glory (12k in my mind is no glory, why, because thats the baseline. Lose as many wars as ya want and you're not going under 12k), how do ya expect to have any in the available slot? We're atm matched with a team with enough glory to hit the top 100. We're out there somewhere about 400 glory from the top 100. Both they and we have a nice chunk of available glory. Had we matched a team higher up, say 50s or top 25. Well then our available glory # would be way higher because of how much glory that team holds.

Medals, its different in the baseline I would imagine. Yeah I feel that being gunpowder I should get less available medals if I attack a medieval and more medals if I attack an enlightenment. Then theres the stars, 1 star win and ya only get a portion of the available medals. 5star it and get all those medals.

Everyone started out with 12k glory so those 1st couple of wars had the mechanism thinking everyone had glory and thats why it was fun! Once the dust settled and 1st became 5k more glory than the baseline, it starts to look like kingdom leagues and higher where ya get 1 medal or something.

Wanted to quote ya Raven so it is know whom I replied to. I'm just still ignorant on how to do that from your reply to someone else that you quoted 0.o

 

[Eddie F1]

Not out of whack, that is how the Elo Rating works, except in chess you use a standard chess set with well defined rules.

In this they decided medals/glory is the defining factor, not army/defence strength.

So we have the ludicrous situation where I can get 1 medal for 5* a level 198 or 10 medals for TC snipe on a level140.