How Heavily is Glory Weighted in the WW Matchmaking Process?

[StarTrekAlliance]

Does anyone have an idea how heavily Glory is weighted in the WW matchmaking process? I think it should be HEAVILY weighted so it works similar to a sweet sixteen basketball bracket. This way, all the sandbaggers and cheats would theoretically end up fighting each other at the top. The sandbaggers and cheaters would presumably be faring better in WW so they would naturally gravitate towards the top of the bracket. Using Glory and Random Chance would make the match making process more fair in my opinion, so the silly humans can't muck up the works with sandbags or other devices. Additionally, after a few WWs, teams would naturally fall into glory ranges based on their skill and strength as a team, so in my mind, I'm not sure they would even need to look at strength as part of the match making process. Perhaps add Leagues based on Glory ranges, so weaker teams could still be competitive and fight for #1 spot within their league.

 

[BHG_Muet]

Glory is currently not part of the MM algorithm. That said, it will be weighed in the new system we've been working on.

 

[oddin]

I and some others have been telling people that glory is the way to go and that after a while, alliances will take their proper place in the global ranking.
for once, I agree with you StarTrekAlliance

And I am glad that this is confirmed by BHG_Muet cause now I know that this will get better eventually. thx!

 

[KniferX]

Full or heavily weighted glory matchmaking is a bad idea. Search the forums, the subject has already been discussed.

 

[oddin]

BHG Muet believes that glory based matchmaking is a correct step towards better MM. He didnt say how heavy glory weights on MM but I am sure they will take into account many other variables like defensive buildings, walls, generals, troops etc

 

[astero]

Glory is currently not part of the MM algorithm. That said, it will be weighed in the new system we've been working on.

What is currently part of the algorithm?

A lot of "sandbagging" is strictly focused around adding useless players to a group of strong ones: recently I saw 7 super-strong players (even Space Age) with 3 meaningless ones whose levels were 11, 11, & 10. Yes, 11,11, and 10!

Why not just take into account the top 5 players for instance in a war comprising of 10 players and completely disregard the level of the bottom 5? Surely this would work heaps better than the current solution...

 

[Rico_x_00]

Don't allow bases below III age to participate in war.