IMPROVING WAR MATCHMAKING

[SirBiggun]

Is there something we can do to improve The war matchmaking? Seems everyone is getting bad matches, too lopsided. Maybe base it on glory or team ranking on domistats or some sort of combination. There is also the idea to have divisions of different levels. such as a A,B,C,D division and you can move up or down the divisions depending on your ability to defeat other teams in your division. I like the idea of a 25v war as well. Basically we are all looking for more competitive wars . Other Suggestions welcome.

 

[SirBiggun]

How do we get BHG moderators like

• Harlems369th to comment ?​

 

[Sroth]

Is there something we can do to improve The war matchmaking? Seems everyone is getting bad matches, too lopsided. Maybe base it on glory or team ranking on domistats or some sort of combination. There is also the idea to have divisions of different levels. such as a A,B,C,D division and you can move up or down the divisions depending on your ability to defeat other teams in your division.

Having travelled through the top paying (not playing) players and alliances in the game, it appears that matchmaking system you have built is broken. The difference in alliance levels of war rank and glory vs opponents is beyond lopsided a majority the time.

Perhaps, there is a way you could fix that to ensure more consistent competitive matches or implement a league division based on glory level.

A tiered system based on glory would benefit not only most active and top-spending accounts and alliances, but the community at large. It would incentivize players to rise in competition, spend more and benefit BGH against similar platforms which recognize the opportunity in tiered competitive matchmaking.
@Harlems369th

​

 

[Rafar]

I believe that the incidence of mismatch wars can vary greatly from one alliance to another, as there are many factors considered.

In the alliance that I play, I control each war and based on the last 63 wars, all carried out this year, we have the following numbers: 38 compatible wars (61%) and 25 incompatible wars (39%). In the case of incompatible wars they are counted as either favorable or unfavorable to us.

I consider the number of incompatibility quite high.
I understand that it is not at all easy to create a system that can make this war compatibility issue more adjusted, but these numbers cannot be accepted. It is important to say that in order to define the compatibility or otherwise of the wars, I follow personal criteria that I myself have established, taking into account some elements, but mainly the difference in ages and weight of the bases between the two alliances.
I do not take into account the number of glories, museum or generals not established in the bases.

 

[Harlems369th]

WW Matchmaking is one of the things we talked about in our Road Ahead Post found Here! We can't wait to share with you what we've been working on, but we still need some time.

 

[SirBiggun]

I believe that the incidence of mismatch wars can vary greatly from one alliance to another, as there are many factors considered.

In the alliance that I play, I control each war and based on the last 63 wars, all carried out this year, we have the following numbers: 38 compatible wars (61%) and 25 incompatible wars (39%). In the case of incompatible wars they are counted as either favorable or unfavorable to us.

I consider the number of incompatibility quite high.
I understand that it is not at all easy to create a system that can make this war compatibility issue more adjusted, but these numbers cannot be accepted. It is important to say that in order to define the compatibility or otherwise of the wars, I follow personal criteria that I myself have established, taking into account some elements, but mainly the difference in ages and weight of the bases between the two alliances.
I do not take into account the number of glories, museum or generals not established in the bases.

that’s interesting Rafar that you tracked that. I think our incompatibility is even higher than that. I will look in our history and check

 

[SirBiggun]

WW Matchmaking is one of the things we talked about in our Road Ahead Post found Here! We can't wait to share with you what we've been working on, but we still need some time.

Thanks for replying and posting link to thread on matchmaking. I will check it out.

 

[IDaedalusI]

I believe that the incidence of mismatch wars can vary greatly from one alliance to another, as there are many factors considered.

In the alliance that I play, I control each war and based on the last 63 wars, all carried out this year, we have the following numbers: 38 compatible wars (61%) and 25 incompatible wars (39%). In the case of incompatible wars they are counted as either favorable or unfavorable to us.

I consider the number of incompatibility quite high.
I understand that it is not at all easy to create a system that can make this war compatibility issue more adjusted, but these numbers cannot be accepted. It is important to say that in order to define the compatibility or otherwise of the wars, I follow personal criteria that I myself have established, taking into account some elements, but mainly the difference in ages and weight of the bases between the two alliances.
I do not take into account the number of glories, museum or generals not established in the bases.

Sorry to bring back this old topic, but because I'm curious, how were you determining that a war was incompatible? Thanks!

 

[SirBiggun]

Sorry to bring back this old topic, but because I'm curious, how were you determining that a war was incompatible? Thanks!

I think domistats lists it

 

[Rafar]

Sorry to bring back this old topic, but because I'm curious, how were you determining that a war was incompatible? Thanks!

I used personal parameters, nothing official and not even based on domistats.

I make comparisons of level, age and "weight" between the allies and opponents of each war. So I established margins of difference between these aspects and use it as a personal criterion to know if a war is balanced or with an absolute advantage or disadvantage over another. Only that.

Currently my alliance has 84 wars this year, 51 of which were balanced (60%), 20 we were in absolute advantage (24%) and 13 in absolute disadvantage (16%).

 

[IDaedalusI]

I used personal parameters, nothing official and not even based on domistats.

I make comparisons of level, age and "weight" between the allies and opponents of each war. So I established margins of difference between these aspects and use it as a personal criterion to know if a war is balanced or with an absolute advantage or disadvantage over another. Only that.

Currently my alliance has 84 wars this year, 51 of which were balanced (60%), 20 we were in absolute advantage (24%) and 13 in absolute disadvantage (16%).

What goes into the "weight" between the players of each war? I can see age being used to help determine the general potential strength of a player, but why level?

 

[Rafar]

Just to cite one example among countless variations...
In a war of 10 drones against 10 drones, but "alliance 1" has 10 drones level 400+ and "alliance 2" has 10 drones level 350-. There is a huge level difference which could mean that "alliance 1" has much more evolved buildings than "alliance 2". And this can be translated in many ways as "alliance 1" having buildings with much more health points, defenses with much more damage forts, traps, troops, generals, among other things. In this scenario I would still understand this as a balanced war, but with a huge level disadvantage.
I cited here just one example for your understanding regarding the difference in level between the participants of each alliance. For this to become an incompatible war there was very little missing.

And I reinforce once again that these are just personal criteria that I adopted and have nothing to do with domistats or any other reference.

 

[IDaedalusI]

Just to cite one example among countless variations...
In a war of 10 drones against 10 drones, but "alliance 1" has 10 drones level 400+ and "alliance 2" has 10 drones level 350-. There is a huge level difference which could mean that "alliance 1" has much more evolved buildings than "alliance 2". And this can be translated in many ways as "alliance 1" having buildings with much more health points, defenses with much more damage forts, traps, troops, generals, among other things. In this scenario I would still understand this as a balanced war, but with a huge level disadvantage.
I cited here just one example for your understanding regarding the difference in level between the participants of each alliance. For this to become an incompatible war there was very little missing.

And I reinforce once again that these are just personal criteria that I adopted and have nothing to do with domistats or any other reference.

Oh I definitely understand that its your personal criteria, I'm just always interested in how people try to analyze these things Thanks a bunch for your explanations!