Is removing 35v35 a good idea, after all?

JuDomines

Approved user
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
597
I found this put my alliance in an awkward spot: 30x means we have to bench dozens of people each war and virtually no alliance search 40x in our range (unless we use a disproportionate number of sandbags, which does not solve our issue since that would result in benching dozens of people too). 35x was good compromise for us, allowing to keep our peeps entertained. But it's gone. What do you guys think?
 

BeerMan

Approved user
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
415
We're in the same boat. 35v35 was our preferred war size. If we go with 30, we have to bench too many, and if we roll the dice with 40 we either get a war that's too easy or impossible. I'm not sure why they didn't just axe 45 and 50; surely those were the least-used.
 

Tsamu

Approved user
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
724
I agree, 35 v 35 is a useful size. We usuallyudo 40v40, but every 10 or so wars I don't have enough players and having to drop to 30 will disappoint a lot of people
 

LordAnubis

Approved user
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
534
Dropping 35v35 was a really bad idea because too many groups use this happy medium. I can understand dropping 45v45 to increase war pool in others thus speeding up matching.
 

Mcnasty

Approved user
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
456
They drooped theses numbers because they were the least done. Everyone complains that matches are horrible but when they try to do something to try to fix the you still complain. Sucks for you but there’s better things you could complain about
 

_Flash_

Approved user
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
862
They drooped theses numbers because they were the least done. Everyone complains that matches are horrible but when they try to do something to try to fix the you still complain. Sucks for you but there’s better things you could complain about

I'm neither complaining nor supporting the change in this post.
Would only like to point out one difference.

Dropping some of these war sizes would increase the available options for match making in wars at the other sizes. The outcome of this change would be reduced time for the matchmaking to happen after starting a war search.

Another issue which people are complaining about is about the mismatches that they see during the match-ups. That would only get remedied if the matchmaking algorithm/conditions for matching up two alliances are tweaked.

The two are separate problems, and dropping certain war sizes wouldn't solve the other.

Hope this helps.
Cheers and happy gaming!
 
Last edited:

Saruman the White

Approved user
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
527
The problem comes, I think, from how many alliances choose these wars. Perhaps they've found that there were very few, resulting in long matchmaking periods?
 

BeerMan

Approved user
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
415
I find it hard to believe that 50v50 was more popular than 35v35. I can only assume they kept 50 around to appease the "all star war" crowd, although I think there are better solutions to support such a thing (such as allowing glory-free exhibition matches between two alliances).
 

poop_

Approved user
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
147
Seriously? You want nexon programmers to spend time setting up a way for alliances to do exhibition matches? Waste of time compared to what they need to be working on.

I doubt anyone searches at 50v50 except for these exhibition matches... so it isn't a problem. Why address something that isn't a problem?

I support Nexon's move of eliminating war sizes. Players complained about long search times. This is a way to help address it that doesn't just solve the long search time by making greater mismatches. How do people not see this? I come down on Nexon for a lot of things (let's be honest, there is a lot to critisize), but this is not one of them.

HOWEVER, Nexon would have more alliances searching for war and not need to eliminate war sizes if they weren't so good at chasing people out of the game or out of war.... So, this is really a band aid that doesn't solve the main problem, which is incompetence.
 

Tsamu

Approved user
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
724
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you are correct. Bad match-ups and insufficient rewards for high level players causes less people to war. Tbh, I'm not sure why I still do it. I'm a leader, so I donate about 500k food's worth of troops to war bases, the same again for war attacks, and my attacks cost a 250k food to retrain troops, and usually 2k oil. I'm losing resources!
 

Bootney Lee Fonsworth

Approved user
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
459
That's kind of how I feel about it too. I generally donate to all the bases since I can knock out 30 on a training blessing with 20 minutes to spare. And honestly, food is only useful to me once a fortnight when an upgrade finishes at the moment.

That said, the rewards are still pitifully low for anyone past enlightenment age despite the library research.

They really should get on with creating another 10 perk levels. Think outside the box, folks! You don't have to wait for Clash of Clans to do it first! With wars being a net negative for most high-level players loot-wise, AXP and Rubies are really the only rewards worth fighting for.

Unless they finally wise up and do alliance leagues. To be perfectly honest glory is meaningless to 95% of the groups out there with the current system. To get to the leaderboard requires money and/or a level of commitment that changes the game from pastime to task. That's fine for those who are all in, but it'd be nice for the rest of us to have a measuring stick beyond some vague range of numbers.

They can keep the primo deluxe top 100 exactly how it is. Then break up the rest into leagues based on the current multiplayer league standard and post the top 20-100 of each one. Would it be a game changer? No. Would it at least draw some interest back in? Probably. People may be more inclined to fight if they had more info about where exactly they stand beyond ''4500 glory away from 100th place''..

Like many things in this game all that info is already there. Displaying it to us should be a trivial matter. Why they choose not to............?
 
Last edited:

yemen

Approved user
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
680
There are so many things they need to do to make the game more attractive to new players, and to lose fewer old players to frustration, but that would be a huge list. This move would clearly be unnecessary if they had a large and growing player base.

To increase war participation, they need to improve the rewards a lot. For tough wars, any atomic attacker is facing a net loss of oil unless attacks go perfectly, given planes, generals and factory troops. The rubies earned in a war barely cover troop card costs, assuming you use marco when he actually brings troop chests. They tried doubling the rewards for a week once, and it was much better and more appropriate, especially for the top few ages.

I suggest they add a way for an alliance to do multiple wars at once (each player can only be in one), and then limit the war sizes to 5, 10 or 20 players. Keep 3-4 wars running at a time with different groups of players, everyone is active and involved, and there are far more matchups out there, so easier to find a good one.
 

KatZA

Approved user
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
34
I don’t recall anyone ever complaining about a 35 war size...and matches weren’t an issue before this change
 

Quang t legend

Approved user
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
466
virtually no alliance search 40x in our range (unless we use a disproportionate number of sandbags, which does not solve our issue since that would result in benching dozens of people too).

Hey I heard Nexon said after 24 hours if you cannot match, you can contact customer service. They may give compensation!

They should add same range of glory to the matching, more possibility. No alliance at the same range should be afraid of matching a higher level alliance.
 
Last edited:

JuDomines

Approved user
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
597
Hey I heard Nexon said after 24 hours if you cannot match, you can contact customer service. They may give compensation!

They should add same range of glory to the matching, more possibility. No alliance at the same range should be afraid of matching a higher level alliance.

Oh really?! We probably will be very rich soon :D
Re. having glory as an input (but not the only one) to the matching, we are on the same boat. I advocate for that since Day-1 of glory.
 
Top