Matchmaking based on glory

[Veldan]

I didn't read all of the above, but the problem is that it would lead to every alliance winning and losing the same percentage. And, no one wants that.

And why would noone want that? That is the very definition of fair matchups... player skill and upgrade levels are combined in such a way that it's equally hard to win for both sides.

 

[poop_]

If I am understanding this right, that is not what it would mean.

A new alliance just starting out would win until they hit their ceiling. For some alliances this might be alliances with about the same age composition. For others though, they would continue to beat other alliances until they were in wars where they were outranked war after war. With NTGs the way they are, this would be crazy. Think about the medal system, and why players drop medals because at some point, you reach bases that do outrank you and it can be exhausting (and not so much fun) to hit base after base like that... never mind that your run out of the tactics/generals/mercs that you may need to beat them. (You can equate tactics/generals/mercs with NTGs).

I would also like to point out, that in the medal system there is a limit on the age you can attack: +/-1 above and below.

If you base war matches on glory, once an alliance reaches it's ceiling, it is going to win approximately as much as it loses. Because it wins, gets a harder match, loses, gets and easier match, wins, etc etc --very simplified, but hopefully, you get the idea of what I mean.

 

[Festivus]

S_How, our current 15v15 war is fairly typical: we have 1 AA, 2 GA, 2 IA, 4 EA, 1 GP, 3 MA, and 2 CA vs. 1 GA, 5 IA, 5 EA, 2 GP, 1 MA, 1 CA. Our haul is 10 glory for a victory, 526 gone for a loss. Again, that's fairly typical. Every one of our attackers is active, but many of the lower level people are either new or simply don't develop very quickly. We have a lot of new/low age people who recently joined and rotate them through wars, while our top core plays every war to win stars. The glory penalty most definitely hits us hard, we have been inching up for months now. 10-20 (or even less) is the norm,

We don't have any Iron Age players or bases.

 

[QuébecGlory]

Give everybody the same army and let`s see skill. Having a level 250 doesn`t make you a better player.

Having matchups based on Glory would mean that skill means nothing. 20 average AA will beat 20 good IA anyday.... so a good alliance, filled with strong (for their level) players, would eventually end up at the right rank, to then win 1 lose 1 against pretty much the same opponents war after war, regarless of skill.

An even match-up is one where levels are similar, and where skill prevails. Based on Glory would only benefit AA filled alliance, again, regardless of skill, so might as well tell everybody else to pack their bags...

I do agree. on the other hand, that like in boxing, where there`s weight classification, that a heavyweight fights other heavyweights, and the best one is the champ. But the skilled featherweight has the same right to be champ of its class. I agree with leagues, but implementing this is a challenge...

 

[Mountainking]

Warmaking based on glory is pointless....An alliance can climb all the way up by only having low level players, lets say EA to Medieval in roster and with glory only, they could get pitted vs GA, or strong IA teams

 

[JuDomines]

matchmaking based on glory with a league system has always been and still is the best system. This is what every game that are serious with competition among its player base is doing. What is important is to chose the right range for each league. With stronghold and the upcoming 3rd tie breaker, stalemate will likely disappear, making each war is worthwhile. Yes it means only the most advanced alliance, paying or not, will be one the top league. I have no issue with that, This is the meaning of a leaderboard in f2p/p2w environnement

 

[SebQuattro]

That's pure nonsense. There's no way that an EA to Medieval alliance can climb all the way up, just like a Medieval can't climb all the way in medals.

If matchmaking is based on Glory, the top ranked alliances will have at least 50% Atomics.

 

[poop_]

Pure nonsense?

There is skill in this game. There are alliances out there who can beat alliances in a much higher weight class than them (been tried and tested because of mismatches/sandbagging), but it doesn't mean these alliances want a mismatched every war. That would be exhausting.

I also think ranking should be on skill no matter how much money you spent or when you started playing the game.

There are those who think seniority and money should determine the leader boards. To me, that is pure nonsense.

 

[poop_]

A tiered leader board might solve problems, but honestly, I have little faith in Nexon to be able to implement this correctly.