Muet, new war match system is really bad

[Horsepower]

Muet, our war search took 11 hours. What we got was an embarrassing match. We have 5 Digital age, they have none and also have 6 Iron bases. Obviously this is a ridiculous mismatch. I think we should go back to what we had before. This new system is not working. None of us want to wait 11-12 for this.

 

[Horsepower]

No Title

Also, war weight positions in war are broken again. I should be in position one or two. For this war I’m in position 6.

 

[BHG_Muet]

How frequently are you cancelling your search for the 11 hour wait? I'll poke on war weights and see what's up.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Be patient with the every day hard working people at BHG

 

[Theoneandonly]

Typo : every day they are at the office hard working people - they have unlimited vacation time

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

I'm guessing 0 cancels; and instead waited on the system to find a good match. Are we expected to cancel after an hour or two else likely suffer a bad matchup? Meaning, does the variance increase from 3.5% at 30 minutes to eventually, say, 70% at 10 hours?

 

[Horsepower]

Muet, the leader stopped and restarted the search 3 times. After the 3rd time we matched 3 hours later. What is your opinion and recommendations about stopping and restarting a search? Should we just let the first search ride? Any advantages or disadvantages about stopping and restarting?

 

[Horsepower]

Muet, after investigating this here is exactly what we did. The first search ran for about 7 hours. It was then stopped and restarted again. Then, 2 1/2 hours later it was stopped again and I was added to the line up. My level is 315. Then 2 1/2 hours later we got that match.
Now, with this information please tell us if we did anything wrong while making recommendations. CS has always told us that stopping and restarting a search helped to match faster. Is this true? I think it would be wise and helpful to all higher level alliances to know this from you. Please explain

 

[Kanechoigo]

Your change is nonsense without fixing war weight calculation, 6 months was not enough for calculation erro? Cmon...

 

[BHG_Muet]

It looks like you were in the 30v30 queue. Naturally, that queue is going to have the least number of Alliances and waits will be longer. But, by 7 hours, the restrictions do become very lax.

I was asking about stopping/starting because each individual queue entry is a refresh or new search. If you wait in queue for awhile, cancel, and then join again, the system doesn't care how long you waited previously. It's going to start the search over again with tight restrictions around who you can match. So, the "total" wait time across all queues/cancels isn't really a stat that the system uses or that we balance around. We only evaluate individual queue entries.

As for suggestions in how to use the system, that's kind of up to each Alliance. If you're unwilling to accept matches that aren't extremely even, then you may prefer a strategy of cancelling the queue after awhile and re-entering. Doing this is effectively manipulating the system to stop expanding your search to less even matches. As you can imagine, that also means your potential "total" wait time could be very long as you're now only going to match if another Alliance that would be a good fit for you enters the queue. But, if you just want to play, don't cancel and let the system do its thing. It'll try to find you a high quality match and then slowly favor letting you play over match quality. You can kind of think of it this way: The system is trying to find you a fair match from the pool of available Alliances. If you're not matching it's because there aren't any other Alliances in the queue that would be even matches. Eventually, the system begins to favor letting you play so it lightens the restrictions (reducing the potential quality of matches) slowly over time until it finds a match.

Hope that helps.

 

[Horsepower]

Yes, that helps a lot. Thank you for clearing this up and explaining things. I will post your reply into the leaders chat and Prime so others will now fully understand.

Thank you you for taking the time

 

[Black tiger]

... you may prefer a strategy of cancelling the queue after awhile and re-entering. Doing this is effectively manipulating the system to stop expanding your search to less even matches.

Yeah. Or, you know, you could add some options to the war search screen to allow commanders to configure these restrictions without needing to cancel/restart searches all the time.

And while you are at it, implement the war invite idea that has been raised many times before. Allow commanders to invite wars with specific alliances and define war entry parameters (weight, TT, etc.) to keep it honest. In other words, if you can’t handle systematic matchmaking, get out of the way and let your commanders do it.

 

[Boldy]

Our alliance just had their first war since the new tighter regulations came in.

This was our Closest war in months. Came down to 2 points.
We run 2 SA, 1 x CW, a few atomics, and down to gunpowder.
Over the last few months, we find 30ppl wars are generally always too hard and get bad match making. 20ppl wars is about 40% bad with us losing, 20% bad with us winning, and 20% even with score either way.

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

While I don't think one or two matches can dictate if the new system is good/bad, here's our 20v20 match today:

* Team 1: 11 DA 9 SA
* Team 2: 3 DA 7 SA 2 CA 7 AA 1 GpA
* Match time: ~90 minutes uninterrupted search
* Glory split ratio: 355:285 (likely indicates Team 1 is bad against likewise teams but beats teams like Team 2)

A bad (but not terrible) match, although in theory we could win if they are bad attackers and we're 100% awesome and use 100% premium cards on defense/offense. But in reality we made coalitions optional and won't use many (if any) cards i.e. we gave up before it began.

Granted, Ages alone don't tell the whole story e.g., a 270 level Atomic deserves to match against an SA base to teach them a life lesson, in this case they are all reasonable; with one AA that should be CW.

 

[gxe1134]

While I don't think one or two matches can dictate if the new system is good/bad, here's our 20v20 match today:

* Team 1: 11 DA 9 SA
* Team 2: 3 DA 7 SA 2 CA 7 AA 1 GpA
* Match time: ~90 minutes uninterrupted search
* Glory split ratio: 355:285 (likely indicates Team 1 is bad against likewise teams but beats teams like Team 2)

A bad (but not terrible) match, although in theory we could win if they are bad attackers and we're 100% awesome and use 100% premium cards on defense/offense. But in reality we made coalitions optional and won't use many (if any) cards i.e. we gave up before it began.

So that was 90 queue time, which isn't terrible. To me, that does seem like a mismatch as Team 1 (on paper) looks much beefier. My expectation would be a match like that after a longer wait. Not sure though.

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

Agreed; I was about to restart the search (was wavering between doing it at 60 or 90 minutes); logged back in to restart it and boom, it matched. Next time I may restart after an hour.

 

[boomboomboom]

While I don't think one or two matches can dictate if the new system is good/bad, here's our 20v20 match today:

* Team 1: 11 DA 9 SA
* Team 2: 3 DA 7 SA 2 CA 7 AA 1 GpA
* Match time: ~90 minutes uninterrupted search
* Glory split ratio: 355:285 (likely indicates Team 1 is bad against likewise teams but beats teams like Team 2)

A bad (but not terrible) match, although in theory we could win if they are bad attackers and we're 100% awesome and use 100% premium cards on defense/offense. But in reality we made coalitions optional and won't use many (if any) cards i.e. we gave up before it began.

Granted, Ages alone don't tell the whole story e.g., a 270 level Atomic deserves to match against an SA base to teach them a life lesson, in this case they are all reasonable; with one AA that should be CW.

So, now you get similar match ups like I had. Thanks for commenting on my post earlier, you heard my frustration yet it is correct that war weights and matching still suck

 

[Cannibals]

Glory ratio split doesn’t indicate anything specific about the current match. It is a straight glory-to-glory calculation.

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

Cannibals I didn't mean to infer that it does; instead our close glory indicates that they probably face alliances more similar to them usually, and lose more often than not, as otherwise they'd have high glory if they faced the likes of us all the time.

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

Team 2 (us) with roughly the same lineup, the next war took between 2-4 hours to match; and matched with 19 DA 1 SA. We aren't even filling our TCs this war. The match-up couldn't have been worse. Well, that one SA could have been DA... so there's that

Something isn't right. Are you sure the criteria for both team's are updating and being used? This match-up should not be possible; even after 1000 hours of non-stop searching.