New Matchmaking and Glory Observations

[Mountainking]

Seriously, remove bottom 30% in war matching and be done with it. No clue why they continue to 'find' a solution for extreme lack of fairplay those losers are resorting to. In any case, discouting bottom 30-35% will not change anything to players experience. It will discourage bagging big time and definetely NOT hurt diverse alliances.

 

[Bowmore]

Agreed. How hard would it be to just try that formula change for 2 or 3 weeks, and see how it plays out. It couldn't be any worse than the other attempts to ''fix'' this problem. Apparently there is some reason why Nexon wants sandbagging to remain part of the game.

 

[Kaiser Shag]

After more than 10 WW where we won between 6 and 50 glory against quite easy enemies, we now have a WW with 220 to win, 650 to loose and opponents which are a bit stronger than us, we are struggling to keep our score near to their score, so the glory is still not adapted, it should be like 450 to win, 250 to loose I would say, here we are probably going to loose 650 glory and we will need a very long time to get them back because of the low glory to win in the other WW ...

 

[Dr.Beercules]

Earnable glory should not be on a prorated basis. If your opponents can potentially win 650 glory, then they should be ready to potentially lose 650 glory. Potential gains should always be equal to potential losses.

 

[Kaiser Shag]

Dr.Beercules I don't agree.
Take for a example a WW 20 vs 20, one team has 10 atomic and 10 global, the other has 10 global and 10 industrial (always maxed bases). The second team has a real disadvantage and will probably loose. However if they win it's a great performance. Thus a victory should make them win let's say 400 glory. However if they loose it would be unfair if they loose 400 against a way stronger opponent.

 

[Kellett]

Our alliance has had a string of unwinnable wars and it's very frustrating. So we decided to do a smaller 10vs10 war with the smaller level blokes in our team to see if they would get a more balanced opponent. The matching system gave us another unbeatable opponent with global and industrial opponents in their team. We can 5 star everyone else but not the Globals, and so are losing again.

TinSoldier, how is this fair? Please mate, what is your company doing about it?

Us. "...............................Them
Enlightenment 114. ......Global 158
Gunpowder 94. ............Global 146
Enlightenment 77. ........Global 133
Gunpowder 82. ............Industrial 120
Enlightenment 73. ........Enlightenment 113
Enlightenment 75. .........Industrial 95
Medieval 78. .................Medieval 51
Medieval 61. .................Gunpowder 79
Enlightenment 79. .........Medieval 37
Gunpowder 62. .............Classical 38

 

[yemen]

This one isn't even that close on the averages. Sorry to see that match.

 

[TinSoldier]

I'm sorry to see you had a hard time with this match-up. From the numbers, you did face a higher-level defense, but the two offensive scores were within a handful of points of each other.

The current match-ups are weighed on the buildings you have and techs that are researched, and not directly on Levels or Ages.
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...-world-war-matchmaking-based-on-level-and-age

 

[Scuba]

This simply proves the current matchmaking system is broken. You have to be blind not to see it.

Not like this is a 1 off for a lot of alliances.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

It's obvious that they prefer matchmaking to suck and sandbagging to work as well as it does. It doesn't take a year to fix something that they actually want to fix.

The top 0.01% that this game caters to like things just the way they are. Why else would they keep nerfing sabotage in the name of balance but taking zero actions to correct the tons of other imbalances rampant in this game?

Adding yet another defensive building? Swell idea for those who can crown it to max right away.

 

[Dr.Beercules]

Dr.Beercules I don't agree.
Take for a example a WW 20 vs 20, one team has 10 atomic and 10 global, the other has 10 global and 10 industrial (always maxed bases). The second team has a real disadvantage and will probably loose. However if they win it's a great performance. Thus a victory should make them win let's say 400 glory. However if they loose it would be unfair if they loose 400 against a way stronger opponent.

Sadly the glory disparity is in the other direction 9 times out of 10. This has happened to my alliance every war for the last month. We get seriously overmatched, then lose a boatload of glory because the other team is a bunch of sandbaggers.

 

[Dr.Beercules]

Seriously, remove bottom 30% in war matching and be done with it. No clue why they continue to 'find' a solution for extreme lack of fairplay those losers are resorting to. In any case, discouting bottom 30-35% will not change anything to players experience. It will discourage bagging big time and definetely NOT hurt diverse alliances.

This is the first good solution ive seen to this problem. Nexon needs to adopt this immediately, and put a stop to the cheaters/sandbaggers.

 

[S_How]

Seriously, remove bottom 30% in war matching and be done with it. No clue why they continue to 'find' a solution for extreme lack of fairplay those losers are resorting to. In any case, discouting bottom 30-35% will not change anything to players experience. It will discourage bagging big time and definetely NOT hurt diverse alliances.

Could not agree more. It was one of the first suggested community solutions, and the most logical, easy to implement solutions that has almost zero downside. Cant believe they're still trying to implement something more complicated.

 

[Ypergamias]

In 20-20 war i am the number 1 in my team. My recommended target is the number 10... numbers 18 19 and 20 are between 20-25lvl. I wanted to ask all the members of this forum ,since nexon has fixed the sandbagging issue and in new matchmaking system it doesn't count level and age but only strength how its possible to face a team which her number 10 to be in the same strength to number 1 of the other team?? Numbers 1-9 are way stronger than my base.

 

[JackAceMcJo]

No Title

Sandbagging has NOT been fixed!! Here is a snapshot of the XLS i made to clearly show what many here have been talking about.

Although Tin has made a case for Level & Age not being critical metrics... well... I call BS! Clearly an average Global player (with TANKS) is going to roll an average Enlightenment player (with horses)! Tin's arguments are edge-cases at best.

I initiated this War earlier today. I have told my Dragonfury members to abstain from this War.

 

[martyr]

No Title

Hello Guys,
TinSoldier, @Nb4powerup We have been pushed into a extremely unmatched war

My alliance Indias' Elite is up against UR2. The pictures of their lineup against ours looks like this

continued..........

 

[martyr]

No Title

On the other hand my alliance lineup looks like this
How on earth is this a fair matchmaking. Further, the glory allocation is a joke. We stand to loose more than what we stand to earn. It clearly looks like the current matchmaking system is broke and not doing a good job at making 1+2 =3. instead it reads it as 1*2 = 2.
You are ditching the very community of players who support this game, by taking no action at all. We had requested for this war to be cancelled and a simple message be sent to both alliances that the "match was broken as it was unfair, and we could start another war to get a fair match", But u guys dont even want to consider that.

If u feel this match is a fair match, any one of you kindly come forward and suggest a strategy to win it.

I feel extremely disappointed to have been let down by the game developers who enjoy the support of such a awesome and active community, which is willing to discuss, provide solutions, share info, work together, and at times pain just to keep the experience of game play fair and fun for all involved.

I hope u look into this matter with concern, because slowly but surely its making the fan community lose faith in the game and its developers.

Regards,
Martyr

 

[Empire]

Another extremely horrible matchup with sandbaggers. Our average is 135.3. Theirs is 160.1. We stand to win 191 glory and lose 588. TinSoldier How is this a fair matchup?


Canada Prime

1 - AT Level 212 (King Wyndham)
2 - AT Level 201 (Jimmy)
3 - AT Level 194 (AMIT)
4 - AT Level 188 (Grimwal)
5 - AT Level 182 (Valar Doharis)
6 - GL Level 178 (Sam)
7 - GL Level 174 (Ryan the Great)
8 - AT Level 173 (BigDaddy2953)
9 - GL Level 156 (Sargon)
10 - IA Level 163 (CORNA)
11 - GL Level 141 (Lakeside)
12 - IA Level 109 (Jonny)
13 - IA Level 104 (varun)
14 - EA Level 67 (Tee)
15 - Ir. A Level 18 (duke kw)

Dominion Elite

1 - GL Level 183 (ScubaSteve)
2 - AT Level 169 (odin)
3 - GL Level 180 (Wild Weasel)
4 - IA Level 162 (Thunder)
5 - IA Level 175 (Kaz)
6 - AT Level 164 (Rung)
7 - IA Level 117 (Hugh Jass)
8 - IA Level 137 (Nick)
9 - EA Level 124 (ADI)
10 - EA Level 138 (The Conquerer)
11 - GL Level 148 (Lightning)
12 - IA Level 101 (Mikey)
13 - EA Level 104 (Empire III)
14 - GP Level 73 (***WARRIOR***)
15 - GP Level 54 (Criss)

Dominion Elite

183
169
180
162
175
164
117
137
124
138
148
101
104
73
54
135.3

Average = 135.3


Canada Prime (with fillers)

212
201
194
188
182
178
174
173
156
163
141
109
104
67

Average = 160.1


Canada Prime (without fillers)

212
201
194
188
182
178
174
173
156
163
141
109
104
67
18
Average = 150.7

 

[deadrock133]

I think all alliances should not participate in world wars until this matchup problem is corrected. If we do not stop this will never be resolved.

 

[martyr]

I completely agree. The problem seems to have worsened in recent months. Most of the active members post pictures of wars when their alliance has been matched against a significantly higher/stronger alliance. Imagine, if we post pictures of times when our own alliance what the significantly stronger alliance against a weaker opponent. Together, the numbers of wrongly matched wars would come out to be very high.

In approximately 1/10 wars we have been matched against a comparable opponent. that presents a 10% correct match ratio. This is very poor figure.