Ridiculous World War Matching

[Vojec]

With new WW matching after last game update is ridiculous. Before update we always fight with self equal, have a lot of fun, but now, in the last a few WW, we got several 10th lvl stronger opponents. This last WW matching gives my head temperature above 100 degree. I'm so piss off regarding that, so will post here to see what is going on. I play this game almost 2 years, but now I consider to stop. Also stop play WW regarding this stupid matching. It seems that WW matching is reserve for VIP alliance, right???!!!

First of all will give some info regarding matching:

I'm a part of Slovenia alliance (don't know the alliance total score) and we will fight against Pakistan Army (89 place of top 100).

SLOVENIJA (5 alliance perks lvl):
AA=2
GA=9
IA=9
EA=9
Iron A=1

best our lvl is 191
we have for defense= 1 silo

PAKISTAN ARMY (8 alliance perks lvl) they are in top 100 alliance
AA=11
GA=3
IA=5
EA=2
Iron A=2
Gun A=1
Mediaval A=1

best player 235 lvl
they have for defese = 8 silo

Nice Right!!! What to say? And funniest think of all is: Win Glory Points +1027 if we win, WTF? you could give as 1 BILLION GLORY it doesn't matter how much. Seems that you go with all updates in opposite direction.

Here is the screen shot that say more than a 1000 words. Shame on you developers, what you did with great game. I'm really disappointment :-(((. To consider. We all stop buy crowns. And you can expect more post like me in the future, for sure.

What to say anymore :-(((...

 

[Imaera]

Oh well, it seems they are better at sandbagging than you are! At least you don't lose much. I bet they aren't happy either with only 11 points to win.

 

[Pepyto]

Ajde ajde slovenci, ne kukajte nego se borite! Hahaha
Best regards for Slovenia

 

[Scuba]

He's absolutely right, matching is so messed up.
There has been probably 100's of ideas to fix matchups like this happening and it's being looked at with blinkered vision.

Even with the lower age accounts this is still not a match but would probably be told that the system has them very close on the matching, ********.

We have had quite a few wars offering up over 1k glory, it's not even a contest. Not even the same game.

Interestingly in our previous war our no1 was matched against their no14 and the rest below that.
If the system is able to do that then how can it ever match the sides in the first place.
This was against an alliance not using sandbagging.

Whole thing needs addressing properly rather than being ignored to the point that it's not even happening.

 

[Bedlam]

It seems to alternate for us. One easy matchup one challenging match up.

 

[Isrem Ovani]

We have the same issues since the last update. The third sandbaggers in a row. The current: upper half Atomic, lower third Iron + Classical Age. We do not sandbag, 5 Atomics, lots of Global, Industrial, Enlightment and Gunpowder. This is no fun to play.

 

[Vojec]

And some image of current WW matching. Will update progress. For now, their opponent no 16 of total 25 got 5* against our no 5. This is so great, isn't it developers...??!!!


But, on the other hand, we collect 2* per attack, great, right?

 

[TinSoldier]

This does seem like an odd match up. I'll be watching it closely, and have shared the details to the development team.

 

[LordJestix]

did he use elephant archers?

 

[S_How]

This does seem like an odd match up. I'll be watching it closely, and have shared the details to the development team.

Its not an odd matchup at all. One of the team has 4x sandbags compared to the other only having 1. In a 25v25, having 15% sandbag is absolutely huge and gamebreaking. Its why most of the top 100 sandbag, and why it is the single most rewarding war strategy in the game.

And btw, the ridiculous influence these bases have on matchmaking, is only getting worse and worse with each new update, as the downward influence of an undeveloped base gets larger and larger against the ever increasing war weight ceiling. For example, if you combine 1 sandbag with 5 regular bases (a normal sandbag %)....when most teams were early global, combining 5x lvl150s with 1x lvl10 brought the level down by 23, to an average of 127. Now, when max atomics are 250+....comibining 1x lvl 10 with 5x250s brings the level average down by 40...nearly double the impact of sandbagging in early global. I cant wait to see what the impact is in CWA when we are seeing lvl 350+ bases mixed with level 10s. Or, BHG could just solve it by not having the bottom % of a roster count in the matching algorithm. In my 2.5 years of playing, nothing has caused more spenders on my team to quit than sandbagging and the apathy shown to it by the developers.

 

[Scuba]

I could send you 1 or 2 of these a week, with or without sandbagging.

 

[Vojec]

No Title

Hi folks,

Here is the final results as expected. Lost on entire battle front line. Our fun play in WW are gone. All credit goes to... We all know to whom...
All I can say, thank you...

 

[Tiggo]

Get Rid of Second attack Looks like a suitable solution?

 

[yemen]

One attack per player makes crashes lethal. It makes match making even more critically important - a perfect lineup with one mismatch becomes an unwinnable war. How do you teach people, or take risks on a new person who might flake?

And in this case, the baggers still would have won comfortably.

A single attack per person is not viable for a variety of reasons. That second attack allows for flexibility in case of errors.

 

[nucleo]

They just have to make it so matchmaking doesn't take into account the bottom 30-40% of each alliance, as it is the top 10 players who really determine the success or failure of an alliance in a war.

 

[KniferX]

I just love how people throw around ideas without thinking a lot before that, things like 'just remove the bottom 40% from the calculation'. That's not going to work, you will punish legitimate mixed teams not to mention exclude below GA players from any wars since people will want to cram as much power as they can in that 40%.

Sandbagging will not go away while there are 2 attacks present, it is a simple issue of mathematics, averages and allowing extreme values (sandbags) that affect this average which in a 2 attack system isn't punished.

With the 2 attacks system you can only make it a bit harder and less rewarding to sandbag, but people who are hardcore about it will always find a way.

Several options here:
- no brainer, don't allow inactive players to enter the war rooster. 2-3 days would be good. Make sandbaggers have to log in their fake accounts, making it a bit annoying.

Set rules for accounts lower than Gunpowder age:
- if the base stops getting levels but still logs on, don't allow it on the war rooster
- don't allow it on the war rooster if it doesn't have at least one of every defense building on the current age
- or just flat out disable war for every account lower than medieval, and apply above rules to medieval accounts. Medieval has no uni so real players should be getting levels.
Change the rules as necessary.

You're gonna say "Well they will sandbag with Gunpowders". As I said you can only make sandbagging harder and less impactful, but stubborn players will always be able to use it in the 2 attack system.

 

[Pepyto]

Well it really depends how many participants you have in war. You can't use same matchmaking algorithm on 10vs10 war and 50vs50 war... Looks like to me that bigger wars have more chance to be poorly matched.
I agree matchmaking system is catastrophic!
Can only suggest to developers they stop developing new age and fix this, because with cold war this problem will be even bigger.

 

[melheor]

You could also introduce a maximum level delta. For example, the lowest player's level has to be at least 70% of the highest. This also wouldn't be such a big deal if we could run 2 wars at once. Then we could have 1 war with top 10 and 1 with bottom 10 members of the clan at the same time.

 

[KniferX]

Good thinking, combined with the above rules would make sandbagging severely less effective.

 

[poop_]

I just love how people throw around ideas without thinking a lot before that, things like 'just remove the bottom 40% from the calculation'. That's not going to work, you will punish legitimate mixed teams not to mention exclude below GA players from any wars since people will want to cram as much power as they can in that 40%.

Sandbagging will not go away while there are 2 attacks present, it is a simple issue of mathematics, averages and allowing extreme values (sandbags) that affect this average which in a 2 attack system isn't punished.

Would you agree that it is more likely to be a fair match if you match based on the top third of the roster's strength than the bottom third's strength?

Let's use a dating app/site as an example. These companies have algorithms to match people, and a good algorithm should put more weight into more important characteristics/preferences individuals are looking for, like religion/values as opposed to less important traits/preferences, like which toothpaste they use. (Maybe Nexon should consult this industry. )

The same thing is true for war matchmaking. Making sure the top 3rd is evenly matched is more important for a fair match and so should get more weight in the calculation. This does not mean that the algorithm has to ignore the middle third or the bottom third, but just that the top should be more of a deciding factor in pairing alliances for war. The middle third should also prob be weighted more than the bottom third.

It doesn't have to be thirds, it can be broken down differently, but the idea is to match more based on the top because let's be honest, that is what matters. If one side doesn't have nearly as much power as the other side at the top, it is a lopsided match.

I think this solution is what many players are arguing for, and I don't see why figuring out how to do this and implementing it would take over a year...

There have been other solutions proposed as well but no noticeable actions taken. The problem isn't sandbagging. Sandbagging is a behavior that comes from the real problem which is how Nexon is calculating war match ups.