Solution ideas for better WW matchmaking

[QuébecGlory]

Maybe Nexon needs ideas to fix their matchmaking problems

It might help if we could come up with a few suggestions, imagine how the game would change with new rules, and how "exploitable" each idea is. Please no ranting, saying how leaders can change their system, it's just beating a dead horse...

 

[QuébecGlory]

One suggestion would be to have the opportunity for alliances to skip a match-up, like in multi. It would make for longer searches, but nobody could complain about their opponents.

It could work like this...

The matchmaking algorythm stays the same, because sometimes it works alright. The search could probably have a wider range of avg lvl for matches. The leaders would get notified of a possible match-up, if both accept, game on. If your opponent refuses or doesn't respond in a timely manner, a new search starts...

 

[Vixen]

Also being able to choose opponent

 

[S_How]

Would like to see the bottom 25-35% of bases not count in the matchmaking algorithm. Would help discourage teams away from manipulating matchups so that there is very little risk of loss by lowering their war weight with a bottom portion that doesnt need to make their hits.

I also think eventually, they need to move teams to fewer brackets. For example eliminating 30/40/50 man wars and putting people into 25/35/45 only (or some combination like that), in order to increase the pool of available teams to compete with. I know that one is probably more controversial, and maybe there are better solutions, but its a real problem with long queue times and facing the same teams over and over, this might help both of those problems.

 

[QuébecGlory]

I agree that less brackets would increase the speed of matchmaking...something like 15-25-35-45 sounds good!

 

[QuébecGlory]

Choosing your opponent would bring the problem of sister alliances playing each other non-stop, removing alliances from the pool. Also, don't exclude the fact that alliances could collude to push unfairly one to the top of the rankings. Matching needs to stay random as much as possible.

 

[GailWho]

I posted on ideas section my idea I thought may work to help most if our war problems including matchmaking. It would involve a change in how war is done but I think it could be done.

https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...de-the-box-gail-s-answer-to-world-war-problem

 

[QuébecGlory]

Here's another idea... Not allowing players to attack 2 levels down, just like in multi?

 

[Vixen]

S_How - I think this is a brilliant solution - force bigger pools for people to play each other

"I also think eventually, they need to move teams to fewer brackets. For example eliminating 30/40/50 man wars and putting people into 25/35/45 only (or some combination like that), in order to increase the pool of available teams to compete with. I know that one is probably more controversial, and maybe there are better solutions, but its a real problem with long queue times and facing the same teams over and over, this might help both of those problems."

Even agree with QG on this one!

 

[Ravenlord]

Would like to see the bottom 25-35% of bases not count in the matchmaking algorithm. Would help discourage teams away from manipulating matchups so that there is very little risk of loss by lowering their war weight with a bottom portion that doesn't need to make their hits.

Interesting. What about leaving those lower bases in the algorithm - but have a penalty glory system? Use all your members in battle to achieve XX glory but if you only use less than 50% of your members you only get 25% of potential glory.
Would that work?

 

[Wendy]

I agree with you Quebec

 

[Wendy]

I think that S_how proposal to eliminate the last 25/30% from the equation could work, also my brother and co-leader always says that.
Also changing the amount of GP they earn, by penalizing the alliance for every iron age player they use could work.
This way i think, after winning a few wars without being rewarded, people would stop. Or at least they could keep doing it just in order to gain loot and not glory points, and this wouldnìt affect the world ranking

 

[Chadwicke]

Anyone want to run a 45 war

 

[Tower]

Hi

I disagree on the concept of removing the bottom from the calculation. If this is done alliances will have trouble developing their players...
Our Alliance currently have ca 10 Classical and Medieval players but we let only 1-3 join each war (No Iron base allowed in our wars).

Best system to ensure a fair WW match is to do a bracketing of the set up.

For instance:
player 1 - 5 in both alliances should be "equal" +/- a factor, then player 6-10 in both alliance should be "equal" etc. etc...
If a 5 player bracket is too little then increase to 6-7-8 or whatever fits best. The brackets could also be larger and /or inequal in size, say 25% - 50% - 25 of the war rooster should be matched up.

A system like this would make iron base stacker meet iron base stacker - serves them well

 

[QuébecGlory]

Penalizing for using iron age, so what stopping them from using classical...anyway, too hard too implement.

 

[Tower]

Thinking out of the box... Don't use stars in WW... Use points...

If you 5 star someone your "junior" u get less points than if u 5 star someone who is your equal or your "senior" - this will also remove the problem with stalemates. This could be easily introduced... You get 100 points for 5 starring your mirror. 95 points for 5 starring mirror + one, 90 points for 5 starring your mirror plus 2 etc... And then u could also turn it; if you 5 star someone above your mirror you could increase points to 105 - 110 -115 respectively.


Two great ideas from Mr Tower

 

[Wendy]

because you should use a lot more of them and so the war would be playable.

 

[nikki bella]

Quite apart from the unfairness of the stacking, making the outcomes of wars determined ever before it starts, is the detrimental effect this has on legitimate lower age bases.

We want to see a system where lower age players can war with larger accounts and feel like they are making a contribution, not just be there to make up the numbers.

Kings Order has created a new alliance, purely for lower levels to allow them to grow and learn while being active and worthwhile members of a committed team. This was necessary as the current war system creates a culture where the lower half of the war roster are much less important than the upper half. However a star from rank 40/40 is just as worthwhile as a star from 1/40.

As tower suggests: increase the value of hitting above your pay grade. 5 stars from a #20 on a #15 should be rewarded but 5 stars from 1 on 15 should be ignored. The former took great skill, determination, strategy and committment. The latter was taking candy from a baby.

I would suggest penalties for no shows in war.

 

[Wendy]

what you say is fine, but it would be better if it was not based on numbers,but based on level of attack/defenses.
ex:i just took 4 stars to a 180 global age player with my industrial army, but i'm N 1 he's N 3. So why should my 4 count less?
And should the same player's 3 stars that he took with his global army count more because he attacked our n 2? Our number 2 is Industrial,so, in order to make this system work they should be rewarded less.

 

[S_How]

I posted on ideas section my idea I thought may work to help most if our war problems including matchmaking. It would involve a change in how war is done but I think it could be done.

https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...de-the-box-gail-s-answer-to-world-war-problem

I really like Gail's idea. Each base could be hit 2x for a total of 10 points if it was two 5*. If I understand correctly, by 5*ing a base, you'd essentially unlock a second life for the base where it could be hit again. This would also dramatically reduce the stalemate situation.