• Leonard Smith Discount Error
    We are aware of the Leonard Smith Event discount not working properly for players. We will reactivate the event once we correct the issue blocking the 15% Discount.

The reason why World War matching is so wrong

Drunken Master

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
19
My alliance is about 4000 glory away from the bottom of the leaderboards. It seems impossible to get there because we merged with another alliance and now only match with the top half of the leaderboards. We are better than some of the alliances in the 60-100 range but will never make it there due to only matching with alliances that are mostly above our strength. And if you know anything about playing the top half of the leaderboards, you would know you better bring your checkbook to war. 3 maxed coalitions everywhere, strongholds full of overpowered troops, and offensives attacking with overpowered troop cards. It's not about skill, it's about piss poor matchmaking and a system that doesn't recognize many of the alliances that represent the leaderboards are not the strongest alliances out there...
 

Drunken Master

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
19
So if i may apply your logic to other things, Should we forego weight classes in boxing too? we will just match the lighter weight guys against the heavy weight guys.... Just because a team as more higher age player doesn't not mean they deserve a higher spot on the leader board. and equally so, i am not impressed by any atomic player that can steam roll an enlightenment age base.

Lightweights are recognized as "lightweight champs" as a heavyweight is recognized as a "heavyweight champ." they are never all mixed into one classification in terms of whose at the top overall. Nobody expects Mayweather to beat the crappiest heavyweight as he's taking on too much weight. Now this is where the discussion of leagues comes into play. If our alliances all fit a certain classification and we played for league ranking instead of all being bundled into one crap fest, I think it would work better. If you are in the top 100 and can't beat an alliance probably ranked around 2000, you probably shouldn't be there. However, if you are the number 1 "lightweight" alliance and no other lightweights can handle you, it deserves to be recognized for what it is...
 

JNation

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
146
So break up the alliance into separate leagues is what i hear you saying, if that is correct. Which if that was the case i would actually be fine with. But how? Do you do the average age, average level, participation number in war..

Maybe its just me, but i think it would be cool to see other kind of war options. So you can war your typical war, which is what we have now. Then maybe some kind of advance skill war where everyone would have 1 attack only. Heck, maybe have a war where you have to include all ages Iron-Atomic, and non-attacker will actually take way points..
 

DUSTY1

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
124
Last several wars, we have been over matched on the top, middle and bottom. We have one global who doesn't always play, 2 Industrial, and most of the rest are EA and Gunpowder with a few Medieval and Classical. Our non players are the same distribution as the players. IN EVERY CASE we are playing a large number of Atomic and Globals and in one game our lowest player was outmatched almost as much as our highest. The game is war ranking level 80's in between 120 - 150. There appears no reason for any of it.

I thought posting my match ups would be helpful. But nothing is happening to effectuate roughly fair play.
WAR MATCH UP IS KOOKY DOODLE. We just take it because we want to play. Apparently it is the desire of the gamemaster to match anyone willy nilly to anybody else for giggles.
 

Tankmage1

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
18
Matching by glory creates bigger problems, new players IA and below won't be welcomed in glory driven world wars. Say you have an alliance with 5AA 10 GA 10IA 10 EA 5GA and rest below. if they want to win, they would assign 5AA + 10GA for a 15 players wars rather than a 40 v 40 fun war. Hence, new players won't have the opportunity to participates in wars and will quickly lost interest and quit the game (Which means the game will die quickly die). A healthy alliance should have AA/ GA people support their new comers instead of having stacked with 45+ AA players alliance.

Hence this is not the solution for fun wars matching. To fix the current sandbagging problems is to have
top 70% account for 100% of attack/defense strength value,
70%-80% account for 75% of attack/defense value,
80%-90% account for 50% attack/defense value, and
Bottom 10% account for 25% attack/defense value

Also the offense/defensive values should be treaked slightly higher in some uprgades especially in GA and AA.I believed some values in AA and GA are underrated (no direct proof, just a feeling towards the current scoring system)
 

Tower

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
557
League and glory war matching would never work as long as you can do anything from 10/10 to 50/50 wars... Too many options and would result in extremely long search times...
Remember, there will always a few players who are opting out so no one is doing the same war search size over and over...
 

Pepyto

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
182
I think glory shouldn't be in war matchmaking algorithm at all. Just imagine you have alliance with very skilled attackers and they wanna play every war, but they don't have a single one AA player, and you have alliance with same glory but they have 5-6 AA players, how to match them?
If developers can't fix war matchmaking by war weight, then the only solution is to pair alliances by ages.
How many AA players in my alliance- same number in opponent alliance, and approximately same number with GA and IA... This system will punish rushers and those with "engeneered" bases in war!
 

Patrick Bardet

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
55
Matching by Glory is not the solution, first because it will take ages before every alliances can be ranked in the correct leagues (suppose you put everyone to 12000 try to see how long it will take to establish a real value Glory, probably the top will always win, but the others ...), then because of the variability in the war setup per alliance (alliances do not always war with the same fixed members, sometimes with more heavy players sometimes with far less, so not the same alliance power), and then because of the variability in the number of wars done by an alliance (some 4 per week, some 1 or 2 per week).

In order to have fair match, the only viable system is to jauge the strength of two alliances.

The main issues with the current matching system come from two problems:
- correct assessment of the war level of a base
- system rates all members the same way, whereas with the system of two attacks only the top half matters if not the top 5.

For the first problem, the mathematical calculation of the war strength or level of a base is obviously incorrect;one evidence is the recommended target given by the system completely far off for most of the times.

Second problem, link somehow to the sandbagging issue, of course we all know that the top decides the issue of the war, this should be taken in the matching.

In my opinion, the current system is the only one but with very important rework in the matching criteria.
 

Pepyto

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
182
Personally i completely agree with you, but developers are struggling to fix war matchmaking system for over 12 months with no success. Its so obvious they don't know how to do that, so what is alternative solution for alliances with no luxury having 20 maxed AA players?
They didn't even bother to fix war weight system after introduced missile silo in game, because i saw some AA bases without silo higher on war list then others with silo already installed, and its absolute nonsense with such powerful defensive building!
 

yemen

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
680
If they had correctly evaluated the missile silo's strength in war rankings, they never would have introduced it at all. It barely moves the needle - I built mine, and didn't move a single spot in our war rankings, when those above and below me still didn't have them. Given the strength of the building, that is ludicrous.
 

pckrn

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
666
match by glory:
a new member joins. an AA player.
win every war
an AA member quits, an EA member joins.
you are doomed to lose every war for weeks.
very fun
 

cclaerbo

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
122
The current system for the leaderboard would be just fine if they fix sandbagging then it would be just about winning wars. Matching teams fairly close to your total amount of power in your war lineup. but they won't
 

King Barbs

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
55
The matchmaking system as it currently stands is completely broken imo, our alliance either gets walkover wins or completely smashed by opponents with 5 or 6k more GP than us. I have no real idea how these match ups occur, despite various explanations from Nexon.
It would surely be better to match up on GP which is a pretty accurate measure of the current state of affairs. It may not eliminate the sandbaggers completely, but I'm pretty sure that if we were a top ranked alliance we would only want our strongest players for each war. Right now it's too easy for top ranked alliances to be matched up with other alliances nowhere near the top 100 and while they may get an easy win they gain very few alliance points which is no fun for them or the defeated alliance, not to mention the costs involved.
Even things up Nexon it's far simpler than the failure that we currently have.
 

SiuYin

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
540
There will be loophole for any matching mechanism, but match by glory will be the one with least issue.
 

Silentmajority

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3
If you match by glory then once the glory gets too high for the team and matches become unwinnable the team will just abandon the alliance and start a new one like we have already seem many teams on leader board do.
 

Scuba

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
66
I'm not sure if you answered the question yourself or not.
Let's say theoretically it's matched by glory and 50-70% is a reasonable match.
Teams get bored at the top and start again.

Or it's kept as it is and 20% of the time it's a reasonable match.
Teams get bored at the top and start again.
 

Jastuchko

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
6
Can it be just simplified by counting only first 50% of participants in matchmaking formula, just to stop alliances making alt iron age bases and placing them in World Wars. Also, I don't know how attack and defense capabilities are valued, but attack should be considered as more importand and valued more.
 
Top