Update to World War Glory Matchmaking

[Harlems369th]

Greetings Leaders,

In our ongoing Quality of Life updates to DomiNations, we're making an adjustment to how Glory works for your World War matches. This update will be a server-side update which will go live this week. This is a small step in our efforts to improve the overall matchmaking experience and we still have more to do.

In this new update, we will be changing how we group alliances in matchmaking to allow for closer matches in WW from the top and bottom of the Glory Leaderboard. Alliances might find Matchmaking queue times within these new ranges longer than normal, which should result in more competitive matches. You won't see any change to how Glory is calculated on Leaderboards.

We will be monitoring the matchmaking times closely, but we would appreciate any feedback you have once you've had a chance to interact with this adjustment to our Matchmaking system. Feel free to leave your comments here!

 

[Spaceboy]

Aaahhh…good idea..

 

[oddin]

can we have some more detail?

for example... a ranked 35 alliance will match alliances from which range up to which range down? i.e. from #1 to #100
How wide are those groups?

 

[Harlems369th]

can we have some more detail?

for example... a ranked 35 alliance will match alliances from which range up to which range down? i.e. from #1 to #100
How wide are those groups?

Yea absolutely.

Alliances above 24,000 Glory and below 14,000 Glory are really the only ones that will be most affected by this change. This will impact everyone, but those ranges should be most noticeable, everyone between that might not notice much of a change at all.

 

[LuSt]

Yea absolutely.

Alliances above 24,000 Glory and below 14,000 Glory are really the only ones that will be most affected by this change. This will impact everyone, but those ranges should be most noticeable, everyone between that might not notice much of a change at all.

Any chance to make more parameters? Example:

25,000+
20,000-24,999
15,000-19,999
10,000-14,999
1-9,999

A 5,000 glory pool would help keep wars more reasonable and still have plenty of alliances participating.

Just at a glance top 100 alliances begins at 25,500 glory so roughly 125 alliances in that category alone is a pretty decent amount of wars to match. I’d assume there would be even more participants in the 20,000-24,999 range as well as the 15,000-19,999 range, so on and so forth

 

[Harlems369th]

Any chance to make more parameters? Example:

25,000+
20,000-24,999
15,000-19,999
10,000-14,999
1-9,999

A 5,000 glory pool would help keep wars more reasonable and still have plenty of alliances participating.

Just at a glance top 100 alliances begins at 25,500 glory so roughly 125 alliances in that category alone is a pretty decent amount of wars to match. I’d assume there would be even more participants in the 20,000-24,999 range as well as the 15,000-19,999 range, so on and so forth

Not out of the question, appreciate the suggestion. We're still working on tweaking matchmaking, and still a ways away from having our definitive vision set. But with this change, similar to March of last year's change, we're seeing what else we can currently adjust for the time being and what impact that can have.

 

[Helmsman]

Not out of the question, appreciate the suggestion. We're still working on tweaking matchmaking, and still a ways away from having our definitive vision set. But with this change, similar to March of last year's change, we're seeing what else we can currently adjust for the time being and what impact that can have.

Part of the war matching problem is having a real heavy top part of the line up, and then having bases in the lower half of the line up with just a couple of buildings, but the user has been as high as drone age, known as Sandbaging. With each player in the war having 2 attacks the sandbagers are able to wipe out the other alliance, cause most times the match up is against an alliance that has a balanced line up. How about cutting the war attacks down to 1, make each attack count and thus make it a better experience for all. The last part would be to cut the planning time down to 12 hours, and allow for each participant to fill their own TC, and Stronghold.

 

[IDaedalusI]

Part of the war matching problem is having a real heavy top part of the line up, and then having bases in the lower half of the line up with just a couple of buildings, but the user has been as high as drone age, known as Sandbaging. With each player in the war having 2 attacks the sandbagers are able to wipe out the other alliance, cause most times the match up is against an alliance that has a balanced line up. How about cutting the war attacks down to 1, make each attack count and thus make it a better experience for all. The last part would be to cut the planning time down to 12 hours, and allow for each participant to fill their own TC, and Stronghold.

Out of curiosity, about how often are you seeing sandbagging take place?

 

[Helmsman]

50% of the time, last war the enemy had 3 bases like that.

 

[Dhruv patel]

50% of the time, last war the enemy had 3 bases like that.
View attachment 10704

this is why i want stronghold world war troop tactics gone in world war. to force people to be selective in wars and make defence building matter more and not a shortcut chucking a drone age tactic in stronghold to a base like this

 

[Dhruv patel]

You shouldn't have any problems destroying such a base. Even if there are drone age troops in there. Sabotage the city center and destroy it directly, then the troops won't come out.
If necessary, sabotage the stronghold a second time while the attackers destroy all other buildings. Finally, the stronghold gets destroyed. Even if drone-age troop tactics then come out, then you do not have to be kill them in order to win the battle with 100%.

but if the troop tacrics in strongholds go away then these bases will go and make people think defence through.

 

[andcar]

I really really hope you prioritise equal number of drone bases and not close in glory! Long search time is not a problem, currently many alliances restart the search continuously to hopefully avoid mismatches.
You should never under any circumstances allow a match with anything but small difference in number of bases in the highest age.

 

[andcar]

Is the new matchmaking live or delayed?

 

[oddin]

our current match is a total mismatch for the opponent. I dont even know how we got these poor fellows...

opponent is ranked 189. Us 26

 

[andcar]

If the new matchmaking is live it is clearly worse than before. Something bad happens with the algorithm around 2h45min. Two hits in a row after that time and we meet only drones. We are approx 60%drones and rest mix of ages down to classical.
Please stop these horrible mismatches with unequal ages. Do not change the algo due to passed seeking times! An even hit after 24h is hugely preferred over a bad one after 2h45min!!!

 

[Toni]

Our last world war was against "Art of War". They were #491 us with Mr & Mrs Smith #168. We have 2 drone players, the opponent 5. In total they were 868 levels higher. The new matchmaking is absolute crap. We lost 266 Glory. To make up for that we need to win 2 months in a row. A look at Domsitats shows - it wasn't just us: https://domistats.com/alliance_wars/1056107
Something really has to change here quickly (by the way - the support only fobbed me off with standard answers)!

 

[jpsfm]

Art of War changed lately. Few former members of a top 50 alliance went there and took over the alliance. They are glory sniping now. They have some talented players. They shouldn’t match with your alliance as they are too heavy for you. 868 levels are huge difference not to mention 3 more Drone players.

 

[andrew.dnb]

Our last war was vs an Alliance with 18 drone age players, 5 of them 400+, we have only 7 drones ( 350-390 ) and 4 information age, completely unbalanced

 

[Chasingwilma]

Last war 11 out of 15 bases were drone age. All over 380. We had 3. Great job on the balancing.

 

[King Crimson]

Is this how it is regularly or is this an aberration?