War Algorithm

[bred2bbroken]

Something seems amiss.. ​

 

[TinSoldier]

Hi bred2bbroken!

Can you please re-upload this image without the names redacted? (Even just showing the Alliance names would be great.) I'd be happy to investigate!

 

[No Angel]

Holy
Yes just put alliance names so they could investigate. No algorithm needed lol all depends on warring member size and the time you guys are searching for war

 

[pckrn]

just curious, are there many alliances that war whose top players are gunpowder age?

 

[NameX1]

I'm gonna ask, are their AA players very premmie? Like L140 or so AA? And what are their lowest 5 compared to your lowest 5? Are you Gunpowder all the way and they Iron Age L10 or something?

I beleive that Dominations adds up all your war weight, between all bases in war; so if you have a 20v20 war, and their top 5 are very high, but their lowest 5 are extremely low Iron Age then they will equate to something like 10 strong Gunpowder bases. This is obviously ridiculous, but it seems to be how its done.

Its my opinion that the top 1/3 (or perhaps 1/2) of the war membership should be all war weighing is based on. We would endup with much more balanced wars then, with no sandbagging.


Dave

 

[No Angel]

Dave there is no way 5 Gunpowder Age Players could equal 1 Atomic .
It's just like throwing a dice. When 2 or more alliances search for war at the same time, they will be randomly matched. If there's any algorithm in that, probably they only look for the closest alliance. Let's say there is third alliance with all Medieval Age players in top 5. Of course the game will pair bred2bbroken 's alliance with their current enemy, cause they are "the closest" pairing.

 

[Hansi]

We lost all of our last 10 World Wars and lost almost 3K glory points during the process. Not even once we had the war in our favor (based on glory points). I fought half-heartedly in the last 3 because there was less than 3% chance of winning (based on glory points). I have now decided to quit participating in World Wars. It’s a shame that the game has come down to this low in war matching.

 

[No Angel]

This has nothing to do with war algorithm, but if your top 10s are gunpowder age players, you might want to set it to 10vs10. Will be easier to rank up your alliance.
Our highest rank player in the alliance has quit wars for a year because of this bad matchmaking system, nothing could pursue him anymore I'm sitting out of wars also.
You guys really need to improve this algorithm stuff. Even better, change the war system. Honestly once we have reached level 10, war is not interesting at all anymore, at least for me.

 

[LordStark263AC]

Agreed. Algorithms are all over the place. Our top 7 are 1 Atomic, 2 Global, 2 Industrial and 2 Enlightenment age and we were matched up with alliance who's top 8 are either Atomic or Global and I'm talking about badass bases too, Missle Silos everywhere, and we only have 3 MSs.

I know Wars aren't fare but come on, let us have some fun.

1. Fix Algorithms. Match ups are horrendous (for average alliances)

2. World War loot should be at least 30% bigger

3. Do we really need 24 hours to prepare for War? 14-16 hours should be sufficient.

4. Maybe an option for Leaders and Co-leaders of opposing alliances to communicate amongst themselves (0SH, 0TT and Event buildings)

5. Maybe, just maybe DO NOT let players hit opposition players 2 and 3 Ages below, that's just a b#@*h-a55 move. No way that's fare, Global Age hitting Gunpowder Age.

That's my opinion on the matter.

 

[Mcnasty]

Ya matches a fucked. My alliance is pretty much done with war cause of it. Our match now has them with their top 5 being 2 cw and 3 atomic or top 5 is 4 global and 1 Industrial. Their bottom 5 are 1 Industrial 3 enlightenment and a gunpowder ours is 1 enlightenment 3 gunpowder and a medieval. CS gives the same old bullshit response. If they actually looked at the matchups they’d see that they were wrong

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Yup. My warring has declined to once every two weeks or so. Usually to test out a new batch of upgrades in more of a live environment than friendly challenges. Seems silly though since my town and warbases are vastly different, but whatever.

That said, the matchmaking continues to get worse and worse as this game becomes more of a niche product with a smaller, more hardcore player base. Last year we took a new alliance from 12000-18000 in roughly 2 months with 1 atomic player, 2 globals and a mix of industrials through medievals fighting mostly 10s and 15s. I'm not sure such a thing is even possible now.

As it is even if they did curb sandbagging/fix matchmaking it's a band-aid on a shotgun wound at this point. The entire war system need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Or better yet, keep the old crappy system to keep the whales happy but introduce a new version alongside it. Leagues? Operations like Boom Beach? I don't know. They're the game developers.

Just saying between pay-to-win, bad matchmaking, pitiful war loot, lack of new perk levels and bland presentation and mechanics the attrition is only going to get worse.

 

[Arminius]

No Title

bred2bbroken
I do not want to hijack your thread, but it perfectly fits into this one.

TinSoldier
In our current war (just started) the "Matchmaking algorithm" presented us an interesting match. Image attached.
Well, it is German, but even without speaking German the "problem" is perfectly clear. If anyone cannot translate the ages please let me know. I am happy to translate.

This war and the last 7 wars, which were quite similar, confirm my understanding of the matchmaker: There is NO matchmaking algorithm at all.
Instead of a matchmaking algorithm we have waiting queues for different war-sizes. And it works like this:
The first alliance looking for a war joins the empty queue, the second alliance with same size looking for a war is matched with the first alliance. Then queue is empty and waiting for further victims.
It is so easy - no calculation required. Good for development team, good for server resources.

Personally I am done with this war stuff since we have reached alliance lvl 10. On alliance lvl 10 a player can only lose if he goes to war, but there is another thread about the pathetic war bonus.

As long as you do not improve, simply remove the war functionality from the game - it would reduce the pain.

Edit:
Forget the upload. Uploading works as good as the matchmaking algorithm ...

Here is the address of the image:
https://dominations.kreative-machar...fa6f1127539b41f8bec/war-bullshit-no-names.jpg

 

[Snickers]

No Title

Feeling your pain. Our last war we heavily outweighed our opponents, and it was not fun, but as an alliance we did take our first 100 star 20v20.
Now, this is our current matchup... I’m including the lower 5 so you can see we actually use sandbags, literally.... and still this is what we get:
TinSoldier May as well tag ya.

 

[No Angel]

Bootney, why your posts are always long with not-so-daily terms used? Sometimes I need my Google Translate ☺

 

[Mayhaem Blue]

Extremely true I think the same way. 1/2 is the solution for the bagging

 

[Mayhaem Blue]

Could you investigate last wars of mine too . Because I cant keep my players in alliance. They all got bored of losing against impossible wars. So come on you can handle this mmr thing. Just try a bit