No, that's what it tries to do now. If the matchmaking was based on glory, the glory ranking would reflect the strength of the alliance. It would be based on wars won and lost, not some calculated weight.
@snes_1 What's the spread of ages? Interested in knowing given how well it seems to be working for tenny. Given the lack of a seismically trolly response from him, I'd imagine it was a pretty bad mismatch, and probably wasn't much fun for either side. Let's hope it gets better soon.
Have you also noticed that some of the war roster rankings are difficult to understand these days? So if the individual war rankings are jacked, then it makes sense that the overall team rankings would be as well. Something is amiss, and I also believe that some alliances are figuring out the flaws n the war strength calculations and are exploiting it.
I wish it would be balanced based solely on Age. It would just be far more fair, and clear, if a team with 25 EA's was matched against another guild with 25 EA's, that system would be far superior to the current system.
I have a level 138 EA base, and I'm always matched against people in higher ages than I am. It's never a fair matchup.
I have a couple of accounts, and have seen war matchups from a handful of different alliances over the last three months. It seems very rare to have a matchup where the outcome is in doubt at the outset. Mismatches are the norm. If World War cannot provide interesting competition, what's the point? The interest in this feature will continue to diminish. However, this is also the feature that Nexon seems to be banking on for future revenue (V5.3 = Strategies of War). I just don't understand why they continue to allow Wars to be a lousy experience more often than not.
"I just don't understand why they continue to allow Wars to be a lousy experience more often than not"
me either... but they seem to be ignorant to the fact that war is really really crap at the moment!!!!!!!