War Matchmaking all over the place

[Wendy]

Veldan, how could it ever be fair? this way the glory ranking would only reflect the weight of the alliances.

 

[Veldan]

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.

 

[Radzeer]

You are not making too much friends with your uppish comments.

 

[QuébecGlory]

First part was an opinion on the game, second part sounded like too much complaining about too much complaining

I like opinions about the game, good or bad. It's open for debate. I hate negative opinions about people who play the game, it just creates bad blood.

 

[Tenacious D]

For what it is worth, we weren't happy with that matchup either, but it is luck of the draw.

 

[Vixen]

Bumping this back up under Nexon's eyes

Nb4powerup
BFisher

 

[Wendy]

So basically a Ea/IA alliance winning many wars would have,at a certain point, to defeat an AA alliance just because they have earned a lot of glory points. Fair?

 

[Veldan]

Happens already, only now it's because of sandbagging. In a glory based system, those EA/IA alliances would at least know they'd reached the top of all the EA/IA alliances, and could be proud of that.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

@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.

 

[snes1]

Tenacious - but I did enjoy the mismatch, Chris was a tough one, I tried. FYI i was the one you steamrolled in your second attack.
Eventually I opted a 20v20 to avoid you guys entirely, haha..

 

[Bowmore]

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.

 

[snes1]

prodigal - I remember they had a few iron ages in the roster. For us, about 2-3 IA, maybe another 2-3 GA, the rest are AA.

 

[Tenacious D]

We would love a match with Prodigal Thieves, but that isn't possible. Perhaps our second alliance would be able to get a match?

 

[Tenacious D]

Nice base you have. Yes, Chris isn't much fun.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Mdon't think this would result in better matchups

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Bowmore , yes agreed, and they have been fluctuating greatly from war to war as well.

 

[S_How]

We've seen a few instances recently of globals being at the 1-2 rank, and max AA being at about 10

 

[Thevinegru]

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.

 

[Bowmore]

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.

 

[Vixen]

"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!!!!!!!