WAR Matchmaking Back to Mismatching

DUSTY1

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
124
A war search started Nov 8 to got a terrible mismatch, unexplainable by Museum, university or library type researches and buffs.

We were pitted against a 30 man team with: 5 Space Age, 4 Coldwar, 6 Atomic, 4 Global, 8 Industrial, 3 Gunpowder
Our team's age distribution: 1 Space Age, 1 Coldwar, 6 Atomic, 3 Global, 5 Industrial, 4 Enlightenment, 1 Gunpowder, 4 Medieval, 3 Classical, 2 Iron

The matching does not justify loading bases, acquisition of coalitions, acquiring troop tactics, or even playing the event to acquire benefits. We are a training alliance and I already have new players talking about being unhappy with the game.
 

B like Big Bug

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
183
Awards
1
I can undrestand matchmaking system.I said to myself :there isnot enough alliance in our search time.so,we most fight with stronger alliance(same that post.a lot of time,our #1 was AA and opponet has a 2 DA.or sometimes we have 3 SA andcwa and opponet had 9SA and 1 cwa.I can undrestand this.
But i cannot undrestand:when we fight aginst so stronger alliance with 9 max SA alley,and we havnot 1% chance to win,why we lose a lot of Glory(example:for win 120 and for lose 430 Glory).how it possible?!!
it happen a lot for all alliance.
anybody has idea?
 

Chadwicke

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,755
Awards
1
It ignores the even war and give the mismatch every time unless you have all space age in war you get a war (in your favor not even) once a month at best. War is absolutely terrible BHG_Muet I invite you to Viking rum club with any BHG account to view war and see how terrible it is and how it effects the players when most wars are over in planning day. Now on the 3rd war in a row that isn't even worth filling bases much less attacking in game has become a pointless waste of money at this point. I'm serious BHG_Muet send an account to to Viking rum club and see for yourself how bad it is .
 

DUSTY1

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
124
I'm thinking they need someone to fiddle a little more to counter their algorithm. Or think a little more to counter their fiddling. There are a whole lot of ways outside of the box we've arbitrarily created. Dominations can twiddle with the algorithm for matching, twiddle with the numbers, twiddle with handicap boosts to the weaker players, time out the match when a parameter on the matchmaking gets too broad, come back to the team with a selection box which limits which players by power. I bet you could come up with many more options. BHG just needs to think a bit bigger and huger.
 

Cannibals

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
605
You might have better luck either by 1) growing your alliance to look more like these mismatched opponents’ teams or 2) cancel and restart your search before the 1-hour mark so that you are more likely to only get matched with teams that look like your team.
 

Chadwicke

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,755
Awards
1
Cancel start doesn't work got all our bad wars on 5-20 mins
 

Chadwicke

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,755
Awards
1
O know how to. Fix it..........undo all the stuff that was down set war like it was even a sand bag war was not as bad as these it wasn't broken didn't need fixed but it's broke now and needs fixed
 

DUSTY1

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
124
In our war (at the top), a choice matchup would offer the stronger team (Team A) to pick 1-space age, 1-cold war, and some semblance of the rest of the team to reach 20 players. That would go against Team B's top 20. OR, Team A could opt OUT and Team B would be told there was no match and to try again.
 

theBobNamedDan

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
255
Awards
1
And another complaint when only your team is disadvantaged. I noticed the other team did not come on here to complain that they have a mismatch.

my first recommendation, stop using sand bags.
 

sponge

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
494
And another complaint when only your team is disadvantaged. I noticed the other team did not come on here to complain that they have a mismatch.

my first recommendation, stop using sand bags.

Sandbags are not included in war weight calculations, that was addressed in one of the re-balances. And perhaps you're not aware, but some teams include sandbags just to make number of players that's required for war.
 

theBobNamedDan

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
255
Awards
1
Sandbags are still included. Otherwise our current war that had us completely outmatched would not have happened. They had 5 Iron Age sand bags. That way they could outclass us. Our low was GP... we suck as an alliance, so not complaining about matchup, but sandbags still count.

It was our 3 AA+ vs their 10 AA+. We had 8 Industrial and 9 GP/EA, they had 3 industrial, 2 EA and 5 Iron Age. I am pretty sure it counted.

also, 5 Iron Age could have been dropped and they could have done a 15v15 war, but they got a easier match with the 5 sandbags..
 
Last edited:

sponge

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
494
Sandbags are still included. Otherwise our current war that had us completely outmatched would not have happened. They had 5 Iron Age sand bags. That way they could outclass us. Our low was GP... we suck as an alliance, so not complaining about matchup, but sandbags still count.

It was our 3 AA+ vs their 10 AA+. We had 8 Industrial and 9 GP/EA, they had 3 industrial, 2 EA and 5 Iron Age. I am pretty sure it counted.

also, 5 Iron Age could have been dropped and they could have done a 15v15 war, but they got a easier match with the 5 sandbags..

Ok, I probably didn't explain it properly, certain number of bottom ranked bases are not included in matchmaking, so they could have Irons, you could have GPA or even IA ranked at the bottom, and same number of bases on both sides were not included in war weight calculations. At least in theory, things are so broken in this game that I wouldn't be surprised if all bases were included again.
 

Cannibals

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
605
Players suggested that lower-ranked bases shouldn’t count, but I wasn’t aware that Nexon had adopted that suggestion. There was a change that didn’t affect matchmaking where teams with idle sandbags would earn less glory.
 

Chadwicke

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,755
Awards
1
Sand bags don't hurt or help some run them because they don't understand, war Match is backwards now on the logic used to be lower the war weight of the team get a better war for you (bags) now it's just the que no matter what you get who you get you can literally get any team in the same size seach as you now , you can get Ares even if you have no space age it's just matching teams for no reason
 

Cannibals

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
605
Your link does not say that sandbags aren’t counted. What it does say is that they count in a way that increases the likelihood that sandbagging alliances will only be matched with other sandbagging alliances. The longer your search, the more likely your non-bagging alliance will be mismatched against a bagging alliance based on math and stuff.
 

Saruman the White

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
527
Another matchmaking topic. @NEXON make our game simple! Matchmaking by glory! You win, you go up, you get tougher opponents, you lose, you go down, you get weaker opponents. Why is this so hard?
 

SomeRandomPlayer

is this thing on?
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
386
Awards
1
Many times (not all times obviously) matchmaking complaints come down to poor Alliance philosophy. People mention that 5 Global Age gets matched with 5 Atomic Age bases, and complain how unfair it is, but these alliances have bloated Global (or Industrial!) Age players sitting at 180+ level and 6 high level Generals and upgraded Redoubts and... yet they can't understand why a bunch of 170 Atomics got matched with them, an Atomic that can attack far better, defend equally or moderately better, and have a lower war weight as they focus on critical upgrades and not OCD-driven upgrades.

Same for folks wondering why giant 280 level CW bases get matched with 260 SA bases... really, it applies to all ages/levels as these are just examples; don't focus on the level numbers in this post.

So if you care about war then take OCD medication and age up to increase your strength.
 
Last edited:

DUSTY1

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
124
Many times (not all times obviously) matchmaking complaints come down to poor Alliance philosophy. People mention that 5 Global Age gets matched with 5 Atomic Age bases, and complain how unfair it is, but these alliances have bloated Global (or Industrial!) Age players sitting at 180+ level and 6 high level Generals and upgraded Redoubts and... yet they can't understand why a bunch of 170 Atomics got matched with them, an Atomic that can attack far better, defend equally or moderately better, and have a lower war weight as they focus on critical upgrades and not OCD-driven upgrades.

Same for folks wondering why giant 280 level CW bases get matched with 260 SA bases... really, it applies to all ages/levels as these are just examples; don't focus on the level numbers in this post.

So if you care about war then take OCD medication and age up to increase your strength.

That argument didn't wash for us. We faced 5 Space Age who had over 250 on average for level. Looking at "level" we were outmatched by hundreds of levels. Both at the top and all the way down. Not discounting your observation happens. Just not my complaint. I've also see rebalancing alternate between rewarding the offense (which you seem to be advocating at the moment) and also the defense. By the time the word ripples down the game seems to get rebalanced again. I'm not sending my ship on an all advancement or a total depth approach.
 

Ramesses the Great

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
44
We just got the following match:
Us: 2SA (272,253) 4CWA (230-220) vs
Opponent: 6SA (285,275,270,269,259,255) 3CWA (240-229)
rest are AA and lower.

Our #2 has CWA offense (just jumped). Besides our #1 (which is defensive), none of our bases are defensive compared to the enemy. Our CWA/AA are pretty low weight.

Most of their SA have maxed offense. Similar glory.

3rd mismatch in the last 7 wars. A good match would be the enemy having 2SA of similar levels.

*Edit*: after looking closer, opponent has low defense on their top SA, but mostly maxed offense.
 
Last edited:
Top