Wars
- Thread starter Ravenlord
- Start date
Hugh Jazz
Approved user
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 318
so many let downs and so many flaws .. it's hard to remain positive about any new features but that's how we have to behave unless we are ready to quit. stressing about theory is only going to work people up and spread more negativity.
I am also excited to see how things play out and even more excited to have practical discussions on the implementation.
I am also excited to see how things play out and even more excited to have practical discussions on the implementation.
Hunter Killer
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 409
After a long break, I checked into world war as I thought there was actually something to play for now with the leaderboard and not just some peanuts in resources.
I tried to keep an open mind but after a few wars, the current leaderboard is utterly useless. The matchmaking should be solely based on glory and not on the level of the players in the alliance. At the moment, it ensures that the low level alliances never match with higher level alliances. It's like having someone crowned as the #1 tennis player in the world but they never have to play Djokovic, Federer or Nadal because these guys are older.
The stalemate issue combined with this also makes the leaderboard not representative at all. Our alliance currently can only match with a handful of other global age alliances. In many cases, we both get perfect scores so no one ever moves. We just finished a war with United Allies and stalemate at 35vs35. We've searched for another war with 30 over the last 12 hours and can't get any matches.
In a normal leaderboard (see the individual medal one), the top alliances should be the ones with the most advanced players. Loonies tried to top the medal leaderboard in iron age and was removed. Yet, the alliance leaderboard is full of iron age player alliances and everyone thinks that's normal.
What this means in terms of (bad) business for Nexon is:
1) There is no incentive to advance your account for war. The lower you stay, the more alliances you can match with. The lower you stay, the more likely you will avoid an all global age alliance that will tear you apart. Some alliances create alternate accounts in iron age and include them in war to lower themselves.
2) If there is no incentive to advance, there is no incentive to buy crowns. In all games like this one, the main sales point is that you have very advanced players who have started early or paid to get there and you want to catch up. But then why would you spend any money now? Because if you do, you will end up having an account that is so high in level that you don't get war matches anymore.
So until the matchmaking for wars is based on glory (like the individual matchmaking is based on medals), there is still no real incentive in playing world wars. The current alliance leaderboard is as useless as the previous one.
I've read other posts around this topic and expect most average players to disagree because the current leaderboard gives them a shot at appearing on it.
This forum was once filled with a majority of players who understood the concept of having something to play for and compete. And that dominations is not just a version of farmville with historical buildings. Many went on to be in the top 10 of the medal leaderboard at some point. And they gave feedback to the developers about what was wrong with the end game. Issues that developers didn't even know about because their testers wouldn't even come close to playing at that level themselves. The situation for full global age alliances in the current leaderboard is one of them.
I tried to keep an open mind but after a few wars, the current leaderboard is utterly useless. The matchmaking should be solely based on glory and not on the level of the players in the alliance. At the moment, it ensures that the low level alliances never match with higher level alliances. It's like having someone crowned as the #1 tennis player in the world but they never have to play Djokovic, Federer or Nadal because these guys are older.
The stalemate issue combined with this also makes the leaderboard not representative at all. Our alliance currently can only match with a handful of other global age alliances. In many cases, we both get perfect scores so no one ever moves. We just finished a war with United Allies and stalemate at 35vs35. We've searched for another war with 30 over the last 12 hours and can't get any matches.
In a normal leaderboard (see the individual medal one), the top alliances should be the ones with the most advanced players. Loonies tried to top the medal leaderboard in iron age and was removed. Yet, the alliance leaderboard is full of iron age player alliances and everyone thinks that's normal.
What this means in terms of (bad) business for Nexon is:
1) There is no incentive to advance your account for war. The lower you stay, the more alliances you can match with. The lower you stay, the more likely you will avoid an all global age alliance that will tear you apart. Some alliances create alternate accounts in iron age and include them in war to lower themselves.
2) If there is no incentive to advance, there is no incentive to buy crowns. In all games like this one, the main sales point is that you have very advanced players who have started early or paid to get there and you want to catch up. But then why would you spend any money now? Because if you do, you will end up having an account that is so high in level that you don't get war matches anymore.
So until the matchmaking for wars is based on glory (like the individual matchmaking is based on medals), there is still no real incentive in playing world wars. The current alliance leaderboard is as useless as the previous one.
I've read other posts around this topic and expect most average players to disagree because the current leaderboard gives them a shot at appearing on it.
This forum was once filled with a majority of players who understood the concept of having something to play for and compete. And that dominations is not just a version of farmville with historical buildings. Many went on to be in the top 10 of the medal leaderboard at some point. And they gave feedback to the developers about what was wrong with the end game. Issues that developers didn't even know about because their testers wouldn't even come close to playing at that level themselves. The situation for full global age alliances in the current leaderboard is one of them.
Hunter Killer
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 409
Yes eddie, been a while. I'm just half inactive as you are 
It took them 9 months to release an alliance leaderboard, which should have been released at the same time as world war.
So yes I thought they would have thought a little bit more about how things would unfold. I keep getting frustrated with the huge potential this game has and how it can never manage to fulfill that potential.
It took them 9 months to release an alliance leaderboard, which should have been released at the same time as world war.
So yes I thought they would have thought a little bit more about how things would unfold. I keep getting frustrated with the huge potential this game has and how it can never manage to fulfill that potential.
redprince
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 331
Well just because I disagree with most of what you say does not mean I have no sense. I've been playing this long enough to remember all forum members and I had the same discussions and disagreements with everyone. I don't mind the leaderboard setup, sure it's not ideal for top alliances but life is much harder at the top in every game. If you want better wars maybe it warrants adding some lower members or trying smaller wars. But matching wars based on glory is not a solution because it guarantees totally uneven match ups. To me that's a lot worse for most people playing. Unfortunately you are in the minority of players in Dominations and they cannot implement a system that appeases to the top 1%, they risk losing a lot more.
phil_dee
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 94
But, on the subject of 'thinking a bit about how things would unfold'...don't the alliance leaders have some responsibility to do that as well? When wars first became available, and after we all had ample opportunity to look at the structure, scoring, etc. and to consider how we might best adapt our alliances to win wars, the alliances which had built their legacies (and rosters) on medal score could have easily began to transition to something else which is more appropriate for these wars specifically.
I mean, after the 54872345897th tie score, somebody's gotta try something else if they are anticipating a war leaderboard in the future and want any shot at appearing atop it. We even created an unofficial war leaderboard (https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...on-aa/488753-world-war-unofficial-leaderboard) in these forums as far back as January; when the alliances with elite medal scores couldn't top that leaderboard either, the onus is placed upon them to adapt...no?
These hyper-powerful alliances have been perfectly positioned for more than six months to take over this leaderboard, or any other...all it takes is to stop trying to use medal score as ammunition for war prep. Most, if not all, of these alliances are finally doing this, seven months late.
I mean, after the 54872345897th tie score, somebody's gotta try something else if they are anticipating a war leaderboard in the future and want any shot at appearing atop it. We even created an unofficial war leaderboard (https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...on-aa/488753-world-war-unofficial-leaderboard) in these forums as far back as January; when the alliances with elite medal scores couldn't top that leaderboard either, the onus is placed upon them to adapt...no?
These hyper-powerful alliances have been perfectly positioned for more than six months to take over this leaderboard, or any other...all it takes is to stop trying to use medal score as ammunition for war prep. Most, if not all, of these alliances are finally doing this, seven months late.
Last edited:
Hunter Killer
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 409
Matching by glory will be completely uneven at the start. Yes you'll get matches between all global age alliances vs all iron age alliances. After few rounds, the dust will settle, the most advanced alliances will naturally come at the top. The low level alliances will stay at the bottom. It will eventually give a natural distribution on the leaderboard of global age alliances then industrial age alliances, etc... down to iron age alliances. Some mixtures will exist in between these categories.
Once the glory scale is streched out enough, the global age alliances will only get matched with global age alliances because they'll both have high glory. So there won't be any unfair matches. It's the same as the medal leaderboard, does anyone see IA or EA or GP players there? No, because if they come high enough in medals, someone stronger than them will push them down. The current stalemate situation (no glory) can only make sense if the matchmaking is based on glory.
Finally there is no way to cheat that system like on the medal leaderboard where you voluntarily drop medals to get easy loot. If you are high in glory, what is the point of purposely losing a war to drop glory? The war loot is ridiculous anyway. Glory is what it should be, a reward for alliances who are the best at wars, not the best at cheating the system by including low level accounts, not the best at making fake matches with sister alliances to push their scores up.
Adapting to the current system is adapting to mediocrity. Saying the current leaderboard is fair is like being IA, loving to bully EA players while complaining about being smashed by GA players. If you are on the current leaderboard, it means you get easier matches and you can win. Clearly you will disagree to a free for all leaderboard where the strongest will be on top with no check on player level.
A free to play game is by definition targeted to the top 1%. Statistically, there is about 2% of players who actually pay to play the game. The rest of the people are just here to provide sparring partners to the ones who actually pay. I'm not saying that because I pay to play, I haven't spend a dime on this game. But I understand the economics of the business.
The top 1% have players refer to as whales in the business. People who can drop thousands of dollars per month on a game like this. And these people want something to show for it, a leaderboard. What would be the point for them to pay, upgrade to global age and not see any benefit for it? If you don't cater for the top 1%, you are killing your own business model.
Global age has been released to keep the top 1% busy, same with the university. Does the majority of players actually think they can complete all the university research? Same with walls, they are expensive to keep the top 1% busy.
Once the glory scale is streched out enough, the global age alliances will only get matched with global age alliances because they'll both have high glory. So there won't be any unfair matches. It's the same as the medal leaderboard, does anyone see IA or EA or GP players there? No, because if they come high enough in medals, someone stronger than them will push them down. The current stalemate situation (no glory) can only make sense if the matchmaking is based on glory.
Finally there is no way to cheat that system like on the medal leaderboard where you voluntarily drop medals to get easy loot. If you are high in glory, what is the point of purposely losing a war to drop glory? The war loot is ridiculous anyway. Glory is what it should be, a reward for alliances who are the best at wars, not the best at cheating the system by including low level accounts, not the best at making fake matches with sister alliances to push their scores up.
Adapting to the current system is adapting to mediocrity. Saying the current leaderboard is fair is like being IA, loving to bully EA players while complaining about being smashed by GA players. If you are on the current leaderboard, it means you get easier matches and you can win. Clearly you will disagree to a free for all leaderboard where the strongest will be on top with no check on player level.
A free to play game is by definition targeted to the top 1%. Statistically, there is about 2% of players who actually pay to play the game. The rest of the people are just here to provide sparring partners to the ones who actually pay. I'm not saying that because I pay to play, I haven't spend a dime on this game. But I understand the economics of the business.
The top 1% have players refer to as whales in the business. People who can drop thousands of dollars per month on a game like this. And these people want something to show for it, a leaderboard. What would be the point for them to pay, upgrade to global age and not see any benefit for it? If you don't cater for the top 1%, you are killing your own business model.
Global age has been released to keep the top 1% busy, same with the university. Does the majority of players actually think they can complete all the university research? Same with walls, they are expensive to keep the top 1% busy.
QuébecGlory
Approved user
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
- Messages
- 149
I agree that a leaderboard with matchmaking according to Glory points will please only the top 1 percent. The rest should stop playing? The Glory system, as it is, allows players of all levels to have a shot at a leaderboard, for once. I think Nexon should keep making it more fun for the other 99 percent of players, and find another way for top players to have fun, like the medal system, which is still something to shoot for.. or tournaments...
I don't c the logic in your posts (sorry for I am slow). My clan has been warring since the very start and with that I've witnessed dozens of players come and go. Those who r still around grow at their own pace. So because my clan has a range of ages (Global-Iron) we don't deserve all the wins we have? If your clan is having a hard time matching other all Global clans that's your problem, not anyone else's. I'd b shocked if there was a dozen WW Global clans in this entire game. I am not going to tell a player they can't war because they r small. Yeah, let's segregate WW as well.
Myself and a few others in my clan have spent and will continue to spend $ and we don't feel entitled to anything, because we (meaning everyone in general now) don't have to spend $.
Take the WW lb for what it is [a work in progress]. With clans based solely off of Glory, whether it b an all Global vs. an all Iron it won't prove anything but how fast ppl quit warring in general.
Myself and a few others in my clan have spent and will continue to spend $ and we don't feel entitled to anything, because we (meaning everyone in general now) don't have to spend $.
Take the WW lb for what it is [a work in progress]. With clans based solely off of Glory, whether it b an all Global vs. an all Iron it won't prove anything but how fast ppl quit warring in general.
Hugh Jazz
Approved user
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 318
I really want to quote Fable in his comment just above here
'If your clan is having a hard time matching other all Global clans that's your problem, not anyone else's.'
while the leaderboard is not perfect it isn't gloryifying ties which is fine by me. you may get a perfect score .. but you also gave up one .. it means your defense needs work and you don't deserve to be on the leaderboard till you can prevent other alliances from taking 5 stars from you
'If your clan is having a hard time matching other all Global clans that's your problem, not anyone else's.'
while the leaderboard is not perfect it isn't gloryifying ties which is fine by me. you may get a perfect score .. but you also gave up one .. it means your defense needs work and you don't deserve to be on the leaderboard till you can prevent other alliances from taking 5 stars from you
Similar threads
