Why isn't World War matchmaking based on level and Age?

TinSoldier

New member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
1,568
Why isn't World War matchmaking based on level and Age?

While you're correct in assuming that these numbers can somewhat indicate the relative strength of a base, some information can be hidden - and not all experience points are created equal! Overall, the level system is in DomiNations to prevent early-Age players from rushing too quickly out of their depth, but at the later Ages, it's somewhat of an arbitrary number. Overall, having a good offense and a strong defense will be the deciding factor in the true strength of your base.

Let's go through some examples of how Age and level could be misleading.



Example A: the Rush to Global Age! (Global Age, level 65)

Here, we have a level 65 Global base. It has quite weak offensive and defensive capabilities, but that's okay for now. We can assume this player wanted to see as much as the game had to offer, and quickly went through the Ages to find a place where they could stay and develop their base for a while.
01-Global65_Basic.png


Example B: Getting Schooled (Global Age, level 65)

This player, and their peaceful village, has been bombarded by other players in PvP matches. They decide to upgrade their walls several levels, to keep the invaders at bay. They also put a lot of time, Food, Gold, and Citizens into the University, and max out several skills there.

On the surface, this base looks nearly identical to the one above it. However, we know that the nearly maxed-out University would give them an advantage to offense and defense against their former selves.

02-Global65_UniversityWalls.png


Example C: All Roads lead to War (Global Age, level 81)

A discount event is announced, and the player decides it's a great time to upgrade their Roads in order to generate gold more quickly. After upgrading their roads to the Global Age, we see that they've gained a whopping 16 levels! Granted, Roads to grant bonus Hitpoints to the Town Center, but this single upgrade doesn't do nearly as much to the town's offense and defense as all of the work from the previous example.
03-Global81_BasicPlusRoads.png


Example D: It's Plane to see... (Global Age, level 89)

Here we see the player finally add oil, Airplanes, and some air defense to the mix. We've only gone up 8 levels (half of the jump seen from the last upgrade) but now we have Airplanes to bring into battle, and the addition of the Sniper Tower, Air Defense, Stable, Bunker, and 2nd Catapult could help the player last just a little longer while under attack.
04-Global89_Basic.png


Example E: Friends and Enemies (Enlightenment Age, level 89)

Let's look across the board at a different base now. This player is two ages below our previous example, yet they are the same level. With a quick scan of their base, we can see they likely have put more work into developing their offensive troops. However, there is some hidden information about what is going on with their University techs. Overall, they could be good at attacking, yet unable to hold off invaders that are well prepared.
05-Enlightenment89_Basic.png



If these two bases were set against one another in a World War, who do you believe should be the victor?


In a regular conversation, using your level and age are a great way to snapshot the relative strength of a base. When it comes to matches, however, there's much more we try to take into consideration. This has been discussed several places, but the repetition may not be such a bad thing. As always, we are happy to have your voice be part of the conversation!
 
Last edited:

Evningcome

Approved user
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
100
Level requirements for Global age is 130 .... So this example is not very accurate at all and if I see it in multiplayer I would report it as a cheat for sure .....
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
550
Is this example a joke ? I certainly do not want stupid global players of 69 in my team. Global starts from 180 and that's it.

Of course, there is the 30% hidden strength due to the Research, but please explain how an industrial of 130 can beat a global of 190 ? He has not enough defense or attack. The delta of 60 points is REALLY valid and not fake. No extra tank or troop will compensate that.

Anyway, we all know the true reasons why this matchmaking is performed in such a way today. No need to find excuses for it.

Nexon decided to push the game in this direction, so up to Nexon to shift it to another direction. I personally don't care anymore about the stupid matchmaking. It has taken all the fun away since months.

Good luck with that top player of global 69. He should buy some goodies and crowns to level up faster. $4000 would be good to start with...
 

Scuba

Approved user
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
66
Absolutely should be based on glory.

Thank you for the effort Tinsoldier.
Terrible example but it makes sense.

The reasons I ask for a change is simple, we are just about to start a war against 24k glory vs our 16k glory.

20 vs 20 war
Win 871 glory or lose 16
10AA vs our 2AA
and just that is game over.

This was matched in the time it took to reload my home base, half a second maybe.
Complete waste of 2 days again.
 

Scuba

Approved user
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
66
And please throw in some more leagues. Without WW I don't think you would have a game so put some fun and fairness in ;)
 

T4TiFooS

Approved user
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
222
Thank you TinSoldier to let us to know what goes on your mind!
But believe they are wrong that's why matchmaking problems still exists!

I've some suggestions for considering :

​​​​1) to prevent of engineering accounts count offense skills double! I mean more than defence! offence skills are more important than defence!

2) to prevent of engineering alliances (such as bronze age included) count number of ages!
for exp ; 2 AA+2 GA+3 IA+1 EA+ 2 BA = 63 ages level/score
(starting from BA in WW then it's lvl 1 and then AA is lvl 9)
Then same age level score(or near that) should requirement for matchmaking!

3) add same age number#1 requirements for both sides to matchmaking! it will solves many matchmaking problems!

​More hands will more help, never don't hesitate to share your ideas /facts/problems with your members!
​​​​​​
 

Evningcome

Approved user
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
100
What we really need is more complicated formula that calculate matches. Match based only by glory is not an option ,why ? Cuz you leave no room for low level teams (But isn't it all about domination - jungle law the strongest eat the weaker) Yes at some point it is, but it also involve some brain and team work (David took Goliath right ?) Simply cut team on segments (with step of 5 members for an example) Bigger teams will have more segments .50 vs 50 will have 10 for instance. All I want is not to feel guilty because I added this Classical age player (he is active and he want to taste this WAR actions) and if I add 5 of them i want to be matched with 5 of them from opposite team .Better experience for new players and probably solution for Sandbaggers
 

Ypergamias

Approved user
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
25
Thank you TinSoldier for this topic. We have an industrial 141lvl player in my team. He has medieval defense and gunpowder offense. But he is 141lvl because he has max industrial roads,farms and caravans. He ask me all the time to add him to war and i always have to lie to him. With the average level system it will be very negative for my team to add him in war. That's unfair first for that player who doesn't participate in wars and for the rest of my team which will have to face stronger enemies if finally add him.
 

Master Contrail Program

Approved user
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
350
Why lie? Just tell him he has too many empty levels and needs to get his act together. We have a number of people in our alliance who seem to mistake this game for Farmville too.
 

Player Killer

Approved user
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
73
Economic buildings and upgrades are not taken into account went calculating relatively strength in match making. So let the poor sucker war lol. As Tin has said war matching is not based on levels and age.
 
Last edited:

TinSoldier

New member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
1,568
A lot of great suggestions here!

You are correct as well. These examples were done in a developer build, and the numbers were kept relatively low to show just how far upgrades (like the Roads) could push your overall XP.
 

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
What we really need is more complicated formula that calculate matches. Match based only by glory is not an option ,why ? Cuz you leave no room for low level teams (But isn't it all about domination - jungle law the strongest eat the weaker) Yes at some point it is, but it also involve some brain and team work (David took Goliath right ?) Simply cut team on segments (with step of 5 members for an example) Bigger teams will have more segments .50 vs 50 will have 10 for instance. All I want is not to feel guilty because I added this Classical age player (he is active and he want to taste this WAR actions) and if I add 5 of them i want to be matched with 5 of them from opposite team .Better experience for new players and probably solution for Sandbaggers

Leave no room for low level teams? There is room for them, jsut not at the top of the glory rankings. Alliances with low level players shouldnt be able to push to the top of the leader boards the should stay where they belong near the bottom. If those lower level players are really good they will push to higher glory ranks than normal based on skill.

Basing it on glory removes sandbagging entirely. If you want to be at the top. you best come with a full team of AA players because if you dont you will lose.

You wouldnt find anything lower than a nearly maxed GA in the top alliances because lower level bases would never help them win a war anymore.
 

yemen

Approved user
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
680
Suggestion - fix the bonus xp road bug. Upgrading your road should provide XP similar to upgrading a caravan or farm that provides a similar increase in food / gold production. Readjust the minimum cutoffs for level upgrades to match (for instance, global minimum down to 100, and atomic minimum down to 125), as this adjustment when applied to existing players around those ages will drop them by 25 levels or more.

Many numbers in this game are misleading; this one is misleading and much larger than most. The fact that two players who are otherwise equal can be at 170 vs 140 just based on their roads is silly, and makes it unnecesarily harder to compare players levels.
 

Evningcome

Approved user
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
100
So you telling me that World War should be exclusive end game content ?!? From my point of view it should rewards team effort regardless of ages (but fair matches are need) In your scenario only AA players will be needed/wanted .And how a team of 10 AA (that makes only 10 vs 10 wars) and team of 30 AA (that makes only 30 vs 30 wars) will meet ,and who is better ? I'm trying to follow your logic .....Simply fix matchmaking (if you want to use 5 iron age players feel free to use ,but you will face team with 5 iron ages ....fair match)
 

Kam1983

Approved user
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
98
It shouldn't be only based on the glory. It encourages alliances to use only more and more atomic players.
 

LordJestix

Approved user
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
805
So you telling me that World War should be exclusive end game content ?!? From my point of view it should rewards team effort regardless of ages (but fair matches are need) In your scenario only AA players will be needed/wanted .And how a team of 10 AA (that makes only 10 vs 10 wars) and team of 30 AA (that makes only 30 vs 30 wars) will meet ,and who is better ? I'm trying to follow your logic .....Simply fix matchmaking (if you want to use 5 iron age players feel free to use ,but you will face team with 5 iron ages ....fair match)

The top of the leader board would be yes. That is how it should be though, just like medal counts in pvp. An alliance of all IA players should never compete at the top of the leader boards. They should be in the middle of the pack.
 

KniferX

Approved user
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
186
LordJestix So you want wars to become about who can stack up more atomic (and cold war age) players? And basically throw skill out of the window? Do you realize how many lower age players would quit wars? I mean, how much time would pass until people that are somewhat skilled at the game, get sick of getting unfair matches and losing all the time? Just because they haven't started playing the game a year earlier or they haven't forked out 1000$ to instant everything to global/atomic? And how much time would pass until alliance leaders would realize this and kick out everyone that's not global and atomic?

Also, what about AA players that would dump their alliance when they're high in glory, reset their glory in a new alliance and breeze their way up again, trolling every hopeless low alliance with beyond impossible matches? Didn't think about that did you?
 
Top