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

[LordJestix]

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?

1. Those lower level players can easily create a more appropriate alliance for their age.

2. Its not throwing skill out the window. An alliance will face another alliance of similar glory level thus similar alliance composition. When 2 AA or near AA. or CA/AA alliances fight each other it will be about skill or p2w cards.

3. That already happens now. With better AXP benefits, those alliances may not do this so they dont lose their bonuses.

I have yet to see any other solution that will eliminate sandbagging in its entirety. There have been many other solutions to lower the rate of sandbagging though.

 

[yemen]

KniferX Glory decay has been proposed repeatedly, and would partially fix the new alliance problem - at least the old ones would fall off the leaderboard. Yes, some people would do what you suggest, but they would start from Alliance level 1, and would not be able to keep multiple dead teams high on the leaderboard.

I want wars to be competitive but possible to win for both sides. I want to not face the truly high level teams that fill SH, have many atomics, and stack. I would like nobody at all to stack, because it wouldn't be useful. Not sure that LordJestix 's proposal would do that, but Nexon's current system clearly doesn't.

If you want to talk about throwing skill out the window - stackers filling SHs with paid troop cards took care of a lot of that already. Nexon is the only one you can blame for that, they didn't have to add unstoppable troop cards to the SH. But it might be too profitable of a decision to unravel easily now, in spite of the negative impact on other players.

 

[KniferX]

1. Those lower level players can easily create a more appropriate alliance for their age.

2. Its not throwing skill out the window. An alliance will face another alliance of similar glory level thus similar alliance composition. When 2 AA or near AA. or CA/AA alliances fight each other it will be about skill or p2w cards.

3. That already happens now. With better AXP benefits, those alliances may not do this so they dont lose their bonuses.

I have yet to see any other solution that will eliminate sandbagging in its entirety. There have been many other solutions to lower the rate of sandbagging though.

1. Okay, they do that. They're fairly good at the game, they go up in glory. Then they start losing to higher age teams. Those guys are less skilled in their attacks but they win just because they have played the game a bit longer or paid some money to speed up their progress. Such matches are obviously unsatisfactory (read: exactly the same like matches against sandbaggers, even worse because it will be guaranteed to happen). What do they do? Quit world wars? Start losing on purpose so they would get matches on equal footing in ages? I hope you see where this would go.

2. It actually is. And it would also be a huge pay to win mechanic, probably even worse than the stronghold is now. Imagine this picture: you're a top alliance, good AA bases, skilled players. Cold war age comes out. Who do you think would be the best now? Yes, the teams that forked out the money to speed up everything. Your team doesn't do that. Your team falls out of the rankings since you are disadvantaged for months, maybe more. Your skill can't compensate for stronger units and buildings, no matter what you do.

Before you say "Stronghold and troop cards are already pay to win" I know that. And that doesn't excuse glory matchmaking one bit. This would make another layer of pay to win on top of the current one. Glory matchmaking - horrible idea.

3. I shouldn't even have to compare the current situation with the situation that glory matchmaking would produce but here we go..
20 AA vs 5 IA, 7 EA, 4 GPA, 4 MA
That kind of match would be impossible with even the current flawed matchmaking system, but would be very easy to get with reseting glory in a new alliance.
Oh no, what will 20 AA players do without +3 alliance gate space against a team like above?
Sandbagger matches and matches against reset skilled teams are bad now yes, but this would be beyond that. Trolls would ruin the entire world war experience for anyone not in the top ages, like the above mentioned problems weren't enough on their own.

Here's a permanent (drastic) solution. Give everyone only one attack. And hand out a limited number of "second attempts" to give to players in every war for both teams that would only be available for the one base they attacked. Basically making it so every one player gets one base only to fight against. That would make sandbagging absolutely pointless and actually detrimental to your team. Tighter matchmaking would have to be done (less difference in offense/defense power) but it would work.

yemen to answer you in short. Alliance perks wouldn't matter since abusing the glory matchmaking system would be so powerfull that it wouldn't matter what perks you have. And current pay to win inequalities in skill won't excuse the glory matchmaking system that would make that rift even bigger.

 

[Evningcome]

I definitely do not want this (and medal count leaderboard is something completely different it's SOLO PUSH) In World War you have 10vs10 up to 50vs50 and this mean TEAM effort (do you see difference ?)

 

[LordJestix]

Here's a permanent (drastic) solution. Give everyone only one attack. And hand out a limited number of "second attempts" to give to players in every war for both teams that would only be available for the one base they attacked. Basically making it so every one player gets one base only to fight against. That would make sandbagging absolutely pointless and actually detrimental to your team. Tighter matchmaking would have to be done (less difference in offense/defense power) but it would work.

This is the best alternate solution i have seen to use other than glory based only. If posted previously else where I hadnt seen this suggestion until now.

Edit: Something else that im not sure if has been mentioned, but along similar lines, they could restrict how far down a player can attack. If you are #1 in the war alliance you cannot attack anyone lower than 4 or 5, etc.

BTW, in regards to the other arguments you have about people paying to advance. In my opinion if they are willing to shell out the hundreds or thousands of dollars to support this game, even if not skilled, they deserve to be at the top of the leader boards. Because without them, we have no game. Just look at any of the top earning games, (coc, clash royale, game of war) the people at the top of the leader boards are the ones that have paid to max their accounts.

 

[KniferX]

This is the best alternate solution i have seen to use other than glory based only. If posted previously else where I hadnt seen this suggestion until now.

Edit: Something else that im not sure if has been mentioned, but along similar lines, they could restrict how far down a player can attack. If you are #1 in the war alliance you cannot attack anyone lower than 4 or 5, etc.

BTW, in regards to the other arguments you have about people paying to advance. In my opinion if they are willing to shell out the hundreds or thousands of dollars to support this game, even if not skilled, they deserve to be at the top of the leader boards. Because without them, we have no game. Just look at any of the top earning games, (coc, clash royale, game of war) the people at the top of the leader boards are the ones that have paid to max their accounts.

Having limits on rankings you can attack would ease the problem, but it would still leave space for sandbagging.

Paying shouldn't give you advantages in power and competitive settings, because on the long term it creates a rift between the paying players and the non paying players. Not to mention the pointlessness of "trying hard" to be better at the game when you aren't paying the cash together with it. The most successful free to play games are the ones that understand this and are inclusive to all players.

Game of War (and its' clones) are trash that constantly bombard you with offers every step of the way you play them, complete p2w trash that's only sucessful because of the huge marketing campaigns they have. I don't know about Clash Royale. And CoC, haven't played, but heard it doesn't rely on p2w options in their clan wars.

Dominations isn't in the sink yet. Pay to win in wars is there, but only at the top rankings. And thankfully the game gives options to get some of the advantages in alternate ways (recent Marco Polo chests) So the situation isn't hopeless.

I disagree with glory matchmaking completely. It would solve sandbagging, yes. But it would also kill world wars.

 

[LordJestix]

Having limits on rankings you can attack would ease the problem, but it would still leave space for sandbagging.

Paying shouldn't give you advantages in power and competitive settings, because on the long term it creates a rift between the paying players and the non paying players. Not to mention the pointlessness of "trying hard" to be better at the game when you aren't paying the cash together with it. The most successful free to play games are the ones that understand this and are inclusive to all players.

Game of War (and its' clones) are trash that constantly bombard you with offers every step of the way you play them, complete p2w trash that's only sucessful because of the huge marketing campaigns they have. I don't know about Clash Royale. And CoC, haven't played, but heard it doesn't rely on p2w options in their clan wars.

Dominations isn't in the sink yet. Pay to win in wars is there, but only at the top rankings. And thankfully the game gives options to get some of the advantages in alternate ways (recent Marco Polo chests) So the situation isn't hopeless.

I disagree with glory matchmaking completely. It would solve sandbagging, yes. But it would also kill world wars.

I agree GoW is trash, but its still at the top of the money list.

CoC doesnt have any p2w features, its only pay to advance. Those clans that paid to advance their bases to max will always have the advantage over non maxed bases. CoC also has an issue with sandbagging but there is no rankings for clans either as far as "Glory." Wars are there for fun and loot and clan xp.

What is the purpose for glory? As i see it, its to show how good an alliance is in war. Thus shouldnt matchups be based on this? The best alliances will always be on top while the others will fit into a spot to their ability. An advanced aged alliance will always have the advantage over the less advanced. The less advanced can potentially compete vs the more advanced based on skill.

It wont kill wars, you will have a couple subsets of allainces.
1. The top alliances that care about glory and spend money to advance their bases and buy troop cards(that shouldnt be allowed in wars)
2. Those that are advanced but dont spend as much money and dont buy troop cards. These guys will face the upper alliances some but will more often fight those of similar style because of their glory rank.
3. Alliances that dont spend money and are just wanting to grow together and get as high as possible in glory based on skill.
4. Alliances that are just to socialize and have fun(dont care about glory ranks and will consist of a wide variety of ages)

 

[KniferX]

I agree GoW is trash, but its still at the top of the money list.

CoC doesnt have any p2w features, its only pay to advance. Those clans that paid to advance their bases to max will always have the advantage over non maxed bases. CoC also has an issue with sandbagging but there is no rankings for clans either as far as "Glory." Wars are there for fun and loot and clan xp.

What is the purpose for glory? As i see it, its to show how good an alliance is in war. Thus shouldnt matchups be based on this? The best alliances will always be on top while the others will fit into a spot to their ability. An advanced aged alliance will always have the advantage over the less advanced. The less advanced can potentially compete vs the more advanced based on skill.

It wont kill wars, you will have a couple subsets of allainces.
1. The top alliances that care about glory and spend money to advance their bases and buy troop cards(that shouldnt be allowed in wars)
2. Those that are advanced but dont spend as much money and dont buy troop cards. These guys will face the upper alliances some but will more often fight those of similar style because of their glory rank.
3. Alliances that dont spend money and are just wanting to grow together and get as high as possible in glory based on skill.
4. Alliances that are just to socialize and have fun(dont care about glory ranks and will consist of a wide variety of ages)

Glory is supposed to show how skilled the teams are in world war. Skill in this case doesn't include how advanced your base is. That is why the current matchmaking system was designed this way, average team strength. To make sure that the teams are on relatively equal footing and that they can show their skill. That is the definition of competitive gameplay.

With your system unless you're top age skill will be punished. You're getting better at the game and getting glory? Well here's a match where you will lose just because the team has better bases than you (by the way that is literally what happens with sandbagging, you lose because the enemy has better bases, repeating myself twice now) Does that sound like a pleasant experience to you? Teams, if they don't quit world wars, will drop glory to get easier matches. Sound familliar? Yeah, our world war experience, with the teamwork and all, will get on the same level as MP currently is! A mess of solo players droping medals to fight easy bases, combined with troll AA players making reset teams with 0 glory means anyone not atomic age will be completely shafted.
You haven't even adressed some points I made earlier, like cold war rushers beating you just because they paid (pure p2w even though you are apparently against troop cards).

I can see you have good intentions with this but glory matchmaking is the completely wrong way. Bringing solo MP matchmaking into wars will make the teamwork experience into a mess that is bland, uninspired, chaotic and only top of the top bases will feel good. Kinda like multiplayer currently is.

 

[LordJestix]

Glory is supposed to show how skilled the teams are in world war. Skill in this case doesn't include how advanced your base is. That is why the current matchmaking system was designed this way, average team strength. To make sure that the teams are on relatively equal footing and that they can show their skill. That is the definition of competitive gameplay.

With your system unless you're top age skill will be punished. You're getting better at the game and getting glory? Well here's a match where you will lose just because the team has better bases than you (by the way that is literally what happens with sandbagging, you lose because the enemy has better bases, repeating myself twice now) Does that sound like a pleasant experience to you? Teams, if they don't quit world wars, will drop glory to get easier matches. Sound familliar? Yeah, our world war experience, with the teamwork and all, will get on the same level as MP currently is! A mess of solo players droping medals to fight easy bases, combined with troll AA players making reset teams with 0 glory means anyone not atomic age will be completely shafted.
You haven't even adressed some points I made earlier, like cold war rushers beating you just because they paid (pure p2w even though you are apparently against troop cards).

I can see you have good intentions with this but glory matchmaking is the completely wrong way. Bringing solo MP matchmaking into wars will make the teamwork experience into a mess that is bland, uninspired, chaotic and only top of the top bases will feel good. Kinda like multiplayer currently is.

Then the glory system needs to be entirely scrapped. Skill was thrown out the window as soon as they allowed event buildings and troop cards into war, and then went further and made those same buildings and cards available via credit cards and then compounded the problem by introducing strong holds and then made it exponentially worse by making SH always spawn the troop cars.

No matter what, those that pay will always be on top.

Unfortunately this game is always going to be p2w so its something we will have to deal with or just quit out of frustration. Its sad because this game could be better than CoC but those in charge make horrible decision.

 

[KniferX]

Then the glory system needs to be entirely scrapped. Skill was thrown out the window as soon as they allowed event buildings and troop cards into war, and then went further and made those same buildings and cards available via credit cards and then compounded the problem by introducing strong holds and then made it exponentially worse by making SH always spawn the troop cars.

No matter what, those that pay will always be on top.

Unfortunately this game is always going to be p2w so its something we will have to deal with or just quit out of frustration. Its sad because this game could be better than CoC but those in charge make horrible decision.

If pay to win and sandbagging were removed, the wars would be about skill. And glory would show that, true. Currently the glory rating shows the teams that are best in using those 2 "strategies" let's call them.

At least currently the system works out of the top 100. I haven't seen blatant p2w for the past year and there are fun and tight matches at times.

 

[Ypergamias]

Lately i have seen atomic rush bases usually British around 150-170lvl with max upgrades to barracks troops and mercenary camp . The motto is simply i am a weak industrial base so i rush to atomic i upgrade my green jackets field howitzers and tank destroyers and voila with a little help from university and descent skills bases 200-220lvls with a tonne more defensive structures than mine are completely destroyed. Yes mine defense will be weak but in the matchmaking system i will oppose with an industrial player. And maybe i have iron age redoubts and garrisons and max atomic mortars and tank depots. So NEXON system will count my iron age garrisons and my atomic tank depots the same with an industrial with industrial garrisons and stables. And not only that i will selectively upgrade my library and armory too, i will pass all the non-war chapters and i will complete stuffs like resistant,radar,deception and will have the same library upgrades with the industrial one. The same for armory i will ignore all heavy infantries,mortars(troops) , raiders, bombers, commandos upgrades and in the strength nexon system i will be "equal" with someone industrial who has update everything.

 

[KniferX]

True. Offense is prioritized more with the 2 attack system. Realistically offensive power should be rated more than defensive in wars but that's not the case now is it..

 

[SiuYin]

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)

It sounds to me like you believe that you deserve a higher glory to an alliance which is stronger than yours

 

[Imaera]

It sounds to me like you believe that you deserve a higher glory to an alliance which is stronger than yours

It sound to me like you believe that an atomic beating up an gunpowder, deserves more glory than a gunpowder defeating another gunpowder.

 

[SiuYin]

It sound to me like you believe that an atomic beating up an gunpowder, deserves more glory than a gunpowder defeating another gunpowder.

A simple Yes or No Question.

Do you agree that if an alliance able to beat your alliance easily, they deserve higher glory than yours?

Stop saying you are in Gunpowder Age and bala bala, you either pay it to advance into AA, or ask BHG to provide some speed up machanism for New Players.

There should be only one rule for glory system, Stronger team got more glory

 

[British Coffee]

I think basing matchmaking based on glory points is easiest solution. At least for sandbagging. Sure its gonna take a while to get fair matching till teams fit into their comfortable niche but it will be fine after that phase. Unlike other games that rely on MMRs, this one takes more commitment since WW is a 24 hours long no matter the result and theres no backing out of it. So deliberately losing your MMR to get some easy wins is almost pointless. I'm not gonna say it won't have an exploit, but I think its still better than current matchmaking system.

 

[KniferX]

I think basing matchmaking based on glory points is easiest solution. At least for sandbagging. Sure its gonna take a while to get fair matching till teams fit into their comfortable niche but it will be fine after that phase. Unlike other games that rely on MMRs, this one takes more commitment since WW is a 24 hours long no matter the result and theres no backing out of it. So deliberately losing your MMR to get some easy wins is almost pointless. I'm not gonna say it won't have an exploit, but I think its still better than current matchmaking system.

No, it wouldn't be better than the current matchmaking system, it would be way worse. For reasons, read my conversation with LordJestix, no need to repeat my arguments over and over.

 

[Imaera]

A simple Yes or No Question.

Do you agree that if an alliance able to beat your alliance easily, they deserve higher glory than yours?

Stop saying you are in Gunpowder Age and bala bala, you either pay it to advance into AA, or ask BHG to provide some speed up machanism for New Players.

There should be only one rule for glory system, Stronger team got more glory

No
I am not gunpowder, but i wouldn't have any fun to go to war and beat up gunpowder players. If i am stronger, that doesn't mean i am better, i just played for a longer time.
Your options for lower age players are what? Pay, or don't play?

 

[LordJestix]

It sound to me like you believe that an atomic beating up an gunpowder, deserves more glory than a gunpowder defeating another gunpowder.

A GP shouldnt be in a war with an AA base. If we used glory as the matching, then you wouldnt see a GP base getting smashed by an AA base really. There are always exceptions, but that alliance using a mix bag of ages will not be high on the glory leaderboards thus they will face other alliances of similar power.

We currently have these mixed alliances because of how the war system that was released to us. Had it been glory from the start, you would have seen alliance compositions much differently, at least for those alliances that want to compete at the top of the glory board.

 

[Quovatis]

Matching on glory would be bad. For one, you'd have even more of the top alliances create new alliances like is already happening so they can beat up everybody in easy wars for them. Secondly, those few alliances that don't start over would be stuck with the same wars with the same alliances over and over again. It's already bad, but matching on glory would be worse.