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

[LordJestix]

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.

thats a player base issue. Game design should be done with expectations of a very large player base.

 

[Quovatis]

My first point is valid, regardless of the number of players. If you keep starting new alliances, you are almost guaranteed to win every war if you have tons of heavy bases. Many alliances would do that. And to the second point, reality is reality, and this game doesn't have the players to support many good ideas.

 

[Imaera]

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.

Who said anything about mixed alliances? There are GP or Ea only alliances, fighting among themselves. Skilled players usually win and gain considerable amounts of glory. Not top 100, but high enough. Matching based on glory only, would eventually face an weak atomic alliance against a strong EA alliance. No matter how unskilled atomics might be, they will win against EA only bases. Tell me how is that fair?

 

[LordJestix]

Who said anything about mixed alliances? There are GP or Ea only alliances, fighting among themselves. Skilled players usually win and gain considerable amounts of glory. Not top 100, but high enough. Matching based on glory only, would eventually face an weak atomic alliance against a strong EA alliance. No matter how unskilled atomics might be, they will win against EA only bases. Tell me how is that fair?

If those alliances are good enough to get to a glory total where they face a full weak AA alliance then yes its fair. that means their skill is very high and it would be very unfair for them to face other GP/EA alliances that arent nearly as skilled.

 

[Imaera]

So you really think EA army, no matter how skilled the player is, could 5 star a decent developped AA base... we're talking 3 ages above...

 

[LordJestix]

no i dont, but i think if they can earn enough glory they will eventually see some of those, lose the war and get knocked down a bit to where they should be. Similar to single player, if you earn enough medals you are going to start facing a lot of harder higher age bases because you are out playing the average player at those medal ranges.

Having a glory system makes no sense if its not going to be used for matching alliances. Awesome you are the #1 alliance in the game, congrats on getting there smashing alliances not even in the top 100. Awesome, you are a top 10 EA alliance that only faces other EA alliances, i bet you deserve to be top 10...

Glory means absolutely nothing in the current system, especially with sandbagging and p2w.

 

[Imaera]

Actually you won't face bases 3 ages above you when climbing the medal ladder. Glory should reward skilled alliances defeating other alliances of the same strenght, not reward a professional boxer for beating up a kindergarten kid.
If so, you shouldn't even complain about sandbagging. If you are that strong, you can beat them, right?

 

[Evningcome]

What age are you LordJestix Industrial ? By your glory based wars suggestions you will not know what War looks like probably because only AA players will be a viable option ...

 

[LordJestix]

What age are you LordJestix Industrial ? By your glory based wars suggestions you will not know what War looks like probably because only AA players will be a viable option ...

I am IA. I will know what wars are like because they will be viable at every age still. I just wont be in an alliance that is competing for the top because those will only be near max base alliances.

 

[KniferX]

I am IA. I will know what wars are like because they will be viable at every age still. I just wont be in an alliance that is competing for the top because those will only be near max base alliances.

*sigh*.. how after all this you don't see the problems with this is beyond me..

For one last time

By implementing this system:

- skilled teams lower than atomic are going to be stuck in a PERMANENT state of fighting the equivalent of SANDBAGGERS. You say this system is supposed to stop this but it will actually REBRAND it and bring it back in brand new style, as something FAIR.
What will those teams in frustration of bad matches do to stop it? Lose on purpose or reset alliance, which brings me to:

- ANYONE in that system will be able to drop their glory to zero, making a complete MESS of the entire system. Hello Atomic vs Medieval matches for the next 3 months, sounds awesome! Even if you want to play casual, you won't be able to because the entire system will be a mess of teams being where they're not supposed to be! You somehow think teams and players will stick to moral principles and not do this? And Nexon is supposed to do what, police every team and AA player so they don't join a low glory alliance?

If you still don't realize this and go around suggesting glory matchmaking as the great idea that would solve all the problems we have, you're truly a lost case. Thankfully the devs have more common sense and would never implement this nonsense.

 

[SiuYin]

Who said anything about mixed alliances? There are GP or Ea only alliances, fighting among themselves. Skilled players usually win and gain considerable amounts of glory. Not top 100, but high enough. Matching based on glory only, would eventually face an weak atomic alliance against a strong EA alliance. No matter how unskilled atomics might be, they will win against EA only bases. Tell me how is that fair?

I don't see any point that you still stay in EA.
If it is because that there is no speed up mechanism for new joiner, create a new post for the speed up mechanism.
The matching system should work for majority but not a very minor potion of so call good EA players

 

[yemen]

It would obviously take some tweaks to the system to get around this, but I can think of a simple adjustment off the top of my head:

For a new alliance, or one that hasn't warred for a while, use the existing war rating system to estimate their position in the hierarchy, and start them at that glory. So a brand new alliance of all atomics is given the average glory of the 10 alliances with the closest comparable war strength. Cap it out at starting no higher than 2000 glory below the bottom of the leaderboard. If it is off by much, they will quickly rise or fall. But they won't start out with crazy mismatches.

If you don't war for a period of time, or have a huge change in war weight (a 10 man alliance of medievals adding 20 atomics), then recalibrate.

Alternatively, have leagues, where your alliance war weight determines which league you start in, and then do matches by glory inside of that. Every few weeks, the top alliances move up, the bottom ones are relegated to the next lowest league. Say, 5 leagues, and a new alliance of all atomics would start at the bottom of the 2nd highest. One with mostly medievals would start at the lowest level.

Not saying they can or should do it, but there are ways to build a reasonably fair and robust system based around glory, that allows for people trying to beat the system.

 

[KniferX]

@yemen
So, 5 iron age accounts make a new alliance. They are given their position and minimal glory. Then, a bunch of Atomics, or Globals, or Industrials join up. What now? Should Nexon make a system that adjusts glory everytime someone enters and exits an alliance? Should Nexon prohibit players of higher age moving alliances? Should they make alliances only be able to be consisted of same age allies?

Can you say 'absolute mess that you can't control'? Because you can't control what players of different ages will do with the freedom to move around alliances and glory levels or conceptual leagues, not even with a thousand recalibrations.

 

[SiuYin]

In current matching system, if a new alliance created by AA players, the new alliance will normally matched with top alliances, glory point like 12000 vs 21000.
Do you think it is good for alliance already got 21K glory? they will easily lose 1000 glory, but only gain 1-2 glory.

 

[Imaera]

I am not in EA, i am lvl 193 GA, about to become atomic in few weeks. I am not talking about myself, i am just presenting a possible scenario in which matching based solely on glory would be unfair. I do know good alliances formed by EA/GP players, no higher ages. And they face opponents of similar strenght. War can be fun for lower ages too, and they are entitled to glory, for winning fair wars.
If matching was based on glory only, i would not accept in my alliance any new member lower than atomic. Think what this does to the game in the long run.
So yes, you are right. The matching system shouldn't work only for a small portion of the players that are now in AA and screw all others.

 

[KniferX]

That is a problem that should be solved through adding glory decay and some other disincentives to leaving your upgraded alliance. Here are two situations though.
1) The situation you describe. The high glory team still has some chance to win since the teams were matched on average strength. The glory win/loss is bad, but the match is still playable.
2) Glory matchmaking. The AA team gets matched with a GPA team. ZERO chance for the weaker guys to win, completely lopsided match.

Which of the 2 options sounds worse?

 

[Evningcome]

SiuYin maybe because I enjoy leveling ( I'm AA btw but what I learned in this game was because I had a chance to enjoy of every single aspect of the game /I started participate in wars when I was a Classical age player/ and what I'm at moment is thanks to this) You simply say that Nexon should start selling insta leveling pack - pay and you are ATOMIC .I will accept sandbagging and all this unfair matches above into what you guys want to turn this game ....I'm speechless .....

 

[LordJestix]

KniferX commented
Yesterday, 04:32 PM
@yemen
So, 5 iron age accounts make a new alliance. They are given their position and minimal glory. Then, a bunch of Atomics, or Globals, or Industrials join up. What now? Should Nexon make a system that adjusts glory everytime someone enters and exits an alliance? Should Nexon prohibit players of higher age moving alliances? Should they make alliances only be able to be consisted of same age allies?

Can you say 'absolute mess that you can't control'? Because you can't control what players of different ages will do with the freedom to move around alliances and glory levels or conceptual leagues, not even with a thousand recalibrations.

Easy enough answer, have yemens calculation occur at the start of every war search. So it at first looks at your alliance's glory, then it looks at the average war power of your alliance compared to the average of those in your glory range. If you war power is too much it moves you to a more appropriate glory level.

To prevent a 10 team AA filling an alliance with 40 iron age or what ever, only calculate the top 3 ages in the alliance based on the highest age. So if There is 1 AA in the alliance only AA/GA/IA members in the alliance will be factored into alliance power.

Another way to prevent this is to keep track of alliances in a way that, if X amount of people leave an alliance and start a new one, that new alliance automatically gets ranked at the same as the alliance they left.

There should NEVER be glory decay, because that would allow teams to lower their rank without losing wars. What should happen is if a team doesnt war for X amount of time, they no longer show up in the glory rankings. But once they start to war again they will show back up

 

[KniferX]

Easy enough answer, have yemens calculation occur at the start of every war search. So it at first looks at your alliance's glory, then it looks at the average war power of your alliance compared to the average of those in your glory range. If you war power is too much it moves you to a more appropriate glory level.

Let me get this straight.
Glory matchmaking is supposed to replace the average war weight calculations, a system which enables sandbags to happen.
The apparent fix to the aforementioned problems with the glory matchmaking is to... use average war weight calculations... which will enable sandbagging again...
So you're essentially taking the current system we have now, and putting a bunch of glory rank alghoritms on top of it.
I think you're digging your argument a hole here.

To prevent a 10 team AA filling an alliance with 40 iron age or what ever, only calculate the top 3 ages in the alliance based on the highest age. So if There is 1 AA in the alliance only AA/GA/IA members in the alliance will be factored into alliance power.

Nope. Atomics will reduce average war weight with IA accounts, Globals will reduce average war weight with EA accounts.. need I go on?

Another way to prevent this is to keep track of alliances in a way that, if X amount of people leave an alliance and start a new one, that new alliance automatically gets ranked at the same as the alliance they left.

So track every player and team with an alghoritm that will somehow correctly rank new alliances they go in, everytime. Yeah good luck with that.

There should NEVER be glory decay, because that would allow teams to lower their rank without losing wars. What should happen is if a team doesnt war for X amount of time, they no longer show up in the glory rankings. But once they start to war again they will show back up at every age still. I just wont be in an alliance that is competing for the top because those will only be near max base alliances.

Maybe in the fantasy glory matchmaking decay won't be needed, but in the real matchmaking system we have now, it is dearly needed. No point in having troll teams locking up a bunch of glory points and starting again with the option to get back when they want. Those glory points are better off redistributed to surrounding ranked alliances.

Looking forward to the next "simple solution"..

 

[BeerMan]

The only foolproof way to eliminate sandbagging is to go down to one attack (and I like the proposal earlier of granting second chance attacks on the same base). This would completely change the dynamic of world war, however, and sandbagging primarily affects only a small percentage of alliances at the top. Perhaps there could be some configurable settings to determine which type of war you want to enter? It would also be nice if you could set up "friendly challenge" wars with a particular alliance, where no glory is at stake.