why the 15 and 25 WW are obsolete?

[Xabar]

Complety agree. with Tsamu. Our alliance loves 40vs40 wars. And we have been recluting other alliances to this modality. In 40vs40.
You are leaving 15-20 players y many alliances out of war.
In our case, dont use sandbags, we train a lot of new players (they waste money buying extra houses etc). devs, Guys you are lossing a lot of new players/costumers.
The GAP betwen 30vs30 and 50vs50, it is too large.

TinSoldier BHG_Muet


Bring back 40vs40 WARs. Please

 

[Rachel]

This is your (BHG) of screwing/ cheating the players yet once again by making us battle those who buy / cheat the winby using sandbags screw your wars now the game is a FARMING GAME

 

[Xabar]

BHG_Muet our alliance have more than 40 active player, that want to war. You are making that 14 player leave to play

 

[No Angel]

Me too! We were on 10 and it actually felt great
But it was because some of my best men opted out and I didn't want to go with more people without stronger support.
I'm looking forward for next MM system, whether I should get more bags or not.

 

[Franco Verdino]

Finding a better match...? The leader of my alliance write this today to Nexon
To whom my concern:
I'm the leader of my alliance "ARG. REBELDE". We just start a new War againts an alliance call "Tactical Raw!" . These is a very uneven matchup , because of our rival power our chances to win are 0. They are level 12 and we are level 10. This is the comparison of the players head to head:

ARG. REBELDE (AR) - Tactical Raw! (TR)

AR player 1 - level 154 / Global Age
TR player 1 - level 186 / Global age

AR player 2 - level 138 / Industrial age
TR player 2 - level 181 / Atomic age

AR player 3 - level 119/ Enlightenment age
TR player 3 - level 200 / Atomic age

AR player 4 - level 106/ Industrial age
TR player 4 - level 180 / Atomic age

AR player 5 - level 121/ Enlightenment age
TR player 5 - level 173 / Industrial age

AR player 6 - level 119/ Enlightenment age
TR player 6 - level 179 / Atomic age

AR player 7 - level 98/ Enlightenment age
TR player 7 - level 155 / Industrial age

AR player 8 - level 101 / Gunpowder age
TR player 8 - level 86 / Gunpowder age

AR player 9 - level 100/ Enlightenment age
TR player 9 - level 72 / Gunpowder age

AR player 10 - level 96 / Gunpowder age
TR player 10 - level 96/ Enlightenment age

They have 4 players in Atomic age ,we have 0. This matchup is uneven in every possible way.
A lot of our players have invested a lot of time and money on this game. The exiting part of the game is the World War , the planification and organization of the strategy to win every battle , but when we have a rival like this with no chances of winning all that excitement and desire to play go to the trash. Many of the players on this alliance are doubting if it's worth it to keep investing so much time and keep playing this game. Also the Wars of 15 players in each side was the best option for us. I know that many other alliances share our opinion ,and the best feedback for Nexon should be the users opinion.
I don't want 100 crowns or 3 armys of ninjas. I hope Nexon staff consider this and do something about it.

Sincerely,
Cesar- leader of ARG. REBELDE.

 

[QuébecGlory]

Thanks for the details Joe! Love the details! Makes it easier to adapt. Of course many who can't adapt will complain, but then again, they'll always complain about something not being fair when they can just adapt. Of course, to adapt, we need to know what the hell is going on.

We also got it down to a good 25 player line-up, but we'll manage to rework it to 20 or 30. As far as 40vs40, we tried and tried for months to match, but very rarely did it ever worked, and when it did, we so badly outmatched our opponents that we quit looking for 40 wars. We would have prefered 25 or 35, but with good explanation, we will adapt. Thanks!

 

[Manifesto]

Maybe the matchmaking algorithm doesn't / can't assign a team if the numbers don't match up exactly to 10 or 20 or 30?
Although your idea does sound like all they need to do is write a code to seach for the closest match.

 

[Mcnasty]

My alliance always did 25 vs 25 and we would get good matches. Now we have to do 30vs 30 and we usually get crap matches for that and sure enough the war I just started we get completely out matched. Thanks for screwing us

 

[DubStep]

My alliance always did 25 vs 25 and we would get good matches. Now we have to do 30vs 30 and we usually get crap matches for that and sure enough the war I just started we get completely out matched. Thanks for screwing us

He clearly says the matchmaking balance updates are not live yet. You have someone being responsive and informative for the first time in the history of this game and you are still complaining? Even worse, you are not actually paying attention to what they say to begin with. I say kudos to them for actually doing SOMETHING.

 

[oddin]

thanks for giving us an honest answer. The questions I wanted to make, are already answered so the only thing I can hope for, is for the new MM changes to go live soon indeed!

 

[WarLord]

Quebec says we should adapt. Look at the example above, how do they adapt? How do we adapt when we have 2 CW vs 5 or 6? The matchmaking is beyond messed up. Do what needs done so that 15 and 25 person wars are an options please.

 

[Droppinbottom]

I appreciate the answer finally coming out and would really appreciate seeing a full list of patch notes for this latest update instead of us having to figure out what changes were made.

Suggestions
1. When making some changes please create a poll to see what we want.
2. Please add 15v15 back in. I'm a newer alliance leader and that small step from 10 to 15 is very helpful with new members as we dont have the base players to do 20 v 20 and if you leave players out they get upset and quickly jump ship.

Again thank you for your time to explain. That's all most of us really want is answers to what is changing.

 

[Pretty]

YES I think it would benefit nexon greatly to use in game polls. Real players, not the troll of a thousand accounts, should vote on controversial changes. The players would get what they want and nexon would regain some trust.

 

[No Angel]

Pretty as you said, people in this forum didn't represent real players, so why should there be polls here?

 

[Alexey]

The biggest problem of eliminating 15-people wars is that it practically stops small alliances from developing. Let’s say we usually do 10-people wars (from now on), and here comes a new player, who says: “Hello, guys! I wanna play wars with you.” I have three options: to take him into war and add about 7 sandbags; to tell him: “okay, but you’ll have to wait until we get another 3-4 new players (which is about several months); to tell some of the old players: “hey, Jhon, I know we played together for the last couple of years but now you’ll have to sit back because we are taking this new guy with us”.
All these options are no good for me, so I don’t really know how to keep new players in our alliance if they come. I really like Lord Stark’s idea about removing limitation numbers totally.

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

I think different sized teams would only increase sandbagging. How would matchmaking even work with different sized teams? Include the sandbags in the matchmaking process, and then just use the top players to fight? What? The leaders need to decide who to include in the World Wars, and then the system makes a match based on those decisions.

 

[WarLord]

So how does one adapt to this....our current war, spun this morning goes like this.

1. AA(OUR ALLIANCE) CW 231 VS THEM SA 275
2. CW 238 VS CW 247
3. AA 211 vs CW 247
4. GA 191 vs CW 259
5. AA 198 vs. CW 261
6. AA 197. vs. CW 242
7. GA 184 VS CW 244
8. AA 188 VS CW 231
9. GA 182 VS CW 248
10. AA 175 VS GA 189
11. AA 185 VS GA 182
12. GA 168 VS IA 158
13. AA 172 VS IA 148
14. GA 167 VS IA 147
15. GA 159 VS IA 104
16. IA 137 VS EA 91
17. EA 107 VS EA 113
18. GP 91. VS EA 80
19. GP 84 VS MA 73
20. MA 49. VS CA 23

We have zero chance in this war. We will use it for practice but this is all to common in 20 player wars....which is why we used 15.

 

[Toggle]

This strikes me as clear indication that the game is not popular enough to support these queues. I have always wondered about the ways this game attempts to monetize. Items... imo, seem massively overpriced, and the offers that require multiple purchases to obtain a desired item are poorly explained - such that it ssems intentional or dishonest. Why not simply say “this is the item, and this is what it costs”.

furthermore, the game, from its outset has been buggy as hell. frankly i ask myself daily, why i still play it - im certainly not buying anything they are selling.

 

[Toggle]

So how does one adapt to this....our current war, spun this morning goes like this.

1. AA(OUR ALLIANCE) CW 231 VS THEM SA 275
2. CW 238 VS CW 247
3. AA 211 vs CW 247
4. GA 191 vs CW 259
5. AA 198 vs. CW 261
6. AA 197. vs. CW 242
7. GA 184 VS CW 244
8. AA 188 VS CW 231
9. GA 182 VS CW 248
10. AA 175 VS GA 189
11. AA 185 VS GA 182
12. GA 168 VS IA 158
13. AA 172 VS IA 148
14. GA 167 VS IA 147
15. GA 159 VS IA 104
16. IA 137 VS EA 91
17. EA 107 VS EA 113
18. GP 91. VS EA 80
19. GP 84 VS MA 73
20. MA 49. VS CA 23

We have zero chance in this war. We will use it for practice but this is all to common in 20 player wars....which is why we used 15.

Or as an alternative you could object to the matchup entirely and not participate at all. Some will surely see this as “sucking out”... but if this were to start happening a lot, the level of unhappiness overall would eventually increase (perhaps) pressuring nexon to do something.

And yeah, i get how naive that may sound.

 

[KniferX]

While the natural decline in player population is certainly one of the factors that increase mismatches, I would wager that another factor is that with the addition of new ages and upgrades, the variety of players' bases is greatly increased. With increased variety of alliance strengths it gets harder and harder to match up alliances of a similar strength. Especially with the current system of averages as it works now, since you can have a couple of space ages at the top and lower all other ages, match up with an alliance of mostly atomics and some CWAs in war. As far as the averages system goes that is a fair matchup. It won't work well like that.