World War Changes: Glory Decay

[TinSoldier]

In preparation for the upcoming matchmaking changes to World War, we’re introducing a new system that will identify inactive Alliances and decay their Glory. Beginning soon, routine system checks will identify these inactive Alliances and pull their Glory back toward the starting value of 12,000.


Inactive Alliances are identified as those who have not participated in a World War in the last 15 days and/or those who have fewer than 10 members (from the time the check was initiated).



More matchmaking improvements will be introduced over time, and layered on top of the Glory decay. Let us know what you think it the comments below!

 

[BeerMan]

What will be the rate of decay?

 

[sulbin]

Glory Back Good system

When will the attack patch be made?

 

[TinSoldier]

BeerMan - This pull back, or decay, will be relative based on their Glory at the time of the system check.

The check will look to see:

• If your Alliance hasn't attacked in the 15 days
• If your Alliance has less than 10 members

If both of the above are true the rate is stronger.

 

[skychan]

That doesn't answer if you are losing 1000 glory per failed check, or 10% glory per failed check. It basically doesn't answer the question.

 

[RED 5]

Glad to hear more changes to war matchmaking are coming... can you tell us what kind of changes or how soon we can expect them?

 

[BHG_Muet]

The decay is not a predefined value. Since the system is aimed at integrity of the Leaderboard, the loss is relative based on your Alliance's Glory. For example, a decayed Alliance that had 13k will lose less than a decayed Alliance with 14k. But, the decayed Alliance that had 14k would still result in a Glory value that is higher than the decayed 13k Alliance.

 

[Persia]

He said it’d be relative based on glory, so not the same for each failed check. At least we know it’s a per cent.

 

[TinSoldier]

We don't have an ETA yet for the next steps in matchmaking. We want to give these changes a chance to take effect first. We'll be sure to announce all future changes both in-game and here on the forums.

 

[Rachel]

So basically you did nothing you people just don’t get it

 

[phil_dee]

Why would matchmaking changes and this sort of glory decay be related or connected such that the implementation of one relies upon first observing the other? I thought the game was moving toward an ELO-driven system?

 

[Spaceboy]

Sometimes we do a winter and summer break as we do not have enough players ? We have 20.000 glory so will this be reset ? How many times will you perform such routine checks ?

 

[GailWho]

I’m glad leaderboard and matchmaking are finally being addressed. Thank you very much Tin, Joe and crew ! I have a question though. How do you prevent alliances from making 10 dummy accounts (or use old sandbags) and parking them in the alliance while moving active players back and forth between the alliances every 15 days? Do those 10 accounts have to be active and gaining xp? Because I would bet that we will see revolving doors on those inactive alliances to preserve their glory if all they have to be is placeholders. Just sayin’

 

[TinSoldier]

If an Alliance parks 10 or so 'placeholder' accounts, they will still need to go to War within the 15 day window of the check. Otherwise they will still receive some of the Glory decay (relative to their starting value).

 

[BeerMan]

If an Alliance parks 10 or so 'placeholder' accounts, they will still need to go to War within the 15 day window of the check. Otherwise they will still receive some of the Glory decay (relative to their starting value).

Alliances like Samurai and KA will make the effort to keep their many iterations active, but I think there will still be benefit from this change. Some of the alliances are truly abandoned, and we will see those gradually drop off.

 

[Corne]

Ok this is good stuff but just a minor thing, it does not solve the broken gameplay we have.

This is what you said Muet:
previous Wars were too often about “who didn’t 10-star”. Changing the definition of success to a range of stars should create a more interesting dynamic between Alliances

i can tell you it created a more boring dynamic between alliances. The gap between alliances got bigger. The stronger alliance has a much bigger chance to win. Where before rebalance we could defeat a bit stronger alliance by coalitions donations and trying to beat them with a better time. That is all gone now. Its all pretty logical.

there is much more wrong with his game but give offence back dude, our alliance only had boring wars since rebalance.

 

[GailWho]

So the 10 placeholders all have to be in the last war (or one in the 15 days) before the active warring players move to the other alliance otherwise there will be decay? Do they have to attack? Or could they just be 10 inactive sandbags? Just curious and trying to imagine how alliances will work around it.

 

[Omegaman]

Alliances like Samurai and KA will make the effort to keep their many iterations active, but I think there will still be benefit from this change. Some of the alliances are truly abandoned, and we will see those gradually drop off.

Doubt it. Nobody gives a crap about glory these days....why should we when Nexon protect Garuda Sakti and Top Killers rather than our investments in the game.

 

[chuckdl59@yahoo.com]

The only improvement I want to see to eliminate sandbagging is restricting the number of attacks to ONE per player per war.

 

[Fords]

That's a really bad idea. One person can't login due to RL issues or has connection issue during attack and war lost.