World War Matchmaking - Design Spotlight 2019

Usa jet

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
8
Appreciate the comments and advice. Not saying it is fair matching a 255 atomic vs a 150 atomic. Saying it is MORE fair than matching me against space age every time. At least the 150 atomic can 4 or 5 star me because he is likely upgraded on offense. I get crushed every time by SA. No perfect solution but better than what we have.
 

pckrn

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
666
idk I have AA alt and I’d much rather be a 255 AA attacking a 246 SA than a 150 AA attacking a 255 AA
 

{[Fresh]}Kratos

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
162
Looking into the issue and how to address it, one month... two months... three months... hmm...

One would think 3 months is enough time, not to actually address the issue... but to at least look into the issue... but not even...

These guys operate on a different timeline. I guess that is well presented by the upgrade times in this game!
 
Last edited:

Cannibals

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
605
Alliances that follow a fringe strategy will not get as many fair matches. No matching system can overcome that. If you want more frequent fair matches, play mainstream.
 

SomeRandomPlayer

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
307
Awards
1
pckrn I don't understand the logic; a 150 (well, let's say 155 or 160 with max important offense and 8 planes) is just as good at attacking as a 255 AA.
 

pckrn

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
666
SomeRandomPlayer if you upgrade all your AA offense you’ll be more like 170. a 150 is only as good as a global. and a rushed 170 is likely to have less univ research than a slow 255. and a 255 AA will have more total building hp than a 246 SA
 
Last edited:

Usa jet

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
8
Probably true but hate to think of 4 years of hard work and very active war participation as a fringe strategy. Something awry with their priorities. We just got matched with an alliance with 9 SA including 2 lvl 320+. We have 2 CW, no SA. Rest AA and down. Can’t ever justify that being fair. Also can’t imagine that is a fun match for the other alliance either.
 

Aspergaon

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
20
Our last lost war finished today, happened like this:

Us: 6 cold wars, 4 atomics, 1 global, 2 industrials, 1 enlightenment, 3 classics , 3 irons

vs.

them: 4 space age, 1 Cold War, 4 atomics, 4 industrials, 2 enlightenment, 2 gunpowder, 3 irons.


Their top 5 were level 333, 333, 318, 279, 243= 1,506

Our top 5: 263, 261, 233, 252, 249= 1,258

As you can see our top player’s level 263, was lower than their 4th!!!!

Wars are won in the top. As long as the first half of players are strong enough, the war is won because they can finish the second half easily.

So this “new” method to me doesn’t seem working. While you fix it or improve it which after all this time I sincerely doubt it, I strongly propose a CANCEL WAR BUTTON which after finding an opponent, works for let’s say 5 minutes. If one of the alliances clicks it the war is canceled and searches opponent again, with a limit of 3 cancels.
 

Cannibals

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
605
The days are over when you can have 30% or more of your lineup is classical or iron and you still get a good match. If you are still playing that mix, prepare to be preyed upon. Since the matchmaking change the new best mix seems to be even distribution with slightly more members on the low side. See the next post by Aspergaon below for an example.
 
Last edited:

pckrn

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
666
did you read the topic post? specifically point #2. your case is proof that the new method is working well
 

SomeRandomPlayer

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
307
Awards
1
pckrn I understand your minute point but consider it nitpicking; the intent was a rushed atomic with maxed critical offense. I'd rather have an ultra low weight atomic that attacks well then some beefy atomic that should be SA. Rushed atomics tend to have offensive uni/library too.
 

SomeRandomPlayer

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
307
Awards
1
Again you're comparing apples to oranges. While "AA versus CW/SA" sounds bad, the true story shows the likes of 258/255 Atomics versus a 225 CWA and 250 SAs. Your "max everything before aging up including the kitchen sink" strategy is doomed; and because your entire alliance follows this failed paradigm your entire alliance has an enormous war weight. Please consider aging up during Summer for the Ages and focusing on factory OFFENSE.

Offense is fun; allow your alliance members to have more fun.
 

No Angel

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
May 1, 2017
Messages
1,386
If more players and alliances go to war, better matchmaking will be achieved. Means more equal player levels will be distributed into the algorithm. If fewer and fewer alliances + players opt out, matchmaking will more likely be uneven. Of course there will be some to get good wars (usually on the leaderboard alliances) but more average alliances will be outweighed.
​​​​​​Simple theory 😆
 

pckrn

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
666
SomeRandomPlayer a serious rusher would not do much univ before going AA because he knows he will have more workers as well as a wonder in AA. and even if he did some offense uni like Da Vinci HT research can’t really be rushed. maybe its not a ‘critical’ research but nonetheless, a 170 AA is still weaker than a 255 AA offensively (and i forgot earlier, the 170 also likely has weaker museum than 255 considering the amount of time a rusher needs to reach 170 vs the time a maxer takes to reach 255. note that a rusher will reach 170 earlier than a maxer will even reach 150), and I’d still rather be in the shoes of a 255 AA having to attack a 246 SA than a 170 AA having to attack a 255 AA.

and the point about preferring a low-weight, high-attack AA? that doesnt conflict with what I said. I said 255 AA has better chance vs 246 SA than a 170 AA has vs 255 AA. which is the same as saying it is more fair for 255 AA to be matched with 246 SA than with a 170 AA. which is the same as saying 170 AA should be kept low-weight. if a 170 AA was matched with a 255 AA, then the 170 AA is no longer a low-weight player.

read my comment WITH the post to which it is commented on. not by itself and out of context. I’m suspecting from my first comment you mistook ‘be’ with ‘have as an ally who usually does not have to but circumstance has forced him to,’
 
Last edited:

Bootney Lee Fonsworth

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
459
Yes, if only there were some mechanism, like a speedup of sorts, that players could earn through regular in-game loot to expedite their journey to at least beginning to be viable in industrial age and beyond.

The folks in charge's flat out refusal to ever give an inch on the earlier ages is slowly but surely suffocating this game. Hell, they not only refuse to give an inch but with practically every update they add more stuff (bastions, the rebalance in general) to make the early game even more tedious and unrewarding.

Sure, lower ages hardly get attacked anymore so in that way it's easier than ever to acquire the loot to get places but when the most logical way to get loot in early ages is spamming raiders and footies wars tend to be a cold, hard and frustrating wake up call. There's a zillion games and entertainment options out there, not sure why they think providing new players, and hell, even older ones, with 5 minutes of action once an hour is the key to winning hearts and minds.

By all means, make the game more challenging for the whales (and by extension everyone else) and those at the top. They pay the bills afterall. However I would love to see TinSolder, Muet anyone from Nexon start from scratch today with no crowns, no dev build and document their progress and all the fun they're having. They could put in the Community section to replace all those Rally Points that hardly anyone ever read.

Tl;dr: Longtimers quit for myriad reasons, and game takes way too long and has become way too frustrating for new players to ever come close to replacing them. Therefore game becomes far too top heavy, which leads to unbalanced war matchups, which cause more people (including longtimers) to quit wars and/or the game due to frustration and tedium, which leads to further unbalance. All while a potential new lifer is waiting 3+ days for the first gunpowder upgrade of many.
 

Usa jet

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
8
Do you guys read these comments Tin cup, Muet, anyone???? After every inane response I get a referral to the forums for more information and there is barely any here. Would be very good for you guys to engage with us to better understand and fix these match making problems.
 

TinSoldier

New member
LV
0
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
1,568
Hey Usa jet! Yup! We're here happily reading along and hopping in when we have information ready to share.

There have been a number of players who have provided some great insight (both here and through private channels) that has helped us understand the experience from your perspective. As you know, systems in the game can be continuously tuned and balanced, and matchmaking is no different. We'll be happy to announce more information on any balance changes as soon as we have them!
 

VictorDominations

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
84
Is that just me or this post was already made like 6 months ago and this system is already in play but the comments seems to be only a few days old?
 
Top