WW Mismatch

dfwdragon

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
64
@BHG, seriously?

In a 20v20 WW, opponent has 17 Drone Age, 1 Info, 1 Digital bases versus 4 Drone Age, 2 Info, 2 Digital & bunch of Space age and below on our side.
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
498
Awards
1
Yeah..same for us..total crap the matches today
 

SomeRandomPlayer

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
305
Awards
1
I no longer trust when people post Age-specific match info like this; have seen too many alliances with 300+ level CWs, for example, and similar bloated levels across the board. A 300 level CW _deserves_ to get matched against Information Age bases, for example.

Sure war matching has issues, but Age itself has little real meaning here.
 

oddin

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
1,193
Awards
1
i have searched spaceboy's alliance and they do have a huge problem with ageing and levels
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
498
Awards
1
i have searched spaceboy's alliance and they do have a huge problem with ageing and levels
yes..many thanks for that. I told the team members but what can you do? Each player plays the game as he wants. Our alliance is open, but we never get high-level players. Only some new Iron players.

This still shows that the match making has a serious design problem. How can a CWA base beat an Info base? This is just impossible from attack point of view. The Info base will have less trouble beating the CWA base, even with 3D.
I remain convinced that the multiplayer rule of matching levels should be applied too in WW. An Info player has nothing to do on a Global base.
Old topic that has been discussed for years.

Conclusion: those who max their bases too much will be getting tough opponents. I can confirn that, and no way to win these wars, except buying some gimmicks (what Nexon wants in the first place). Changing the alliance is no a solution as we all play as friends together. We will not kick out some friends because he has a too high level base :):)
 

oddin

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
1,193
Awards
1
the only solution is to mass age up once or twice and have the whole alliance ONLY upgrade offence for like 3-4 months non stop
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
498
Awards
1
the only solution is to mass age up once or twice and have the whole alliance ONLY upgrade offence for like 3-4 months non stop
yeah we ask people to only invest in Offence and move up when all attack troops are maxed, but some prefer to invest in offense + defense. But good idea, I will propose that. We can try it out and see how it goes. We have bad matches since years so we'll see quite fast the impact.
So the idea would be:
1. all high-level move up one age at minimum
2. upgrade only all offence resources.
 

oddin

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
1,193
Awards
1
yes but not every single troop in armory. ONLY the ones that you use.
So, a Helicopter/Transport striker will upgrade helis, transports, generals, tactics, mercs, silo, offensive uni/lib chapters and move on to the next age.
 

King Crimson

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2016
Messages
366
Awards
1
@BHG, seriously?

In a 20v20 WW, opponent has 17 Drone Age, 1 Info, 1 Digital bases versus 4 Drone Age, 2 Info, 2 Digital & bunch of Space age and below on our side.
Are you complaining because you're annoyed with this matchup?
Or, are you complaining because it's indicative of most of your matchups? In which case, have you kept track of the number of mis-matches?
Or, are you complaining about this mismatch while ignoring the other 14 or 15 acceptable matchups?
Just curious.
 

dfwdragon

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
64
Are you complaining because you're annoyed with this matchup?
Or, are you complaining because it's indicative of most of your matchups? In which case, have you kept track of the number of mis-matches?
Or, are you complaining about this mismatch while ignoring the other 14 or 15 acceptable matchups?
Just curious.
At least 2/3 of our match ups are one-sided favoring our opponent.

I recall that BHG said they made an effort to make the WW match more evenly balanced or was that some horse sh*t?
 

SomeRandomPlayer

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
305
Awards
1
At least 2/3 of our match ups are one-sided favoring our opponent.

I recall that BHG said they made an effort to make the WW match more evenly balanced or was that some horse sh*t?
But what does a even/balanced matchup mean to you? It can't only be Aged base; or curious, do you feel, say, a level 300 Cold War base should match with a level 185 Cold War base? There are not enough alliance combinations to meet every possible scenario.
 

Clown Control

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
27
Out of curiosit, those of you that jump age as soon as you max your offenses, how do you fare in multi player battles? When I tried following that strategy of maxing only offensively, Iwas getting attacked constantly, sometimes 20+ times a day. Many a time I tried logging on only to get a pop up saying I’m being scouted, then another one saying I’m under attack. Peace treaties are a waste, it just fattens up your resources to have another high XP level player of the same age take it away. I now try and max out everything, sucks for wars, but since 90% of my resources and game play come from mp raids, it makes more sense to stay at a high XP level for any particular age. It also cuts down on how often I get raided, now it’s usually by gamers dropping medals.
There really is no justification of having a 300xp Drone age base matched against a 300xp CW or even SA base, it’s an easy take down for the higher age base, otherwise, you all wouldn’t be doing it. Just another exploit left open by the incompetent game developers at BHG, I can imagine the screaming that would be going on if or when this exploit gets closed. It’s really no different than when sandbagging was a common strategy. A lot of war teams exploited it, until BHG closed it out.
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
498
Awards
1
Exactly! I did the same in the beginning and very very tough in multiplayer to keep my resources. And I do not agree that a 300 CWA should be ´punished’ by an Info base as opponent. What is the rationale behind that?
 

SomeRandomPlayer

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
305
Awards
1
The rationale is simple; Age is not the only consideration, and never has been, yet people are still surprised and shocked that it isn't. Sticking around CW to level 300 offers zero benefit, but if multiplayer/triumph is all that you care about then go for it and have fun.

But war is different. For war, you need to attack and defend and a CW can't attack well nor even defend well. It's not rushing to keep the 7th General lower than the 1st, or have 100% of University done, or have 100% of all defenses/troops done; because "100%" in this context is completely arbitrary. It has no real meaning, it's an artificial limitation that only made sense when CW was the highest Age.

Upgrading a 7th general does not help in war nor multiplayer; it helps nothing.

As for worrying about Loot, Space Age offers so many benefits including a real Museum; a Museum that can easily get enough Loot Refund to actually _want_ to be attacked and _wish_ peace treaties didn't exist because you _gain_ resources from being attacked. It's where 85% means more like 200% because of how it works, but I digress.

Or to put it simply, there are not enough Age maxist alliances out there for war matchups; so either they can make war search take a week or longer to _maybe_ find you a fair match (which often would be the same few alliances) or you can adjust.
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
498
Awards
1
The rationale is simple; Age is not the only consideration, and never has been, yet people are still surprised and shocked that it isn't. Sticking around CW to level 300 offers zero benefit, but if multiplayer/triumph is all that you care about then go for it and have fun.

But war is different. For war, you need to attack and defend and a CW can't attack well nor even defend well. It's not rushing to keep the 7th General lower than the 1st, or have 100% of University done, or have 100% of all defenses/troops done; because "100%" in this context is completely arbitrary. It has no real meaning, it's an artificial limitation that only made sense when CW was the highest Age.

Upgrading a 7th general does not help in war nor multiplayer; it helps nothing.

As for worrying about Loot, Space Age offers so many benefits including a real Museum; a Museum that can easily get enough Loot Refund to actually _want_ to be attacked and _wish_ peace treaties didn't exist because you _gain_ resources from being attacked. It's where 85% means more like 200% because of how it works, but I digress.

Or to put it simply, there are not enough Age maxist alliances out there for war matchups; so either they can make war search take a week or longer to _maybe_ find you a fair match (which often would be the same few alliances) or you can adjust.
I agree with most of your statements, but does the same apply to a maxed Industrial? Or Atomic? I do not max ALL my troops or building, but the game allows you to do it. Even if the strategy of maxing everything out is probably not the best strategy, it is still allowed. So I still do not accept that players seem to be punished when they upgrade too much for the same level. On the contrary, it should get rewarded as you spend a lot of time in these upgrades, playing a lot, maybe buying speedups, etc. I value more a player who has a good defence/attack force than a player who rushed through the ages. Of course, this is a game and everyone can play it as he likes. Each style has its side effects so we learned that maxing out in this game is NOT a thing to do in world wars.
 

Rafar

Member
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2021
Messages
82
I agree with most of your statements, but does the same apply to a maxed Industrial? Or Atomic? I do not max ALL my troops or building, but the game allows you to do it. Even if the strategy of maxing everything out is probably not the best strategy, it is still allowed. So I still do not accept that players seem to be punished when they upgrade too much for the same level. On the contrary, it should get rewarded as you spend a lot of time in these upgrades, playing a lot, maybe buying speedups, etc. I value more a player who has a good defence/attack force than a player who rushed through the ages. Of course, this is a game and everyone can play it as he likes. Each style has its side effects so we learned that maxing out in this game is NOT a thing to do in world wars.
It is usually the player who must adapt to the game, not the other way around.
This game has a complexity of understanding that I particularly love.
When starting a game, I always try to get as much information about it as possible to create my goal and strategy. Gradually, I'm putting them into practice and obviously at times change the course, reassessing my objective and strategy.
I believe this combination is part of the secret of any strategy game. Understand the mechanics of the game, set a goal and formulate your strategy.
In Dominations, maximizing Age by Age doesn't seem to me to be an interesting strategy in any way. It just seems like the satisfaction of a personal taste. Perhaps a late understanding of the game mechanics.
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
498
Awards
1
@Rafar Agree. It's not my thing if it becomes too strategic. I use my brain already the whole day so when I play this game I keep it on the easy side lol
Also, in 7 years, Dominations has changed a couple of times seriously, so you have to adapt. Something what I and other casual players didn't do I guess.
 
Top