Announcement

Collapse

Bookmark the new forum URL!

Reminder! We have changed the URL of the DomiNations forums to https://forums.bighugegames.com/ Be sure to update your browser's bookmarks today!
See more
See less

War Matchmaking Iteration

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Mid-tier alliance (ranked in the 500s). We were getting challenging matches in 5 minutes before the change. We have been searching now for 90 minutes
    Last edited by Cannibals; 12-03-2019, 05:16 PM. Reason: 125 minutes, same match quality :/

    Comment


    • #17
      Is it working? We are top tier alliance and we’ve been searching for war for almost 1 day.
      id prefer the old system, it worked well enough.

      Comment


      • #18
        BHG_Muet My alliance had a brainstorming afternoon yesterday. This is the list we came up with. I believe this expresses the opinion of many players in dominations.
        Sorry for the long post but couldn't make it shorter!

        General
        -------------

        - Future of the game. We want to have a general idea towards where the game is gonna go. This reassures us cause many people spend money and don't wanna see their investment fall apart. We are more inclined to spend on a game that we feel is gonna be around in 2-3 years. Something like "Information age will be the last age. From that point on we will focus on bug fixes and game rebalance for 6 months and then we will release a new WW mode. Stay tuned!". Simple and effective.
        - Stats and transparency about base stats and bonuses. Everything should be known to us. It is a strategy game. We need more DATA
        - Detailed release notes a week earlier at least (i.e. Dev notes). We really liked these !!
        - New things in the game, tested by players (create a beta test group). Yes we would all be extra happy to help you as much as we can. i.e. King Dhoogster created a video that explains several serious bugs ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mma7UQuv0Q ). It is an excellent vid! Must see!
        - Listen to our advice/ideas (maybe we can think something you haven't). Establish a 2 way communication on a daily basis. (Fingersoft does this perfectly in their discord server with thousands of players). They even created a survey and asked us what we would like to see next in HCR2. So cool!
        - Don't try to invent the wheel. Doing a market research and playing other games from competitors is not a bad thing. Incorporate new things from other games to dominations (i.e.the event system 2.0 with the pass was a good idea. Its pricing policy isn't).
        - New Age releases should be know well in advance. It takes months just to max tank depots. Takes a lot of planning from our side. With digital age release, the rushed space age players were left hanging from a rope cause loot is harder now with no atomics to hit. Had we known that Digital would be out so soon, we would have stayed CWA for longer! That is why we insisted on delaying the Digital age.
        - Overall game rebalance concerning building/research times (now that we have so many ages). This is critical imho. It is already a very long game! Don't you want more new players? Summer/Winter for the ages helps up to a certain point. It doesn't solve the <<super lengthy game>> issue. (and its one of the reasons many players decide to cheat, as a side effect).
        - VIP system. Does not take into account player loyalty at all. This is a major setback. No game raises VIP level ONLY by counting money spent. Most games have daily login rewards. I play the game for 3,5 years and I am barely level 2 VIP.
        - Minimum reqs to play the game. If you change something that makes the game run heavier then what is the recommended processor/ram combination to play it smoothly? Thousands of players have to deal with lag after the 6.3 update. Was it the xing code? Was it something else? Nobody knows... Again communicating and acknowledging an issue, is the first step in solving it.

        Bugs+Cheating
        ------------------------
        - Bug fixes. Higher priority, faster response time and better communication. (i.e. WW Alliance gate +3 troop capacity bug should have been fixed months ago). We can tolerate some bugs for a time, but not continuously.
        - Proactive anticheating. (i.e. automated script that compares VIP level against ingame level and when that player starting playing dominations. You can find many hacked bases like this)
        - strict punishments, known to the community beforehand. (workers cheat => 1 month ban, crown cheat => 3 months ban etc)
        - Offer rewards for every new bug or cheat we discover!! (learn from the cheaters how they do their stuff and close the holes). Isn't that what the industry is doing to hackers after all? They hire them as security experts!!

        Alliances
        ---------------

        - Alliance wide goals (i.e. alliance wonders, defensive building)
        - Alliance marketplace. Excess resources we can give towards helping each other. Every game item should be available to buy at any given time. From gold to speedups

        WW
        -------

        - WW Leagues like in normal mp. Each one gives more incentive (aka rewards) to climb the ladder. Those should be alliance wide.
        - WW glory should take into account not only glory difference between the 2 alliances but overall defence/offence ratings. A well built and strong alliance with 16000 glory shouldn't gain 500 glory when they play against a 19000+ alliance when they are much stronger than them. This is totally wrong for the 19000 glory team. The relative strength of each team should count!
        - New feature. Choose around how much glory your next WW should be. i.e. we lost 3 wars in a row and wanna go all in and try to climb faster. Set the glory level to something like 450+ and let the system find us an opponent that if we win, we get all that glory. High risk, high profit!! New strategic aspect in the game!
        - New feature. WW mode that allows for simultaneously playing 2 or 3 WW within the same alliance with much less players (i.e. 5) and smaller duration (10 hour war with 2 hour planning day).
        Greek Myrmidons
        Ψαχνουμε παικτες για πολεμους απο επιπεδο 100 και πανω.

        Comment


      • #19
        7 out 10 of last wars have been really bad matchups, so bad so, That i think matchmaking is really broke.

        how is a match like this even possible?

        Us Them
        1 DA 2 DA
        2 SA 5 SA
        1 CWA 4 CWA
        12 AA 8 AA
        2 Ga. 4 Ga

        they not only out aged us, their levels were much much higher too.

        Maybe you can allow the teams to chose criteria, like max Da, Sa, Cwa, etc opponents allowed?

        For this particular matchup, they cheated as well, 4 of their sa accounts were just created and they used 4 stealth bombers on every attack.
        we should be able to see their vip lvl to confirm cheaters, so we can report to support.

        cheating at higher glory is a big problem, you really need to do something about it.

        vip is nice, but you’re alienating free to play players and low spenders, that’s a mistake bc you’ll just drive them away, limiting the player pool. They need a way to complete without spending many many hours of grinding. they already can’t win events, bc you need to buy to even have a chance. Perhaps do some events based on vip lvl?

        Comment


        • #20
          • Yes, correct. The system doesn't remove the ability to sandbag but it does attempt to prioritize Alliances with similar compositions (something it didn't do prior to the update earlier in the year). So, even if your example Alliances had even Glory and even ratings, it would not pair these two Alliances at first and it would try to find other opponents with similar compositions.

            That said, it's always possible that there just aren't other Alliances in the queue with a composition that is similar at any given time. So, eventually it would prioritize finding an opponent over preventing sandbagging and pair the two example Alliances you mentioned. But, that shouldn't be a fast pairing and should only occur if the system can't find a more similar composition.
            • Flag
          BHG_Muet The alliances of the example, was our last MM. One, the boton 20% of each alliance, dont have to be taken in cosideration in the MM, is the only chance of improve the MM in midle alliances.
          10vs10. Only the first 8 afect the pairing
          15vs15. Only the first 12 afect the pairing
          20vs20. Only the first 16 afect the pairing
          30vs30. Only the first 24 afect the pairing

          Comment


          • #21
            I can totally agree that it made the matching worse at it ever was. Currently we got a opponent which was so much stronger that we decided not to fight at all.
            It would be perfect if there would be stronger rules to avoid mixing a atomic player with a level1 player or any other way to make it fair (like decreasing the strength if you fight against a player with x-Level below). One additional idea would be that you can decide in the search how strong the matching should be.
            Everthing would be better than the current situation.

            I really would like to continue playing this great game but if they do not change something I will search for something better.

            Comment


            • #22
              Only rank the top 50% of each team in war. Problem solved... oh except for the cheaters and the endless ways they can cheat lel

              Comment


              • #23
                We've been searching for a War 2 days running.

                1st day we waited 6 hours, yes we cancel and restart War search every 25 minutes. No match.

                The following day (last night/today) we tried again, so far it's been almost 10 hours and no match. This is getting ridiculous and annoying.

                BHG_Muet please take a look.
                *************************************************

                Lord Stark leader of D͓̽ґѧ⒢өηṧ†øn̥ͦΣ and Ðŕɇѧᵭᚨⱒꝶṫ

                Comment


                • Chadwicke
                  Chadwicke commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Above he said that war seach increases by 3.5 percentage every 30 mins by only spinning 25 mins it's too short to Match you need to at the least let it run for an hour and a half that's 11.5 % variance so will still be a good war , new system looks like as stop and start every 1 and half hours to 2 and a half . Longer will be a bigger mis match by 3.5% every half hour so even a 4 hour spin is 24% which is way less than the almost 100% previous war seach was

                • LordStark263AC
                  LordStark263AC commented
                  Editing a comment
                  So you saying we should cancel and restart War search every hour and a half? Chadwicke

                • Chadwicke
                  Chadwicke commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Yes this new system is alot slower to take the filters off than the previous on e at even 4 hours that's only a 2*% variance as it was before that would be 80+%

              • #24
                Originally posted by Beastmaximus View Post
                I can totally agree that it made the matching worse at it ever was. Currently we got a opponent which was so much stronger that we decided not to fight at all.
                It would be perfect if there would be stronger rules to avoid mixing a atomic player with a level1 player or any other way to make it fair (like decreasing the strength if you fight against a player with x-Level below). One additional idea would be that you can decide in the search how strong the matching should be.
                Everthing would be better than the current situation.

                I really would like to continue playing this great game but if they do not change something I will search for something better.
                The sandbags are a problem In the MM. Because Allows compensate the high weight of the 10 maxed bases, with 10 Iron or clasic Agw in a 20vs20WW.

                Comment


                • #25
                  I'm going to copy/paste my comment from the other thread with Dradis as I think it applies to several conversations here about stopping/starting your search.

                  *tl;dr : stop cancelling your search if you want to not wait as long.*

                  ----
                  I was asking about stopping/starting because each individual queue entry is a refresh or new search. If you wait in queue for awhile, cancel, and then join again, the system doesn't care how long you waited previously. It's going to start the search over again with tight restrictions around who you can match. So, the "total" wait time across all queues/cancels isn't really a stat that the system uses or that we balance around. We only evaluate individual queue entries.

                  As for suggestions in how to use the system, that's kind of up to each Alliance. If you're unwilling to accept matches that aren't extremely even, then you may prefer a strategy of cancelling the queue after awhile and re-entering. Doing this is effectively manipulating the system to stop expanding your search to less even matches. As you can imagine, that also means your potential "total" wait time could be very long as you're now only going to match if another Alliance that would be a good fit for you enters the queue. But, if you just want to play, don't cancel and let the system do its thing. It'll try to find you a high quality match and then slowly favor letting you play over match quality. You can kind of think of it this way: The system is trying to find you a fair match from the pool of available Alliances. If you're not matching it's because there aren't any other Alliances in the queue that would be even matches. Eventually, the system begins to favor letting you play so it lightens the restrictions (reducing the potential quality of matches) slowly over time until it finds a match.
                  ----

                  LordStark, stopping every 25min is a very aggressive strategy. You're effectively telling the system you're unwilling to accept anything but a "perfect" match with that short of a time. I would wait longer as the expansion is slow.

                  Comment


                  • LordStark263AC
                    LordStark263AC commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Thanks. Understood. We'll be cancelling and restarting War search every hour or hour and a half.

                  • LordStark263AC
                    LordStark263AC commented
                    Editing a comment
                    So we let War search spin for 3 hours continuously without cancel. Now we have an easy War.

                • #26
                  Originally posted by BHG_Muet View Post
                  I'm going to copy/paste my comment from the other thread with Dradis as I think it applies to several conversations here about stopping/starting your search.

                  *tl;dr : stop cancelling your search if you want to not wait as long.*

                  ----
                  I was asking about stopping/starting because each individual queue entry is a refresh or new search. If you wait in queue for awhile, cancel, and then join again, the system doesn't care how long you waited previously. It's going to start the search over again with tight restrictions around who you can match. So, the "total" wait time across all queues/cancels isn't really a stat that the system uses or that we balance around. We only evaluate individual queue entries.

                  As for suggestions in how to use the system, that's kind of up to each Alliance. If you're unwilling to accept matches that aren't extremely even, then you may prefer a strategy of cancelling the queue after awhile and re-entering. Doing this is effectively manipulating the system to stop expanding your search to less even matches. As you can imagine, that also means your potential "total" wait time could be very long as you're now only going to match if another Alliance that would be a good fit for you enters the queue. But, if you just want to play, don't cancel and let the system do its thing. It'll try to find you a high quality match and then slowly favor letting you play over match quality. You can kind of think of it this way: The system is trying to find you a fair match from the pool of available Alliances. If you're not matching it's because there aren't any other Alliances in the queue that would be even matches. Eventually, the system begins to favor letting you play so it lightens the restrictions (reducing the potential quality of matches) slowly over time until it finds a match.
                  ----

                  LordStark, stopping every 25min is a very aggressive strategy. You're effectively telling the system you're unwilling to accept anything but a "perfect" match with that short of a time. I would wait longer as the expansion is slow.
                  BHG_Muet. Our last search took 27 min, just one attempt. 30vs30. Very uneven in top list players. The alliance with more SA players, that certainly won, have more low level players, sandbags.
                  The sandbags must be allowed. But not take them to calculate the war weigths.
                  also note that the differences in glory were very large in the last 6 wars. 14.000 VS 16.000 16.000 VS 18.000

                  Comment


                  • #27
                    Hm. a 2000 Glory difference should have been denied at 27min and there should have been a minimal difference between the top/bottom of both of your Alliances. I'll pass this along to QA to look into. Thanks.

                    Comment


                    • #28
                      Any chance you can implement a way for for coleaders to see the current queue sizes. This will help with search times and quality matches as leaders can plan accordingly.

                      Comment


                      • #29
                        The nature of it being harder to get more active players willing to queue together makes it linear. 10v10 is always the most full followed by 15, 20, and then 30.

                        Comment


                        • #30
                          You could get people to queue together if you only ran the MM algorithm at fixed times, say every 4 or 6 hours.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X