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

  • BHG_Muet
    started a topic War Matchmaking Iteration

    War Matchmaking Iteration

    Hey all,

    We've been looking at the pain points discussed here over the last several months for high-end Alliances and match quality. After reviewing a lot of wars and auditing queue health, we've decided to move forward with an iteration to the queue that considerably extends the wait time before reducing the potential match quality. This change went live today and we're keeping an eye on its performance.

    What impact will this have?:
    • Increased time to find an opponent. This update has greatly extended the wait time before the matchmaking system starts making large trade-offs in match quality. As a result, you may notice longer wait times to find an opposing Alliance as the system slowly extends its search.
    • Higher quality matches. We do understand the impact a poor match can have in DomiNations (given how long wars last, among other pain points) and are hoping this change will result in better matches for more Alliances. We're not expecting much of a change for mid-tier Alliances (match quality there was already pretty good after the system overhaul). But, the extra wait time should allow the smaller pool of top-end Alliances to better find each other instead of punching below their weight class.
    This of course doesn't mean that all war matches will be perfect moving forward. But, you should hopefully see an improvement in your opponents in exchange for waiting a little longer in queue. As always, keep your feedback coming and let me know what you think of your upcoming wars.

    Thanks!
    Muet

  • LordStark263AC
    replied
    I don't understand how we've been matched up with domas alliance WastedPotential. Our War search was about 3 hours just like theirs but the offensive and defensive difference is non comparable.

    Their line up:

    16 Digital Age

    4 Space Age

    6 Cold War Age

    3 Atomics

    1 Global Age


    Our line up:

    6 Digital Age

    5 Space Age

    3 Cold War Age

    4 Atomics

    3 Global Age

    2 Industrial Age

    2 Enlightenment Age

    4 Gunpowder Age

    1 Iron Age


    All of their top 12 players have level 50-80 Generals including Zhukovs. A lot of them. Those Generals alone have more War weight than all of our bottom 7 players.

    We also stand to lose 173 Glory .

    We should not have been matched with WastedPotential. Even if we tried there isn't much we can do vs 16 Digital Age bases.

    BHG_Muet please look into our match up.
    Last edited by LordStark263AC; Yesterday, 02:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wrathchild_78
    replied
    Some data for you BHG_Muet that may help you fine tune the algorithm.

    Up until I hit DA during rush, matchmaking had a certain logic and we could expect an almost fair match. I say "almost" because we were always the underdog by a small difference. But that's ok.
    From the moment I went DA, all hell broke loose. No logic anymore. I am the only DA now in my alliance and it makes no difference if I am in a war or not. Our opponent will always be stronger than us by a lot. If I am in the war, we face 3-6 DA, if not then 1-4. There is certainly something wrong with DA and the calculations. Maybe war weight is calculated wrong for Digital bases? I don't know but some WW simply make no sense.

    Below you can find some of our wars played the last 2 weeks and the major differences between ages. I list only ages from AA and above. All wars are 15/20 players. We are mostly rushers and we have no heavy defensive bases. 90% of our generals are between 20-40 and none has a single general more than level 51. The search takes no more than 2 hours each time.

    The alliance is "Greek Myrmidons".

    Us -- Them
    ----------------
    1 DA -- 3 DA
    2 SA -- 2 SA
    7 CWA -- 4 CWA
    2 AA -- 1 AA

    Us -- Them
    -------------------------
    0 DA -- 4 DA
    3 SA -- 1 SA
    5 CWA -- 3 CWA
    2 AA -- 3 AA

    Us -- Them
    -------------------------
    2 DA -- 5 DA
    2 SA -- 2 SA
    5 CWA -- 2 CWA
    3 AA -- 1 AA

    Us -- Them
    -------------------------
    2 DA -- 5 DA
    2 SA -- 4 SA
    5 CWA -- 3 CWA
    2 AA -- 4 AA

    Leave a comment:


  • Uhuru
    commented on 's reply
    Good match )

  • Visionman
    replied
    Our most recent war. 20v20.

    Us: 2 DA, 1 CW, 2 AA, 6 GA, 4 IA, 1 EA, and 4 GP

    Opponent: 2 DA, 4 SA, 3 CW, 4 AA, 2 GA, 1 IA, 1 GP, 4 MA

    Severely outmatched up top, but we still won, 96-93.

    Leave a comment:


  • wrathchild_78
    commented on 's reply
    what could THAT accomplish?

  • Spaceboy
    replied
    Last war was one of the worst that we good..we boycotted the war, just to protest

    we should all do this more: impossible war due to bad mismatch? = boycott, no attacks, zero points..

    Leave a comment:


  • Ramesses the Great
    replied
    We've had a run of 8 consecutive easy or fair wars = 8 wins.

    Then we matched an enemy with 8 Iron Age bases (aka sandbags) at the bottom and a bunch of extra heavy DA/SA in the top. Very mismatched in their favor. Starting to agree that the top should weigh more in the matching algorithm.

    It's a shame the game is forcing teams to replace real players with low level bases to have good wars.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cannibals
    commented on 's reply
    In the war you describe, your fully-upgraded AA should be able to take out their top CWA. In fact, if your bases are fully upgraded then I would think your side has the advantage. Maybe you need to work on your museums? Or update your attack strategy?

  • Uhuru
    replied
    Originally posted by Roberto View Post
    ...It is surprising for us that developers seem to think that frustrating players are more profitable players. I think all the way around, happy players will tend to spend more.
    Yep, frustrating players just leaves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roberto
    replied
    Well, thank you all for answering. After having a talk, we have decided (in our alliance) that we are doing things correctly. We try to max everything before going to the next age.

    Therefore it leaves us with the problem of wars and we have decided not to to any wars apart from the ones necessary in events.

    It is surprising for us that developers seem to think that frustrating players are more profitable players. I think all the way around, happy players will tend to spend more.

    Although this is not the conversation, the recent events are in the good way. Maybe too expensive, but once in awhile they can make us spend money. It is a pity that other recent aspects of the game are retaining our expenses in it, but this is not my game, I have been plying it for some years and when it gets to the end I will just change to other if I find one it fits me. My job will not suffer if it disappears.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uhuru
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountainking View Post
    Wow so many fat accounts. Welcome to 3 years ago.
    Completely agree! I have such a fat acc (good protection) and I'm quite uncomfortable in the game recently. Do not improve your defense, only the attack is necessary for fun and success.

    Leave a comment:


  • domas
    replied
    Why are so many people counting ages or looking at levels? People can ranked 20 levels plus higher only based on economy research. Look on your defense buildings, most times war is coming from there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Equal
    replied
    We are on the same issues we were like 3 years before... Developers does not change nothing, keep running tests on us and looking how it goes. Like a week before we had a 10x10 war. 10 digitals on their side (lowest lvl was about 290), and 3 digital on our side with only 1 base being over 300. How this can even happen? Our no 1 probably would ranked about 7-8th on their side. Crazy. War after was almost the same. The only ones who does not feel the effect of a bad matches are the top heavy alliances in the game. There is a lot of great ideas how to improve things, but nobody cares about that. They just keep fixing the system, that is far from perfect and easy to cheat. Why a player must rush trough ages if he does not want to do so? Just because he adds a lot of war weight? Stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountainking
    replied
    Wow so many fat accounts. Welcome to 3 years ago.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X