I Think I Have A Solution For A World War Matchmaking

[Evningcome]

Another one ....come on.... They couldn't figured out by now, or they think that already get that . Indeed it's a very simple one (and no Im not asking Nexon to change anything in their coding and formulas to make it work) .Then how it might be so simple ? I'm about to tell you but you need stay with me .Ok ready ? We simply need to separate World Wars into two sections ,First section "Ranked One" and second "Unranked One" .So when you apply for war you can choose one of them .What will be the difference ...when you're apply for Ranked you will gain glory points and you will be shown on Leaderboard ,when you apply for Unranked one you not gaining any glory points and you are not in that Leaderboard .But for what I'm waring if I'm not on that Leaderboard ....Well for fun ,for some resources for something that you have to do inbetweein this 14+ days upgrades that you've just made .But I want my Alliance name into top 100 ,well why you picked up Unranked War then ....you have options .And how this help World War matchmaking .First it will serve as a filter ,so Alliances that want to gain glory because their composition allow them to do will not be simply there in Unranked part of the War .So that part will be full of Alliances that just want to have fun (gain some resources ,and simply fight) Ranked one will be this heavy weight champions that want to win at any cost and any price (Kinda like now) .Ok but how it's beneficial for Nexon ...Well in two ways ,first they will make happy all the casual players giving them a fair wars (at least most of the time ,cuz sandbagging something like this will be nonsense) and second heavy weight must be really ready every single war ,simply cuz they will face another heavy weight (otherwise they might skip buying cards ,cuz they face an opponent that don't require) .And let's see what is needed to be done ...simply to make 2 buttons Ranked/Unranked (or name it as you wish) Unranked don't gain glory at the end of the War ....and that's it .Simple as that . People who spend will spend one idea more , people who don't will enjoy a much more fair wars . Isn't it a 2 rabbits with 1 bullet .....I don't know ,tell me what you think

 

[oddin]

your idea is not bad. This thing exists in so many games already and it works!!
I'm afraid that in the Unranked wars there will still be sandbagging and cheating because some people are greedy and don't know (or want) how to lose.
It will all come down again to Nexon being (un)able to STOP once and for all cheaters and hacks and all this bull.
In other games, they release on a weekly basis, a list with all cheaters that were banned permanently. Why Nexon can't do the same?

 

[Evningcome]

I'm not reinventing the wheel by any means ,just keep it simple and into one direction (cheeters and hackers are for another topic) Don't get me wrong this is very important ,but is for another topic .

 

[No Angel]

Yeah, good idea. How about 0TT/0SH option though? I'd prefer playing in that Mode if it's available. That also means Strongholds on each side wouldn't contain any troop cards (all slots are auto-disabled)

 

[Evningcome]

Of course some people will keep using their cards (for what elase to use my free cards ,for MP ?) But since it's for your own satisfaction (We are talking about Not Ranked scenario) it will be most likely fights between equals ,and because of this it's less likely to face 5 Global/5 Iron for example (in 10vs10 war) (what the point of it might be) ?

 

[Manifesto]

Nice idea Evningcome except if it will never be implemented if Nexon thinks it will decrease their revenue.

 

[skychan]

Why wouldn't you still sandbag in the leaderboard version? With no other changes there is no incentive not to do so. You will still get an easier fight, and sure maybe you never face the #1 team, but you don't ever have to, because you can beat up easier teams with sandbaging.

It might make it better for the non-leaderboard version, but it doesn't help the leaderboard side.

As has been said earlier, only have the top half of the team count for matchmaking. it's that easy. If the 'bag' slots don't count, and you would have to have more bags than you can cover for with attacks, then it will stop instantly.

ie a 30 v 30 war, only the top 15 nations count, so if you want a bag you need 16 bags. But if you have 16 bags, then you only have 28 attacks, which means you cannot get 5* on at least 2 enemy nations thus completely removing the purpose of sandbagging.

It's an incredibly simple step, wouldn't take much to code, and solves the problem instantly.

 

[No Angel]

Simple solution against sandbag :
1. Do not allow iron age accounts to participate. Minimum age requirement is classical.
2. Do not allow inactive players. Players that haven't logged on for a week would be automatically opted out
3. Can't beat them, join them. Create bags too
​​​​​
In a more serious note.
I would still prefer we could opt for 0TT/0SH. That would be the requirement for non-leaderboard wars. Or weekly challenges, or whatever it may come up similar to Evningcome 's idea. No alliance glory obtained, of course.
This, will be followed by monthly leaderboard arrangement for leaderboard/alliance glory-based wars.
On each final leaderboard cycle, rank 1-3 will receive crowns or random legendary artifacts (or anything else juicy) as their prize. But first, clear our current inactive leaderboard first.

All of us are not looking for easy wars, are we? All of us want some fun, competitive, and fair wars. I personally don't mind losing, if it's a fair war.

Too idealistic, I guess
No harm to try though TinSoldier

​​​​​

​​​​​

 

[Elton Trudeau]

How about approving war with with your opponents first before the war or just a list of clans to choose from.

 

[Mcnasty]

Someone had an idea a while ago that I thought was pretty good to get rid of sandbags. Lose points for every attack not used

 

[skychan]

If you outlaw iron age from war then they will just advance one more age and play once a week to keep them active. That doesn't fix anything.

It's not my idea originally, but only counting the top 50% of kingdoms for war weight perfectly fixes the problem. It is no longer possible to stack the deck to get a weak match up. In fact it incentivises the exact opposite, having a lot of evenly weighted kingdoms so that you can have an advantage because a strong 2nd half in your lineup isn't being counted against your war weight!

What are the unfortunate consequences of this? Your alliance will have a very hard time once it gets 50% of it's participating nations to the Cold War Age and still has low level kingdoms that cannot compete against full CWA teams. It won't be quite as bad as alliances of all CWA accounts will tend to have more advanced CWA accounts and so still have higher war weights than your group with just 50% CWA but that is going to be a risk.

 

[Evningcome]

Well adressing Sandbagging is not a easy task ,it's a clever abuse of a game mechanics ,which will require changes to this mechanics (in other words rewriting formulas and codes) .Is it possible in theory ...yes it is .Will it work in practice ...I don't think so . Searching will take too long (we simply don't have population to create this large pools) .Best solution in this case will be 1 attack per WW (but it was proposed and not accepted) .What else can be done ...well I think we can replace Glory points with coefficient (wins/losses) ,and you fight Alliances that have coefficient close to yours .It will also lead to very imbalanced wars . So let's first determined what means to be the best (from my point of view this mean to have a team that have the best skilled ,and of course advanced players) At some point if you Sandbagging you will be in progress ,but then you will hit a wall ,and you will be no where near top Alliances .This will not help to fair matchmaking ,but this will be echo of actual reality where your Alliance is among the others .Which still fits perfect into my perceptions about Ranked and Unranked charts ,but it will require different matchmakeig systems for each one ,pluse lots of work from developers (and this not fits into their principles less work ,much results) .

 

[skychan]

Here is an example of why and how Nexon’s 2 war attack system would have matchmaking improved by only using the top 50% of nations for calculating war weights.
I am assigning arbitrary war weights to each kingdom based on its age but from actual examples we've seen this kind of thing isn't really that far off and is probably giving IA bases too much credit.
CWA 55
AA 50
GA 45
IA 40
EA 35
GA 30
MA 25
Iron 20

Take 6 teams looking for war.

Team A has 20 CWA
Team B has 10 CWA 10 AA
Team C has 20 AA
Team Sandbag has 10 CWA 10 Iron
Team D has 3 CWA, 3 AA, 3 GA, 3 IA, 2 EA, 2 GA, 2 MA, 2Iron
Team E has 2 CWA, 2 AA, 2 GA, 2 IA, 3 EA, 3 GA, 3 MA, 3Iron

Under traditional full team matchmaking they would have the following spread
Team A 1100
Team B 1050
Team C 1000
Team Sandbag 750
Team D 870
Team E 710

The 'correct ' matchups would be
Team A vs B
Team C vs D
Team Sandbag vs E

As you can see our sandbag team is more likely to face team’s D or E than A, B or C. which causes unfair matchups.

Under top half matchmaking we see a different spread.

Team A 550
Team B 550
Team C 500
Team Sandbag 550
Team D 490
Team E 450

With correct matchups being
Team A, vs Team B
Team Sandbag vs team C
Team D vs Team E

Now our sandbag team is more likely to match against team A or B. While team D and E are highly unlikely to face a team with so many CWA bases. In fact the team that has the most “unfair” matchup possibilities is actually team C with its even spread of all AA bases because any team that approaches having 10 top bases near AA may match with it such as team D.


TinSoldier

 

[skychan]

Then they just have sandbags attack and fail, and the issue with matchmaking is still there.

 

[No Angel]

skychan , based on our wars, there was no such thing as ''war weight'' . Sandbagging or not, WW matchmakings (as well as MP) have big leaks that will not be fixed. There was no exact algorithm. So it's useless to count war weight. Sometimes you're just unlucky
It's better to separate war leagues as what OP suggested, or make it consensual on both sides as Elton suggested.

 

[No Angel]

Indeed.
People are blaming sandbagging, why? Maybe it is because of sandbagging, maybe it isn't. Cause matchmakings are all random, aren't they?
Algorithm is too complicated, so rather than trying to fix algorithm, just fix the SOP
They'll just have to add a few lines on formula to add separate war leagues

And don't forget cheatings even if we have figured out a new algorithm that works best, people will still hack. With separate war leagues, at least we have options to avoid cheaters.

 

[Evningcome]

Let's First Determined What Top Alliance Should be

 

[Evningcome]

But at some point there will be 10 top one (or so Alliances waring among each other) Then introduce "Seasons" (last X amunt of time) give this top Alliances a juicy reward ,and reset the process .....Introduce some catch up mechanics (for example current age is CWA ,everything behind have x2 times faster time build up) And you have sources to manipulate this , obviously end game is the goal ,make it possible ,not after 2 years ....So many possibilities...And all of this will only add to your revenue .

 

[Cannibals]

Keep two attacks per player, but only count the best one. Then teams won’t want to sandbag - problem solved. Also players will be motivated to try their strength against harder bases.

 

[dfwdragon]

Penalize or deduct 5 stars for each inactive base brought into a war. A base with more than X days, for example 3 days, of inactivity can be considered inactive.