IMPROVING WAR MATCHMAKING

[SirBiggun]

Is there something we can do to improve The war matchmaking? Seems everyone is getting bad matches, too lopsided. Maybe base it on glory or team ranking on domistats or some sort of combination. There is also the idea to have divisions of different levels. such as a A,B,C,D division and you can move up or down the divisions depending on your ability to defeat other teams in your division. I like the idea of a 25v war as well. Basically we are all looking for more competitive wars . Other Suggestions welcome.

 

[SirBiggun]

How do we get BHG moderators like

• Harlems369th to comment ?​

 

[Sroth]

Is there something we can do to improve The war matchmaking? Seems everyone is getting bad matches, too lopsided. Maybe base it on glory or team ranking on domistats or some sort of combination. There is also the idea to have divisions of different levels. such as a A,B,C,D division and you can move up or down the divisions depending on your ability to defeat other teams in your division.

Having travelled through the top paying (not playing) players and alliances in the game, it appears that matchmaking system you have built is broken. The difference in alliance levels of war rank and glory vs opponents is beyond lopsided a majority the time.

Perhaps, there is a way you could fix that to ensure more consistent competitive matches or implement a league division based on glory level.

A tiered system based on glory would benefit not only most active and top-spending accounts and alliances, but the community at large. It would incentivize players to rise in competition, spend more and benefit BGH against similar platforms which recognize the opportunity in tiered competitive matchmaking.
@Harlems369th

​

 

[Rafar]

I believe that the incidence of mismatch wars can vary greatly from one alliance to another, as there are many factors considered.

In the alliance that I play, I control each war and based on the last 63 wars, all carried out this year, we have the following numbers: 38 compatible wars (61%) and 25 incompatible wars (39%). In the case of incompatible wars they are counted as either favorable or unfavorable to us.

I consider the number of incompatibility quite high.
I understand that it is not at all easy to create a system that can make this war compatibility issue more adjusted, but these numbers cannot be accepted. It is important to say that in order to define the compatibility or otherwise of the wars, I follow personal criteria that I myself have established, taking into account some elements, but mainly the difference in ages and weight of the bases between the two alliances.
I do not take into account the number of glories, museum or generals not established in the bases.

 

[Harlems369th]

WW Matchmaking is one of the things we talked about in our Road Ahead Post found Here! We can't wait to share with you what we've been working on, but we still need some time.

 

[SirBiggun]

I believe that the incidence of mismatch wars can vary greatly from one alliance to another, as there are many factors considered.

In the alliance that I play, I control each war and based on the last 63 wars, all carried out this year, we have the following numbers: 38 compatible wars (61%) and 25 incompatible wars (39%). In the case of incompatible wars they are counted as either favorable or unfavorable to us.

I consider the number of incompatibility quite high.
I understand that it is not at all easy to create a system that can make this war compatibility issue more adjusted, but these numbers cannot be accepted. It is important to say that in order to define the compatibility or otherwise of the wars, I follow personal criteria that I myself have established, taking into account some elements, but mainly the difference in ages and weight of the bases between the two alliances.
I do not take into account the number of glories, museum or generals not established in the bases.

that’s interesting Rafar that you tracked that. I think our incompatibility is even higher than that. I will look in our history and check

 

[SirBiggun]

WW Matchmaking is one of the things we talked about in our Road Ahead Post found Here! We can't wait to share with you what we've been working on, but we still need some time.

Thanks for replying and posting link to thread on matchmaking. I will check it out.

 

[IDaedalusI]

I believe that the incidence of mismatch wars can vary greatly from one alliance to another, as there are many factors considered.

In the alliance that I play, I control each war and based on the last 63 wars, all carried out this year, we have the following numbers: 38 compatible wars (61%) and 25 incompatible wars (39%). In the case of incompatible wars they are counted as either favorable or unfavorable to us.

I consider the number of incompatibility quite high.
I understand that it is not at all easy to create a system that can make this war compatibility issue more adjusted, but these numbers cannot be accepted. It is important to say that in order to define the compatibility or otherwise of the wars, I follow personal criteria that I myself have established, taking into account some elements, but mainly the difference in ages and weight of the bases between the two alliances.
I do not take into account the number of glories, museum or generals not established in the bases.

Sorry to bring back this old topic, but because I'm curious, how were you determining that a war was incompatible? Thanks!

 

[SirBiggun]

Sorry to bring back this old topic, but because I'm curious, how were you determining that a war was incompatible? Thanks!

I think domistats lists it

 

[Rafar]

Sorry to bring back this old topic, but because I'm curious, how were you determining that a war was incompatible? Thanks!

I used personal parameters, nothing official and not even based on domistats.

I make comparisons of level, age and "weight" between the allies and opponents of each war. So I established margins of difference between these aspects and use it as a personal criterion to know if a war is balanced or with an absolute advantage or disadvantage over another. Only that.

Currently my alliance has 84 wars this year, 51 of which were balanced (60%), 20 we were in absolute advantage (24%) and 13 in absolute disadvantage (16%).

 

[IDaedalusI]

I used personal parameters, nothing official and not even based on domistats.

I make comparisons of level, age and "weight" between the allies and opponents of each war. So I established margins of difference between these aspects and use it as a personal criterion to know if a war is balanced or with an absolute advantage or disadvantage over another. Only that.

Currently my alliance has 84 wars this year, 51 of which were balanced (60%), 20 we were in absolute advantage (24%) and 13 in absolute disadvantage (16%).

What goes into the "weight" between the players of each war? I can see age being used to help determine the general potential strength of a player, but why level?

 

[Rafar]

Just to cite one example among countless variations...
In a war of 10 drones against 10 drones, but "alliance 1" has 10 drones level 400+ and "alliance 2" has 10 drones level 350-. There is a huge level difference which could mean that "alliance 1" has much more evolved buildings than "alliance 2". And this can be translated in many ways as "alliance 1" having buildings with much more health points, defenses with much more damage forts, traps, troops, generals, among other things. In this scenario I would still understand this as a balanced war, but with a huge level disadvantage.
I cited here just one example for your understanding regarding the difference in level between the participants of each alliance. For this to become an incompatible war there was very little missing.

And I reinforce once again that these are just personal criteria that I adopted and have nothing to do with domistats or any other reference.

 

[IDaedalusI]

Just to cite one example among countless variations...
In a war of 10 drones against 10 drones, but "alliance 1" has 10 drones level 400+ and "alliance 2" has 10 drones level 350-. There is a huge level difference which could mean that "alliance 1" has much more evolved buildings than "alliance 2". And this can be translated in many ways as "alliance 1" having buildings with much more health points, defenses with much more damage forts, traps, troops, generals, among other things. In this scenario I would still understand this as a balanced war, but with a huge level disadvantage.
I cited here just one example for your understanding regarding the difference in level between the participants of each alliance. For this to become an incompatible war there was very little missing.

And I reinforce once again that these are just personal criteria that I adopted and have nothing to do with domistats or any other reference.

Oh I definitely understand that its your personal criteria, I'm just always interested in how people try to analyze these things Thanks a bunch for your explanations!

 

[Hanni]

Gibt es Möglichkeiten, das Matchmaking für die Kriege zu verbessern? Anscheinend bekommt jeder schlechte, viel zu einseitige Matches. Vielleicht könnte man es auf Ruhm, Team-Rangliste oder einer Kombination aus beidem basieren. Es gäbe auch die Idee, verschiedene Divisionen einzuführen, zum Beispiel A, B, C und D. Man könnte dann je nach Leistung gegen andere Teams in der eigenen Division auf- oder absteigen. Ich fände auch Kriege mit 25 Spielern gut. Im Grunde wollen wir alle mehr Wettbewerb in den Kriegen. Weitere Vorschläge sind willkommen.

Es gibt ja eine Ranking-Liste für Allianzen.
Man sollte diese nutzen und Gruppen für die Suche einteilen, zB
Rang 1 bis 300 ist eine Gruppe und darin erfolgt die Gegnerische
Nächste Gruppe 301 bis 600 usw
Erreicht eine Allianz dann durch Siege zB Rang 299, dann erfolgt die nächste Suche in der höheren Gruppe.
Wie groß die Gruppen letztendlich sind, musst du natürlich entscheiden.
Es macht jedenfalls keinen
Spaß als Rang 500 fast ständig Gegner aus den Topp 100 zu bekommen

 

[Hanni]

Man könnte auch die Turnier des Ruhm - Halle für die Gegner Suche nutzen

 

[SirBiggun]

War matching has become very bad lately. Mismatches are way more common than good matches . Teams with 7-8 robo ages playing teams with 15 robo ages, teams in top ten rank playing teams at 100 rank and there have no chances with these matches. Maybe make a teams rank/skill more important with match so a top 10 team doesn’t face a 100 rank team. Also please prevent back to back matches which have become very common. Seems they now are force matching after 6 hrs, bad idea. We would rather wait a few more hours for a good match then match quickly with a terrible one and waste 2 days in a bad war . thanks .
@Harlems369th @TheWise

 

[SirBiggun]

F8tal Outlaws just Matched BR X Army. They are ranked 26, we are ranked 192, 15 Robo to our 8 Rob , seems fair Mind boggling how bad BHG matchmaking had become, it’s been regularly bad these days , this might be most lopsided match ive seen Yet
can you guys please fix this. Some things to do:
1: glory needs to matter more, top teams shouldn’t match low ranked teams often, like they currently do, It’s like the Super Bowl Champions playing a HS football team, it’s total nonsense. We don’t mind longer spins for better matches . Matches take 2 days, that’s 2 days wasted on a bad war, a few xtra hours of spin is 100% better if matches are more playable .
2. You have divisions, why not have matching favor placing people in same division, so you don’t get as many lopsided matches .
sports have divisions , they may have A leagues and D leagues for example. They don’t play each other since it wouldn’t be a fair match .
maybe something along these lines would be helpful .

please fix this, thank you
@Harlems369th @TheWise

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

In most cases, there are reasons why one team is higher in the league than another. For example, more high ages, more artifacts or more advanced artifacts (and munition), use of premium troops/additional buildings, etc.

These factors do not seem to be weighted enough in my opinion. If they were represented more strongly, then the league would also be indirectly reflected without actually using league as a factor.

 

[Hanni]

Gibt es Möglichkeiten, das Matchmaking für die Kriege zu verbessern? Anscheinend bekommt jeder schlechte, viel zu einseitige Matches. Vielleicht könnte man es auf Ruhm, Team-Rangliste oder einer Kombination aus beidem basieren. Es gäbe auch die Idee, verschiedene Divisionen einzuführen, zum Beispiel A, B, C und D. Man könnte dann je nach Leistung gegen andere Teams in der eigenen Division auf- oder absteigen. Ich fände auch Kriege mit 25 Spielern gut. Im Grunde wollen wir alle mehr Wettbewerb in den Kriegen. Weitere Vorschläge sind willkommen.

Es gibt doch das Turnier des Ruhms. Dort sind alle Allianzen entsprechend ihrer Ergebnisse, ein klassifiziert. Diese Einteilung sollte man nutzen und den Gegner innerhalb der Gruppe wo man aktuell ist suchen

 

[Arknights P R T S]

Not all guilds in the top division are strong. However, I worry that not being matched up just because they're not in the same division could be considered a squandering of the opportunity to climb the ranks. Some guilds have pulled off miraculous comebacks, achieving 600-700 points. This means that rankings don't always reflect 100% of a player's ability. I'm curious to see if everyone shares this sentiment. Of course, I'm also against the idea of the 1st or 2nd ranked guilds waging war against the 300th ranked guild. This kind of matchmaking is frowned upon by both the top and lower guilds.