The new matching is terrible

[Matchu]

New WW match making is horrible. Seems much worse than before. Doesn't matter how many you put in war. You'll probably run into cheating sandbaggers. This game if definitely going down hill. I very much understand war weight. Their algorithms are goofed

 

[oddin]

I dont understand why for some alliances matchmaking is a HUGE improvement and for some others is totally messed up.
Can I just brainstorm a bit?
Maybe those alliances have bases with high war weight?
Maybe too many CWA/SA bases?
Maybe they still use bags and are matched with alliances that have even more bags?
Matchu what is the issue you are facing?

 

[Chadwicke]

Yeah that is the problem if you're semi big you can't win , you either have to be huge or leave people out of war and run really balance lines in war but for teams like mine that have been together and not missed a war in 4 years it's not fun to sit people , we were #32 before this now like 1000 something We all play for different reasons but our reason was war and rank without cheating in anyway. Basically it is not fun at all now if we are all in we get top 20 teams with a top 20 budget and 19 space age in 20 all over 280 while we have 8 space age only 5 over 280 so much fun to throw 8 cards in the trash , or we sit not get to war together and make two war teams not very fun and still have a chance to get a team with 17 space age . This matching only helps teams with none of 1-2 space age and teams that have 20 or more close to max I guess it mirror life kill the middle class

 

[Tedi925]

Hi
Matchmaking is terrible for us.
Look this war
We started war 10 to 10
Our players 3space,2cw,2atomic,3global
Oponnent bases 9space, 1 classic age
Glory green 242
Glory red 398

Last war we play 20 to 20 with 6 more industrial bases and 4 iron bases
Glory was similar 220/400
But opponent 12 space, 4cw and 4iron

I really don't know how this kind of matchmaking is fair.

 

[Mountainking]

You match players of your level mostly now. So it's fair. Less bullying around. If your players suck, just too bad.

 

[Tedi925]

I don't think it's fair. If we get 10 industrial bases also it will not be fair.
Matchmaking should find similar ages and similar lv bases for war.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Well, I disagree. I think matching is most time not so bad if you are not looking on the number of ages but on the overall capabilities of both teams. Just take your last war: 16 Space sage versus 16, you have had some 300+ in the team, but also 4 or 5 Bags. Therefore it should not a big surprise for you matching an alliance with a lower spread of participants.

 

[Mountainking]

Current war:
Glory: 60/-580

We are a very low weight alliance for the rank we are at currently (top 20).....Our top has CWA defs (not all buildings maxed) and a pretty good spread. The teams above and below us are HUGE in levels but we do not match them simply because we DO NOT have the amount of offense/defense but we do match similar teams. So, a small/medium team can still get on the ladder as they will more often than not face similar alliances and the odds are pretty even.
Packing in huge accounts will match you will other alliances with huge accounts. I love it how the concept of stacking huge bases and iron accounts is not that good anymore. Now these kind of lineups meet similar lineups. Fun!

 

[oddin]

same thing happens to us. if all goes well, soon we will be in top100 for the first time!

 

[Chadwicke]

But see that's the problem is many teams like ours have been friends for over 4 years so breaking up the good team isn't fair nor is having to sit out just to have a chance most of our bases are over 260 and are both the offense and the Defense so leave them out sure you get less 300s but who is to stop the attack and who is supposed to attack if you leave out the space age. What fun is a game if you cant actually play it . Like size war is ok if that is what your looking for is to be #1 and spend 50-100$ per war on cards for offence and cards for Defense but I know I don't want to hit 300s constantly and the cost that goes with that . Plus the museum factor I refuse to spend on the museum what it's asking it's like a separate game account as the cost goes . I could easily spend 2 thousand on it which is equal to what j spent on space age so far , not counting cards just too expensive

 

[Mountainking]

Heh just a note. We fill 3-4 bases in like 1 out of 10 wars with POLO cards (good/crap polo cards). Also, most use POLO/chest cards with mixing occasional 1 premium cards when required. Like size war is fun. Packing big accounts will make you match similar accounts. So it's still like size. If you are 300's and don't want to be hitting 300s then there is a problem unless your idea of fun is bashing 250 CWA bases with IA towers....
Not having a go at you chad but the logic of not wanting to hit big accounts when you/your friends are wielding SA offense/Defense.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Come on, the Matching of our two Teams was not wrong. We have had 16 SA bases , you 13, but 3 or 4 300plus (all 3D...), all of Ours were below 290. Ok, you have had some bags, we only one. Therefore the system matched right.


What is the issue?