War Matchmaking Iteration

[oddin]

You are right. Our suggestion for this injustice:

- 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 towards final glory points!

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

I don't think glory should be included at all (or, only have it be a minor component) as a team can switch their players around, or heck, start a new alliance. Glory is a general indicator of alliance strength and not current lineup strength.

 

[oddin]

true. What should be done then in cases like the one I describe? You believe it is fair a stronger team with 15000 glory, gain 500 glory in a WW against a lesser alliance that has 17000 glory? This is not fair either

 

[Lordwinman]

Longer waiting times..Yea no kidding....when you wait 24 hrs for a match you extend the WW another day..Lots of WW players are not all available for the extra day...The reason the wait is so long is because there are not enough mid alliances to match up with...PAY TO WIN is to blame...Lots of Mid and upper mid players have quit or are no longer participating in WW..The top alliances are World Waring with each other since there are very few alliances that will pay to win to get to the top alliances anymore....Your comments...

 

[sulbin]

Hello Muet.

Alliance, at least the top 30 or 40... let them meet each other.
My team has been enjoying a terrible poor world war for months.
The poor quality of the war is not pleasant to the team that is being beaten or attacked.

I want you to create a benefit based on glory scores.
Our team's war isn't attractive these days. The opponent gives up without a challenge when he meets our team.
It's been over a year since the match improvement you're talking about, but we're enjoying a worse game than before.
Comparisons are not pleasant to me. But I want you to benchmark the case at the COC next door.

I hope it'll be a better game.
Thanks

 

[Cannibals]

I agree with Some that glory shouldn’t count at all. Glory should be a measure of sustained strength over time. In the case you mentioned I don’t see an injustice. The higher glory alliance should have maintained its strength if it wanted to keep its glory.

 

[Cannibals]

Both of our last 2 matches were 10v10, took just over 2 hours to match, and their top guy was 200-is AA while our top guy was SA. Not better.

 

[Theoneandonly]

BHG_Muet , what ever you have done with the war weight bug - it is back again. I am dropping in line up war by war since I went to digital age one week ago. The only thing I have done is crowning the most important buildings as airstrip, factory, fort, two bunkers and silo. Nothing else, all other buildings are upgrading the normal way.

 

[Kanechoigo]

Missing old days, before SA released( war weight broken since first day of SA released)), can’t get back anymore.

 

[Xabar]

hi BHG_Muet ,
Any new about MM?

thanks

 

[Xabar]

BHG_Muet. Any new about it?

 

[Radzeer]

War weights for Digital Age upgrades are wrong, A lvl 350+ DA player is ranked #10, while lvl 299 SA is ranked #1, it is plain wrong, all university and library researches done for that #10 (lvl 350 guy).
You can have whatever tweaks to the search engine, if the weights are incorrect...

 

[Kanechoigo]

I know, right? But someone doesn’t want to accept, lol

 

[BHG_Muet]

We've been investigating the weight reports and there do seem to be a few Digital Age buildings that have incorrect weights. Audit hasn't completed but I'm hoping to have it finished and pushed live to you all this week.

For the new wait times, I've been monitoring and the average wait time to find a matching Alliance has certainly increased (as expected) but it does seem to be generating positive results in average match quality. That said, there will of course continue to be the handful of outliers like you all are reporting (please keep highlighting them, they're good to reference when tweaking!).

 

[Theoneandonly]

11 ->> Bunker —> 14 ->> Bunker and Silo —> 16 —> one trap —> 20

 

[Cannibals]

SA buildings seem have reverted to incorrect weights also.

 

[jagadeeshgarapati]

Muet time and time we are in this nostalgia, new buildings missing weights. please just consider complete XP. without considering any specific buildings. this will reduce future issues and just makes yours and our life better. you can also ask for voting to consider.

 

[phil_dee]

Adding to all of the stuff above, and for context, we were matched against a 30v30 lineup which has a Space Age L260 base in the #30 spot. Our guy at #10 is his peer in our lineup, more or less. War in progress, current score 85-9. Good times.

 

[Chadwicke]

BHG_Muet can we get an update on the status of the war weight fix?

 

[BHG_Muet]

Just talked to the designer doing the investigation this morning. Hoping to have the full list of changes ready soon (I believe he's wrapping up the final list by end of day) to go live this week.

As an aside, this has also surfaced a side conversation in Design about how the weights are currently assigned. It'll be a longer and deeper task, but we're looking at doing an overhaul of how weights are used in the new year. There's a handful of oddities in the weights at the moment like the Factory itself being weighted _very_ heavily (vs troop levels). Details on that are still a ways off, however. Hopefully I'll be able to post with a full plan there sometime in January.