War Matchmaking Iteration

[Ramesses the Great]

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.

 

[Spaceboy]

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..

 

[oddin]

what could THAT accomplish?

 

[Visionman]

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.

 

[Uhuru]

Good match )

 

[oddin]

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

 

[LordStark263AC]

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.

 

[LordStark263AC]

Another day, another mismatch. This time its vs Train of Korea.

Their line up:

17 Digital Age
1 Space Age
2 Atomics
1 Global Age
1 Industrial Age
2 GPD

6 Iron Age


Our line up:

7 Digital Age
6 Space Age
3 Cold War Age
4 Atomics
3 Global Age
2 Industrial Age
2 Enlightenment Age
3 GPD

once again opposition's 15 top bases have lots of high level Zhukovs.

We stand to lose 163 Glory vs alliance who clearly uses sandbaggs to get easier matchups.

This is a ridiculous match up. Sure we can have a go but all it takes is 1 failed or incomplete attacks answer is lost. They have waaaay more attacks than us where they pick up stars.

BHG_Muet Sort this out. We're not having fun at all. This is a horrible matchup for us.

Our matchups vs WastedPotential was bad but at least they didn't use sandbaggs unlike these guys.

 

[Net55]

Current war, we matched up in under an hour, this shouldn’t happen

them. Us
da 2. 1
sa 4. 0
cwa 2. 0
aa. 6. 7
ga. 3. 3
ia. 1. 6
ea. 0. 1
gun. 2. 2
med. 0. 0
ca. 0. 1

 

[Quali]

Lol. You’re complaining about someone bagging and had an iron in your line up vs. wasted potential.

Matchmaking is permanent-broke. As is cheating. As are bugs. It’s part of the game, accept it.

 

[Boldy]

I squashed a digital age player with my atomic base. Dudes layout was horrible.
wars are not based on age, but war weight. And with the lowered levels to reach higher ages, it can make comparing ages even more pointless.

There's a war Odds in victory: loss ratio for each war, which in the most part, seems a lot more precise than comparing other parameters.

That said, i think the new system has been greatly improved. Instead of getting 5% odds of victory, it's more often 1:3 or 3:1 at worst (on general) It's rare, but still more often to very close to 1:1 wars. Once every now and then, an odds of victory is 10%, but that's been a lot more rare.

 

[LordStark263AC]

Thanks for your input. Very insightful.

 

[Boldy]

Something broke just recently, we are odds on to win by 4:1
in reality, we have no chance. The only way we have a shot at winning = they don't play
Our #1 would at best be ranked enemy #8
Enemy running 2 x sandbags. So we are back to that now? Running sandbags.

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

I have a feeling that sandbags aren't a problem or real factor in war; but rather they are easy to spot so often get the blame. Many alliances use them to simply fill in matchup numbers... which makes perfect sense in our two-attack system. Also one can argue that anything below Industrial is a sandbag, or define anything below Atomic as a sandbag, so it's difficult to define.

Fact is, there aren't enough pre-Atomic players to make many fair matches mainly due to it taking so long to reach Industrial. BHG made a critical error in not decreasing build times in earlier ages when they added new Ages. So many quit before they can get started.

 

[Theoneandonly]

They are a factor in war weight and tho matching. But it’s no reason to complain about them, same as crash bases. This factors are legit and part of the game play.

 

[Spaceboy]

Yes..I have the impression that one or 2 sandbags drags down the weight again...something has changed recently, as it was better a couple of,months ago

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

So you're saying someone that intentionally causes a fellow human to crash during their attack, to lose all their troops and retrain abilities, to make them lose the attack (and potentially war), and to stress about all this being possible... compares to adding lower aged bases in a war? Come on, there's absolutely no comparison here. Doing all you can do to force a crash is not legitimate just because others do it... it's lame. It's also not legitimate because you or anyone can work around it.

 

[oddin]

Just a small update BHG_Muet ...
Please check those two 15v15 WW.

Greek Myrmidons vs Angry Crooks
03/12/2020
1 DA vs 8 DA
3 SA vs 4 SA
Absolutely no chance to win. We lost 195 glory because we were higher in glory than them. Is that fair?

vs HunELITE Combat
03/15/2020
1 DA vs 4 DA
3 SA vs 2 SA
the 2 first DAs are 340-360 level with max uni. Impossible to beat them.
We will lose a TON of glory, 282 glory points!

 

[Underdog]

Our story is the same as everybody and its a copy and paste from one war To another

them 2 digital,2 space,3 cw and the rest from atomic going down for a 20 players war

us 2 cold war, 1atomic, 2 global and the rest going down To classical



worse thing is if we go down by 450 glory if we lose and go up by 95 if we win

come on fix that asap we lose players

 

[Spaceboy]

Yes, latest matches are horrible..and way too unmatched...it was alright for a while..but now..burk