Why isn't World War matchmaking based on level and Age?

[LordAnubis]

None of the advice or suggestions will do any good when it still takes over 8 hours to get a war match. LOL!

 

[cclaerbo]

I've made the suggestion so many times to include a separate number that shows your individual war weight. A war xp number so to speak for each player. Then you'll actually be able to know what each member brings to the matching for wars. It's very difficult right now to understand for many players what bases they can attack successfully. I know it won't be dead perfect but will help. It will also make it very open what both teams true averages are for wars. It doesn't need to be broken down into all the different factors that go into each person then there will still be some hidden value of upgrades in uni and such but you would see an effect each time to your war xp value every time you upgrade something that affects your war weight.

I think this this would help with some of the complaints that I am matched up to attack someone 25 levels above me this isn't fair. When in reality sometimes not all the time, 25 levels could mainly be from economic upgrades that mean nothing to war weight and in little in whether or not you have a good chance of defeating the base.

Tinsoldier please try try to include this individual war xp number in the future. The transparency will be very much appreciated

 

[Dr.Beercules]

If we want these issues resolved correctly, we should be willing to take drastic steps. Hitting Nexon where it hurts would be a good way to finally get things fixed. Stop buying packs if you're tired of getting screwed over.

 

[Dr.Beercules]

That would be better than getting constant mismatches.

 

[Brutus0304]

Have you thought about why these bases are a reason for poor reflection of offense & defense? That's bcos the XP system is improper.
1) Reduce the XP for roads & economic buildings
2) add appropriate XP for research done in University
3) add XP for walls.
4) attach different XP for wonders (ForbiddenCity should get much higher XP over its peers).
Overall, make XP more transparent & universal.
You could then make the war (or even PvP) match based on XP.

 

[BeerMan]

Good for transparency, but it does nothing to solve sandbagging issues.

 

[Brutus0304]

While I agree that Sandbagging is a big concern and needs to be addressed, everything need not be Sandbagging related. Let's take baby steps & address one issue at a time. This time: "measuring military power of a base". If we get this right, it would be easier to address Sandbagging.

 

[Dr.Beercules]

So, do you really have your head that far up your ass, or are you just trolling?

 

[poop_]

Hmm. Interesting to see how developers build bases. Might need a few pointers from players...

Btw, I still want this devs vs players world war... With replays.

 

[Dr.Beercules]

Sandbaggers are counting on the top half of their lineup to take out everyone, right? Shouldn't matchups be made by using the top half of an alliance's lineup for that war then? It makes perfect sense as a solution to sandbagging.

 

[Pepyto]

Developers will never give us war matchmaking algorithm, or war weight algorithm. Why? Because if we new that, it would be even more easier to "tune" alliance war weight.

 

[yemen]

If we had it, then they wouldn't be able to respond to terrible and obvious mismatches by saying "Your XP and level are not equal to your war weight". Not sure they want to lose that layer of obfuscation.

But it would be really nice to have the numbers that are actually used, so that they couldn't just dismiss our comments.

 

[Theserver]

In regards to the original post: I am simply disappointed. We all knew that xp levels were not exact. I do mental calculations in my head to compare bases to each other. But I did think you told the community in the last open question session that you were going to share more about weights actually involved in matchmaking. Did I misunderstand that? I thought this was that post. But apparently not.

 

[Saruman the White]

I'd propose fixing glory system to be more accurate and pair with glory. Also I'd sacrifice a couple of hours in order to match a fairer opponent.

 

[Loonies]

The game has rules, and if you want to prosper then you need to learn what works and what doesn’t. If my base isn’t defending well, then I look at the MP leaderboard for ideas. I don’t expect the game to change so that my failing designs start to win. If you are getting lopsided matches, then look at the other teams and do what they do. Don’t whine and expect the whole game to change to accommodate the way you demand to play. If you can’t do that, then you don’t deserve Glory.

 

[RingDiddy]

If they calculate war strength defensive and offensive why not handicap to make the match closer to even. EG. Alliance 1 has 10 A and Alliance 2 has highest Industrial. It is a 20 player war. Alliance 1 always wins. If Alliance 1 has 200 offensive and Alliance 2 has 100 defensive then just handicap alliance 1 50 offensive spread over their players which exceed the strongest defensive of alliance 2. This means that alliance 1 top player still exceeds the defense of top player alliance 2 but not as horribly. Then add a handicap of 50 defensive to alliance 2 at the bottom. Recap. Alliance 1 loses 50 strength handicap at the top. Alliance 2 gains 50 defensive handicap at the bottom. Now the war is evenly matched. This might help.combat sandbagging

 

[polo1967]

To be honest (in my opinion of course), The whole WW system needs to be revamped. Just come out with something thats more competitive and inclusive to all players without making people use sandbagging as an alternative. Either add another team or teams to the mix. Change the scoring by giving a point value for every star based on the strength of the base being attacked. Activate all three war bases and give each player an additional attack. Basically like someone mentioned earlier, you can almost decide the outcome on a lot of these matches before the war even starts. With the exception of a few well balanced matchups (and I do mean few), the gap between points for a win versus points for a loss is ridiculous. If the gap is several hundred points, then it shouldnt be a match. At least make the margin small enough to be competitive.

edit....and by the way, war loot sucks. At least make it worth our while.

 

[Ravenstyx]

I honestly can think of a solution to fix all of it. but it really has to do with levels. Here’s my idea. what they should do is fix by raising the required levels to be a certain age. Yes, I know that at first seems at first impossible now to do so now because some have already entered into an age far below what they should be required to be. But hear me out. The first way to fix this by raising the minimum required level to be a certain age. This isn’t hard to calculate because all you need to do is use what will be max at the very bottom level then figure out what is max level for that level and rinse and repeat for every following level. Next there should be given a negative penalties to those already in that age and have not met that specific minimum level requirements while in that age both in defense and offense. Mind you as you go up in levels. it doesn’t have to be necessarily max level where you accrue the penalties but instead just a fair percentage of having most of what is needed to be done in that age say 85 to 90% completion of that level (again I understand no one’s ever gonna be Max when I say this) would be fair. Once the person who is above what they should be reaches that level requirement or becomes closer to that level for that age, the negatives decrease until they reach zero. I believe this will stop people from aging up too quickly and make it a much more fair system in the matchmaking process. Yes, people will complain some about having to grind a little bit more, but that is the point in strategy games is to build not to level up and be weak. After all is called a strategy game for a reason. that’s just my two cents.

 

[ElonMusk]

Thank you TinSoldier for this topic. We have an industrial 141lvl player in my team. He has medieval defense and gunpowder offense. But he is 141lvl because he has max industrial roads,farms and caravans. He ask me all the time to add him to war and i always have to lie to him. With the average level system it will be very negative for my team to add him in war. That's unfair first for that player who doesn't participate in wars and for the rest of my team which will have to face stronger enemies if finally add him.

If you're the alliance leader, you shouldn't have to lie. Tell it to him like it is. He'd better let his base grow up a bit before he can join the adult game.

 

[Ravenstyx]

nice warm up of old post

This is absolute nonsense. The way the game is built, there is no such thing as advancing too early. You should level up whenever possible to get stronger troops earlier, get cost reduction with better research, and have more workers available earlier. Each point by itself is a big advantage over the snoozers who want to maximize everything before advancing.

nice warm up of old post

This is absolute nonsense. The way the game is built, there is no such thing as advancing too early. You should level up whenever possible to get stronger troops earlier, get cost reduction with better research, and have more workers available earlier. Each point by itself is a big advantage over the snoozers who want to maximize everything before advancing.

You missed the point rising too early is not snoozing a strategy to be the best you can be. theres a good reason for it as there should be instead of building a weak structure system it makes it unrealistic for a strategy game. to taken a step further 108,000 for nine farms in Cold War an hour on income on food pays for all your tactics on attack without wasting anything on retraining and we can use that money earned in battle elsewhere. so it’s not a bad strategy it’s actually a smart strategy, so you have more money to spend on the bigger things and not piss it away. It’s less work in the long run with working smarter not harder. Especially when you have a strong strategy on how to attack and hide behind peace treaties in between battles. Not only to mention it slows down enemies to have to spend a second or two more to destroy it instead of one hit wonders that are pointless.