why the 15 and 25 WW are obsolete?

[oddin]

This is a huge thing for our alliance. Whenever we play 20vs20 WW, we get a mismatch, with 15 people we are fine and it suits as well. Now we have to always leave outside some people.
I didn't see an official statement about this. Can we have an explanation as to why? What is the logic behind this?

 

[Rogue Squirrel]

This is a problem for our alliance as well. We often used 15v15 and 25v25 wars depending on how many people were available.

Two things that immediately spring to mind with this new change in war numbers are that...
a) Wars will probably be fairer because there will be more people searching for 20v20 wars (so less mismatches wrathchild_78 )
b) Either a lot of people will be disappointed because there's not enough room to fit everyone in who wants to participate. Or sandbagging will increase dramatically to make up the numbers

 

[Berend_War]

Are the only war options 15 and 25 now? Missed that in the release notes and we have a war going on right now.

If it is this might be something with creating a bigger search base to find a match in.

 

[BeerMan]

They announced this a few months ago, although they didn't give specifics at the time. It's just a numbers game. 90% of alliances will now be searching for 20v20 and 30v30, so finding a match will be quicker and hopefully fairer.

 

[LordStark263AC]

I'm already missing 25vs25 Wars. I don't know what to do with my active sandbaggs now.

 

[BHG_Muet]

So unfortunately this change went out early. I’m sorry. It sucks that this change was dropped on you all without explanation. Removing 15v15, 25v25, and 40v40 was intended as part of the new World War matchmaking update. That said, let me be clear that only this queue reduction part of the change was accidentally released with the Space Age update. The actual algorithm changes have not shipped yet. I was waiting to explain why I decided to remove these queues until the Design Spotlight. But, it’s not fair to make you wait since the queue reduction part of the change is already live. The least I can do is give you that part of the Spotlight early.

-----

I know that this will be one of the least popular changes with the matchmaking update. I apologize in advance for killing your Alliance’s favorite queue. The reality is that DomiNations can’t—and has never truly been able to—support seven different queues. Think of it this way: Each queue added to DomiNations splits the player base. Each of those splits greatly reduces the number of potential matches your Alliance can make and reduces the quality of those matches. Theoretically, the most optimal system would be to force everyone into a single XvX queue. We can’t really do that and aren’t entertaining the idea. But four is better than seven.

We’re reducing the queues to the following:
10v10
20v20
30v30
50v50

We feel that this division of queues will flow more Alliances into more pools and increase the odds of finding your Alliance a better match. It should be noted that 50v50 is not and has never been a popular queue. But, we felt it was important to preserve 50v50 for community events like the Continental World Cup (https://continentalwar.wordpress.com/). If you find your Alliance jumping into 50v50 expect long wait times and extremely relaxed matching requirements.

I'll be hanging around a bit today to answer any questions you may have about the queue change.

 

[LordStark263AC]

I guess I'm first.

So when can we expect new matchmaking?

 

[BHG_Muet]

We have a date on the calendar but I can’t hold the team to that externally yet. We’re in the last round of testing now. Once it passes, I’ll provide a more concrete date. It would be unfair to both the team and to you for me to give a date and then have an unforeseen issue surface in this last round of testing that pushes the date. For now, I can't do any better than soon.

 

[Davina]

Thanks for being honest and explaining the situation BHG_Muet

 

[Omegaman]

@BHG Muet.
Would it not be more logical to ditch the 50 queue and retain the 40 queue if 50's are only ever done for the odd community event.
Imho the '''community" probably does not want to bench 20 players out of a full squad of 50 week in,week out !
Is it written somewhere that community wars have to be 50v50 at the expense of the rest of the dwindling 1000's ?

 

[Tsamu]

Here's a radical thought; why do matched teams have to be the same size? Could we have 31-50 vs 31-50? That way I don't need to sit nearly half my alliance every war.

You could match based on the strongest n players, where n is the size of the smaller team. Only attacks on the top n bases would earn war loot and AXP. Players on the larger team ranked lower than n would not be part of the war.

For example, if I have 42 players available for war, and there is an alliance with 37 players searching at the same time, and our top 37 are a good match for their team, we would fight a war. The top 37 players on my team would fight their players. The other 5 would be observers, as though they had not been selected.

 

[Tsamu]

My thoughts exactly. please like my post https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...a/649875-campaign-to-bring-back-40-vs-40-wars

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Thanks for the clarification ... and cool you followed our tourney and left 50v open for future events, didn't know you were around then and the community really has fun with them : )

 

[Persia]

Yep, spot on. 50v50 wars are so unlikely that they’re not going to be used outside of the occasional community event, and even if people hearing about them makes a few alliances struggle to get the 50 people and then successfully queue, it won’t be something consistently done — my guess is that, within a couple weeks, it’d just be the same few alliances getting one another. The fact of the matter is that 50v50 wars are simply impractical and far too rare to be excluded over, say, 15v15 or 40v40.

 

[BHG_Muet]

While community events were the primary reason for 50v50 making the cut, we also added a cautionary pop-up when attempting to queue for one to give Leaders a heads up that they may have trouble finding opponents.

My first iteration dropped both 50v50 and 40v40 (the decision to keep or drop 40v40 was not weighed against the 50v50 queue). The decision to drop 40v40 was rooted in the lower participation of that queue combined with the expectation that the Alliances who do shift from it would most likely shift into the 30v30 bucket, increasing the quality of that queue.

 

[Pretty]

Thanks for the explanation. One that actually makes sense ;-)

 

[Pretty]

Intriguing. I can see people getting upset if they think the wrong bases were set out. Maybe let the leader set out the bases but he has to chose by age. If they have 3 cw and you have 4 one of the bases pushed out has to be a cw so it ends up 3x3.

 

[sileepuppee]

Yeah our alliance missed this note until today but 25 was always a perfect number for us. We had exactly enough actives to pull off a 25. Not enough for 30 unless we got new members and too many to go down to 20. I guess only option is the game really wants us to make 4 Iron Age sandbags. We have 2 currently but we don’t sub them in unless we have 1-2 spots that we need to get to 25 but even still we use them to attack. Anyway unfortunate change indeed. Very bad for us but I suppose it’s good as well for those that mentioned ridiculous wait times for war. That was never a problem for our alliance.

 

[No Angel]

It takes shorter time to search for wars indeed. There will be mismatching here and there of course, but I think this option makes perfectly sense.

 

[Alexey]

Alliances in 15 and 25 pools have two options: lower the number of players leaving somebody behind (my choice, we went down to 10) or add sandbags to fill the spots. So I expect a great increase in sandbagging in the next weeks. There’s also an option to unite with another alliance, but this is a complicated procedure, so I don’t think it would be a popular choice.