World War FAQ: Matchmaking

[Warlord1981]

It's starting to become common enough that the much ups are more fair, because more and more alliances are using a diverse line up.

I see stacking like this: Inn sports you choose the players who can best help your team win games. That doesn't always mean the best players, it Often means the player that can help create mismatches.

Are professional teams wrong for fielding players based on their ability to throw the other team off, instead of their overall athletic ability? No I don't think anyone sees that as wrong. Stacking is not so different than that.

I also see using a diverse line up as a way to groom new players into the type of player you want for your alliance. However here is where I begin to have issue, creating seperate accounts that you have no intention of developing or even have attack, that's a different story altogether. Now you aren't having a diverse line up of players, your just creating non combat accounts and using them a underhanded tactic.

 

[Tenacious D]

Something seems to be working. The stronger alliances now populate much of the leaderboard. Alliances like Dankness and Volume Zero never belonged there.

 

[phil_dee]

Your analysis is off. We've still only lost to six alliances in the last four months--problems arise for us, though, when we face two of them several times in a row (two of which now sit in the top 35 as a result).

 

[Tenacious D]

My analysis is spot on. The top 7 alliances will beat you 10 times out of 10. Sorry to be the one that has to break this to you.

 

[phil_dee]

No, your analysis really IS off--the top seven alliances comprise only seven percent of the leaderboard.

 

[Tenacious D]

I agree with you on this. There are some terrible alliances in the top 100. I am not saying that you do not deserve a place in the top 100. You're not deserving of a place in the top 20 though IMO.

 

[Glacier]

I agree, until VZ can recruit 15 L198s, glory isn't worth my time anymore. Back in the beginning of glory the alliances at the top weren't seen like they are now. Last time I went through the list the top 20 looked like all stacker/sandbaggers that cry about stalemates cause their bases suck defensively lol.

No we aren't he best in Nexon's 'diverse eyes' however pound for pound we can hold our own ;-] So bring your bases down to our level and try us on for size.

 

[Tenacious D]

The last time I looked (and the time before that and the time before that) Volume Zero wasn't anywhere near the Top 100. So something is obviously working. One weak alliance has fallen out of the Top 100.

 

[Glacier]

Tenacious D, hard for a legit alliance to win when they constantly face stacked/sandbagger alliances huh? So what now, you talking smack on VZ after you told me ya wouldn't? Are ya going back on your word or did ya lie to me?

No more 'Humble' whatever I see, so ya wanna hook up with us or what? We don't back down, just say the time. I will forward this convo to Tross and Ellis and see if we can accommodate a match with you guys ;-]

What say you?

 

[Glacier]

Nevermind, I see Invincible has went with three low level inactives as well. Just like my response a few posts up, bring your alliance to our level and it on and popping ;-]

I called out Invincible because I see a L195 Tenacious D as a member.

 

[Javahart]

Level is misleading, I'm always ranked higher in war than my colleagues with higher level and better defence upgrades (we all have maxed troops) I think university research is having an effect, can't explain it any other way.

 

[phil_dee]

More than four months on, it appears that "while they scramble" was accurate.

 

[Warlord1981]

Maybe this is the right forum to ask, how come lately, we aren't gaining more than 90 glory, in a 35 man war, against an atomic and a global, and our top guy was only lvl 130 EA. I dont get it. It happened all the sudden too, we used to get almost 300 glory for a win, and either that much or more for a loss. But now we hardly get anything when we win and we lose so much of we don't.

Am I missing something about how glory is distributed?

 

[Brand Marrow]

Hey Warlord! Bummed that Eve kicked my butt outta Thor's legion chat... hope all is good with you... I think they changed the glory system to try and combat sandbagging and it has reduced glory for most alliances....some other forum goer may have a more informed answer....

 

[DUSTY1]

I don't get the whole "glory points" system. I am on an overflow team of new players. Most of us are classical age, some are iron, and we even have 1 at Industrial age. No matter who we war against, even if they have several global / industrial age players, our winning glory points is measured in the teens, and if we lose, it's in the hundreds.

Is this the way it is for everybody? We've won almost all our wars, yet our glory points are in the toilet.

Perhaps this is a good thing? So far we've managed to evade any mystery teams with the supernatural powers (hackers). And everyone is having a lot of game satisfaction winning.

 

[vincentdang4]

The amount of glory you can earn or lose is primarily affected by your total glory relative to those of the team you are facing. If you are facing a team with more total glory than you, you will have an opportunity to earn alot more glory for winning and lose less for losing. The reverse is also true. If you search the teams you are facing, you will likely find that they have less glory than you (hence the low gains). The level of the accounts may matter, but not as much as what I just mentioned.

 

[DUSTY1]

Thanks vincent, your response makes sense. So we are working our way up from the bottom and will face the teams with less glory. So the more we win, and higher we crawl, things will change in the LONG haul.

 

[DUSTY1]

Top 10 of a 30 player war matchup. Want to guess how the bottom of the Opposition Team levels works? Eliminating the bottom 20% from the matchup would not have resulted in a match.

 

[Missvixen]

Could not agree more blah blah

 

[DUSTY1]

Still not an appropriate algorithm. If anything it's worse. Top 50% is the only match up that matters, as exemplified by this classical stack/sandbag lineup: