World War FAQ: Matchmaking

[DUSTY1]

Sandbagging as a result of poor game making:

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Yeah, Parallel World are a bunch of turds, unfortunately that's war in Dominations for ya. As crappy as it is you can't really blame people for taking advantage of such an easily-manipulated system by this point. It's pretty obvious BHG will never do anything about Glory/Matchmaking. It's been two years, they don't even pretend to be concerned about it anymore. Hell, they even deleted the thread about it that they created and stickied to the main page for nine months.

 

[alegs]

Lvl 188 atomic ranked #1? So the 200s are heavy in eco?

 

[No Angel]

You guys realize that it's only the matter of the size of warring members and the timing you hit the Begin New War button right?
They never count alliance strength one by one. It's all randomly done. You know, like when you throw your dice and random numbers will come up ☺

 

[alegs]

Hey, what's that piece of code doing?
I don't know, we just call it 'the algorithm'.

Glad they got the thing straight with matching equal number of players!

 

[DUSTY1]

Since everyone gets 2 attacks, only the top half should count. Unless something reasonable is done, I expect to continue to see this play out. Nexon do you think this makes for happy customers or unhappy customers?

 

[DUSTY1]

I sent this in with a support ticket. They gleefully sent me to this site and happily informed me that the problem was fixed with the advent of this thread!

 

[No Angel]

I am tired of having bad war matchmaking! It will suck if none of these rebalance stages fix matchmaking!​

 

[dfwdragon]

I hear your pain about unbalanced match. We just finished a war with a Korean alliance containing 6 Cold War Age, 5 Atomic Age, 2 Gunpowder Age and 2 Iron Age where both Iron Age are inactives and 1 Gunpowder Age is inactive for many days. We had 2 CWA, 2 AA, 3 Global Age, 2 Industrial Age, 2 Enlightenment Age, 3 Gunpowder Age, 1 Medieval Age, which are all active because we don't take put inactives in wars. We lost by less than 5 stars despite the odds. Nexon continues to say their war match will balance things out. Frankly, I think that's a bunch of crap from Nexon. I say if an alliance wants to bring inactives to war, then penalize that alliance by deducting 5 stars for each of the inactive base, and inactive can be more than 5 days of inactivity which can be determined easily. That should easily deter baggers if the alliance wants to win a war.

 

[NameX1]

I think the games in-built "recommended" target is amusing. You know you have a problem if your top player is recommended to attack your opponent's #10. I know this is a flawed model, but also seems to be better than whatever brain dead method is currently being used. We have had 5 ridiculous wars out of past 6, the 6th was a perfect match though, 148 stars vs 146 for 30v30; I just wish EVERY match was this well balanced; my current war match will end with them on a perfect score and us at 110 if we're lucky! Current war top ten is them: 10 CWA, us 3 CWA, 5 Atomic and 2 Global. How is that even close to fair? They would have 300 or more levels on us over that spread too.

I'm in an alliance that's lasted 3 years, with many original and long term members, but I think it'll fold soon if matching is not fixed; we are certainly losing long term members

I'm sure Nexon is tired of everyone winging about matching, but I really wish they would do something about it.


Dave

 

[NameX1]

Update: their top 12 all scored 10 points with a score of 150 vs 85. Lots of fun. One more alliance member quit. I was our 3rd ranked player and my recommended target was their 13.

 

[No Angel]

NameX1 Why don't take a break from war for a while? I think if we force to actively war while having defeat consecutively, we'll be really discouraged.
This current war matchmaking has to change. Whether algorithm, attacking system, anything!

 

[NameX1]

@No Angel

Yup, I took a break. I haven't played the game (including wars) since I last posted, I popped back here today to see if things had changed... which they have not. My alliance's new leader seems competent and still happy, so no major loss I guess.

 

[No Angel]

Ok it's almost 2019, time to move on, dev!
We've just had a stupid WW Match, where my mirror is 50 levels above me! Yes we are losing, I accept it. Can't win every time. But so many small alliances get very bad mismatches. 1 or 2 mismatches are ok, but if we get something like +XXX/-Y or +X/-YYY most of the time, clearly doesn't sound like a healthy system eh?
We are all waiting here. I'm still enjoying the wars though, need my rubies.

***Despite the mismatch, I have no idea why someone a level 246 with his 6 HT MK7 could barely got 4 star on a level 197 base hilarious!

 

[Garrett Haines]

Nothing makes this game more addicting than participating in a war where one side wins by a small amount.

NOTHING makes people quit this game more than the mis-matches that are going on in 2019. We just hit a team where the top 10 had THREE level 60 generals each! Our #1 player just hit Atomic. They had 75 stars in 30 minutes. We were happy to get 24 in the whole war. People are quitting . FIX THIS. Please.

 

[Garrett Haines]

They don't have enough players in wars to make matches work.

CHANGE MY MIND!

 

[No Angel]

Wow I was a level 197 in 29 December 2018
Now 210 that's not a big leap!
Yeah we desperately need a ''better'' matchmaking. Perhaps not perfect ones, when both sides are equal, but at least better than current ones.

 

[Manifesto]

Wars aren't good for anything, give them up.

 

[Mixie]

World wars are for the chests and excitement!

 

[Manifesto]

Excitement?
Not so much, judging by the responses on the forum.