World War Matchmaking - Design Spotlight 2019

[Toryon]

This is a huge step in the right direction, thanks for the detailed explanation, that style of communication is preferred over past ones. There are still more steps to fix the competitive aspect of those game, but I’ll leave other commentators to harp on that issue, good job big huge games.

 

[~Kratos~]

Muet said somewhere else that they will be addressing AR in the coming update. That's not soon enough, but at least hopefully it means that they do realize how ridiculously overpowered it is in the current state.

 

[Hansi]

Finally it feels so good to read about such a complete overhaul of the war match making system! Thanks so much for giving your valuable time to write such a detailed post. I haven’t seen such a great detail from anyone at BHG before. I understand that the new match making will take sometime to be perfect due to the nature of machine learning algorithm.

I would have loved if you would have run it live in the background for a few months before actually making it effective. But there would be hundreds of good suggestions like mine and it is impossible to implement everything.

So, I’ll wait patiently for a few months before commenting on the effectiveness of the new system

I know (and see) cheaters are popping up everywhere in the game but this is not the right topic to bring that up. At least BHG is trying to address one of the long pending grief of the players who fight wars.

 

[GailWho]

The irony is we matched up with a sandbagging team today. One more for the road I guess.

 

[Chadwicke]

Yes I was because it wasn't ok that level 4 had a 8-10 second pause after using it, I crowned it as did many and I don't believe it is the intended effect right now this isn't"fixed" and if you had been playing for 4 years people might care about what you have to say , but because you clearly don't understand what happened all I can say is stay in the dark

 

[Mixie]

And your suggestion for it is...
Simply saying, screw AR, fix it? also you didn't refer to the interval when you complained about its current effect NOW. You are complaining about your defense that has been invested for 4 years getting useless. Different material sir. The interval is now fixed, but you are now feeling it overpowered because people ''without skills'' as you accused, have started to crush your base. When will this end? Whenever you get what benefit YOU (and some folks) only? What about the most people who have enjoyed it? Ever thought about it?
Oh let's say I've been playing since day 1 we have different perspective about this material though

 

[Spaceboy]

what is the difference with today? i had the impression that the longer you wait, the more risk you have to fall on a tough ennemi.

 

[Spaceboy]

dont get it..the other alliance that is waiting, didn't had a good match neither when they got into the queue. Question is what jobs are running to find a good match? Every second ?

I do not see why taking into account both alliances, it will be better. It is already doing it today as both alliances are looking for a good match no?. We had matches where on the other side they had double (!) xp points, so the margin was > 100%

 

[No Angel]

One thing people must accept is that we will never get equal match EVERY SINGLE WAR. With new system, it will probably improve search time, get alliance with a little ''similar'' strength by ''paper''. But the result is on us still. Good attacks are good attacks. Good strategies are good strategies. Somebody still has to win and lose in the end. Try to accept that.

 

[witCat]

I’m at lv181 AA and I empathize with players of high level whos bases are destroyed in less than 2 minutes. There’s a reason you have spent your time or money in building the best defensive base possible for it not to be 5 starred. I feel I’m objective as I havn’t used the AR and bazooka combination yet, still need to upgrade those (both still at lv1). However, If this is the way forward, why work on defense at all if your base will certainly be 5 starred in each and every war. Should I therefore only focus on upgrading Bazookas and AR’s? I guess this is the general thinking of most if not all lower level players. Certainly an Alliance utilizing the Bazooka/AR combination will most certainly triumph over one that uses, lets say heavy tanks, as there times will always be faster in the event of a tie. After a year of playing I’m more confused than ever. Suggestion: before the rebalance certain troop tactics required 2 troop space, maybe this could be an option to consider - instead of having 7 AR’s, a player willl now have only 3. OR: keep status quo and limit the number of any specific troop tactic to not more than 2 e.g. instead of 7 AR’s now (2 AR’s, 2 Sabotage, 2 protect and 1 Decoy) you are thus forced to use a variety of tactics instead of just one. This will certainly be a test of skill and strategy.

 

[Cannibals]

Today the comparison range is an absolute value, so your chance of getting a lopsided match Is higher if you have lower O/D rating. Under the new system, your chance of getting a lopsided match would seem to be equal no matter what your O/D rating. So where you may have had instant matches in the past, expect to wait longer for a better match. Sounds good to me.

 

[jagadeeshgarapati]

That is the difference between people who invested money and time. People who invested time will wait for proper fix but who invested money keep complaining on everything

 

[Manifesto]

My 2 cents:
I don't think it's necessarily people who spend money that complain, l think it's people that generally feel entitled.

 

[Manifesto]

limit the number of any specific troop tactic to not more than 2 e.g. instead of 7 AR’s now (2 AR’s, 2 Sabotage, 2 protect and 1 Decoy) you are thus forced to use a variety of tactics instead of just one. This will certainly be a test of skill and strategy.

Where have we heard that before?

 

[Spaceboy]

dont know manifesto..I read it somewhere else too...but where? hmmm

 

[Alexey]

I feel like I need to say it once more - it’s a bad idea. Don’t worry, overpowered AR won’t be here for long, so relax and just enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Radzeer]

The proof of the pudding is the eating...


Those alliances with hacked and maxed SA accounts will have to adapt to find a match, I believe... so some sort of an indirect fix for cheating/hacking is inside.

Now those accounts needs to be rolled back a bit by the hackers themselves, lol, maybe the will auto report themselves

Those 5 star hits with the Iron Age accounts is probably also history, unless the clean alliances will use sandbags. So also some sort of a solution against cheating.

But for the likes of SWIFT(The Muslims)/GARUDA/Romania Stars we still need a strict policy.

I'd suggest to give an opportunity to the Leaders to decline a match in the 1st hour of the Planning Day (max 3 times in a row, let's say). How about that?

 

[Xabar]

TinSoldier BHG_Muet . Improving defenses are totally desestimulated. The AR tactic Stats overloaded.

-The actual AR (90%), protect more than a Protec Tactic (50%). The protect efect of AR have to be lower than 25% or 0%. To make the Protec useful again (Damage reduction)
-The duration is exagerated too.
-The speed boost at 170% is too much. 100% at level 4 tactic.
-Attack Speed Increase have to be lowered
-Damage Increase have to be 100% at level 4 tactic.
****But, you can convine the AR with a Protect

Ex. Level 1:
-Damage reduction: 5% (+5%/level)
-Duration: 9 seg (+1seg/level)
-Speed boost: 70% (+10%/level)
-Attack Speed: 30% (-5%/level)
​​​​​​​-Damage Increase: 70% (+10%/level)

Ex. Level 4:
-Damage reduction: 20%
-Duration: 12 seg
-Speed boost: 100%
-Attack Speed: 15%
-Damage Increase: 100%

 

[No Angel]

This is WW matchmaking topic though

 

[Cannibals]

I think the delta described is the one between the aggregate O/D war weights, not the delta between the players in an alliance. The change is to compare the difference between the two alliances as a percent rather than an absolute difference. The effect would be that the range of those you can be matched is wider when you are at the high end and more narrow when you are at the low end. This is in addition to the std-dev or whatever it is comparison to make sure sandbagging alliances (who would have high variance between members) aren’t matched with non-sandbagging alliances (who would have low variance between members). Upon reflection, I think they had to change to use a percent delta so that their fix for sandbagging would scale correctly down to low ages.