World War matchup issues

[omgomgomg]

Matchup method
World War alliances are matched base on
(a) similar total combatants' "strength"
(b) similar Glory count, total strength is the total attacking and the defensive score of a member, similar to levels of a player.


The problem that we have is WW has match up was too flawed in the aspect of offense and def score.

For example, assuming there is 10v10 world war on side A we have 10 industrial bases with LVL 150-200 with a combined score range of 1500-2000 (assumption) on Side B will get matched up with 5 Digital age bases 300+ and 5 iron/ bases avg lvl of 10 ie, a combined score starting 1550+. If we look at the score as the combined number it seems its a fair match but the result of the world war would be 0 stars vs 100 stars


The introduction of Space-age difference was visible but with the digital age, it became a total outmatch. In our alliance, we have many who are level 250+ who are just atomic it becomes high level and low age players are a huge burden in WW.

In our current WW (20v20) our team has 2 space-age got matched up vs 7 digital age based on our offense strength we do not have power to 5* at least 9 of their players. So we start the war with a 45-star deficit whereas their top 9 is assured of 90 stars.


We request dominations to address how the matchup occurs if no high level with low age players faces elimination from alliances.

 

[Black tiger]

For example, assuming there is 10v10 world war on side A we have 10 industrial bases with LVL 150-200 with a combined score range of 1500-2000 (assumption) on Side B will get matched up with 5 Digital age bases 300+ and 5 iron/ bases avg lvl of 10 ie, a combined score starting 1550+. If we look at the score as the combined number it seems its a fair match but the result of the world war would be 0 stars vs 100 stars.

Excuse me, did you just say that your team with 10 Industrial Age bases of LVL 150-200 can’t get a single star against a team with 5 Iron Age bases of LVL 10? I think you mean the score would be a loss of 25-50 and if so, point taken. It’s called sandbagging and has been going on for years now. Nexon said they would address it with a fancy algorithm about a year ago, but it didn’t work and just made matchmaking take longer. Don’t hold your breath for any improvements - they don’t know what to do and care even less.

 

[theBobNamedDan]

There are those that claim “we just add the sand bags required to get to the next match level” but in reality, when I see sandbags it is typically 20v20 with them having 7-8 sandbags.

we have about 22 players eligible for war and so we stay in the 20v20 range. We get about 5 bad matches, 3 cake walks and 2 even matches out of 10 wars. It is OK. We are not trying to compete though. Just to get to lvl 15 and collect rubies.

I also like the challenge of war. I am Lvl 258 AA and am the top player in my alliance. I am somewhere between 1000 and 1100 Uni researches done and I know I throw the weight way up. I normally take Space Age and below without difficulty though. Moving up at Summer of Ages to CW. I am just working Mills and Markets and Oil Wells now.

we span from AA with a couple of new CW bases down to Midevil in most matches. We average 36/40 attacks made though. None of our players are inactive, just new. Not what I consider a sand bag.