Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new matching is terrible

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The new matching is terrible

    Unless your playing for the top 100 and want to hit top alliances all the time then the war match is terrible. Ar duration is too short now other tactics are useless , bastion are way over done . Losing every war to top teams kills morale I have now been in 3 teams since the matching killed my teams sprit and all quit playing a few weeks ago. On each of the teams the war match is exactly the same +3 or more space age vs whatever we have always a top 100 team and by using dominations.pl it's shoes that about 60% of the top 100 cheats to win either with the matrix or hacked museums they have to I guess because it is allowed now and expected in the cheat to compete environment . This just is getting worse and worse just as I said would happen in post made during the change. I just wish this would go back to the way it was before it was destroyed

  • #2
    can I suggest something? Join a lower ranked alliance (13000-16000 glory) and enjoy the game again. There aren't many cheaters there.
    Hellas Empire
    Ψαχνουμε παικτες για πολεμους απο επιπεδο 100 και πανω.

    Comment


    • JustAnotherPlayer
      JustAnotherPlayer commented
      Editing a comment
      Good suggestion,I might start looking for such an alliance for my first war experience.

    • W1ll1am
      W1ll1am commented
      Editing a comment
      Tomb raiderz

    • Chadwicke
      Chadwicke commented
      Editing a comment
      Alliance us in that range and falling

  • #3
    Chad, I disagree. War matching is much better and BHG did a good job balancing things out. I remind you, 5 star attacks shouldn’t be the norm. As for the Bastions, I feel they add a new challenging component to the game. They also help the player to be more creative in base designing. Again, the Bastions were a brilliant idea by BHG.
    Maybe some players were spoiled and that’s why they are leaving you. In the top 100 levels it’s suppose to be difficult, not a cake walk. Other then replays being more wrong then right and the Bastion base building bug the game is much better now. Be like water and adapt .
    My Game ID is Dradis

    Comment


    • sponge
      sponge commented
      Editing a comment
      Bastions are way op right now, If you're unlucky to get stuck in one, it's game over. I've seen people using 3 AR's to get out of it, but by that time, you're usually swarmed by defenders. Bastions need balancing asap.

    • NateTheGreat
      NateTheGreat commented
      Editing a comment
      Just be better at avoiding Bastions. My combinations that include more commandos work to great affect. And now people can't just drop 6 Mk8 heavy tanks and sit back and watch lv 250+ bases melt. The bastions slowing heavy tanks means you really need to be careful to avoid them.

      I can still 5* lv 240 and below multiplayer bases with my commando, rpg, heavy tank combo. I throw coalitions, TT, and generals into that mix and it makes for an all out brawl in wars.

  • #4
    I think there are pros and cons to the new matchmaking system.

    Pros:
    -Matches are generally more competitive than before. The old 1-glory wars that were far too common in the old system are pretty much gone.
    -Sandbagging is a far less effective "strategy" than before. I see top teams carrying 3 or 4 bags now, compared to 8+ in the old system.

    Cons:
    -LOOONNGGG wait times to find a match
    -Rematches are more common
    -It has led to some oddities on the leaderboard. There is an alliance currently in the top 10 who wouldn't be able to compete with anybody near them in the rankings. They have low overall war weight and likely only do 10v10 or 20v20. I'm sure they are a competent, well organized alliance, but with the new matching algorithm they would never have to face top alliances. There are other, less extreme examples peppered all over the leaderboard. Was this a design goal or unintended consequence of the new system? I'm guessing the latter.

    Comment


    • NateTheGreat
      NateTheGreat commented
      Editing a comment
      I'd love to see 1 month long seasons with 10, 20, 30, 40 player wars each as their own category. This would make the leader boards more meaningful

  • #5
    Chadwicke Wars have improved massive for us. We didn't rush and enjoy every age. Our top player is Atomic, one global and the rest industrial or below.
    We're currently ranked around the top 1000.
    Winning all those wars is great and mostly where fighting alliances that should have a advantage on us by ages.
    What surprises me is that our opponents are way lower in glory then us the last few wars. I would have expected it to become harder and more close wars to or own ranking.
    We don't want and should be a top 100 alliance that's for the 50vs50 space age teams.
    The way I look at it now any team even if playing a fair game can enter the top 100.
    I personally never asked for a spot in the top, just not us fighting 6 atomics vs 1 atomic and one global.
    For us they fixed that.
    Join us at Outcasts United. All ages welcome.

    Comment


    • #6
      Chadwicke
      Before the new update we were complaining about matchmaking, begging for an update. Now the update has been done and guess what...we are still complaining.
      going step by step I would say:
      - AR it was obvious that they were about to reduce it...too much or too less doesnt matter, they did it. What I can say is that Protect tactic was a good one, they reduced it once introduced the AR, but now they did not extend it again.
      - we "Simpaticoni ITA" are around 13k glory and it works good. Before the update we got many 2 - 800 WW now it more like 400 - 200 or 300 - 300.
      - Bastions, really good idea, at least it made me change the layout since the missile silo, the point is that I'm not sure they solved the bug in the base editor.
      - last but not least the more raped topic..cheaters....I'm CWA 227, 2500medals count; never saw a cheater in 4 years playing...maybe I'm just lucky.
      Last edited by TinSoldier; 06-11-2019, 03:01 PM.

      Comment


      • #7
        My alliance has lost only one matchup in our last 10+ match-ups since the change. And the one loss was very close. Usually we are matched pretty even, we had a couple where we were probably he clear favorite, but that was not common. So overall it's been an improvement for us.
        Join Warhalla if you're looking for an active and committed alliance. Awesome group of gamers who have lots of fun!

        Comment


        • #8
          We are 1000 ranked just because we have 300s means we get top 100 teams every war how to fix it take out the 300s meaning we wasted our money building our bases what fun if war if for a team to win you can't be in the war

          Comment


          • #9
            For example war we are in we have 314,298, 297 283,273 making the top then 5 industrial age and mix of 250-230 ages total is 6 sa, 9 cold war and 5 industrial age the other team 16 space age 328,324,320,308,304,302,300,,290,288,283,281,278,2 73,270,268,267,254,252 how is that fair all war looks like this

            Comment


            • #10
              For example war we are in we have 314,298, 297 283,273 making the top then 5 industrial age and mix of 250-230 ages total is 6 sa, 9 cold war and 5 industrial age the other team 16 space age 328,324,320,308,304,302,300,,290,288,283,281,278,2 73,270,268,267,254,252 how is that fair all war looks like this

              Comment


              • #11
                What team is that Chad? You must be facing a top 20 (or newly formed veteran) alliance if that's the enemy formation 😂
                I suggest try to search war at diferent times to see the patterns, cause most alliances have searching time pattern and cancel when it hasn't met a match after 15 minutes then try again after a while.

                As Wrathchild said, alliances below 15K are (should be) chill and less competitive. If you're trying to get (back) to top 100 (again) there's a lot of stressful path you must be facing 😉
                Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
                ​​​​​​

                Comment


                • Chadwicke
                  Chadwicke commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Always the same basically every war now starts by saying we got no chance

              • #12
                Lately the matchups have been getting worse. The last one and now this one are particularly gruesome but the last 5-6 have started skewing in a bad way. I'm the only CWA player in our alliance. The rest is AA and lower. Since we lost a few players we've been going 20v20. Right now it seems like the only thing the game considered was that my alliance has more glory than the other side. Right now the gain is 144 or 446 loss. Currently the other side has 9 space age bases all with (4) lvl 60 or 70 generals due to pentagon, 6 cwa 230+ and than some global and industrial. Collectively they are probably 600-800 lvls above us. Putting aside their obvious cheating to get maxed out everything, it doesn't seem quite fair. This is by far the worst matchup we've gotten and on top of that we are losing a lot of glory solely based on us having more glory.

                Comment


                • Bootney Lee Fonsworth
                  Editing a comment
                  It's because there are hardly any middle class alliances anymore. The rebalance destroyed the ability to hit up more than one age until folks are fairly deep into their development. So the Space Agers and heavy CWAs most likely see the futility of being the only heavy in their groups and look to band together so they can actually get anywhere. The power gap between say, industrial and atomic or global and CWA, is so enormous now that the algorithm can't possibly find a fair matchup anymore. It tries, hence the increase in matchup times. But unless someone is content to sit there and respin every ten minutes for possibly hours then eventually the parameters broaden and it just pairs you with whomever it can.

                  So matches may indeed be closer for top heavy alliances or lower aged ones like Berende's above but if you happen to be a mixed group with a Space/CWA or two and a mix after that you're pretty much screwed.

                  Despite all their bluster about the algorithm changes I think all they did was tighten up the initial search parameters considerably, after an hour of spinning though it's the same old same old.

              • #13
                This game is way too top heavy for minor tweaks in matchmaking to ever provide consistently compelling matchups. Not to mention the rebalance has made it way too hard for most newer players to get 5 star victories in multiplayer so they just use raiders for everything. That may be fine and dandy for gaining resources but means most are utterly clueless when it comes to wars. So between constant frustrating 1-2 victories and the realization that it will probably take years to become remotely competitive very few stick it out for the long haul. Why should they? There are thousands of games and a world of entertainment options out there, I wouldn't stick with a fruitless grind either if I picked the game up today.

                Eventually long timers leave for myriad reasons and that 225 atomic with a solid uni and museum isn't going to be replaced by a new player for probably close to 2 years from today. Even those plucky gunpowders that are soldiering on are in for a rude awakening when build times double in industrial age, which isn't even the halfway point of the game anymore. Throw in the cumbersome, unintuitive disaster that they've made of the museum, which is also required to be competitive, and it's a miracle that matchmaking isn't worse than it is.

                All games encounter attrition. Most games are smart enough to realize that and take steps to lower the barriers to entry after a few years. This one absolutely refuses to. In fact, they keep doubling down and making things more difficult across the board. On my gpa alt it's an absolute nightmare to get the crowns to open up both library and armory slots. And you want me to cough up 250 of them for 5 museum storage on top of that? Why? Because crowns only come from videos maybe once a week and I'm attacked maybe once a month down there. It's not a big deal to me becsuse it's my fourth rodeo at this point. But it's probably a different story for the guy who just started a few weeks/months ago.

                Clearly this game is on autopilot as the year and a half wait for a wonder selection, the offensive missile silo and absolutely nothing else new in Space Age can attest to. So it may well go for another ten years. But without a serious rebuild of matchmaking, the 5 star or bust economy, and the absurdly high amount of time, resources and/or cash to become at least somewhat competitive we old timers may be considering these the good old days of war matchmaking within a year or two. Probably far less.

                Tl;dr: A shrinking veteran player base due to natural attrition, plus ever increasing barriers to entry for potential replacements, plus a ridiculous amount of unseen variables that may or may not be part of the Colonel's Original Reci---------ahem- the Sooper Dooper Secret BHG Matchotron 5000 algorithm means this is probably the best they can do with wars as they and the game in general are currently constructed.
                Last edited by Bootney Lee Fonsworth; 05-29-2019, 09:49 PM.

                Comment


                • KniferX
                  KniferX commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Seeing a well constructed and thought out post on this forum? Might as well start searching for unicorns now.

              • #14
                match making is very good for alliances which have more atomic players. alliances with 4 or more space age keeps getting mismatch. sand bagging is not a solution to reduce average. understand this logic and you will be fine with match making.

                Comment


                • #15
                  Having more CW in alliance is no good either. Yes to what Jagadeesh just said.
                  We lost current war due to more CW in the roster. Put rushed atomic and it should be fine (I guess), if you belong to midlower rank alliances.
                  I'm not sure about size, but I experienced size 10 and 30 gave us mismatch.
                  ​​​​​
                  Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
                  ​​​​​​

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X