Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World War FAQ: Matchmaking

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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?

    Comment


    • #47
      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!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

      Comment


      • #48
        I am tired of having bad war matchmaking! It will suck if none of these rebalance stages fix matchmaking!
        Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
        ​​​​​​

        Comment


        • #49
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            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
            Last edited by NameX1; 10-30-2018, 09:44 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              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.

              Comment


              • #52
                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!
                Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
                ​​​​​​

                Comment


                • #53
                  @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.
                  Last edited by NameX1; 12-03-2018, 07:34 PM. Reason: typo

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X