Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Works war matchmaking system still sucks!

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

  • Works war matchmaking system still sucks!

    Our current war

    Us: 6 cold wars, 4 atomics, 1 global, 2 industrials, 1 enlightenment, 3 classics , 3 irons vs.

    them: 4 space age, 1 Cold War, 4 atomics, 4 industrials, 2 enlightenment, 2 gunpowder, 3 irons.

    Their top 5 are level 333,333,318, 279, 243= 1,506

    Our top 5: 263, 261, 233, 252, 249= 1,258

    Wars are won in the top. As long as the first half of players are strong enough, the war is won because they can finish the second half easily.

    While nexon finds a better matchmaking system (which I doubt) we need a CANCEL WAR button! Where both opponents get something like 5 minutes to cancel. And maybe no more than 3 cancel war chances.

  • #2
    Age...You|Them
    SA ......|XXXX
    CW XXXXXX|X...
    AA ..XXXX|XXXX
    GL .....X|....
    IN ....XX|XXXX
    EN .....X|XX..
    GP ......|XX..
    MD ......|....
    CA ...XXX|....
    IR ...XXX|XXX.


    Their distribution is more even than yours, so you have fewer teams to match against. You will have to wait around in the queue until another similarly-skewed clan comes along or eventually get matched against this lot instead. Don’t blame the matching algorithm for your fringe team makeup.
    Last edited by Cannibals; 07-06-2019, 09:52 AM.

    Comment


    • Aspergaon
      Aspergaon commented
      Editing a comment
      So which is the appropriate mix of ages we need to include? We divide half from all of our allies so while half is getting diamonds and national trade goods the other half is in war. Sometimes we just include whoever is active. We also need to leave out of war whoever didn’t accomplished both attacks. And of course we leave the irons in so we don’t get this monster enemies impossible to beat. where can I read the new world war instructions?

  • #3
    We've had a run of impossible wars recently too. From the comments I've seen on this forum recently it looks like a lot of alliances have stopped warring because of the lag problems created by the last update. Fewer teams in the pool makes it harder to find fair matches.

    But I've been saying for a long time that only the top half of the war roster should be used in the matchmaking calculations - they are the ones that usually decide the outcome of a war. This would have the added advantage of eliminating sandbagging overnight. The only drawback is that new iron and classical age accounts would find it much harder to get into wars

    Comment


    • Aspergaon
      Aspergaon commented
      Editing a comment
      I agree completely. Top half decides. In the meantime while they fix which I believe they won’t, we need a CANCEL WAR button working for the first 5 minutes after war has been activated.

  • #4
    I have an idea to fight sandbagging:

    1) Any unused war attacks from the bottom half of a team’s lineup will result in 3 additional stars for the other team per unused attack.
    2) Any war attack from the bottom half of a team’s lineup that gets 0 stars will result in 2 additional stars for the other team. The bottom half players can avoid penalizing their team under this condition by a) Going in to battle with a full complement of troops, tactics, and generals AND deploying all of them in battle.

    Thoughts?

    Comment


    • Aspergaon
      Aspergaon commented
      Editing a comment
      Sounds good as long as attacking even with a cero stars result is better than not doing it.

  • #5
    but this isnt a case of losing to sandbaggers. the op’s team had 6 sandbags and the opponents had 3. this is a case of the algorithm working diligently to match sandbaggers with other sandbaggers.
    Victory Chest & League Boat Rewards
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing


    Expedition General Bonus Rewards
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

    Comment


    • #6
      I 've been telling lately that its better NOT to sandbag at all. You Aspergaon have a good line up. By inserting at the end all those very small accounts, you are doing more bad than good.
      It's better to have something like this:

      1 space age
      5 cwa
      6 atomic
      3 global
      2 industrial
      2 enlightenment
      1 gunpowder

      And then choose 3D or 3O coalitions purely depending on players offensive capability.
      Which means that all the bad attackers go 3D and attack low numbers and all attackers get 3O or 2O+1D and close with 5 stars all the enemy bases.
      This is what we do and we find it to be very effective.

      If you want, I can upload some WW plans to better assist you
      Greek Myrmidons
      Ψαχνουμε παικτες για πολεμους απο επιπεδο 100 και πανω.

      Comment


      • Rogue Squirrel
        Rogue Squirrel commented
        Editing a comment
        My problem is that since they got rid of 15v15 and 25v25 wars, I have to include sandbag accounts just to make up the numbers. Either that or tell some people who want to join in that they can't - which I'm not willing to do.....

      • wrathchild_78
        wrathchild_78 commented
        Editing a comment
        We also favored 15 player wars BUT there is our major difference!! I am willing to tell them that they will go on rotation. So, instead of playing 3-4 wars per week, they will play 2. Everyone accepts that btw.

        Moreover, out of the 10 players, 4-5 players participate to every single WW because without them we would not win. They form our offensive squad and it is those people that bring the stars. The other 5 people are our defence squad. They 5 star the easy targets and so we have balance in the force!!! hahahaa

      • No Angel
        No Angel commented
        Editing a comment
        I agree with this idea. Only problem is, many casual leaders and casual alliances will not follow this path; then keep complaining about bad matches lol😉
        Also I'm pretty amazed how alliances with a lot of heavy weight SA players complain they get outweighed really 😂

    • #7
      Dominations is a strategy game, and like it or not, matchmaking is a strategic element. Maybe some don’t realize it but matchmaking is a search engine. You provide it with an example of what you are looking for (based on your team makeup) and it returns the top match closest to your example loosened based on search time. Predatory leaders take advantage of this by setting their team makeup so when they get an unbalanced match, the match is in their favor.

      It used to be that sandbagging was a workable strategy, but the new matchmaking algorithms made that not work anymore. If you are still sandbagging, you’ll either get matched up against another sandbagging alliance or you will get an unfair match where the balance is against you. Knowing this, predatory leaders are setting their makeup to try and match against sandbagging alliances who get stuck in the queue when there are too few sandbagging alliances actively searching.

      The current working strategy is to have a more evenly distributed team spanning all ages with slightly more members in the lower half. This will other get you a fair match, or it will get you one of those sandbagging alliances where you will have the upper hand.

      The matchmaking system is neither Good or Bad, it just Is. And if you learn how to use it, you can get the type of matches you want.
      Last edited by Cannibals; 07-09-2019, 04:34 AM.

      Comment


      • #8
        Anyways, does war weight get screwed literally? In current war, opponent with maxed AA bunkers and air defenses rank below these 2 guys with level 1 bunkers and air defenses. Other building levels are similar.
        Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
        ​​​​​​

        Comment


        • #9
          the whole problem in injustice matchmaking is not the algorithm but the bug for sa players that their war weight is not calculated correctly. Fix this, and the matchmaking will auto fix itself
          Greek Myrmidons
          Ψαχνουμε παικτες για πολεμους απο επιπεδο 100 και πανω.

          Comment


          • #10
            the war matching used to suck as you say, and now it is worse than that, waste of time to war with these stupid match ups

            Comment


            • #11
              Dude, its not much about the difference in age, levels or the number of strong-looking people that comes to matchmaking. My alliance has like 3 atomics, 2 globals, 2 industrials, the other 13 being enlightenment or lower. But even after facing people with 2 cold wars and 4 atomics, we can win sometimes. Matchmaking is about measuring the skill and potential the two alliances have when facing each other. As long as you have solid defence and great attacking strategies, i am sure your alliance can stand a chance against those space age guys.

              Comment


              • #12
                Dude, its not much about the difference in age, levels or the number of strong-looking people that comes to matchmaking. My alliance has like 3 atomics, 2 globals, 2 industrials, the other 13 being enlightenment or lower. But even after facing people with 2 cold wars and 4 atomics, we can win sometimes. Matchmaking is about measuring the skill and potential the two alliances have when facing each other. As long as you have solid defence and great attacking strategies, i am sure your alliance can stand a chance against those space age guys.

                Comment


                • No Angel
                  No Angel commented
                  Editing a comment
                  That's a nice team you have there. May I know what alliance you in? I might pay a visit 😊
              Working...
              X