Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Please change war match algorithm

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

  • Please change war match algorithm

    stop using overall strength for finding matches. It will work much better if only the top 50% or 60% are weighted against each other. So many alliances out there using lvl 16 accounts just trying to draw easy opponents for a win. Besides, most of the time, it’s really the top few players that determine which team is gonna win.

  • #2
    Makes sense. 50% of war size from the first rank would be best.
    Points of measurements :
    - player xp
    - defensive researches
    - offensive researches
    I've seen most matchmakings are based on defensive researches only, and that ain't fair.​​​
    ​​​​​
    Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
    ​​​​​​

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh ok, my alliance which has a wider variety of ages would just lose to an alliance with uniform ages.

      Comment


      • #4
        FroggyKilla That is wrong! What would happen if this theory could be implemented is,
        Let's say war size is 10 vs 10. Both alliances are matched starting from rank 1-5, based on player XP, offensive and defensive researches. That means both alliances have equal opportunity to get perfect score in that war! It's not your lower ranks that will hurt your war, but it's always your top rank players, if they are organized to cover the WHOLE WAR ATTACKS, you have a better chance to win.
        There's no math or complicated algorithm needed in such war.
        ​​​​
        Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
        ​​​​​​

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by No Angel View Post
          FroggyKilla That is wrong! What would happen if this theory could be implemented is,
          Let's say war size is 10 vs 10. Both alliances are matched starting from rank 1-5, based on player XP, offensive and defensive researches. That means both alliances have equal opportunity to get perfect score in that war! It's not your lower ranks that will hurt your war, but it's always your top rank players, if they are organized to cover the WHOLE WAR ATTACKS, you have a better chance to win.
          There's no math or complicated algorithm needed in such war.
          ​​​​
          Yea sure we can get a perfect score, but the existence of a tiebreaker based on time to win, and my lower half was completed faster than their lower half. The lower ranks would still hurt you in that regard. Honestly, I’d just have an xp/age cutoff. Say my lowest player was a lvl 100/enlightenment. My alliance would not be matched with anyone with a lowest of 99/Gunpowder or below. Removes the sandbagging problem with less repercussions.

          Comment


          • No Angel
            No Angel commented
            Editing a comment
            There's an easy solution for total battle timer, just make sure your top ranks finish their attacks as fast as possible, and your lower ranks get quick victory and quit 😇

            Don't forget that even someone below your age/level could hit harder than you, so only XP/level approach alone wouldn't really work.
            Last edited by No Angel; 09-01-2018, 09:00 AM.

          • FroggyKilla
            FroggyKilla commented
            Editing a comment
            -_- (10char).

          • No Angel
            No Angel commented
            Editing a comment
            Hugs! 😆 (10 char)

        • #6
          Now, are we completely sure it doesnt just match against the same number of players searching at the same time.....

          Cos that's what it seems like recently....

          I think the science behind it disappeared a loooong time ago!

          PMSL


          Mus
          British Lions!
          British Lions!!

          Comment


          • No Angel
            No Angel commented
            Editing a comment
            I believe they still use quite a few algorithm, but when requirements don't meet, of course war size and time would be the closest ''algorithm'' otherwise there will be no war waged 😅

          • yemen
            yemen commented
            Editing a comment
            I think they have a better algorithm, but the range widens fairly quickly as you don't match, until you do get a match and it is pretty terrible. Of course, we get instant terrible matches regularly, but normally I assume the other team was searching for a little bit before they matched us.

        • #7
          Sometimes WW are so unbalanced that weaker alliances choose to not battle. They should fix this because WW are getting boring. At least add a surrender button.

          Comment


          • #8
            9/10 out of 10 my alliance war matchups are way over or under balanced. Out of the hundreds of wars we have had there have been a handful of equal matches and those have always been the most fun and most intense. In the last month our matches have been so unbelievably uneven that it has led war to be a complete disappointment. Nexon is obviously monkeying around and doing so at the peril of losing players. I know they only care about money and I get that it’s a business but they have become too short sighted and are missing out on the bigger picture. There’s a reason fortnight is killing it and it’s because matchup algorithm is decent and you can’t buy a win.

            Comment


            • #9
              I want to see what their algorithm is.

              Comment


              • #10
                Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20180916-145508_1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	8.2 KB
ID:	633316

                Lmao 🤣 I think all of us here are fools?!
                Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
                ​​​​​​

                Comment

                Working...
                X