War Matchups

[b4davis]

How is it that a guild ranked 115 gets matched with a guild ranked 15? Methinks the algorithm is badly flawed.

[Vile Lynn]

It's more like there are not enough guilds declaring around your rank for the algorithm to work... or would you rather wait 25-30mins or longer for a more "proper" match?

The top guilds declare non-stop. The longer the wait, the wider the algorithm parameters become.

[xWolfSlayerx]

I agree with Vile, I mean some ppl (a lot actually) are very impatient and plus, you didn't have to declare in the first place anyways.

[BillyGates]

Actually I was thinking how no one has probably posted and commented how Gree seems to have done a 'bug free' war with fast matchup times? :)

All we use to hear is, war broken again... blah blah blah...

Any way, good work Gree! LOL

[Jnsolberg]

Actually I was thinking how no one has probably posted and commented how Gree seems to have done a 'bug free' war with fast matchup times? :)

All we use to hear is, war broken again... blah blah blah...

Any way, good work Gree! LOL

Omg, if you tell Gree that they did an event well, it's a sure way to get them to ruin it for next time.

[SenorSwamp]

It's more like there are not enough guilds declaring around your rank for the algorithm to work... or would you rather wait 25-30mins or longer for a more "proper" match?

The top guilds declare non-stop. The longer the wait, the wider the algorithm parameters become.

What she said.

[plavine]

However , the algorithm now seems to overweight current position in matching up without much regard to guild strength. My guild is usually between 140-175 for the entire weekend and we got 4 matches with top 100 teams including 2 top 50 who just happened to be next us in their quest for guild goals . The two teams and mine are not even close in strength. To add to that, one was legendary and one epic . We had no targets . We hit the wall and had to wait for next . Not really much fun . This is still supposed to be fun , right ??
Guild strength needs to be more included so that the middle teams don't have to face a GG stronger than their whole team .

[Ryosaeba]

Put it this way, Gree has no reason to match you guys up with a guild you can't touch. If you can't hit, they don't make money. When we match up with teams that pretty much "gave up" from the get go, we use our free hits only. When we're matched with a similar strength team, we tend to score big. Even bigger if we were on a streak. And even bigger if they too were on a streak. We tend to use gems/refills when the match ups are close, not when it's an easy win.

And they are definitely NOT trying to prevent you from getting a streak goal on purpose. Again, if they prevent you from getting stronger, then they aren't making money because you aren't able to make hits. With so many match ups, you are bound to run into an "impossible" guild due to the randomness nature of the game.

[SenorSwamp]

However , the algorithm now seems to overweight current position in matching up without much regard to guild strength. My guild is usually between 140-175 for the entire weekend and we got 4 matches with top 100 teams including 2 top 50 who just happened to be next us in their quest for guild goals . The two teams and mine are not even close in strength. To add to that, one was legendary and one epic . We had no targets . We hit the wall and had to wait for next . Not really much fun . This is still supposed to be fun , right ??
Guild strength needs to be more included so that the middle teams don't have to face a GG stronger than their whole team .

Plavine,

I hear your complaint--I really do-- but I do not agree that it is an issue that should be addressed. To make the adjustment you suggest would fundamentally change the gameplay for the negative, as it would mean only the top 3 guilds could reasonably get the streak quests--and only then if they colluded and did not play each other. Every guild would then become, in effect, a rank guild and a significant portion of the game strategy would melt away.

Again, I hear you. I have been on both sides of this dynamic and it is not fun to be on the losing end.

[plavine]

Plavine,

I hear your complaint--I really do-- but I do not agree that it is an issue that should be addressed. To make the adjustment you suggest would fundamentally change the gameplay for the negative, as it would mean only the top 3 guilds could reasonably get the streak quests--and only then if they colluded and did not play each other. Every guild would then become, in effect, a rank guild and a significant portion of the game strategy would melt away.

Again, I hear you. I have been on both sides of this dynamic and it is not fun to be on the losing end.

If a guild can stay low for the streak fine , good for them , but just because a top 50 team happens to be in170 th place ( an example ) doesn't mean they should be matched with teams around them in the standings . I know matchups can't be "perfect " every time . But to get a team whose level 100 minis are higher than the other teams GG is rediculous . This only happens with a few teams

[Acadian]

that is part of the reason they gave us all attack buffs for wars, it did make that happen a lot less.