Matchups: worst ever let's hear.

[plavine]

My guild is just out of the top 500 .
With out listing everything let me sum up my teams matchups like this . My most recent one (11:30 am Monday ) was against a 20 person team whose GG was 9.6 mil . My guild has 44 players . I have 2 players above 3 mil and 3 players 2.5-3 mil.
Their lowest player was level 56 with 117 allies whose defense was just under 2.8 mil.

[garen argon]

We were a top 150 guild and got Samurai Blood (top 3). That was painful.

[Iron Maiden]

I can imagine that being in a lower ranked guild you guys would hit a lot of splinter guilds. That being said- even at the higher ranks we see some pretty crazy matchups and some very impossible splinters with 30 mill stats for a level 60. I guess what I am trying to tell you is that there are always bigger fish and since there are bigger fish there will always be matches that are very tough. I will assume at more than one point in the war your team fought guilds that your team was able to hit and make lots of points easily... Its just part of the game.

[KM KAge]

Horrid matchups. Had 9 matchups yesterday, where we just put our machines down and took a break. They were not all splinter guilds, some were just all powerhouses. On all of the other matches Sunday, we all lined up to hit one target, typically below lvl 50.
We also matched up with a series of top 25's, (some top 10's), and splinter guilds on Fri, Sat, and today. Oh yeah, we are top 150. The matchups have been so bad that members have stopped showing up.

[Shiloh]

The splinter guild matchups were worse this war than ever before for us, and we got some top 10 guild action as well, and we are also only a top 150. I continue to be frustrated by this matching.

[Valid or]

Yea matching wasent very good, but what good dose it do to complain? Gree doesn't listen, and with 3000-4000 people(leader board points) spending gems, we few must be wrong.
If we are all so un-impressed with gree why do we keep spending?

[garen argon]

the matching was fine. we ran into guilds we crushed and some that crushed us. nature of the beast. the point of the post is which one was the worst.

[Krayt]

First off, running into more splinter groups. If you didn't see that coming this war you really aren't paying attention. Anyone who was paying attention would have know that there was more splinter groups because of the quality of the unit/bonuses being given based on guild rank.

Secondly, if you guild remained relatively the same members wise in the top 150 or better then your chances of meeting a top guild increased because of those same top guild splintering. Once again, something that should have foreseen.

As for match ups.
So you belong to a guild and are going out to fight in wars. You have no problem if your guild goes out and crushes some other guild where you completely dominate them. But the very next fight that happens to you and it's not right? You choose your guild, you choose the people you decided to fight with, you choose how you were going to fight. The only thing you can't choose is your opponent but you can have an idea of who you want to match yourself up with. You wanna run with big dogs then don't complain when one runs you done (or several in a row).

I have been in various guilds in my time. This war I select a group of individuals who I wanted to fight with. We decide what strategies worked best and it changes on the fly. Some wars we went out and crushed weaker opponents. Sometimes it was an even fight down to the wire. Then sometimes we finished opponents that crushed us in stats. But we fought as a guild and that strategy took us to 56-1. It's not who you fight, it's how you fight.

[Ebes]

I think the match-up algorithms need tweaked, seriously. We ended up rank 12 and i think we had maybe a 3 or 4 win streak at best for the war(that's with declaring nonstop for the weekend). On the other hand, i now know half the names of the members of the top 3 guilds along with their stats...
I would of gem'd a lot more but banging on castle walls when there is nothing to hit is NOT worth gems, ever. I should probably assume with just under 7mil attack at level 78 that i wouldn't be able to hit much of anything in top 10. I was hoping we would be thrown a few more bones as far as match ups though. Oh well, lesson learned.

[Krayt]

Ebes, in one battle I gladly refilled 8 times JUST to hit a castle. Means to ends!

[Ebes]

Ebes, in one battle I gladly refilled 8 times JUST to hit a castle. Means to ends!

That's dedication, hope you guys won the war!

[CTRC(SW) UMBRA]

Worst War to date! Match ups where very bad. I don't know how they are configured, but we have a team of 48 and continually were matched with teams of +/-10 members (all below level 100) with stats at 10 million plus. The majority of our team is over level 150 with stats ranging 3-5 million in stats. How is this fair match up? This was not a fun event and we basically gave up and will put our GEMs toward other faction events.

[Capitalsfanatic]

I hear ya CTRC. We were continually matched against splinter guilds. They were a total mismatch. These guilds were 7-10 members, very high stats with very low skill levels. Clearly formed to prey on lower level guilds and avoid any competitive balance. Not prohibited by rule, but they sure take the fun out of a competitive event. Our guild decided not to waste either energy or gems and we just put our devices down.

[Krayt]

That's dedication, hope you guys won the war!

If we didn't do it we would have lost for sure and with it the chance for 56 straight.
We got 56 straight

[Krayt]

I hear ya CTRC. We were continually matched against splinter guilds. They were a total mismatch. These guilds were 7-10 members, very high stats with very low skill levels. Clearly formed to prey on lower level guilds and avoid any competitive balance. Not prohibited by rule, but they sure take the fun out of a competitive event. Our guild decided not to waste either energy or gems and we just put our devices down.

Once again, something you should have realized before hand.
You join a guild for some reason, you choose to if you want to stay for some reason, you choose to hit declare and fight other guilds for some reason. Did you lose every war you fought in, highly doubt it. Yet you only complain about the fights you don't win. Why should you win every time? You want to win, change your strategy cause clearly your current one isn't working otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. Also, stop complaining about splinter groups because it's anyone's choice who they go to war with. You always have options, start using them

[Just4fun]

Not every guild can win... I hope I met you guys next war :)

[Dredd JAG]

Once again, something you should have realized before hand.
You join a guild for some reason, you choose to if you want to stay for some reason, you choose to hit declare and fight other guilds for some reason. Did you lose every war you fought in, highly doubt it. Yet you only complain about the fights you don't win. Why should you win every time? You want to win, change your strategy cause clearly your current one isn't working otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. Also, stop complaining about splinter groups because it's anyone's choice who they go to war with. You always have options, start using them

It's not what everyone wants to read, but I agree. Splinters are created to take advantage of the matching algorithm, which seems to way total attack the most. So a guild of 10 high stat players will meet a guild of 30 mid/low stat players and win. It makes it very tough for the smaller guild. Our starter guild which used to place around 550 or so gets slaughtered all the time now, and I'm not sure how to combat other than make low stat/low level guilds smaller as well.

[Capitalsfanatic]

Kraut, we did use an option. We disengaged. Read my observation carefully. Not a complaint as I noted it is not prohibited by rule. I also did not say we expect to win all wars. You made an assumption that is in error. Read before passing judgment.

[Krayt]

Kraut, we did use an option. We disengaged. Read my observation carefully. Not a complaint as I noted it is not prohibited by rule. I also did not say we expect to win all wars. You made an assumption that is in error. Read before passing judgment.

You say it's not a complaint but yet you specify a certain of group that you don't like because you can not beat them. If it's not a complaint as you say, then why mention this group at all? When you talk about how a group of players play the game has affected your enjoyment of the game it's a complaint, simple as that. Anytime you mention the negative side of something it's complaining, simple English.

[Valid or]

Splinter guilds are not the problem, the problem is with the coding done by gree on how matching works, they altered it to begin with to help with matching, but they obviously dident foresee high stat people forming small guilds to battle weaker opponents, and should be looking for a way to balance it out again.

A simple fix would be to add in guild size into the equation, eg 1-15 members with 30+ mil in stats draws a similar match. Same for 10-25.. If they overlap a bit it would also help with matching times for these smaller guilds. If no match is found within 5-10mins then let the random equation take over...

[uashsar]

That's dedication, hope you guys won the war!

See Krayt's post a few above - a good one!


... This war I select a group of individuals who I wanted to fight with. We decide what strategies worked best and it changes on the fly. Some wars we went out and crushed weaker opponents. Sometimes it was an even fight down to the wire. Then sometimes we finished opponents that crushed us in stats. But we fought as a guild and that strategy took us to 56-1. It's not who you fight, it's how you fight.

[Dredd JAG]

Splinter guilds are not the problem, the problem is with the coding done by gree on how matching works, they altered it to begin with to help with matching, but they obviously dident foresee high stat people forming small guilds to battle weaker opponents, and should be looking for a way to balance it out again.

A simple fix would be to add in guild size into the equation, eg 1-15 members with 30+ mil in stats draws a similar match. Same for 10-25.. If they overlap a bit it would also help with matching times for these smaller guilds. If no match is found within 5-10mins then let the random equation take over...

I wouldn't say the problem is with the coding. Most people have a general idea of how guilds are matched up. It's up to the guilds to respond to that matching system. There is no matching system that is going to make every guild happy. 50 wins and 56 streak prizes means there are a lot of guilds that will be taking losses. You know how the matching works (more or less), what the prizes are, build your guild to take advantage.

[larrydavid]

Has Gree ever stated the algorithm F*%ks you when you are high on streaks? Because it is pretty much a fact. We were 7/8 and got FUN5 (GG 60m?, everyone 30-40m def besides one 25m player). then for the next 1-5/8 we matched guilds with their highest player half of our avg attack.

[Capitalsfanatic]

Valid, my point exactly, which Krayt seems to be missing. Gree's matching algorithm needs work to fix a competitive imbalance. That's all I was trying to get at. Perhaps not said well, but that's the crux of it, the algorithm has a loophole so to speak.

Krayt, I respect your opinion, but again you assume something not in my original post. I never said we could not beat these groups. I reread my post and I never mention not being able to beat them. You again assume something erroneously.

[alonibb]

Has Gree ever stated the algorithm F*%ks you when you are high on streaks? Because it is pretty much a fact. We were 7/8 and got FUN5 (GG 60m?, everyone 30-40m def besides one 25m player). then for the next 1-5/8 we matched guilds with their highest player half of our avg attack.

Its proven over and over again in every war. This time we got Laughing Out Loud (56 streak guild) when we were about to finish 9 streak. Impossible mission. Krayts castle hit strategy only works if the other guild dont score enough early on. But if the opponent score 50k in 5-10 min you cant do much with castle hits:) The most anoying thing is that they already had the units for 50 wins and 56 streak. But still they scored 50k on us in just a couple of minutes.

We have been screwed like this in every single war on higher streaks. The worst is still when we got Band of Smart Alex after 49 wins and had one battle left. Every war we get an impossible splinter or a FUN-guild when we have a 8 or 9 streak incoming. I can guarantee its no coincidence, however I have never seen Gree admit it.

[Skyraiders]

Its proven over and over again in every war. This time we got Laughing Out Loud (56 streak guild) when we were about to finish 9 streak. Impossible mission. Krayts castle hit strategy only works if the other guild dont score enough early on. But if the opponent score 50k in 5-10 min you cant do much with castle hits:) The most anoying thing is that they already had the units for 50 wins and 56 streak. But still they scored 50k on us in just a couple of minutes.

We have been screwed like this in every single war on higher streaks. The worst is still when we got Band of Smart Alex after 49 wins and had one battle left. Every war we get an impossible splinter or a FUN-guild when we have a 8 or 9 streak incoming. I can guarantee its no coincidence, however I have never seen Gree admit it.

actually gree has admitted to it just in a round about way....this was posted by CJ in another thread


[/QUOTE]The first and third are true and always have been (we've mentioned as much multiple times) but the second speculation is not. We do tweak things between events (we tweak just about every event, whether it is collect 10 or boss difficulty or drop rates or whatnot, to see what works best). And in collect-10 or collect 20/25 events (but not leaderboards), getting one of the special items decreases the chance of getting the next one. But it does not vary from account to account or take any other factors into consideration; everyone has the same percentage chances as everyone else who is at the same step of the event.

EDIT: Nor does it have to do with level or anything else like that. It's just a flat percentage based on how many of the tokens you already have.[/QUOTE]

please pay particular attention to the part that says "(we tweak just about every event)" translation....we put guilds together that are near the end of their respected streaks to maximize gem spending

[Krayt]

When we got our 56 streak, the last guild to end each streak was actually really easy for us. I was preparing for something hard to get in each of those but it never happened. Our hardest fight was number 53, which we thought we were going to lose. The other other tough fights varied but I will say that the biggest reason some were close was because of participation. When a guild of 40 meets a guild of 5, the 40 should win. The thing is that each fight comes down to how many in your guild participate to your guild strategy...

[garen argon]

i'd like to see guilds matched up by member quantity, total raw atk/def divided by overall levels ... which would make everyone almost equal...then we'd see strategy involved...right now the streak guilds are 800 lb gorrillas crushing top 500 guilds...not a lot of strategy my friend.

have laughing out loud, band of smart alex and the rest spend three days combatting each other...same as the top 10 guilds then you can talk about strategy.

[larrydavid]

i'd like to see guilds matched up by member quantity, total raw atk/def divided by overall levels ... which would make everyone almost equal...then we'd see strategy involved...right now the streak guilds are 800 lb gorrillas crushing top 500 guilds...not a lot of strategy my friend.

have laughing out loud, band of smart alex and the rest spend three days combatting each other...same as the top 10 guilds then you can talk about strategy.

You have no idea how wrong your statement is. The single best players - strategy, stats, and everything else in this game either splinter or are in the top 3.

Splinter guilds take so much more strategy, coordination, and intelligence than being a run of the mill top 500 guild with 30 members and only 3 online at once. wake up buddy, you need a reality check.

[Krayt]

I love how people think splinter groups have it so easy.
While splinter groups have better than average stats, that is only advantage they have. Splinter groups have fewer members than most of the guilds they will fight. So they have to communicate, coordinate their attack or out spend their opponent. While most splinter groups have an easier time to get to 50 wins, streaks are still hard to achieve. One key lose over the course of a weekend is the difference between getting 56 and falling short.

That said, you don't like being in a top 500 guild and meeting splinters? Top 50 guilds are running into splinter groups, top 1250 are running into splinter groups... Splinter groups are going to happen. It's dedicated players that want to play with serious players. I have no problem with that and prefer that than going back to top 300 or worse guilds where half the members are never around...

[Toddiekska]

Just asking for clarification. I've been in a top 25 guild for a while, we are fairly coordinated 24 hours through, and yet running into a top 4-9 guild can kill our streak very easily.
So a regular guild of say 50 people have half of the people playing (as you said), that would be 25 active members throughout a day. Perhaps this is double the number of people in a splinter guild? Even so, most of their stats are much lower than that of the splinter guild's average member. Taking down a GG requires two PA's at least, in that case, thus two players down for the count from the normal guild. I guess I still have issues seeing how splinter guilds have it so rough.

[Shiloh]

It's not the algorithm that motivates splinter guilds, it's the reward system. Guild streaks and guild wins paying off with greater prizes than guild cp does.

[larrydavid]

My point wasn't that splinters have it rough but rather that they are the best strategists in the game.

Shiloh, Of course it is the reward system. But I would also argue it is also the challenge that motivates - the 56 is one of the most difficult things to do in this game. period.

And also, regardless of the reward system, good players will always find a way to beat it IMO.

[garen argon]

My point wasn't that splinters have it rough but rather that they are the best strategists in the game.

Shiloh, Of course it is the reward system. But I would also argue it is also the challenge that motivates - the 56 is one of the most difficult things to do in this game. period.

And also, regardless of the reward system, good players will always find a way to beat it IMO.

completely agree with that last comment

[Krayt]

It is the prizes that drive splinter groups, from this last war how many people can say they increased their stats by over 1 million. My guild can....

More than ever now, guilds have to decide who they want in their guilds. Founders have to cut out dead weight because the dead weight hurts you more than ever. It's not splinters that are hurting you, it's members that do not participate. We all know roughly how guilds are matched up, so dead weight is just making it harder on your guild. Especially in guilds top 300 and back, dropping a couple million in stats of dead weight makes a world of difference

[Ivyroses]

Attacking the castle shouldn't be the only workable strategy. :)

[Skyraiders]

splinters are driven by the accomplishment of winning 56......the rewards are great...BUT .....IMO....its the greatest achievement in the game right now and it does take more than just gems to get 56 wins......

strategy ... effort.....sleepless nights.....yes gems too.....leader board watching.....there are MANY things that make a splinter successful

[Valid or]

I love how people think splinter groups have it so easy.
While splinter groups have better than average stats, that is only advantage they have. Splinter groups have fewer members than most of the guilds they will fight. So they have to communicate, coordinate their attack or out spend their opponent. While most splinter groups have an easier time to get to 50 wins, streaks are still hard to achieve. One key lose over the course of a weekend is the difference between getting 56 and falling short.

That said, you don't like being in a top 500 guild and meeting splinters? Top 50 guilds are running into splinter groups, top 1250 are running into splinter groups... Splinter groups are going to happen. It's dedicated players that want to play with serious players. I have no problem with that and prefer that than going back to top 300 or worse guilds where half the members are never around...
Why are you defending gree? I might be wrong but that's how your posts to me. And all guilds have to communicate and coordinate not just splinter..I would not think it's any different from one guild to another.
Not sure how much pvp you have done in the past. But with every game I have played that involves pvp, balance has been a big factor. Companies will nerf, buff, then nerf players time after time to keep the balance as even as possible.
To me that should be no different hear, if there is a problem with the code and matching then it should be tweeked.
Do I believe we should just roll over and live with it, no we need to be vocal,if we don't then nothing will get changed.
So far all gree has done to players is buff our stats, more so the higher the rank in wars or the more gems you can buy.
No form of balance can come out of this..fine..so they need to look into their coding on matching to even it out, if the first tweek they did made splinter guilds start to form, fine..but don't stop there, tweek it again, keep monitoring how it's working and tweek when needed.

When guilds came out did we join guilds to do ltq's in one then change to a different one to fight in wars? Should we have to break apart our guilds into smaller splinters for war? Was all the work spent gathering donations for guild bonuses and building the best base we can, a waste of time?
Or did we join a guild to have fun with others, build the best guild base we could and fight in wars as a team?
The current coding goes against a lot of what I just said.
I don't expect to win them all, never have. But I do expect a chance at victory. Not finish scouting and learn we have no targets but for a castle.
If participation from guild members is a issue for you, then your guild founder and officers need to address it and remove said people and find new people.

[Shiloh]

I never meant to diminish the accomplishment of splinter guilds, I, being in the non elite crowd simply think they compromise the wars for the rest of us. IMHO, the war would be better off with no matching algorithm at all. We ranked 121 this last war and had as much chance scoring on SB as a guild ranked 1250.

It's no surprise that to me it's this way because it's more gems usage overall and that's better for Gree. Out of curiosity, what to top guilds do when 6-12 of their strongest players splinter off? Do they just sag in the rankings?

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

You say it's not a complaint but yet you specify a certain of group that you don't like because you can not beat them. If it's not a complaint as you say, then why mention this group at all? When you talk about how a group of players play the game has affected your enjoyment of the game it's a complaint, simple as that. Anytime you mention the negative side of something it's complaining, simple English.

I don't see it as a complaint at all. It's an observation based on his experiences.

I don't see him saying anything but pointing out the significant difference in game play from what it once was. Teams reasonably equal fighting it out and having fun.

What I see is your own vested interest as a streak team player who takes advantage of that. I see you as being negative towards the OP. On your own definition of complaining, you should not have responded at all in a negative way.

I see he has every right to properly put issues on this forum as he sees them. That is one of the primary purposes of a company possessed forum. To identify customer sentiment and issues as the arise.

You are not without other negative posts either. What is OK for you is not so for others unless it advances your own vested interest.

Is it positive or negative? Negative to whom?

To not say something contrary does not advance us. We would never challenge any norm and your 'world would still be flat'.

For many, it's not 'the world according to you'.

[PedroPimples]

Just asking for clarification. I've been in a top 25 guild for a while, we are fairly coordinated 24 hours through, and yet running into a top 4-9 guild can kill our streak very easily.
So a regular guild of say 50 people have half of the people playing (as you said), that would be 25 active members throughout a day. Perhaps this is double the number of people in a splinter guild? Even so, most of their stats are much lower than that of the splinter guild's average member. Taking down a GG requires two PA's at least, in that case, thus two players down for the count from the normal guild. I guess I still have issues seeing how splinter guilds have it so rough.

I was a one man splinter this war. Yes my stats meant I was untouchable for all but maybe 2/3 guilds I faced, but facing guilds with 30-40 players against 1 gives them a distinct advantage. I can get roughly 250 points a hit, they can easily make that up castle hitting if they organise to have enough people on.
I failed to get the 56 streak, finished with 53 wins. I would of completed it but on 3 seperate occasions at the end of certain streaks I was locked out for the last 5-10 minutes and couldn't get the win. Yet I got in as soon as each battle finished.
If gree can't screw you on matchups, they'll find another way like a 5 minute lag.

[Ashura]

splinters are driven by the accomplishment of winning 56......the rewards are great...BUT .....IMO....its the greatest achievement in the game right now and it does take more than just gems to get 56 wins......

strategy ... effort.....sleepless nights.....yes gems too.....leader board watching.....there are MANY things that make a splinter successful

Somehow I agree to you, it's not easy to be part of splinter guild. Everyone have sleepless night, need a lot of dedication and gem. I'm not in a splinter but we will usually pass splinter, simply we can't beat them. My lvl 156 toon can able to hit their lvl 50-70 mini or we just hit castle and hope the next match is a good one. Out of 50 matches, we face around 10-15 splinters. I think it's still ok as we're got an hour break to do whatever we need in RL.

[senna]

I was a one man splinter this war. Yes my stats meant I was untouchable for all but maybe 2/3 guilds I faced, but facing guilds with 30-40 players against 1 gives them a district advantage. I can get roughly 250 points a hit, they can easily make that up castle hitting if they organise to have enough people on.
I failed to get the 56 streak, finished with 53 wins. I would of completed it but on 3 seperate occasions at the end of certain streaks I was locked out for the last 5-10 minutes and couldn't get the win. Yet I got in as soon as each battle finished.
If gree can't screw you on matchups, they'll find another way like a 5 minute lag.

Hey, were you the one who left a note on my wall about me taking down all your boost buildings during war? We could make a great tag team partnership if you can forgo the past and tag team with me for 56 wins next time. How about that? PM me.

[Krayt]

Pedro, if you would have completed the 56 streak had you not been locked out then I can only assume you recovered from the lose my guild gave you. You were on war where we couldn't hit the guild but castle hitting against got us a win at the end...

As for the comment about being negative. I didn't say you can't be negative, simply direct it where it belongs. There is no point in getting made at one/three/five or players for joining together because they feel that together they can achieve something that a group of 50 can't. Is there a problem with match ups, sure but what's the solution? Is there something that will make everyone happy, doubt it... Today ten people complain about match ups, it changes and ten others complain, they change it and ten others complain.

[PedroPimples]

I had 6 losses, 3 were unimportant and at beginning of streaks, didn't put up to much effort in these, took tactical losses. 3 where at the end of streaks, the last of these meant I no longer had enough time.
Not one team put enough points up against me that should've beat me if I got in and tried. Think the highest was about 6/7k. Teams with 30-40 people should be able to strategise and do better than that, even if it's free and only wall hits.

[sister morphine]

Most of those teams are probably free players, so might think if we use up all our hits here it's going to take another hour (or longer, depending on health bonuses) to regenerate.

I had same experience fighting solo in crime city. Only a handful scored even 1000 pts against me, even with 20+ players all low levels so my scores against them were rubbish too.

[sister morphine]

I was a one man splinter this war. Yes my stats meant I was untouchable for all but maybe 2/3 guilds I faced, but facing guilds with 30-40 players against 1 gives them a distinct advantage. I can get roughly 250 points a hit, they can easily make that up castle hitting if they organise to have enough people on.
I failed to get the 56 streak, finished with 53 wins. I would of completed it but on 3 seperate occasions at the end of certain streaks I was locked out for the last 5-10 minutes and couldn't get the win. Yet I got in as soon as each battle finished.
If gree can't screw you on matchups, they'll find another way like a 5 minute lag.
Just from interest, when you say locked out do you mean you got the "game is down for maintenance" message?

[PedroPimples]

No I mean it just was loading continuously and wouldn't let me in. I'd leave and log into crime city fine but when trying KA just kept loading and not letting into the game

[Palewood]

Ours were fine

[KarenWill]

What about a splinter guild, top 400 on 11/12 streaks and 4 hours left till the war event ends and you get ****ed up by FUN

[KarenWill]

Well if anyone can answer me,
When you need one win to complete the streak 8/9 or 9/9 you declare and wait around 5-8 minutes then you get matched with top 10 guild or another splinter guild which is on streak too, does Gree pick up the matches manually or?
I'd really appreciate it if anyone answered specially if Cj or any other staff did
Thanks in advance

[PedroPimples]

They deny it but that's the general consensus yes.

[Skyraiders]

Well if anyone can answer me,
When you need one win to complete the streak 8/9 or 9/9 you declare and wait around 5-8 minutes then you get matched with top 10 guild or another splinter guild which is on streak too, does Gree pick up the matches manually or?
I'd really appreciate it if anyone answered specially if Cj or any other staff did
Thanks in advance

you will NEVER hear that answer from gree......and if you do it will be complete BS ..or straight up LIES

[Dogs Pizza]

It seems likely that Gree does tweek the matches near the end of streaks. Before the win awards were set up I was at TBC, we stalked BGK who were in 3rd for the entire war. We hid from them the whole war so they would not know how close we were. we pulled them with our last match and had to beat them by 17k, we ended up beating them by about 27k and stole third from them. It seemed pretty obvious to us that Gree matched us with the ones we were stalking because they knew it would lead to us gemming like crazy for the placement. I actually thought it was the perfect match, the hunter and the hunted fighting it out to the very end. The match sucked for me as I had no targets and had to gem on the castle, but in the end it was a great match.

[plavine]

This is a great idea, too bad it would never be used .
Who would possibly want parity in a game

[Krayt]

They will never please everyone, so I just want to know what everyone truly expects to happen

People complain that they get matched up with top ten guilds, but they have to fight someone. Plus you have to realize that guild in the top 100 are declaring based around times when those top ten guilds are already in a war thus not drawing them. So that is why you will get a top 150 draw a top ten because you are their best available opponent.

People complain about splinter groups. Well as long as guild rewards suck, like they really did last war there will be splinter groups. Plus, as long as there is a 56 streak reward that is a huge game changer people will try for it.

Total stats and total CP are two big determining factors on who you draw. You don't like the match ups you get, well change those numbers and change your own fate

[PedroPimples]

Gree should make it top placings trump all but the final streak reward.
But come out and make it a rule, that each battle you win in a streak the next will be harder and get progressively so. This was final streak is the ultimate prize but you have to work and fight very hard to get it p

[Skyraiders]

Gree should make it top placings trump all but the final streak reward.
But come out and make it a rule, that each battle you win in a streak the next will be harder and get progressively so. This was final streak is the ultimate prize but you have to work and fight very hard to get it p

i would agree with this statement if gems were not involved.......if we fought wars completely free then this might work....fighting hard can be translated to spending more in the current system.

in the end the matching system is flawed no matter what you do.....i agree that we sometimes get an easy guild and sometimes we get a hard guild...thats the way it goes.....there is no way to prove how the system works .... but out of 5000 guilds .....i declare at 12 noon.....how many other guilds declared at the same time.....??? and of those guilds how many match us in relative strength...1....10....idk....but the question still remains.....

EDIT....also count in the fact that everyone watches the leader boards....so MANY teams declare around the sam time.....once FUN, RK, and SB are confirmed in battle


how can a top 200 team with 200 million guild strength get matched up to a guild in top 10 with 600 or 800 million guild strength???

or

same top 200 guild matches with a top 1000 guild....

i have fought wars that it goes both ways....in fact it is very rare when you match up with a team that is virtually even with your own guild.

the balance of the game itself is flawed....there is no way to fix it.....although they are trying by giving out more att modifiers ...

there are plenty of players on these forums......i ask this last question....how many times when your guild was near the end of a streak were you matched up to a guild that was twice your strength ???

am i complaining ...maybe you can call it that.....i dont see it that way but i am sure some people will.....but IMO these are just some observations

[Krayt]

In this last war, every time our guild was at the end of a streak we actually had an easy match. There was not one that was an actual challenge. They may have matched us or even had more strength, don't recall exactly. However, they didn't put up any fight at all.

[PedroPimples]

If you matched me, you must of been right down the bottom of the leaderboard. No one down there puts up a fight. Hence the reason they are there.
Only people who should be down there legit and can put up a fight are 1/2 man teams.

[Krayt]

If you matched me, you must of been right down the bottom of the leaderboard. No one down there puts up a fight. Hence the reason they are there.
Only people who should be down there legit and can put up a fight are 1/2 man teams.

Down at the bottom? What do you consider bottom?
My guild finished 397 and we were always in that 300-400 range give or take (aside from early on when we were top 100).

As for being legit down there, are you saying my five man guild that easily beat you isn't legit or shouldn't be there?

[PedroPimples]

I don't remember your 5 man guild if I'm honest. And as I say I never lost a match I could get on and try to win except the tactical losses. Not one team down there was any good. And as a 1 person guild I could of easily beaten any of them.
Only team that was even half a challenge was a 2 person team with both being about 6/7mil range.
You seem to think you had an easy win against me, and that I tried? Your sorely mistaken kid.

Edit: and by bottom, I was based between 600-700 all war. That's what I mean at the bottom.

[Chief Ricci]

Its all the darn splinter guilds, losers who couldnt make it in there old guilds, where they got all there stats.

[PedroPimples]

That's a funny assumption.

[Krayt]

I don't remember your 5 man guild if I'm honest. And as I say I never lost a match I could get on and try to win except the tactical losses. Not one team down there was any good. And as a 1 person guild I could of easily beaten any of them.
Only team that was even half a challenge was a 2 person team with both being about 6/7mil range.
You seem to think you had an easy win against me, and that I tried? Your sorely mistaken kid.

I think it's funny you right others off so easily
You claim to not remember a guild that beat you and all your loses we're tactical. Yet in a war where you fought and were beat by a better strategy you right it off as something you could win if you tried but you don't remember.

Here is how you lost. Your one man guild had stats my five man guild could not touch. You hit us early to build a lead and random hits along the wall. Your hits got you about 100 points a hit give or take (not the 250 per hit you claim to get). So at the end we made a push, you tried to react but you could not keep up with our multiple hits against your one. You tried to win but ended up falling roughly 900 points shy

[Valid or]

my five man.
Ah so you are in a splinter yourself..makes sence why you seem to be saying leave the coding as it is, as changes would hurt your game play.
But the coding for match up needs to be tweeked. To alow for a more even matches...

[Krayt]

I splint for this war, now back into top 75. I still say the same thing even though I know I will run into splinters while in the top 75.

You come up with coding that benefits all and I will support. Changing it just to change it doesn't make sense to me

[PedroPimples]

I think it's funny you right others off so easily
You claim to not remember a guild that beat you and all your loses we're tactical. Yet in a war where you fought and were beat by a better strategy you right it off as something you could win if you tried but you don't remember.

Here is how you lost. Your one man guild had stats my five man guild could not touch. You hit us early to build a lead and random hits along the wall. Your hits got you about 100 points a hit give or take (not the 250 per hit you claim to get). So at the end we made a push, you tried to react but you could not keep up with our multiple hits against your one. You tried to win but ended up falling roughly 900 points shy

I said 3 losses were tactical, 3 I couldn't get on at the end to finish.
If I was going to beat you, I wouldn't of built a lead early. I never did. If I wasn't going to try I wouldn't put hits in here and there as I go along.
253 was my average over the whole event.
You can try to allude to the fact you think your a tactical genius and make assumptions on things you actually have no idea of. There is no great strategy involved in this game, no matter how much you claim there is.
Let me give you the facts
1: not one team put a score up against me I couldn't of beat if I could A: get in or B: I tried.
2: I scored 175,107. I had 692 wins. That equates to an average of 253.04 points per hit.
3: waiting until the end and hitting isn't a great special strategy you invented. No matter how much you think you have a better strategy than everyone else.

Only two teams that were memorable where plux retirement guild and the beasts lair. Only ones that have me a half decent fight when I tried to win.

You obviously remember me though so glad I had an effect on you.

[Krayt]

So clearly your lose to us was tactical then since you did sign in at the end and you were hitting us at the end but you came up short. So I am not sure what you are trying to argue because you say you don't remember the fight.

I never claimed to have created the idea of hitting at the end. That is you making assumptions.

I do find it funny though that you claim you didn't try to beat my guild but yet you gemmed at the end to try and win. Why put in hits and spend gems in a fight you don't plan on winning? I never claimed to know your strategy, I just know how you performed against us. You clearly turned to win at the end but fell short, it's funny cause we were laughing after that fight and talked about you were definitely angry after that lose...

Clearly though you must be a great strategist that is why you got the 56 win streak, oh wait you didn't

[NinjaHonu]

Will you 2 stfu already. Why dont you fight in a PM or something. Stop bumping up this fckin thread with useless information.

.... and yea i know I just added to the useless information... lol :p

[Krayt]

Pfft, every thread is useless information. Why would this one be any different?

[PedroPimples]

So clearly your lose to us was tactical then since you did sign in at the end and you were hitting us at the end but you came up short. So I am not sure what you are trying to argue because you say you don't remember the fight.

I never claimed to have created the idea of hitting at the end. That is you making assumptions.

I do find it funny though that you claim you didn't try to beat my guild but yet you gemmed at the end to try and win. Why put in hits and spend gems in a fight you don't plan on winning? I never claimed to know your strategy, I just know how you performed against us. You clearly turned to win at the end but fell short, it's funny cause we were laughing after that fight and talked about you were definitely angry after that lose...

Clearly though you must be a great strategist that is why you got the 56 win streak, oh wait you didn't

You are assuming I gemmed, the same as you wrongly assumed I only get 100 a hit, which I disproved by showing my averages.

You came to try and call me out when you only have what you think happens, not what actually did.
I haven't claimed to be a great strategist. I said there is no great strategy to this game. I have 56 streak prizes from other wars, this one I didn't make it. I would love you to do better as a 1 person guild.

I am not aware of anyone who has the streak as a single account guild, or any others even who got the 50 wins. I think that is a very good achievement alone.

I came on here and explained how my war went with matches, you called me a liar to try and stroke your own ego. Same as the times you've come on here just to say "we beat you" to other guilds.

As I said before, and will again, not one team down that low put up a score which was more than I can do in under 90 seconds. If I was in and was bothered about beating you, I would of done.

You seem to think your tactics were extremely clever and well thought out. Fair enough. You have your opinion and I'll have mine.

[PedroPimples]

Will you 2 stfu already. Why dont you fight in a PM or something. Stop bumping up this fckin thread with useless information.

.... and yea i know I just added to the useless information... lol :p

Me and krayt are the only two allowed to argue in this thread. Take your business elsewhere.

[Krayt]

Pedro, I never said your entire war average was 100 just what you were getting from us. As for knowing you gemmed, actually the amount of times you hit us at the end proves that you gemmed. You hit us early multiple times which we can assume were your free hits. At the end though, I don't know how anyone can hit over ten times within two minutes and not having used gems when you had already used other hits earlier. So that is how I can claim you used gems because I don't know a single player in this game that has over 20 hits in a single hour.

I am not disputing what you did in previous wars, I don't know those facts...
I do know that previous wars though it was easier to get wins and streaks as a solo player

[SenorSwamp]

I said 3 losses were tactical, 3 I couldn't get on at the end to finish.
If I was going to beat you, I wouldn't of built a lead early. I never did. If I wasn't going to try I wouldn't put hits in here and there as I go along.
253 was my average over the whole event.
You can try to allude to the fact you think your a tactical genius and make assumptions on things you actually have no idea of. There is no great strategy involved in this game, no matter how much you claim there is.
Let me give you the facts
1: not one team put a score up against me I couldn't of beat if I could A: get in or B: I tried.
2: I scored 175,107. I had 692 wins. That equates to an average of 253.04 points per hit.
3: waiting until the end and hitting isn't a great special strategy you invented. No matter how much you think you have a better strategy than everyone else.

Only two teams that were memorable where plux retirement guild and the beasts lair. Only ones that have me a half decent fight when I tried to win.

You obviously remember me though so glad I had an effect on you.

Allow me to reiterate
1) I could be married to [insert super hot model name here] right now if a) he/she was graced with my superior presence or b) I tried
2) I spend $1,000 on food over 365 days. This proves that I spent exactly $2.74 for lunch yesterday. I dare you to prove otherwise.
3) all KA knowledge, strategy, and success techniques were born, and will die with me.
#flawlesslogic

[PedroPimples]

Allow me to reiterate
1) I could be married to [insert super hot model name here] right now if a) he/she was graced with my superior presence or b) I tried
2) I spend $1,000 on food over 365 days. This proves that I spent exactly $2.74 for lunch yesterday. I dare you to prove otherwise.
3) all KA knowledge, strategy, and success techniques were born, and will die with me.
#flawlesslogic

All you've done is make yourself look like a child.
Well done kid.

[PedroPimples]

Pedro, I never said your entire war average was 100 just what you were getting from us. As for knowing you gemmed, actually the amount of times you hit us at the end proves that you gemmed. You hit us early multiple times which we can assume were your free hits. At the end though, I don't know how anyone can hit over ten times within two minutes and not having used gems when you had already used other hits earlier. So that is how I can claim you used gems because I don't know a single player in this game that has over 20 hits in a single hour.

I am not disputing what you did in previous wars, I don't know those facts...
I do know that previous wars though it was easier to get wins and streaks as a solo player

How do you know it was? Do you know a lot of players who got the wins and streaks going solo previous wars?
Quite a few of the better splinters didn't do so this war, less splinters leave it easier for the rest. I'd say the opposite and say this was the easiest war to go for streaks so far. But again, that's personal opinion.

I am disputing I hit you 10 times at the end, I don't believe I did.
I may have hit you 10/15 In total, sometimes I'll just throw an extra refill in at the beginning if I'm not sure if I'll get on halfway through. I get 11 free hits if I'm full at the beginning of a fight.

Anyway. This is my last post cause this is going round in circles. Well done on the streak and being sun tzu reincarnated.

[SenorSwamp]

All you've done is make yourself look like a child.
Well done kid.
In case the irony was lost on you, my post was a hyperbolic and exaggerated reframing of your own positions on the matter. Consequently, using the transitive logic theory (in which a=b and b=c, so a=c), it would seem we are classmates.

Since your post (a) uses the same logical underpinnings as my post (b), they are equal. And, since my post proves I am a kid (c), the relationship amongst the three variables is abundantly clear and unassailable. See you in Ms. Bliss' homeroom!

[Krayt]

Ok I am confused on this...
More splinters makes it harder to achieve wins/streaks but yet with this war and more splinters made it easier this war?

Yes, I know more that got wins and streaks in earlier wars. This war as you can see hardly any one got 56

[PedroPimples]

Ok I am confused on this...
More splinters makes it harder to achieve wins/streaks but yet with this war and more splinters made it easier this war?

Yes, I know more that got wins and streaks in earlier wars. This war as you can see hardly any one got 56

Quite a few of the normal streak teams didn't this time, they went as normal teams.
May of been more splinters, but less decent ones.

[Shadows]

So are you two done or should I go to the concessions stand to buy another bag of popcorn?

[Krayt]

Quite a few of the normal streak teams didn't this time, they went as normal teams.
May of been more splinters, but less decent ones.

This was the exact war to not go as normal teams.
Guild rewards were terrible, wins and streak were so much better than guild prizes outside top five

[Valid or]

I splint for this war, now back into top 75. I still say the same thing even though I know I will run into splinters while in the top 75.

You come up with coding that benefits all and I will support. Changing it just to change it doesn't make sense to me
If gree would hire and pay me..sure then I might be able to come up with something that could work...but as I am not employed by them..so I can't.
But it is their job to brain storm and find a middle ground that works then put it in to use. But if we are silent and don't voice our issues with the game, they will do nothing as they wouldn't think there is a problem.
In there eyes the code works it matches us against other guilds. But it doesn't do it evenly, there QA team(if they have one) would not see this type of issue, as they would be even to begin with and would be few in number so this type of issue would only get noticed in game play by the players.

[KenjoMegi1]

strongest person in my guild has 5mil attack, second highest is at 3mil. One guild we went against had maybe 15 members but their lowest def was over 6mil. not sure how we got that match up. most of ours during this war were really close though with some people we could attack and some people we couldn't attack. We didn't do as well as we would have liked but as far as bad match ups this was the only one severe one we had. We had a few others that were impossible for us to win but we need to get those every once and a while, to remind us we are good but there is always someone bigger.
-Kenjo Megi
-Scions of Abaddon-

[Shiloh]

Wait, what? I thought we were all going gem free this last war?!?!

[Krayt]

In there eyes the code works it matches us against other guilds. But it doesn't do it evenly.

So what's an even match then?

[Valid or]

So what's an even match then?

A closer even match would be, eg. 5-10 member guilds with 20-25 mil in stats ver a guild with 5-10 members with 20-25m in stats.(this is just a example)

Not what it currently is were A 5 person guild with 50 ml can draw 50 man guild with 50m in stats.
Adding in the number of members currently in a guild could make a huge difference in how matching works..
This is currently not In their equation. I have no objection to the random part of the equation that kicks in if no even match is found in x minuets.(no one wants to wait forever to match)

[KM KAge]

Wait, what? I thought we were all going gem free this last war?!?!
Promise/Threat to go "gem free" + obsessive need to "win" = "massive gem spend".

[Sirius]

Aright folks,

I know this is a very heated topic for many here but let's keep the call outs on others to a minimum please.

So far folks have posted some really constructive feedback regarding the matching system. I'm compiling it all to pass to our product and engineering teams to further look at and consider.

Thanks.

[Voxker]

Aright folks,

I know this is a very heated topic for many here but let's keep the call outs on others to a minimum please.

So far folks have posted some really constructive feedback regarding the matching system. I'm compiling it all to pass to our product and engineering teams to further look at and consider.

Thanks.

can you share what the engineers have to say about this?

[Krayt]

A closer even match would be, eg. 5-10 member guilds with 20-25 mil in stats ver a guild with 5-10 members with 20-25m in stats.(this is just a example)

Not what it currently is were A 5 person guild with 50 ml can draw 50 man guild with 50m in stats.
Adding in the number of members currently in a guild could make a huge difference in how matching works..
This is currently not In their equation. I have no objection to the random part of the equation that kicks in if no even match is found in x minuets.(no one wants to wait forever to match)

So basically just getting rid of splinters makes it even? Putting guild size in will have an affect but I think it would just mean the top 100 wouldn't face as many splinter groups.

With over a thousand guilds of various strength and size not to mention that all declaring at different times it's had to constantly get even strength match ups. So what things need to all be considered when matching up: size, strength, CP anything else?

[Valid or]

So basically just getting rid of splinters makes it even? Putting guild size in will have an affect but I think it would just mean the top 100 wouldn't face as many splinter groups.

With over a thousand guilds of various strength and size not to mention that all declaring at different times it's had to constantly get even strength match ups. So what things need to all be considered when matching up: size, strength, CP anything else?
Cp shouldn't matter. If one has more gems..so be it. Size and strength are the most important when trying to match on a more even scale. But there also needs to be a random factor(which is in now) that works with time so people don't end up waiting forever like they did not that long ago. It would effect more than just the top 100. It would help out the lower placed guilds a lot too by helping them see more guilds closer in stats/members to themselves. Eg. A one man guild with 20 mil in stats now will pull lower ranked guilds of 20-30 with a combined total of 20 mil in stats for a match. Which is not at all even. Yes I know the castle is a target..but it's also no fun and disheartening to say have 30-40% of your matches hitting a castle.

[Krayt]

I still remember when one man guilds only faced one man guilds

[aphroKEN]

Hitting the castle isn't exactly a strategy. It's an act of desperation.

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

If you really want to get back to normal guild sizes and have competitive battles while maintaining the streak aspect then:

Dump the current matching system, it was never designed for matching small streak teams.

Replace it with and average strength system.

If your 5 person team has an average strength of X stats, then it can be matched to a full team (or any sized team) with an average of the same. Position doesn't mean a lot nor does anything else.

Just match average strength with average strength.

Oh, and keep the + or - tight. Don't be cute with it.

Small streak teams staying low will be virtually pointless. Staying low will be pointless. Small teams will be yesterday's.

It will return to what I assume the developers had in mind.

And Aphroken has an excellent point. If the only point generator for teams is hitting a wall, then that's the quickest turn-off you will have in this game.

If the small team streak teams full of medium to big dogs want to play in the little guys league, then the above system will send them up with us, their own kind. It will only take one war to sort them out.

Let the little guys in those great teams down the bottom have fun in their own league. We should stay out of their patch altogether.

Ps, we should be seeing a spattering of FULL teams right through the ranks finishing the streak. Why?, because thats what its designed to do. Instead, we the players (some of us) have blown that idea out of the water. Some of us medium/big dogs have decided to play cute and play in the little guys area. That is grossly unfair and effectively a wrought. I want to see the little guys in FULL teams, who play just as hard, finish streaks. A fair distribution of streak winners right down through the ranks and not as they are now.

For big dogs, there is no right to playing down there, no smart and no strategy to it. It's actually pitiful to read some of their chest beating posts.

Come play our game, we'll test ya.

[PedroPimples]

That won't solve anything. It is mainly matched by average strength. So a team of 5 10mil players will match a team of 20 2.5mil players. And still have it easy. Average strength only will make it easier for splinter teams, not harder.

[discprodigy]

Pedro, I'm not sure you understand averages very well....

[Krayt]

Pedro, I'm not sure you understand averages very well....

I don't think you do. 50m in stats spread over 50 players means 1m per player. 50m over 10 is 5m per. That is what we are getting now. However, the point I think you are trying to make is that if that 10 man guild is averaged at 5m per player they should play with other guilds that average 5m per player. Problem is, there are flaws in that system as well. There are easy ways to affect your average an bring it down.

First CP has to be adjusted before you worry about splinter groups

[Alexius]

Haha, yeah and then we'd create several level one minis to lower the average if our guild, which you still can't score well on. I can name them all "guild fodder". No matter what happens and what is changed, people will still find a way to tip the scale in their favor to get the unit they want.

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

Haha, yeah and then we'd create several level one minis to lower the average if our guild, which you still can't score well on. I can name them all "guild fodder". No matter what happens and what is changed, people will still find a way to tip the scale in their favor to get the unit they want.

That is true to a degree. Not so simple though. In a full team 'several' minis will firstly have to be low powered and secondly 'several' won't change the average too much. Thirdly, opposing teams have actual targets besides a wall.

They would need near to half the team as low powered minis to achieve their aim. Even then the mains couldn't be super powered. I'm not certain that would 'fly' too long. Remember no opposition team against them has all the same strength players either. So good luck with the minis idea.

Either that or maintain the current.

The whole point is to make some sense of what teams are designed to be. Fun... Get back to equal teams having a good hit out against each other where there are actual targets and strategy again.

[Krayt]

Still flaws in your strategy, needs more work...
Several low levels will bring down the average considerably

[Alexius]

That is true to a degree. Not so simple though. In a full team 'several' minis will firstly have to be low powered and secondly 'several' won't change the average too much. Thirdly, opposing teams have actual targets besides a wall.

They would need near to half the team as low powered minis to achieve their aim. Even then the mains couldn't be super powered. I'm not certain that would 'fly' too long. Remember no opposition team against them has all the same strength players either. So good luck with the minis idea.

Either that or maintain the current.

The whole point is to make some sense of what teams are designed to be. Fun... Get back to equal teams having a good hit out against each other where there are actual targets and strategy again.

It would take a team with an equal distribution of 20m defense and cut it in half facing guilds that average 10m but with nobody who can score on anything meaningful. They would have targets that will give them 70-150 pts per hit while we reel off 250-450/hit. It's not hitting the castle and technically a target but might as well be the castle if we get 3-4x per hit than they do. It's still a free win or a gem beating. The point is that it is strategy and strategy will evolve around whatever parameters are set. You can suggest changes all you want to but you neglect the fact that most splinters are at least light gemmers and do what is necessary to win.

[Shiloh]

I've been saying average power for months now, yes, it can be manipulated as well, but nothing to the degree of what we have now.

After watching these debates go on for ages I still say that the quest prizes are the problem, much less incentive to succeed for CP than to the wins/streaks.

I repeat my previous comment, eliminate all matching algorithms. Blind luck is far more fair and far less manipulated.

[Krayt]

At least this war guild rewards are back up again...
Last war was crap, hence the splinters.

If you want to get rid of splinters all it takes is one war. Make wins and streaks far less than guild rewards and they will stop splintering

[Shiloh]

At least this war guild rewards are back up again...
Last war was crap, hence the splinters.

If you want to get rid of splinters all it takes is one war. Make wins and streaks far less than guild rewards and they will stop splintering

That's the bottom line.

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

It would take a team with an equal distribution of 20m defense and cut it in half facing guilds that average 10m but with nobody who can score on anything meaningful. They would have targets that will give them 70-150 pts per hit while we reel off 250-450/hit. It's not hitting the castle and technically a target but might as well be the castle if we get 3-4x per hit than they do. It's still a free win or a gem beating. The point is that it is strategy and strategy will evolve around whatever parameters are set. You can suggest changes all you want to but you neglect the fact that most splinters are at least light gemmers and do what is necessary to win.

Firstly, would people be bothered creating 20 low powered minis. But even if they did, you appear to be making the wrong assumption that either every player on the opposite team was 10M or for some other reason they cannot hit you. You never see everyone on a large team the same stats.

For the other team to have an average of 10M, like you, they too will have some players much bigger than that and some much smaller. The potential for them to have targets against you is just as good as yours against them.

It's far more difficult to manipulate than the current and much more difficult than your example.

Those that attempt to manipulate in the way you mention run a massive risk and better know math.

[Alexius]

Firstly, would people be bothered creating 20 low powered minis. But even if they did, you appear to be making the wrong assumption that either every player on the opposite team was 10M or for some other reason they cannot hit you. You never see everyone on a large team the same stats.

For the other team to have an average of 10M, like you, they too will have some players much bigger than that and some much smaller. The potential for them to have targets against you is just as good as yours against them.

It's far more difficult to manipulate than the current and much more difficult than your example.

Those that attempt to manipulate in the way you mention run a massive risk and better know math.
Let me spell it out for you................ The closer the stats are to the average and gross strength of the guild the worse off they are. You're right, stats may vary. If you're playing a normal guild that isn't aligned that way they might have a 15m player and a 5mil player. Neither of them are beating a 20m player and can only hit the 10k player at level 2. Also, that 20m player will be scoring very well on your 12-17m defense players. Maybe you'd even have 3 people at 23m in your normal guild alignment along with people at other various levels. The bottom line is if you have 15 people at 20m that have better targets than you do you win. Period. 15 people with good targets is five times more scoring than 3 people with good targets. It's all about who can score the best on the targets that they have.


And people do create low powered minis all the time.......get a clue

[Zenobia]

After watching these debates go on for ages I still say that the quest prizes are the problem, much less incentive to succeed for CP than to the wins/streaks.

ITA that if splinter guilds are a "problem", the solution is to make players prefer the choice of going Big Guild rather than Splinter. Right now, Gree is NOT encouraging Big Guild play. They continue to make the ranks prizes worth less every war than the war before.

This coming war, for example, the Top 50 prize boost is a joke. +2 allies (atk). For anyone who thinks that prize is of any consequence whatsoever, try writing down your attack then dropping two allies (if you have more than the allowed allies for your level already, you will have to subtract more to see your ally count go down). Now check your attack. And have a good, hearty laugh. The difference between your current attack and adding two allies is actually even LESS than that since you'll be adding 10 units slightly worse than your current worst 10.

I just did it for myself and +2 allies translates to +0.065% attack boost. (Atk w/ 500 allies/atk w/ 498 = 0.00065) I'm not kidding. The boost gives less than a tenth of a percent change to your attack.

[Zenobia]

Sirius, if any significant changes are made to the matching algorithm, PLEASE inform us all well before the beginnig of the war with said changes. Thanks.


...So far folks have posted some really constructive feedback regarding the matching system. I'm compiling it all to pass to our product and engineering teams to further look at and consider.

Thanks.

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

Let me spell it out for you................ The closer the stats are to the average and gross strength of the guild the worse off they are. You're right, stats may vary. If you're playing a normal guild that isn't aligned that way they might have a 15m player and a 5mil player. Neither of them are beating a 20m player and can only hit the 10k player at level 2. Also, that 20m player will be scoring very well on your 12-17m defense players. Maybe you'd even have 3 people at 23m in your normal guild alignment along with people at other various levels. The bottom line is if you have 15 people at 20m that have better targets than you do you win. Period. 15 people with good targets is five times more scoring than 3 people with good targets. It's all about who can score the best on the targets that they have.


And people do create low powered minis all the time.......get a clue

Thank you for your lesson. Average strength & Gross strength are two completely different things.

The average 40 person guild do not have stats all the same. They all vary quite significantly.

The closer you are to the average is not a disadvantage at all unless you live in some parallel mathematically challenged universe. All non-streak guilds have players at different strengths. Some weaker than the average and some stronger than the average. Which is the whole point of an average system. Both opposing guilds will have some BELOW the average, a few NEAR the average and some ABOVE the average. They can't all be below the average, or above it, or it wouldn't be a mathematical average at all.

Stats DO vary, not might.

If you run an average system it follows logically that two opposing teams must have targets. Currently teams are complaining that often they have NO targets at all. I am yet to see a team with every player at the same stats.

Assuming you are in a normal sized guild just check out your own team stats. Find the average and then find how many above the average and below it.

If that follows then the small streak team (eg 1 player) who is 20Mil, will be placed against a full team with an average of 20M. That is to say a 40 person team where some are above the average of 20M and some are below that. The streak player will have targets guaranteed in an average system and so will the 40 person team.

It follows then that the current potential for NO targets is IMPOSSIBLE under an average system. There MUST be targets for most. And it also follows that the life of the small streak team is over so we get back to normal sized guilds which I assume was the designers intention.

Ps: I've just located a recent admission from a moderator where he says the original design for streaks was NOT designed for the monsters of the game.

Originally Posted by CJ54
........the streak goals (as far as difficulty->reward) were designed more with the people who are NOT the top monsters in mind......

It follows then that it is not achieving what was originally intended. It's not working because of the loophole allowed by a matching system that was designed for normal sized teams in an environment that was 'pre streak' events.

I place no blame whatsoever on the small streak teams, I am only critical of the matching system that has allowed it for so long, if that was never the intention.

[Alexius]

Thank you for your lesson.

The average 40 person guild do not have stats all the same. They all vary quite significantly.

Stats DO vary, not might.

If that follows then the small streak team (eg 1 player) who is 20Mil, will be placed against a full team with an average of 20M. That is to say a 40 person team where some are above the average of 20M and some are below that. The streak player will have targets guaranteed in an average system and so will the 40 person team.

It follows then that the current potential for NO targets is IMPOSSIBLE under an average system. There MUST be targets for most. And it also follows that the life of the small streak team is over so we get back to normal sized guilds which I assume was the designers intention.


Yeah......you are missing the point entirely. If your guild of 5 averages 20m and is paired with a guild of 40 that also averages 20m everyone will have targets I get that. The point is that if you have 5 players at 20m stats and pair them with 5 minis at level 2 with 100k stats the guild average is just above 10 so you wouldn't fight 40 member guilds with a 20m average, you'd fight 40 member guilds with a 10m average and the only real targets they'd have is a level 2 mini that they can't score very well on. Expand that out to 10-20m players with 10 level 2 minis and it's skewed even further. This is what you get when you pair basic high school algebra AND critical thinking skills.

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

Yeah......you are missing the point entirely. If your guild of 5 averages 20m and is paired with a guild of 40 that also averages 20m everyone will have targets I get that. The point is that if you have 5 players at 20m stats and pair them with 5 minis at level 2 with 100k stats the guild average is just above 10 so you wouldn't fight 40 member guilds with a 20m average, you'd fight 40 member guilds with a 10m average and the only real targets they'd have is a level 2 mini that they can't score very well on. Expand that out to 10-20m players with 10 level 2 minis and it's skewed even further. This is what you get when you pair basic high school algebra AND critical thinking skills.

Good grief, the 40 member team with 20 minis (all low powered I assume) reduces it's scoring potential by 50% for the entire war over three days against every opposition it faces. All opposition will have a different team makeup.

The 40 member team who has a range of players some will be above the average (10M) and some below. 100% of the members in that team has a target in your scenario. And in your scenario it's opposed to a 10 member team, only 5 of which have targets (50%).

It would be sheer luck and rare, that one or more from that 40 person guild was not bigger than any of those 5 you mention.

It's an extremely risky strategy with very low chance of success over the course of 50+ battles.

Hey give it a go and let us know.

[Prometheus1015]

I've been saying average power for months now, yes, it can be manipulated as well, but nothing to the degree of what we have now.

After watching these debates go on for ages I still say that the quest prizes are the problem, much less incentive to succeed for CP than to the wins/streaks.

I repeat my previous comment, eliminate all matching algorithms. Blind luck is far more fair and far less manipulated.

I would love to see elimination of algorithms, or at the least add 25% to 50% more teams to the existing opponent pool we can draw from.

[Alexius]

Good grief, the 40 member team with 20 minis (all low powered I assume) reduces it's scoring potential by 50% for the entire war over three days against every opposition it faces. All opposition will have a different team makeup.

The 40 member team who has a range of players some will be above the average (10M) and some below. 100% of the members in that team has a target in your scenario. And in your scenario it's opposed to a 10 member team, only 5 of which have targets (50%).

It would be sheer luck and rare, that one or more from that 40 person guild was not bigger than any of those 5 you mention.

It's an extremely risky strategy with very low chance of success over the course of 50+ battles.

Hey give it a go and let us know.

Scoring potential is irrelevant when you are dealing with gem users to begin with one person can score 500k over the course of a war especially if they're pursuing an individual prize to begin with. Where do you think those large stats come from? One person might be bigger but the rest will be scoring 70-150cp hitting a low level target while the guild that has the wide disparity can feast on your more average stat players. 50% with good targets will beat a team where 5-10% have good targets especially when gems get involved. I'll let you know how it works if I have to go that route. I'll be sure to find this post and gloat about yet another streak unit added to my inventory, maybe at the expense of your guild. :)

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

Scoring potential is irrelevant when you are dealing with gem users to begin with one person can score 500k over the course of a war especially if they're pursuing an individual prize to begin with. Where do you think those large stats come from? One person might be bigger but the rest will be scoring 70-150cp hitting a low level target while the guild that has the wide disparity can feast on your more average stat players. 50% with good targets will beat a team where 5-10% have good targets especially when gems get involved. I'll let you know how it works if I have to go that route. I'll be sure to find this post and gloat about yet another streak unit added to my inventory, maybe at the expense of your guild. :)

Scoring potential is irrelevant? And if they all had gems? Is it irrelevant then?

If scoring potential was irrelevant then why do all these ppl complain of no scoring opportunities. You are not making any sense here at all. You are dreaming these teams up.

As I said before, Good luck.

It's a matter for Gree what they do or don't do. I have tried to make a reasonable suggestion based upon the complaints I read. Whether there is a change or no change will not effect me at all.

Perhaps you can let us know in a constructive way how the issue can be resolved using your high school mathematics and your critical thinking skills.

[Alexius]

In your context yes, irrelevant in your one for one, each person only has 'x' amount of hits kind of way. When you have people with unlimited hits it changes the game completely. I'm not making sense because you can't understand it which I fully expected because you haven't been able to understand much lately.

The solution is to speak with your feet and not play. You can also adapt. Play the game the way it's set up not the way it's always been. Use the parameters to your advantage. What isn't going to work is to try and think of a way to standardize fairness when the motivation of the developer is profit, not necessarily a positive gaming experience for everyone. Conflict of interest at its finest.

[Danthorne]

Hilarious thread. Everyone wants to match a guild they can beat and cries when matched with a stronger team. There's only 1250 ranked guilds and that's a small pool when you think about it. You win some, you lose some. Not much Gree can do to match you with an ideal guild every time.

[Valid or]

Hilarious thread. Everyone wants to match a guild they can beat and cries when matched with a stronger team. There's only 1250 ranked guilds and that's a small pool when you think about it. You win some, you lose some. Not much Gree can do to match you with an ideal guild every time.
There's a lot gree can do to even out the matches.
You seem to have missed the point on this. The point is the the current matching system is flawed and has been flawed since it came out, if it is left as it sits, the issue is going to grow.
It's not about win/loss, nor is it about the 1250 guilds that can be ranked. It's all about the code they use to match us up with and it not working as it should.
Pvp matching needs to constantly evaluated and tweeked when needed to keep us on even footing, but gree dose not do this, they only make changes when things blow up due to bugs or we(players) voice the problems loud enough for them to take note.
Take it you don't pvp much in other games..or you would already know this is common to constantly evaluate and tweek code to better match opponents. Most other game go as far as nerfing playing stats and skills or boosting them on a continual basis to try and keep this medium. Gree so far as boosted our stats and that definitely did not help even out things, made them more lopsided. This is a pvp game and gree needs to treat it like a pvp game, not treat it like a cow they can milk daily.

[Skyraiders]

I really have to say I have enjoyed for the most part reading this thread......the matching system debate has been great....

Many good points have been made......I think that the matching system will never really be truly fair......as the gap get wider at top and bottom teams.....everyone must face someone......and yes it sucks when it's your team that has to take an hour off because you were matched with an impossible team.....I.E. Fun SB RK...ect

There will never be a perfect match system.....

If you do guild strength.....well...for obvious reasons that won't work...

If you do an average strength .....still run into the stat inflation problem

IMO.....average members + average strength + rank or CP =potentially ideal matchups.......perhaps add in time of declare

In the end it will always be a match that is to tough or to easy depending on the side your on..

[Mark SA]

I really have to say I have enjoyed for the most part reading this thread......the matching system debate has been great....

Many good points have been made......I think that the matching system will never really be truly fair......as the gap get wider at top and bottom teams.....everyone must face someone......and yes it sucks when it's your team that has to take an hour off because you were matched with an impossible team.....I.E. Fun SB RK...ect

There will never be a perfect match system.....

If you do guild strength.....well...for obvious reasons that won't work...

If you do an average strength .....still run into the stat inflation problem

IMO.....average members + average strength + rank or CP =potentially ideal matchups.......perhaps add in time of declare

In the end it will always be a match that is to tough or to easy depending on the side your on..


I would have to agree with your opinion, although I would find it hilarious if they removed all factors and just let it be a free for all...RK vs T1250 guild.

[Ysae Kaeps ASU]

The Gree perspective to the issue.


Thanks for all the feedback. Our World Domination team is constantly looking at data and tweaking the algorithms to try to make matchups fair while not taking ages to match up factions. It's not an easy job at all with thousands of factions of all different sizes, strengths, and spend-levels. There's a human bias that makes you notice when you're in negative situations more than when you're in positive situations. You might submit a ticket when you get matched up with a faction you can't beat, but you don't submit a ticket when you get matched up with a faction who can't beat you.

What I will tell you is this:

We receive complaints from the strongest factions about long match-up times.
We receive complaints from the strongest players about not getting enough points from weaker players.
We receive complaints from the weaker factions about getting matched up with strong factions.
We receive complaints from the weaker players about not being able to beat stronger players.

It's all been a balancing act where no one is happy because both stronger and weaker factions face their own advantages and disadvantages. It's not ideal, but we haven't come up with any tweaks that can make match-ups perfect for all factions. The upside is that we're not going to forsake any group and only cater to weaker or stronger factions.

So please keep giving us your feedback and we'll keep working on tweaking the algorithms, but any suggestions that only help factions of your strength and hurt factions of other strength are not considered at all.

[Ratma2001]

Match this.....ouch ouch ...flaming ...I'm on fire...yeah baby burn ....ouch ....winner are grinners
I'm the best that ever was and ever will be !!
Never forget me

[Krayt]

Match this.....ouch ouch ...flaming ...I'm on fire...yeah baby burn ....ouch ....winner are grinners
I'm the best that ever was and ever will be !!
Never forget me

And you wonder why you get banned

[Ratma2001]

It wasn't for this, I can assure you, I have always been upfront and pleasant, but to ban me for what they did is ridiculous!

[Ratma2001]

And you wonder why you get banned

I have always stuck up for what I believe is right and fair, it's great to see sooooo many other forum members doing the same... Let me see how much you have spent , and how often you got taken down the river of no return, don't preach to me about what's right and what's not, your just a pawn in a bigger game , but if enough voice their concern maybe just maybe you might get something done , at the end of the day for me it's all about the players and not lining Gree's pocket with a half thought out idea on how to get YOU to spend more money ! If you think I'm joking , ask around and don't be blinded by what you think is going on, know what's going on , you may be a better person for it !
Just check my posts if you think i should be banned! Yes I'm out spoken but I don't profess thing I don't commit to u like this company! I don't change my mind halfway through something cause it seemed like a good idea.... Get out and look at the real world.. I'm not attacking you just voicing my opinion of the situation

[Shiloh]

Nice to see you back.

[Ratma2001]

Thanks for all the feedback. Our World Domination team is constantly looking at data and tweaking the algorithms to try to make matchups fair while not taking ages to match up factions. It's not an easy job at all with thousands of factions of all different sizes, strengths, and spend-levels. There's a human bias that makes you notice when you're in negative situations more than when you're in positive situations. You might submit a ticket when you get matched up with a faction you can't beat, but you don't submit a ticket when you get matched up with a faction who can't beat you.

What I will tell you is this:

We receive complaints from the strongest factions about long match-up times.
We receive complaints from the strongest players about not getting enough points from weaker players.
We receive complaints from the weaker factions about getting matched up with strong factions.
We receive complaints from the weaker players about not being able to beat stronger players.

It's all been a balancing act where no one is happy because both stronger and weaker factions face their own advantages and disadvantages. It's not ideal, but we haven't come up with any tweaks that can make match-ups perfect for all factions. The upside is that we're not going to forsake any group and only cater to weaker or stronger factions.

So please keep giving us your feedback and we'll keep working on tweaking the algorithms, but any suggestions that only help factions of your strength and hurt factions of other strength are not considered at all.

O.k based on this then, why not make the biggest the best and throw the little people to the lions, ....I mean after all in the end it's all about how much $$ you can make , let's not kid each other here, the smaller guild give Gree nothing as they play for free, and only hold those back that want to get stronger, I think Gree should have a more STEP approach to this , the more you spend the more you get , as always, let's look at this from outside the circle ..I am being open and appreciate all posts on this, Starfire whom is at +100 Million compared to say myself at 10Million, we both spend , obviously Starfire spends a lot more than I did, so why chastise her to help me, my pittance of 700 a month is a drop I. The Ocean compared to her Thousands, as so it should be, the issue is that with events you say to make them more approachable to all, player have to spend, bottom line, in a nut shell, but why make such a huge variance ?
So Starfire is the biggest and best ....cause her bank balance says so, what about all the small players spending 20 here 40 there, it does add up , but not to the point of thousands,
Thus why make it easier for the small fry to tangle with the big fish ! Or whales,
Equality is missing
Can you explain to me why 12 months ago the biggest was spending the same amount yet your stat inflation has gone beyond normal KPI ?Gree chose to inflate stat ten fold and didn't think of the bigger picture!
If you had 5 players spending 3,000 a month and looked after them , in return they spent the same amount per month.
If you had 1,000 players spending $30 a month that's more revenue and a bigger bottom line,it's not hard to get more players to spend if the growth was lessor and more achievable ?
If Gree was to have a 40 or 50% Off sale it would make more in that time than just some random quest that is worthless to all but bigger stat players.
If I am wrong correct me , but this is my line of thinking, Gree have burnt so many spenders lately that it would be hurting big time to the bottom line

[plavine]

Hilarious thread. Everyone wants to match a guild they can beat and cries when matched with a stronger team. There's only 1250 ranked guilds and that's a small pool when you think about it. You win some, you lose some. Not much Gree can do to match you with an ideal guild every time.
I would hope this isn't the case. My guild does get some fair matchups and I don't think I should be able to beat everyone on the other team . I think most of the complaints are from high level /low gemmers ( like me )who get matched up against a 10 person guild whose only target is a LLP that gets us under 200 points per hit while the inflated stat players hit us for hundred each hit . In some cases ,they don't even bother to destroy the wall because they don't have to.

[plavine]

I just wanted to say thanks for posting everyone .
If cj and the other developers just think one of our ideas is useful then maybe the matchups will become a little fairer.
I never thought this would get so many responses , but it just proves that whether u are a free player or a gemmer , we all want a fair and challenging game . This is why we like to play .

[Person]

sad thing is, if you decide as a guild to lessen spending a little, you're ****ed even more. We went from top 10 to top 25 to top 50, and i dont think we'll be 25 anytime soon. But we still have many members which would statwise fit in top 10 if not top 3 guilds. So my meager 15m attack reduced me to a wallhitter most of the time last war when we fought as a nearly full guild. If we were fighting non splinters around our rank, we would win, yes. But we dont because we have higher stats, so we lose 2 out of 3 matchups.

[senna]

sad thing is, if you decide as a guild to lessen spending a little, you're ****ed even more. We went from top 10 to top 25 to top 50, and i dont think we'll be 25 anytime soon. But we still have many members which would statwise fit in top 10 if not top 3 guilds. So my meager 15m attack reduced me to a wallhitter most of the time last war when we fought as a nearly full guild. If we were fighting non splinters around our rank, we would win, yes. But we dont because we have higher stats, so we lose 2 out of 3 matchups.

Basically, if you don’t play this game continuously and miss out on some big events, you would fall so far behind the pack that you don’t even feel like picking up the device anymore.

[plavine]

Aright folks,

I know this is a very heated topic for many here but let's keep the call outs on others to a minimum please.

So far folks have posted some really constructive feedback regarding the matching system. I'm compiling it all to pass to our product and engineering teams to further look at and consider.

Thanks.
Thank you for reading this and chiming in Sirius. With the exception of the two players going back and forth ( which is kind of amusing in its own right ) , this thread accomplished what I was hoping for .

[Krayt]

We'll your complaining has ruined splinters

[The red Baron]

The new matching is a desaster for small guilds (11 members) which now get only splinter guilds.
We had fun to play as a small group, finishing guild quest with the help of each other and dont want to have 20 other members in the guild doing nothing. Now we fight black ops 5 and one man guilds which during the normal game are a part of big guild and splinter for war. Last war we won 54 fights and now we will be happy to win 30.
This may be the last kick to leave KA.

[KarenWill]

This may be the last kick to leave KA.
. .

[merlin321]

YOU WITH CG War?
The new matching is a desaster for small guilds (11 members) which now get only splinter guilds.
We had fun to play as a small group, finishing guild quest with the help of each other and dont want to have 20 other members in the guild doing nothing. Now we fight black ops 5 and one man guilds which during the normal game are a part of big guild and splinter for war. Last war we won 54 fights and now we will be happy to win 30.
This may be the last kick to leave KA.

[Krayt]

You can't be surprised.
All the complaining about splinter groups was going to get others involved in new match ups that would not be favourable

[Zenobia]

All those jumping for joy that splinters were screwed this war with no warning from Gree have nothing to say about the fact that non-elite splinters like The red Baron's guild are equally screwed by the new matching system. Guess it only matters to them that their guild benefits from it.

[Zenobia]

...So far folks have posted some really constructive feedback regarding the matching system. I'm compiling it all to pass to our product and engineering teams to further look at and consider.

Thanks.

Sirius, if any significant changes are made to the matching algorithm, PLEASE inform us all well before the beginnig of the war with said changes. Thanks.

Thanks for NOT telling us you were totally and completely changing the algorithm despite polite requests that you do so. When you make changes to the algorithm that mean guilds suddenly can only have a chance to reach their goals if they drastically change the guild composition BEFORE war starts, it would be a simple courtesy to let us know that before it is too late. Thanks.

[Swede]

This war is the worst war ever! It's the beginning of the end for Kingdom Age.

[alonibb]

We are now up against a 2 people guild with total stats 6.5M. We are 40 players where maybe half of us are between 5-10M and half 10-20M. How could we match? :)

We are loosing.. He is a heavy gemmer... That proves current matching dont take strength into considerations. Only rank and previous battle.

[Alexius]

We are now up against a 2 people guild with total stats 6.5M. We are 40 players where maybe half of us are between 5-10M and half 10-20M. How could we match? :)

We are loosing.. He is a heavy gemmer... That proves current matching dont take strength into considerations. Only rank and previous battle.

Quite the contrary, given the stats you've posted it seems clear that average strength factors into the equation and you guys should be able to hit him. It also disproves the notion that splinter guilds don't spend, especially when many of them are top 25-200 with fewer than 20 players and no health regen.

[alonibb]

Quite the contrary, given the stats you've posted it seems clear that average strength factors into the equation and you guys should be able to hit him. It also disproves the notion that splinter guilds don't spend, especially when many of them are top 25-200 with fewer than 20 players and no health regen.
I dont think so. One player was 6M and the other 500k. So their average is 3M and ours must be at least 8-9M.

And yes most of us could hit. But he was very low level and we got too bad CP for each hit so we decided to let it go.

[The red Baron]

What do you blame ? You got a weak one who is using gems. If you would use as much gems as he you would win.
Means the matching is ok.

[alonibb]

What do you blame ? You got a weak one who is using gems. If you would use as much gems as he you would win.
Means the matching is ok.
Where do I say I complain? Its a bad matchup for them, not for us.

[zach123]

Our strongest member is 5-6 mil boosted we went against a 5 man splinter weakest was 30 mil defense

[marko101]

Quite the contrary, given the stats you've posted it seems clear that average strength factors into the equation and you guys should be able to hit him. It also disproves the notion that splinter guilds don't spend, especially when many of them are top 25-200 with fewer than 20 players and no health regen.

Well are 16 member splinter is on last fight for 56 wins unit and heading for top 100!!!! If gree screw with matching then that's a lot less gems from us!

[Marke525]

I have noticed this in the past few wars and it does need to be changed. You can't average the teams total def and attack against another teams. Our guild has 36 players. Our best player has about 4 mil att/def. About half our battles were against guilds with less than ten players. Those players had minimum att/def of 6 mil or more. There is no way to win a single fight in this kind of battle against this type of opponent, regardless of how many gems you spend.

If you're going to match teams based on point level, then you need to include the number of players. For instance if the guild has a total 100 mil att/def points and 6 players, they should be paired against a guild of a similar size. If the stats are the same and the guild has 40 players, they should be paired against a similar guild.

[zach123]

They should use median strength instead of average. SO if 10 players middle in strength are 20 mil wont go against a guild of 40 players who are all under 20 mil if median is around 2-3 mil

[marko101]

Why does it need to change? Gree will understand that the splinters spend more then the lower rank teams they fight! Plus we scored 200k in 5 minutes against one splinter!!!



I have noticed this in the past few wars and it does need to be changed. You can't average the teams total def and attack against another teams. Our guild has 36 players. Our best player has about 4 mil att/def. About half our battles were against guilds with less than ten players. Those players had minimum att/def of 6 mil or more. There is no way to win a single fight in this kind of battle against this type of opponent, regardless of how many gems you spend.

If you're going to match teams based on point level, then you need to include the number of players. For instance if the guild has a total 100 mil att/def points and 6 players, they should be paired against a guild of a similar size. If the stats are the same and the guild has 40 players, they should be paired against a similar guild.