Congrats Gree!

The only reason I play the game is because of the guild wars. It takes strategy and you compete along with your guildmates and there are a lot of communication.

Last war we got many bad matchups with not 1 single target. How fun is it just to wait an hour for next battle?

This war is even worse. 50% of our battles has been against guilds where everyone is way stronger than us. We have met several top 25 guilds. We are 23 players in our guild and most of us are between 500k and 1.5M in stats. We constantly end up with guilds with 3-5 million stat players and we cant do nothing.

When we actually get decent targets we have to spend a lot of gems to get some points. I know that is contraproductive, but what shall we do? We have been a top 200 guild for 5-6 wars and need points to be able to keep that up. If the rest of the war continues in the same way this will be the last war as gem spender for me.

As I said... Gree has succeeded in taking the fun out of the wars as well. Congratulations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by England Jon

Could you let us know what happened in the other 50%. We are Top 150 at the moment and seeing some strong guilds in match up as I would expect. However we are matching against guilds weaker than ourselves. It is roughly 50/50 as I would expect. We battle constantly. If they are too strong we pass and wait for the next one. I dont know what you expect.

---

I expect opponents with at least 1 or 2 targets to have a fair chance. It IS okay to face tough guilds, but not impossible guilds. This is the first time we have top 25 guilds and we have met several this war.

The other 50% that we actually can fight is a mixture. Most of them are twice as much members but at least there are targets. We have had 3-4 easy wins. We have already kind of given up and are right now playing for free.

well you beat us :P


Madness of Crows here ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Person

well you beat us :P


Madness of Crows here ;)

---

And MOC2 kicked our butt back, so I guess we are even. : D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Person

well you beat us :P


Madness of Crows here ;)

---

Yes we did, and I still not know how we managed that:)

The last 5-6 wars actually have been more like it should be. We got 1 impossible and 4 doable. We have won 3 of them and got outspent on 1. I guess it depends on we fall like a rock in rank when the morale hit bottom.

And you've been ducking us! We want Mel!

You guys beat us too, scored a pile as I recall. The thing I continue to dislike with a passion is the incentive for mini guilds. These guilds are unbeatable and usually unscorable. The wins and win streak quests continue to be a scourge to the wars. Start matching guilds based on AVERAGE stats and you could fix this easily.

Average stats is dumb. You are then resigning all low members to get crap CP all war, and punishing people for being in small guilds that don't have huge guild bonus' unlocked.

More members = lower average stats....which means guilds in the Top 3 / Top 10 / Top 25 etc who have the most bonus' unlocked and the most members, start seeing more lower guilds.

Hugely flawed I'm afraid. There is no "perfect solution", any change GREE makes will just create new problems.

Edit : Example -

40 Member guild all with 5 mil stats
20 Member guild (perhaps it's a new guild, group of players that just got together) with 5 mil stats

Should these 2 match? The 40 members guild clearly have a huge edge...

I strongly disagree Blade.

First of all, more members does not equal lower average stats. Only more low stat members would lower the average stats and on the contrary adding more high stat members would increase the average stats.

Guild wars are built upon pvp fights where the scores are aggregated into guild scores. A guild never meets a guild in a fight. Guild members meet guild members in fights and in order for the fights to be somewhat fair and allow both guilds' members to participate, the member stats should be decently matched.

Your example - should a 40 member guild with all 5M stats meet a 20 member guild with all 5M stats? Yes they should because now all members of both guilds would stand a chance in their individual battles. The 40 member guild has a better chance of winning the battle assuming they have active members. With all members equally active, the 40 member guild has an advantage of 2x.

The current match-up algorithm that would cause a 20 member guild with 5M stats to meet a 40 member guild with 2.5M stats is just ridiculous. The 40 member guild will simply not win any matches unless they only use mega attacks but that will be a great disadvantage for them. Since one mega uses all health that could have been used for four normal attacks, the 20 member guild will have an advantage of 4x.

Average member stats is a far better matching algorithm than the current one. It does have it's flaws but not as bad as the current one.

I'd rather meet a top 25 guild where I stand a chance to beat at least one of their members than to meet a top 400 guild where I can't win any battle even when using megas.

I'd rather win one or a few attacks but lose the battle than losing both all attacks and the battle...

Blade, the scenario you describe as bad is actually far better than what many of us see now. The 20 man guild may have a harder time winning, but it will be able to score. It would also pit a 1 man guild with a 12 mil average against FUN and the like. Bye bye mini guilds. THAT is the primary goal in my opinion. It's idiotic that 10 man guilds with no bonuses can complete all of the quests on guild war events, and in the process block many larger older established guilds with tons of bonuses.

Nothing like getting SB when we were trying for our 9 streak... we were 8/9 and were set, and got SB who annihilated us badly. The problem was, by the time that war was over, there was only 8h40min left on the raid clock; no possibility of getting a 9-streak again....

We were no match for them; nor FUN; nor TRK;

still dont see what people have against splinters. its just a different tactic people are adapting, isnt it nice to have tactics instead of just a battle of the wallets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Person

still dont see what people have against splinters. its just a different tactic people are adapting, isnt it nice to have tactics instead of just a battle of the wallets?

---

I agree its part of the game. You have to adjust to how the mechanism work. But you cant take away thats a big problem also. Two wars in a row we got the Band av Alexes just when we were about to reach a milestone. None in our guild can beat any of them. Thats not fair when you can do nothing. This war we luckily avoided Band of Alexes, but got some others with the two man guild with over 10M in stats as the worst.

Lets say the average attack in our guild is 1 million (not far from truth) and we are 20 players. Thats 20 million in attack in total. Gree thinks that hey we have another guild also with 20M total.. Lets match them.. 20x1 = 2x10. Do you think its fair?

Based from experience when finishing a last win for the streak,somehow you are paired with a stronger one and you get screw 😱 G math..😭

It's war.... With team work 90% of matches are winnable.

Those that have adapted new strategies to get the most rewards deserve the rewards for doing so. Those players with high stat averages have worked hard and most likely paid for them.

People seem to be of the opinion that splinter guilds have it easy. Those who are in splinter guilds know the truth.

There will always be a stronger or more determined guild out there with more gems to push for the win.

I do agree that sometimes the matching seems unfair or silly but no matter what equation gree uses there will always be those who feel unfairly done by.

Gree has no control over who is in what guild and the strategies they use. Adapt and evolve. If you're using the same plan as you did in the first war and have made no changes, you may be left behind.

For matches, realize there's a finite number of guilds, which is actually small. Just take the 1200 used in ranking. If all are matched up, that's 600 wars in progress. If you declare during a period when 80% are fighting, that gives you a pool of 240 guilds to draw from and maybe only 10% have hit the declare button when you did. That leaves you with a pool of 24 guilds potentially ranging from rank 1-1200. So every matchup will not be perfect and put you with your perfect choice. It will vary wildly and Gree can't take the sole blame for that. I'm of course in no way defending Gree or anything they do, but they can only minimally control matchups (well, unless you're on the last battle of a streak and they seem to select the hardest guild available at the time for your match, lol).

We are a top 75 guild and we matched up with FUN, FUN 2, RK3 and SB. Talk about impossible. The only thing we did was knock down their wall and mega attacked their GG. Other than that, we took castles and got pummelled.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alonibb

I agree its part of the game. You have to adjust to how the mechanism work. But you cant take away thats a big problem also. Two wars in a row we got the Band av Alexes just when we were about to reach a milestone. None in our guild can beat any of them. Thats not fair when you can do nothing. \ Do you think its fair?

---

We get FUN, and RK... Do you think it is fair? We can't beat them either.. Lowest member is lvl 62 with over 6m Def. How is it any different? Top 75 and higher guilds have been dealing with this since guilds started. About time those of you hiding in the bottom ranks have to play like the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rastlin

We get FUN, and RK... Do you think it is fair? We can't beat them either.. Lowest member is lvl 62 with over 6m Def. How is it any different? Top 75 and higher guilds have been dealing with this since guilds started. About time those of you hiding in the bottom ranks have to play like the rest of us.

---

Yes, of course it's more fair for #5 team to get matched against #1, than #150. And BTW, the lowest FUN member had only 5M defense, so every member of DW team could beat him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragon Buster

Yes, of course it's more fair for #5 team to get matched against #1, than #150. And BTW, the lowest FUN member had only 5M defense, so every member of DW team could beat him.

---

How about when I was in Flub (Top 75 & 50 guild), and got matched with FUN and RK? And these Splinter Guilds are in your rankings... so it is no different than what you said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rastlin

How about when I was in Flub (Top 75 & 50 guild), and got matched with FUN and RK?

---

lol... exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rastlin

We get FUN, and RK... Do you think it is fair? We can't beat them either.. Lowest member is lvl 62 with over 6m Def. How is it any different? Top 75 and higher guilds have been dealing with this since guilds started. About time those of you hiding in the bottom ranks have to play like the rest of us.

---

I fully understand that a match with FUN or RK also is impossible to win. But my guess is that at least a few in your guild has high enough stats to beat some in FUN and RK or am I wrong? The main issue I was whining about was you getting guilds with 0 targets. Getting guilds with targets but that spend 10 mountains of gems each battle is impossible to win against, but you can score points. However your scenario is almost the same and we all understand that even FUN and RK must have opponents to fight.

As several players already have said its impossible to create an algoritm that everyone think is good, but I still think Gree should do some small changes to avoid what happened to us having 9 battles in a row against guilds with almost 0 targets.

To summarize, the match-ups would've been a lot more fair if the guilds were matched by their current ranking and average member stats. Than each side would need to put some effort in order to win, and GREE would get more revenue from such battles.

Well there isn't really a guild with all of it's member have 5 million defense. If there is one, then they should kick some of it's member and recruit a few low level players with 1 million and a few high level players with 12 million. The LLP for low CP points and HLP for attacking opponent HLP when there is one.

Other than whatever was happening 2-3 wars ago, this seems to be a much bigger problem for top guilds (say 200 and up) than us lil guys. Ours is a top 500-ish guild, and in a normal war, we'll get about 10% of our matches against much more powerful guilds. By that I mean that only our top 2-3 people can beat anyone while our average player is stuck with the castle. Then again, we are all about overall score rather than winning streaks, so we don't get too wound up unless we can't score any points or get smeared, pee'd on, and set on fire on their way out.

That said, it can be a huge morale issue to get a streak of those, so any algo improvement would result in dancing in the figurative streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -H-

It's war.... With team work 90% of matches are winnable.

Those that have adapted new strategies to get the most rewards deserve the rewards for doing so. Those players with high stat averages have worked hard and most likely paid for them.

People seem to be of the opinion that splinter guilds have it easy. Those who are in splinter guilds know the truth.

There will always be a stronger or more determined guild out there with more gems to push for the win.

I do agree that sometimes the matching seems unfair or silly but no matter what equation gree uses there will always be those who feel unfairly done by.

---

Right on, H. And congrats on another stellar performance this past weekend.

If you want Gree to only match you with guilds around your rank and average, you'll only be fighting the same 10 guilds and could take hours to match one of them, if one of them happens to even declare when you did. Kind of defeats the purpose. There's only so many guilds on and declared at a particular time.

First off, it's just false that you can win 90% in only you play well/smart/together. We had at least 10 wars with guilds THAT WE COULD NOT HIT ANYONE. We finished probably around 160 this war. We know how to make the most of what we have, but we never won 3 in a row and I think our record was 14-24.

Secondly, average stats and NOT, ranking is the most fair way to match. It's not perfect but it's so by far the best option it's beyond belief there is even a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiloh

First off, it's just false that you can win 90% in only you play well/smart/together. We had at least 10 wars with guilds THAT WE COULD NOT HIT ANYONE. We finished probably around 160 this war. We know how to make the most of what we have, but we never won 3 in a row and I think our record was 14-24.

Secondly, average stats and NOT, ranking is the most fair way to match. It's not perfect but it's so by far the best option it's beyond belief there is even a debate.

---

Nothing fair with average stats ! It's just fair that players who have worked and paid for their stats can beat those who haven't.
Your problem is not about matching system, but insane spread of stats...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiloh

First off, it's just false that you can win 90% in only you play well/smart/together. We had at least 10 wars with guilds THAT WE COULD NOT HIT ANYONE. We finished probably around 160 this war. We know how to make the most of what we have, but we never won 3 in a row and I think our record was 14-24.

Secondly, average stats and NOT, ranking is the most fair way to match. It's not perfect but it's so by far the best option it's beyond belief there is even a debate.

---

You guys only did 38 battles?
That could be part of the problem there.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerusalem

Right on, H. And congrats on another stellar performance this past weekend.

---

Thanks Jerusalem!

Congrats to you and your whole team as well :)

Good point H.
Let's not forget that splinter guilds, as they have few members, need to be well organised, dedicated, determined, and ready to spend either for tough battles or between wars to remain competitive.
I for one generally play at least 50 battles and up to 60.

Yes we deserve our rewards.

Our rewards are earned by our effort and considerable commitment: time and money, and character ability. It is what it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l3lade2

Average stats is dumb. You are then resigning all low members to get crap CP all war, and punishing people for being in small guilds that don't have huge guild bonus' unlocked.

More members = lower average stats....which means guilds in the Top 3 / Top 10 / Top 25 etc who have the most bonus' unlocked and the most members, start seeing more lower guilds.

Hugely flawed I'm afraid. There is no "perfect solution", any change GREE makes will just create new problems.

Edit : Example -

40 Member guild all with 5 mil stats
20 Member guild (perhaps it's a new guild, group of players that just got together) with 5 mil stats

Should these 2 match? The 40 members guild clearly have a huge edge...

---

I stick with AVERAGE.

Some reason :
1. Bring back old times when all guild near full.
2. Guild bonus will play role/worth to unlock again (increase guild members)
3. Team work put in a larger scale cause involve more peeps
4. Provide more fair n fightable battle, n give more chances for more to have fun in every rank (off course with exception if u pair with FUN,RK n SB)

Back in the day you used to have time to unlock bonuses. Now with the constant events and wars you don't have the time to raise gold for upgrades. How many guilds have been stuck at the same amount of members as months ago?

I'd like to see Gree add a CP bonus guild upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-I

I'd like to see Gree add a CP bonus guild upgrade.

---

And actually, a boss damage bonus would be good too. I'm sick of all there people in small 56-win guilds asking to join other guilds for events.