Constant garbage match-ups Gree; raising the Flag

[BigMoney]

I'm sure that only happened the first time, bm... But I just thought of something: who declared for them?

I know the matchups were screwy at the start, but FC did get that 1-man syndicate with the level 112 much later than that. They made a big topic about it, though GREE probably deleted it by now. I've had some weirdness happening throughout the war, which I think is all related to the syndicate screwup GREE had before the war. For example, in that TEAM LOC match, I was doing ~4000 damage to the wall, which is absurdly low, especially for my attack. 3-4 wars ago, when my attack was 272k, I did 4900+ wall damage. Last war I did about 5300-5700 damage to wall (+38% hideout damage modifier).

So although our matchups have been good since then, I did have a problem with wall damage-- it seems my hideout modifier wasn't being applied. People in my syndicate with weaker attacks than me were doing 5000+ damage, and I was doing 4000. This last battle, however, I did 5520 damage-- which is, probably not coincidentally, 4000 + 38% = 5520.

This is why I have a feeling that the "weirdness" isn't over. Everyone will be battling last minute, something something servers, something something just like the PvP and stuff breaks.

And no idea who declared for them. There was an icon of a lady on the main screen, though (where they show the leader). But if there was any one there, they didn't score any points, as that battle finished 10k to nothing.

[genaks]

We are a top 250 team and were matched to a top 50 team a few hours ago. But wouldn't complain much coz we were also matched to a pretty weak team right after. So we made up for the points we missed out on by retreating against the top 50 team.

[TRAZ]

10/60 players is quite a lot, and I was just posting players above 200 (we don't typically scout players well below 200). But it's still unreasonable of you to expect matchups where everyone has a target in every single match. Everyone gets matchups where they have few players who are able to hit the other team-- e.g. any time a top 25 team matches FC/SAS/RG/IN-- we fought those teams a combined 12 times last war. It's ridiculous to expect that you should only teams within your own syndicate's ranking, as such a matchup system would easily be prone to abuse/manipulation (e.g. it would be far more beneficial to drop outside a ranking if it were to guarantee a softer matchup). Take a look at the teams who were able to match real teams in the beginning of the war. I think TCM was in 2nd or 3rd with 900k+, a total I highly doubt they normally put up in matches against other top 25s.

You never answered my question about where you thought those teams were ranked. It's okay, I'll take the fact that you were unable to answer where teams with those kind of stats should be ranked as proof enough.


Edit: I might have one small detail wrong-- I thought I saw TCM in the Top 3 for the first battle, but I could be confusing them with Godfathers.

No need to answer since I've plainly stated where we are the entire time of this thread. Match ups are still broken and that's the point to this whole thread and something Gree needs to fix.

Again, not about targets, but about matching criteria as to how the opponent is supposedly picked. It's just not accurate, but yet we get the same response when questioning Gree about it. A top 50 team should never be paired with a top 1000 team.

Ultimately it's just Gree's way to try and force more gold out of players.

[Sandukan]

I'm like 95% sure that someone is going to get screwed over by the faulty matchups... maybe a team in 8th place, or 23rd, or whatever, unable to hold on for the final push because they get a syndicate like this:

This is why my team is currently building a sizable lead over what we think the top 25 mark will be.

Funny you should say this when people accuse a certain team of running the score up for no reason.
Don't you fear being chastised as well?

[Dipstik]

Funny you should say this when people accuse a certain team of running the score up for no reason.
Don't you fear being chastised as well?

I have no idea what your point here is supposed to be.

[Sandukan]

I have no idea what your point here is supposed to be.

I knew it was only a matter of time before I could successfully tier my post to target specific comprehension levels.

[Butt Futter]

I knew it was only a matter of time before I could successfully tier my post to target specific comprehension levels.

Unfortunately Dippy is right. Your post means absolutely nothing. No one has ever complaing about running up the score here since you have to run up the score to place.

[Sandukan]

Unfortunately Dippy is right. Your post means absolutely nothing. No one has ever complaing about running up the score here since you have to run up the score to place.

Tier system holding.......

[Dipstik]

I knew it was only a matter of time before I could successfully tier my post to target specific comprehension levels.

When someone calmly points out that your post is indecipherable, you might consider rewording it or explaining instead of trying to insult me. Just a thought.

[bald zeemer]

He's referring to the fact that in the past some people have complained about excessive leads by FC in wars, and by #1 placeholders in leaderboard events.

[BigMoney]

That's obviously different than what we're doing. FC builds huge leads to discourage those behind them from even making a run at 1st. That's obviously quite different than scoring the necessary IP for 25th a few hours earlier.

[Sandukan]

That's obviously different than what we're doing. FC builds huge leads to discourage those behind them from even making a run at 1st. That's obviously quite different than scoring the necessary IP for 25th a few hours earlier.

Different you say?
Same objective.
To secure the intended position. No one wants to spend more than they have to.

Big Money even when I disagree with your post I usually can see where you are coming from.
Please don't begin flirting with hypocrisy.

[TRAZ]

After reviewing this more, was the below listed info actually true for teams that didn't get a match within 20 minutes? We came close, but never had to wait more than 20.

"The system will spend 20 minutes looking for a match-up. As this time goes on, the parameters will relax slightly. If a match-up is not found in 20 minutes, your syndicate will have to declare battle again and the system will start looking again."

[Bandit_]

The one person syndicate that BigMoney pointed out is a problem that definetly needs to be corrected by matching teams by rank and number of syndicate members. Make the breakdown 40-60 members, 20-40 members 1-20 members, this well also help in having more even pairings. a team ranked 1000 generally has no more them 35 players and this would avoid matchups with top teams.

My syndicate battled almost every top team, we were at 23 for most of the war and slipped down to 29. This was out last matchup:


No grumbling from us, thats just they way the ball bounces.