Our matchups have been okay, currently in a big battle with The Game 7.
Our matchups have been okay, currently in a big battle with The Game 7.
We are getting a lot of low lvl teams right now from top100 easy for us to keep the streak but definately not fair to them as they cant hit a single player of us. GREE maybe look into this again sooner then later to avoid previous war issues. Thnx
last matchup we didn't stand a chance and our streak was broken. Very few (low level) targets any of us could hit and low IP from them
I'd agree. It's not fair on the lower level teams to have bigger ones intruding into their space in order to avoid getting matched with those teams who can just bludgeon everybody with $$$. The trouble is the middle ranking teams are getting the bigger guys more often as the matching has opened up. Same story in KA and MW.Originally Posted by Randolph
"The Tokyo Rose of the Trailer Park"
Our synd is around rank #1000 now, we met a top 500 synd yesterday and got ****d, very very hard. Almost every team we fight against have higher total score than us, it would be nice if we could get opponents with simular score or maybe even a bit less than us. Just a few fights, is it to much to ask for? It only seems fair.
Hey, we are also top 1000 with 8 active accounts, why not merge in with ur top scorers and we can get top 500?
Truth......
Voted 2014 People's choice "Best Recruiter" on Kakao.
It's never too late to be a Molly,
Interview Today!!!! 393025085
Pecs in effect. I know you hatin'.
Who do you expect the top 10 to be matching with? Just each other? Watch the leader-board -- if the top three have scores that are moving that means they're in a battle and it's safe to declare. If they're not moving they might have just declared and are waiting for a match. Probably a good idea to wait.
Because Top 10 teams are intentionally avoiding each other. Most Top 10-25 teams usually at least try to avoid the Top 3, but now matchups between Top 10 teams are way down.
No, because your rank has relatively little to do with your quality of matchup, as evidenced by the Top 75 teams matching SAS, etc. It's more of a factor that teams are far more likely to recognize "oh no, a Top X team, there's no way we can beat these guys" (or "no way they can beat us") and consequently have no need to spend any gold in such a matchup, which would better be preserved for much more competitive matchups, which are now deliberately rarer (at least at the top).
Anyone praising the "strategy" involved with wins and win streaks is foolish. All it has really done has increased collusion amongst the top teams, which has obviously reduced spending. DFA's highest spending matchups have been against Top 25 teams really desperate for a win-- high enough that they can put up a lot of points, but not enough to be involved in any collusion. Hat tip to GFA for scoring 1.5mil IP in a losing effort to DFA, for instance. The only other "strategy" involved with such win streaks is deliberately abusing the matchmaking system, and building your team in such a way so as to deliberately game the matchmaking system. There will be a lot more of that next war, I imagine.
Just a general tip. This isn't necessarily bad advice, but the leaderboards operate on about a 5 minute delay. In previous wars I have been foolish enough to refresh the leaderboard, see SAS's score move, and declare, only to immediately match SAS (who likely finished 5-10 minutes ago). That's obviously a much bigger risk for a Top 10-25 though, as the matchmaking system doesn't start consider matching a team like FC or SAS with a Top 50-75 etc until they have been sitting there waiting a while for a match.
I agree with BigMoney ^^. Top ten teams usually talk on GroupMe or whatever to deliberately avoid matching with each other, which greatly increases the chances of top 75 teams getting them.
IMO the "keep your score low" plan is a flawed strategy anyway. It's based on the assumption that the matching algorithm works by banding syndicates by their current ranking. And this prompts syndicates to allow their ranking to slip in the hope of better match-ups.
But ask yourself this. How do the first battles match up? Not by rankings, because there aren't any. Not by the last war's rankings because what would happen with new syndicates? Not at random because the first four or five battles would be mayhem of wildly lopsided fights. And I can tell you from experience in KA of the "try to keep your score low strategy" that it doesn't work. No, the most likely mechanism to determine match-ups, and probably the easiest to code because it isn't shifting around constantly, is just by total (or average) att/def stats of the syndicate from the beginning of the battle.
Admittedly this is just a hypothesis, but it makes just as much or more sense as matching based on current rank. So what does this mean for strategy? If your syndicate has a lot of high level, high stat players you will be matched with top 50 teams. And if you're not prepared to match them with gold you will be screwed. On the other hand if you have a balance of levels including LLPs with reasonable stats for their level you might get match-ups that you can deal with.
For people not caring about rankings but wanting to go for the syndicate quest prizes for streaks and total wins, and optimum syndicate might have one very high level DL, 4-10 mid level players (across time zones) and a bunch of lower level players with pretty okay stats for their level. It would be worth the experiment.
it's the other way around for us.. we only play the weak teams.
No points to score for our big players.
This is exactly the case. I have way too many damn posts to find it in my posting history and the search feature doesn't work very well here, but I made a post in response to traz from Bad Blood Rising, who was frequently complaining about receiving tough matchups despite their rank. BBR was a syndicate that used to be competitive (Top 25?), but later "eased off" the gold spending, but they retained a large number of their high stat members. I made a post comparing the scouting reports for two teams, that I labeled "Team A" and "Team B," and I asked traz to guess the approximate rank of each team. Team A had good stats, roughly on par with most Top 25 teams. Team B had awful stats. In reality, Team A was traz's own syndicate, BBR, and Team B was the GoTTis (who have absolutely awful stats for a Top 25, even today after 3-4 Top 25 finishes now-- 500+ Doomsday Frags can only take you so far). The point of the post being that BBR was frequently matching Top 10-25 teams because their stats were on par with such a team, and the GoTTis, who actually were in the Top 25, rarely matched other Top 25 teams because of their weak stats.
So instead of publicly explaining how to abuse the matchmaking system (which is hardly that difficult to figure out) I would instead like to point out that players who spend gold at levels beyond their current stats reflect (e.g. new gold spenders) are thus more valuable to a syndicate than players like me that are the inverse of that, with large stats but no longer the gold spending to back it up.
Oops. Did I let a secret out. You're right of course, it's not that difficult to figure out. But I don't think it's that easy to "game" either. Letting your rank slip deliberately in the hope of easier match-ups is just stupid. The best strategy is to spend a lot of money (obvious). The best non-gold strategy is to have players with the highest att/def to level ratios possible (easier said than done - we all strive for this), and all things being equal, a reasonable smattering of low levels.
But strategy aside, if people understood how the matching worked there might be less "no fair" whinging (probably not). I saw another thread where a 40 man low stat team were complaining about a disgraceful march-up to a 4 man high stat team where all they could do was hit the wall. Guess what, 40 guys with 100K stats will match up with 4 guys with 1mil stats. Life's tough, suck it up gangster.
Im laughing all the way to the bank got screwed by the last war fighting over a top 50 spot this war i got to sit back and watch the insanity in my first row seats. Thanks for the 2X Ball Knockers, GREE, I'll surely be these job payout mods will help now that I don't do LTQs anymore.
I thought those last 5 minute spending frenzies were kinda cute....was about to join in one muself and realized how it would work after my first refill.
the only real way you can do a syn "free" is like custos said directly above ^. You hold your syn to very stringent Attack/Level AND Def/Level ratios. You brusquely, and without remorse, kick members of your syn who dont meet your steep expectations and discriminate solely on stats and activity. And then you ignore the general CC "community" when they call you *******s for doing so.
And if you aren't doing this, I don't see any reason you can cry. This is the only way to "win" Crime City now that camping is done for. And I cant even think of a top 50 syn who is "winning" this game anymore, if you know what I mean. You are all losers now. The 4 man syns were the smart ones, GREE turned 60 man syns into spending schemes.
Ratios which, given the egregious stat inflation from this past war, will have to be WELL over 7K Defense/Level.
Last edited by GucciMane; 10-07-2013 at 10:13 PM.
proud owner of toy box
Proud retired ex-member of Original Syn and Legen...dary.
It takes co-ordination to "game" it. Though that doesn't come easy in many syndicates who're used to spending their way to high ranks.
- spread the gold spending around late stages of battles to ensure wins with reasonable IP buffer
- go heavy with gold in the final 1/2 day, and spend everything you budgeted for the war
You'll still get a similar IP total in previous wars, but will have taken more wins and streaks.
All in all for most syndicates, it'd take more communication and more effort than in previous wars to be able to win BOTH the new prizes AND rank well.
Posting Permissions
