Wait, so you are saying:
Unfair because the opponent consolidates power at the top and we don’t so we have no choice but to lose …
Unfair because we consolidate power at the top and the opponent doesn’t so they have no choice but to lose …
Which is it? Do you see why people don’t follow your arguments?
No two alliances are the same so EVERY match up possible is in some way a mismatch.
He’s actually saying that the first one happens first, then the second one happens after they lose enough. The core complaint is that it’s never fair matches: it’s either unbalanced against his alliance, or unbalanced in their favor.
The complaint makes sense to me. He and I just disagree about why it happens and how to go about mitigating it.
If it is always happening then that is an issue. We see it sometimes in AW but not all the time. Less so now than immediately following the switch. Even so, in the current war we were matched very closely (closest I’ve seen) once only participants was considered. We flipped them within 4 hours and have a 1000 point lead with just over an hour left. Flags unused is the same (around 31-32).
If you look at @Balusticballsac’s posted history, it happens quite frequently to his alliance. So I personally think it’s fair that he raise it as an issue. I agree with you that matches have improved dramatically since the old days, but I think that there is definitely room for more improvements.
My main thought on the subject (at least, that is under SGG control) is that hero power is not a very good comparative tool between 5* teams, and that can lead to some matchups that are nominally balanced but in practice are crazily unbalanced.
Here’s an interesting fact. War is over, we won by over 800 points. Our war score went down 4000, opponent’s war score went up 3000. So in theory even though they lost they will now face a slightly stronger opponent next time.
That is interesting. We just picked up a very strong player in my alliance after war started. We won, but I’m sure that upped our war score by at least as much as the win. I wonder if that happened to your opponent?
It’s possible, still seems strange that we went down by 4000 when we won. We didn’t gain or lose any, unless someone opted out of war.
Yes I see why people don’t follow… Because they don’t read what I said… Follow that up with a few comments like is seen in your response and presto.
Read my post and comment on them… Don’t guess at what I’ve said and then agree with others…
You are way off what I said. Understand how the matchmaking system works… then read my posts.
I think few disagree with what I’ve said is the problem, that actually understand how matchmaking works… They do disagree with my solution though!!!
Right that why I don’t get the use of a win loss modifier… if you can adjust teams, by just trading in and out players.
As long as you trade up, you should be golden…
That is very strange. Several people have asked for more transparency on the war score calculation. Sounds like this is a prime example of why it would be helpful.
I have read what you say and I understand what you say. I just don’t agree with it. We don’t get enough information to determine if a war match up is actually fair or unfair at the beginning of the war. It may be entirely possible that the current system does not match up well. It seems for sure that it does not in all cases. But using player level as you suggest adds a random factor to the equation that does not make it more precise. I suspect instead they need to balance better the adjustment for the top 5 and the power levels of the heroes. Maybe there needs to be a separate offensive and defensive power level. Some heroes do much better at one or the other. Use the top 5 defensive heroes for the adjustment factor as they are more likely to be in the defense team even if not in the top 5 total power.
Well think of it as tanks vs guys with arrows… Both are worth equal points, in power and in score, in a certain way…
I’m sure you get that.
If you allow one team too many tanks against a team with more arrow men to make up the gap… It’s impossible to get an even match…
So the question is… When do players get a certain # of tanks on one team, that it consolidates that power…
It’s definitely not in the teens, or 20’s, I’ve yet to see it in the 30’s tithe extent we’re discussing…
it could exist in the 40’s yet I’d imagine it’s upper 40’s…
How many in the level 40’s has say 10, 5* hero’s in the max tier?
I’m guessing by the 50 it starts be be common-place. So that’s why I suggest it…
Yet the counter argument is… Well some don’t follow that pattern…
The answer is so what… That has no bearing on if it would work as a fix…
So I’ve yet to actually see an educated argument as to why it wouldn’t work If added to the current system, except in the most rare of cases…
They can address the anomalies later… Fix it for the masses first…
See, comments like this really don’t help your cause. Especially when you seem to fundamentally misunderstand some of the arguments being made. You may not find the arguments you’ve seen as persuasive, but they were hardly not educated arguments.
We have no idea how things are calculated, although we do know they use hero power which is a 3 digit number. Ex. 640. Throw player level into the equation, and it seems it would be all over the place. Lvl. 40-50 in both alliances. Maybe add them all up and try to match within 10 total levels and also within 10k war score? Idk it feels a 48 vs 46 player would be close in roster but when factored into equation they would be spread clear out.
I’m not sure how to quote the text as you did…
But maybe you read again what I said then edit your reply to fit what I said inits context…
I said, I’ve yet to see an educated argument as to why “what I said” wouldn’t work…
I did not imply that people have made arguments about other things that are educated…
I think there are a couple people that grasp the issue actually…
I’m looking at any ideas openly…
I will say you have no issues with people saying , what I say will make things worse… Yet there is nothing pointing to that as even a reasonable or educated statement…
Then again, I’ve yet to read anything in your educated argument to convince me that what you propose would work. Since you are the one making the proposal the onus is on you to make the persuasive argument.
That’s actually close, to what I’m thinking… Not that it won’t let a 50 play a 35 as matches… But if it does it must check that they are within a certain power consolidation range. Attempts made to not match too many also…
As I think certain player level ranges, build bench different…
Example is, I’m sure it’s common for really low players low 20’s and below will retain all 3* inflating the power on paper…
Those are best matched with a similar makeup…
We can’t assume otherwise… Just because we can’t see it…
So every time that given as the reason not to do it… It’s not an easy sell, as well, they can’t see it… lol
But to toss out that similar level players are likely similar because we can’t see them all, seems to be the main measure.
Work? It’s not a work or not work thing… So I can tell that anyone suggesting so, is not grasping what I’m suggesting…
It’s an added check and match marker to the current system.
They will never hit all bullseyes… The game is designed for parity, variety, and variance.
What they are seeking is a fair matchup…
I suggest adding to the system somthing that pairs things that are alike in one other way, Aka potential development, and ordinary evolutionary norms. could help the system make closer matches and help avoid some of the consolidation issues the current system seems to allow.
Great. Then why aren’t you proposing matchmaking factor in hero rarity? This is what you’re actually arguing as being the problem. This is already accounted for via hero power, but it seems like you would like more weight on 5s vs 4s vs 3*s. Keep player levels out of it and you’ll probably get a lot less disagreement.
But it is. You say match making isn’t working so make it work by adding player level as an added adjustment. See, work.