PDA

View Full Version : Matching system hopelessly flawed



dailygamer
11-16-13, 07:01 PM
The matching issue was originally raised in the thread ?LeaderBoard/Crown Update 6/4/13? but that thread had become muddled with other issues like shields, etc. There is also another thread called "Matching flawed" under "Bugs and Issues" but that seems to be exclusively concerned with being people being matched against considerably lower-ranked opponents. I am therefore starting this new thread to focus solely on your "matchmaking system" generating impossibly difficult opponents.

You asserted : ?Before, we match players based on the defensive strength of the attacker and defender, which was a flawed implementation, and I take full responsibility for this. Now players are match relative to their offensive progression (army camp/barracks levels, troop promotions etc..) and the defender's defensive progression. This will not be exploitable as the prior system was.?

Let me state categorically that your matching system is hopelessly flawed. I am L37. When I search for a suitable opponent to attack, I am given L50+ and L60+ opponents. I have even been matched against a top 5 ranked player. Whatever my ?offensive progression?, there is no way I can take on opponents with L8 or L9 walls, backed up by max or very high level watch towers, fireball catapults and cannons.

Conversely, I am attacked by people who are well past L40 who have 4 army posts with 200 spaces plus their alliance troops. I only have 3 army posts, 3 watch towers and 4 cannons.

For instance, I was attacked yesterday morning by a L48 player. Check my attack log. I was hit by 20 bears, 62 archers, 10 warriors and 7 bombers. That totals 179 spaces from his army posts while I only have 150 spaces. And while I have almost 2 full layers of L6 walls, these are utterly useless against 20 bears backed up by 62 archers. My 4 cannons, 2 lightning cannons, 3 watch towers and 2 fireball catapults (almost all of which are upgraded to the max permissible levels) were as effective as shooting rubber balls at a tank.

When I try to take revenge, lo and behold he had 6 lovely cannons, 4 lightning cannons, 4 watch towers, 4 flamethrowers, 3 fireball catapults and a harmless-looking ballista. What a warm welcome ! I?m positive I?ll annihilate him if I try so I decided to let him off.

So Frozen Turtle, let me take you back to your statements that the new matching system :

(1) ?was necessary to preserve the integrity of the leaderboard?, because you

(2) ?want to ensure that it can be fair and competitive for everyone?

If you tell me categorically that the above match (there are others by I cited only one from my attack log) was ?fair and competitive?, I?ll just have to shut my trap.

But I believe that matching based on an attacker's "offensive progression ........ and the defender's defensive progression" has failed because the metrics used are totally inaccurate. Matching should first and foremost be based on players' levels. A L30 player should have certain offensive and defensive capabilities. A L40 player should have INCREASED offensive and defensive capabilities; if he / she doesn't, that's his fault. But the players' respective offensive and defensive capabilities should NOT be determined by you.

Players should be matched with others who are up to 5 levels above or below them. That's a 10-level range. Then simply factor in the cases where people use gems to purchase additional worksheds.

If I had a lovely piece of fish and it only needs a sprinkling of salt to cook it, why add a hundred different ingredients ?

syllrag
11-18-13, 07:08 PM
EXACTLY!! It is the same with my proposal, though it seems you posted first.

Gonna quote myself from the other thread:


If I get it right, MeisterLampee meant for all crowns to be reset to 0 every tournament ends. So everyone starts with 0 crowns when the tournament begins.

But for that to work, the crown and matchmaking system would need a major overhaul. Winners should get bigger reward than the loser punishment, for example: winner get 40 crowns and loser lose 20 crowns, or winner get 2 crowns and loser lose 1 crown, unless the loser currently has 0 crown.

The matchmaking should be based on level (not crowns) with a certain max level difference, such as 10 levels; for example lv50 should only be matched with opponents min lv40 and max lv60. The level difference should also reflect the crowns reward, for example:lv50 winning against lv60 would get 40 crowns, whereas lv50 winning against lv50 would get 20 crowns, and lv50 winning against lv40 would get 1 crown.

Why matchmaking based on level? Because it is a more accurate measurement to reflect the player's strength, compared to crowns. With the same level of players, there are people who focus on attack by building and upgrading posts, barracks, armory promotion, etc; there are people who focus on defense by building towers; there are people who balance attack and defense. These are their choices based on their own strategies with each strengths and weaknesses.

...Not sure if this is heard by the dev, crossed my fingers...

PS: Though I am not sure if farmers would be fond of this idea, as well as ss burners.

jahil
11-18-13, 08:02 PM
EXACTLY!! It is the same with my proposal, though it seems you posted first.

Gonna quote myself from the other thread:

Yes, syllrag... It has fallen into deaf ears again and again and again...

redrockstar
11-18-13, 09:17 PM
It's pretty annoying to skip a player and then get the same player you just skipped 5 seconds later. Sigh.

syllrag
11-19-13, 08:40 PM
In addition to this, I also think that the shield system is broken. Let say that at a given time, 10% of the high level players are always online every time. Every of those players would only need to defeat 10 other players to make everyone under the shields. That's like 4 hours play to make every high level players under the shields.

Proposal:
1. Increase the min limit for receiving shields, for example from 50% to 75% base destroyed to get shield, so under 75% wouldn't receive any shield, especially for players above lv40. This or, give the 50% destroyed base only 1-2 hours shield.
2. Make a progressive shield so that the higher level you are, the lesser shield you receive. You can keep the current shield system up until lv40, but different for above lv40. For example: a lv40 would get 8hrs shield for 100% base destroyed, 4hrs for 75%, 1-2hrs for 50%, and none below 50%. A lv71 would get 4 hrs shield for 100% base destroyed, 2hrs for 75%, and none below 75%.
3. For players above lv40, 8hours shield should be the max shield you can get from normal game play, which is enough time for a good night sleep. 12hrs and above shields should only purchasable with gems.

Additionally, there should be a bonus resources for attacking other players, such as if P1 attacks P2, the resources that P1 get should not equal to what P2 lose. P1 should get at least 10% bonus resources additional to what P2 lose.

Tell me if this would work or not.

nachomandeluxe
12-01-13, 08:20 PM
One day every time I won I got 0 crowns. I lost and lost 40 crowns

gaxtefexee
12-02-13, 10:31 AM
When one is paying (coins) for finding an opponent then why should one not get what one wants. Some can want crowns, others coins, even others spellstone or maybe some combination of the stuff or maybe a weak opponent (boost to the ego...). So many ways to satisfy oneself....

twigsandberries
12-02-13, 12:16 PM
Totally agree with OP. No way should I be matched against top 3 players when I have zero chance of getting through high level walls, etc. This happens repeatedly and is a waste of coin.

It's also flawed to be matched against players w much higher RHs and upgraded weapons and be rewarded with one crown, and that's IF you win.

susbebe
12-03-13, 03:09 AM
Sometimes you get match whit Lv 2-20 players too, it's both way... Plz fix it!

sirenknight
12-03-13, 10:20 AM
I don't know how to fix it, this game isn't worth that much of my time and getting less... I am a level 36. I've been trying to upgrade the royal hall which means saving coins. The more coins I have the more I seem to get randomly attacked within an hour or so of losing my shield. These attacks are often level 40+, the last one... LVL 71. I have yet to attack another player because I'm usually trying to save coin and/or under shield...AND because I always want to go for revenge and have yet to be able to connect to a revenge match, they are always shielded, "online" or there is a connection error... And I've tried quite a bit... Please review/adjust. I like the game concept, but it needs work.

mybaby1977
12-03-13, 08:15 PM
I've been rank "500" most of the day today, so in other words all I was getting for battle choices were lvl71, lowly lvl20, or dead accounts.

ascherb
12-23-13, 03:57 PM
I don't know how to fix it, this game isn't worth that much of my time and getting less... I am a level 36. I've been trying to upgrade the royal hall which means saving coins. The more coins I have the more I seem to get randomly attacked within an hour or so of losing my shield. These attacks are often level 40+, the last one... LVL 71. I have yet to attack another player because I'm usually trying to save coin and/or under shield...AND because I always want to go for revenge and have yet to be able to connect to a revenge match, they are always shielded, "online" or there is a connection error... And I've tried quite a bit... Please review/adjust. I like the game concept, but it needs work.

I find the same thing. The minute my shield is gone, I am attacked and lose a lot of stuff from the vaults, shield goes up, and then I have no time to make back what was looted. Pretty pointless...

nicovic
12-28-13, 11:24 AM
I keep getting attacked by people level higher and lower than me and still managed to lose 30 over crowns. �� seriously? Why I can't seem to find anyone easy to attack with 30 crowns and yet I'm the victim here