dailygamer
11-16-13, 08:01 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 ?
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 ?