Everyone is so impatient. There are always going to be difficulties whenever you roll out any changes - let alone a change as significant and major as no match. Why not see how this plays out when more clans have an idea of how the no match system works. Devs why don't you give the players the criteria for your determination on no match so we can have a better idea on how to manage our clans to avoid a no match. I still believe strongly that the major problem with the old system was that there was a vicious cycle going on: bad wars due to poor matching --> less clans sign up --> more bad wars due to poor matching --> less clans sign up. Repeat ad nauseum. If we can get no match working properly hopefully we get a virtuous cycle going of good matches --> more clans sign up to war --> more good matches.... And sorry for all the haters of no match. I know there are inveterate warriors who would war against the tides and fight the sun rising and setting. Your courage is certainly noted and in some regards it is laudable. However for me I would prefer to be involved in 1 great close war than 10 stupid unbalanced wars. I have been in too many of these wars on the winning side and a couple on the losing side and would rather do pretty much anything other than participate in that kind of war.
Options suggested so far in this thread, my PM, and Pal rooms are: (let me know if I missed any) disclaimer: there is nothing wrong with mentioning that Pal exists or that I use it any more than there is with making an xbox vs PS3 thread or having an account name: SkyRimRules. Advertising the app/3rd party service in a direct attempt to get people to use it or view it however is not permitted. 1 - Tiny brackets. (which I dont see how that will work considering strength AND size are collected) 2 - Specific number required (though this would still likely trigger no-match due to strength) 3 - Remove no-match system and allow Clan owner to "cancel wars" after matchup but before start. 4 - more wars with smaller brackets so if you get a no-match there is another one right around the corner 5 - shorter wars (2 -3 hour) wars so more can be done in a day and people wont mind the no-match so much 6 - Small brackets for all wars 10-30 people. Fewer ranges = fewer gaps in the spread = fewer exclusions. 7 - Real issue seems to be not enough clans to create enough matches. Find a way to incentivize EE, eliminate loss of edge upon leaving clans so more clans war with mercs, or make the Risk/workload low enough that many many more clans participate without unbalancing KAW. 8 - Restore a Roster Cap. Smaller range = less gaps in the ranges. 9 - Give clans more reason to want to war. Prestige LB. Clan achievements for winning x-number of wars, extra clan roster slots (+1 for every 20 wars you win maybe?). etc. 10 - make EE less of a financial burden on players. Remove xtal/nob regen of troops. Maybe add a spell to regen up to 2 times in EE so clans dont feel the need to pay to play and maybe increase participation. Maybe do WarXtals bought with gold that can only be used in EE wars. 11 - Scrap the EE system entirely and come up with another PVP interaction system to generate mithril that is less complex and not dependent on matching with other clans. One focused on the individual rather than the clan. 12 - A signup with 4 hour countdown where as ur clan could be told if its to strong and allow owner to veil up or add/renove members in a 2 hour frame within certain strength and number parameters Will try and catch up on this thread in a bit. Got strips to do
If you want us to compare clans and wars can you at least post a list of all wars and numbers warring each week so we don't have to spend hours looking at data you have access to. Also how are you resolving issues of clans restricted by people with ee that are unable to war that take up space in clan as you lock them in with the current ee system. Leaving ee in but only active whilst in a home clan seems the easiest solution. When are you going to stop wasting our time and effort with full resets on equipment. It's beyond a joke these days with constant resets. Are you going to put a trial forward to test the regen methods previously suggested that would balance actives in wars regardless of the number of participants involved as all could be constantly active. One trial of it couldn't possibly hurt could it though lag would be an issue. How do you intend on balancing the difference between device response times that heavily affects players. Some of which may account for perceived lag btw. Having warred on several devices. Some just cannot cope with wars more so than others.
To be honest most of the wars that have gone ahead today are very close so this system does work, just needs tweaking somehow. You can't please everyone.
This is hilarious! If you go and look at the matchups/wars, there are still as many massive margins 50bil> as there were before... All this has done is cut the successful war clans out!? Great work devs, absolute genius plan.
Massive 50 bill margins can be better tactics anarchy. But regardless if it prevents more severe mismatches then its worth a shot. I agree with pummellor in clan or not its well considered. Though what I may suggest is that if the match up falls within that bracket then maybe the clans who would be refused be given a time limit to veil members. Those veiled to change strength if their clans win get a average of mith and gold for compensation. Shorter skirmish will help. Gold bars to bank only during wars that repay 100% would increase profit as would faster regen though instant regen on ko and 50% instant regen on sko punish sko and if mass outnumbered it balances with the ko regens. Lots of options still to try. Active players could win wars with tactics not real lying on numbers. But I doubt we will get the chance to try it as it would solve the pay to play and no xtals needed but give it a nudge and who knows may get a one trial.
Pummellor seems to be among one of the few not yet plagued by stupidity. It is only logical to place a threshold that prevents extreme mismatches and a larger threshold results in less no-matches
Wulf & Devs, not sure if this problem has been fixed but it might be highlighted by the no match up system. When you start an eb and you've signed up for the wars then it automatically shortens the EB until the hour before war time. If your clan then doesn't war, the EB remains at it's shortened length. Is there a way to fix this? It doesn't happen often but it will rankle clans who have just missed a war due to no match up to then ff an eb.
Hi Just curious if estoc trial start times for non USA citizens (GMT/SGT etc) will change from war 5 with USA daylight savings time commencing If they do, a post stating new times would be appreciated please. Thank you
Add an option whether both clan will war or not. Not only by system. We can judge the situation. If both sides will war u dont hv to give 10 miths bcause of no matchup.
Hi All Simples!! Fix clan roster to 50 members warring cap, across all 5 wars, no 30-60 stuff, then system only has to match strengths of clans. That way the IB clans end up fighting each other as it should be. Have a good day now
@Reece, That was really simple :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Just that you ignored that there are small clans as well :lol:
kaw_admin, In case of no matchup, can you plz revert the "Wave of Conflict" spell? This will cause a problem particularly for wars seperated by less than 24 hrs...
@devil. Getting 50 members for small clans should not be an issue, everyone wants to war. Lol Happy Mothers Day UK