Estoc Trials - No Match Feature *EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY*

Discussion in 'Past Events' started by admin, Mar 9, 2013.

  1. No way boss, I would rather have chance to make mith! Extra mith payout week just screwed us over! Now there is no match up? But 2 days ago we had to war mis matched? Lmfao. Y not just sell mith n we wouldn't have banked gold for EE, wouldn't have wasted xstals to get gold for pots to EE with. Get the game right for once!
     
  2. 10 mith was for the miscommunication as to when the system was starting not the "No Match" result.
     
  3. What Wulf said ;)
     
  4. I know what it was for, but it's a slap in the face I don't want your free Mith handouts I want to war. This game is called kingdoms at war correct not kingdoms killing ghosts?
     
  5. Devs are reading this thread and examining feedback. Please be constructive.

    Posts like "This no matchup sucks and ruined my weekend" is no more helpful than "This unfair matchup sucks and ruined my weekend."

    So far we have moved to: 1 side gets hosed and pounded on for hours while the other side rakes in mith and everyone is pretty much bored and/or upset

    to...
    Both sides are a lil disappointed but at least one side doesn't feed off of another side unfairly for hours and no one loses mith.

    Devs are looking at options to refine this and make it less limiting while still fun. Be a part of the solution and not just a whiney nay-sayer :mrgreen:
     
  6. So almost 20% of the clans who signed up got screwed. And I still see plenty of wars that are no where close to even. 100 max as proven multiple times before is too big of a range to manage.
     
  7. Ok;
    So let me get this straight...
    The miscommunication is a one time thing? Or is the 15% of clans not warring due to "NO MATCH" a one time thing?

    I don't really care if it's a miscommunication, because technically it wouldn't matter if there was miscommunication. I think this new war system is horrible. I would rather war Flocci's clan (40 members) VS. Someone's clan (60 members).

    I want the developers to change their solution to unfair wars.

    I have edited this post to add feedback, and what I see as a general solution.

    -Re-enable the war roster limit. 30 - 60 members warring, and it must be within that range in order for your clan to war. I liked this system the way it was, and if it doesn't work, crunch the numbers down even narrower, perhaps even to the point of exact numbers.
     
  8. Here is some constructive criticism for the clans who are getting pounded LEARN HOW TO WAR, my clan is always on the winning side of our wars it's not because we are bigger or outnumber our opponents it's because we are organized and all dead set on winning wars we don't care about ebs. For the clans who come into war half as*** and have inactive leaks deserve to lose, you should no punish clans for absolutely destroying our opponents, for example we warred your clan this weekend wulf, your clan strength was 44 places higher on the strength leader board yet you guys were torn appart with ease. If your clan is not ready for war do not sign up simple as that and if you lose you lose oh well
     
  9. This is BS, last war we get a war where we are disadvantaged by 15 ppl, then i want my hold ee back this war and i get no-match!! and im stuck with a silver ee for a whole week cause of u devs!!
    10 mith isnt a comporimise for my enthusiasm for that war
     
  10. 15%
     
  11. 60 vs 28 (happened yesterday) has noting to do with "knowing how to war"

    and as to our war 44 places on LB looks at whole clan (not the small % of people warring in it)
    Your side has 27% more people, you know we are pretty good at this. Gave it the ole collage try, but 4 to 3 odds is a bit much.

    PS: We got excluded this round too. ;)
     
  12. I like how we avoid unfair war, but can it be the 'weaker' clan's decision if they want to withdraw? And as people withdraw better opponents may be found or the first clan that was 'stronger' then gets to choose if try want to war a stronger opponent.
     
  13. Devs I know lots will complain about no having a match up.

    You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    Give them crap match ups and they will whine.

    Give them no match up due to crap match and they will whine.


    If you really want to keep EE as a true challenge of who is the better clan, this system works well.

    It prevents clans like RCA who stack lbers from taking on clans like they did yesterday, where they totally over power them.

    It stops clans like We're Screwed from stacking clans with lb up top and tons of guild hansels at the bottom, which give the medium size clans they war no chance at winning.

    Really it's what they deserve for trying to set up stacked clans just for the purpose of winning EE wars.


    All in all I think this system is pretty well setup if your goal is to provide clans with a true test of their skills and strength.
     
  14. Make it so that there are several groups that we can choose to participate: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59
     
  15. Kozmo I don't think that's very "productive"
     
  16. Thats pretty much what happened french. The "no match ups" were all between these blocks of clan sizes.
     
  17. I also like the idea that someone came up with. How sport teams have a certain number of players that play.

    Although many might be unhappy, it would make the number deal less of a problem.
     

  18. 79 clans signed up for war

    12 were excluded (sizes were all over the map). Wherever there was a large gap in clan sizes.

    -1 clan who was the odd man out (happens)

    so 12 excluded out of 79 registered is roughly 15% were excluded rather than being given VERY bad matchups.
     
  19. Ok here's some constructive un-criticizm :

    What if there was a 2nd bracket for the smaller clasn to compete in
     
  20. How does that change things?
    It could potentially make it worse with more chances for odd number of signups