That post is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to hit home Pummellor. Even the "good" matches aren't that good, and can still be lopsided either way. In that Clan's case, three poorly-matched Wars went in their favour this week, two did not. But still they had six no matches. Given the opportunity to fight the eleven Wars this week they probably would have won six easily and lost five in embarassing fashion, for argument's sake. When it comes to Tournament play, as the system is now this week would have given them six points for the wins and taken away three points for the losses, so a net three points. Without the no match mechanism in place, they could have won six Wars for twelve points and taken away five points for the losses, so a net seven points. Extrapolate those numbers over the course of an eight-week Tournament and the results are pretty significant. It's just more fair, and fun, to let the match-ups fall where they may and have the Clans fight it out. Clans can always adjust to get stronger or weaker to better their match-ups, but they're screwed if they can't participate. Heck, come the final weeks Clans with 50 points are going to start dropping out to ensure they get their Equipment Rewards. This means even less competition and a greater chance not to be matched-up. This will not go over well. Think about it.
So let me get this straight... Out of your... 11 wars... -You complain when you don't get matched (Which is in place so clans don't get over or under matched) - You complain when you get a "balanced" match according to devs (ie. Rising Hawks), but since you lost it's unfair? - Your happy when you get matched with a clan you can beat? You call them "fair" matches... Cause you won? .... If your clan is having trouble getting matched, try balancing different then complaining every day. You can't win them all and can't expect devs to give you "fair" (your terms) matches every war.
I warred a few different clans this last week. I saw a huge discrepancy in what was considered a "fair" match one day. And a no match another. As if the devs were altering the formula and testing it. I really don't like being a lab rat for tests. Why can't we get some solid numbers on what will match and won't What is max # members difference etc. every war I was in clan for this week. Which was 36. Every war that had a match was two clans consecutively ranked vs the next in line, with up to a 5 member mismatch. Can anyone let me know if they had something different. Say, rank 10 vs 13 or 1 vs 3 etc. seems like the match system is 1 vs 2 if within 5 members. If not, one gets a no match and it moves down the line. We had a large amount of lopsided wars this week even though the " no match" was in place. Had nothing to do with strategy, just large strength gaps. Please enlighten us what makes a match so we can attempt to get proper wars
Peek- The wars we won, or 2/3 of them the clan we warred against where bigger and more members. It just happens to be that we have full actives and crushed them. If they had full actives their 3 member difference would've been a big advantage.
Without the no match we probably would've won 6 and lost 5 like game said. I'd of been fine with that. As long as we where given the chance to win more than ******* 3 wars...
I really hope these times are flexible. you have 4/10 (-additional 2) wars starting at one time and 3/10 starting another... variety would be gorgeous also GMT times have changed were now an hour later then the times you currently have... if these are the set war times can you please edit to save confusion
No match is a necessary evil. Take it away and next week ppl will be crying about losing to a stacked lb zaft. Knowing the formula the devs are using would help clan owners plan their team strength and numbers.
War va lor My only complaint to the Devs, is bfa is not getting calculated correctly in match ups, if the idea of computer match ups is to make wars fairer, then it should be taken for the benefit it gives. End result high bfa clan up against each other. I'm happy to loose at war, if there was atleast a chance to win!
So is the Gmt times correct or is the pst correct both cant be cause of daylight savings... also as someone asked why so little variation in times 12 wars 3 diffrent times only... and for gmt players most times sux
Kaw admin , can you please address concerns about war start times, it looks like war 10 has been changed to 11pm Gmt. This is now midnight British summer time (BST) which does not add up with the other time zone times you have posted for that war. If war starts at 11pm Gmt that is midnight uk time, midnight uk time would be 4 pm pst, but war starts at 3pm pst ????? So as you can see all times are messed up , please address this issue as soon as possible, thank you
@In_kaw_we_trust: gmt is UK time. So 11pm is 11pm in the UK. The war time used to be 10pm, so with BST that's now 11pm. So the times won't be midnight. However, I think the devs should bring the times forward by 1 or 2 hours for the late night (10/11pm gmt) wars.
And pst is correct because their hasn't been daylight savings their yet. So 3pm is right. 3pm used to be 10pm gmt, but with daylight savings in gmt it's now 11pm. All other time zones don't change too
Rather GMT started approx 9pm but 10 is acceptable just. But devs you cannot seriously expect us to do almost all our wars at midnight can you. Please confirm the new start times allowing for gmt daylight saving or your going to have a huge amount of disgruntled Europeans again.
BST is Gmt 1 hour, so Gmt is not BST , they might both be used in the uk, but are not the same, So to say a war starts at 11 Gmt is incorrect, I know what point your making, but many people use Gmt as a reference point especially European countries. If French , Dutch or Spanish players use Gmt as a reference they will be mislead by times. The admins need to post BST and Gmt times now to make sure there is no mistake.