Dylacer, I thought I understood your point perfectly until your second post, in which you lost me lol Perhaps you missed my point. I was actually agreeing with you in that longer wars were more fun and that we warred for the right reasons back in 2010 when the system first came out. So not sure why you are trying to debate me on a point I already conceded to you. Second, in your first post you implied longer wars would somehow mean improved matching. This was the point I was disagreeing with as I remember the original system when it was 48 hrs long and I also remember why it ultimately failed. The balance issues plaguing the current system are not new and were around when the longer system existed as well. Here is what happens in those longer wars, clan leaders end up fielding either strong players who can't be touched and won't leak, or they find extreme players hyped up on red bull mixed with other over the counter stimulants to actually stay up the whole time or creative botting/macro solutions run rampant along with cheating accusations and banning, sound familiar? So in essence, they don't end up any more fair or balanced as long as the mechs are designed to reward the strong and exploiters. We have all these issues in the current system as well; however, the biggest issue to me in any war system released is matching. Thats all I was trying to say lol
I guess my main thought was that all clans should be warring. None of this choosing to war or not, so you can be matched 5 clans above or below you in strength. Soz if I came off agro Just had another Exploit war and I'm slightly depressed that my favorite game is becoming turd. Plus I gotta go to work now and not complain about staff exploits. Those wars you speak of would be no more with lock outs, those really sucked having clans pin your enemy while they sleep Also, if you reward WARRING not WINNING then people don't need to exploit.
All good Dylacer, I feel your frustration for sure. I know we are all just wanting to see a successful system that brings the fun back to warring in Kaw.
KAW_ADMIN: "If you take into account CS, BFE, BFA it's a very close matchup". That's a very bad choice of words. To me it seems as trolling. A nice aswer would have been: "That's the best we can make about matchups till we fix our matchup system in relation with the EE GH exploit which you, kawmunity, exposed very well with your countless feedbacks."
All I know is....I'm tired of this crap. If its not a bad matchup cs-wise, its a match vs a gh clan. Be transparent. Let the players know the matchup formula & maybe some can help. There are a lot of bright minds out there playing kaw that will spend their time trying to help fix the problem. I think most people are ok with losing a semi fair matchup. We understand it won't be perfect but it can be a lot better. Maybe the solution is to not make it all math... maybe human judgement in addition to cs/bfe/bfa can be used in matchups. If you guys see 2 gh clans...match them together & see who wins... its a helluva lot more fair than current system.
If sotra winning easily with 135mil less CS then their opponent doesn't tell you that you are undervaluing static strength (BFE and BFA) I don't know what will. And for the 20th time make the hit ratio and payout based on total strength including BFE and BFA. A 1mil CS GH with 400mil in BFE should pay very well to anyone.
Hi KaW Admin, thanks for the response and for advising about this matchup. My post was just seeking advice to see if there was anything wrong with the matching algorithm, but you've explained it and that's cool - very much appreciated @ DevilsSanctum, in what universe is a 11.3mil CS player with BFA of 2.2mil CS an LB player? lol.
Dev - CS is one of most important stats. Why BFA and bfe can help make up difference as troop strength decreases, initial forays (fights for those without a vocabulary) into enemy kingdoms can be catastrophic because successful actions will not be high in a huge CS difference. BFE is factored too high into algorithm. Season 1 system with addition of BFE was what your constituents asked for... Instead, we received something much worse. 17 weeks later, it is terrible. Clans are unable to wear max equip to avoid LB (which they could theoretically hit, but in the reality we live in... Cannot...). It is really quite ridiculous. I applaud your interaction with us, now... Where were you the first 14 weeks of trials? Now, you're making one more adjustment then washing your hands for season 2? With absolutely ZERO concerns from your EE community addressed? Like clans should match with each other (12 bugs + 19 GH against others that look the same). BFE and likely BFA (I know there is a sweet spot here, but it has yet to be found for sure...) needs to be counted less. No matches should be prevalent, due to the lack of sufficient clans warring. I how you look at my post, even though you've unstickied your thread.
Hi Kaw_Admin, A little off topic but I saw you replying here Can you please double daily xtal limit (or even remove limit altogether)? Thanks
My bad Rose, mis-communication :mrgreen: Between that does looked like a bad matchup, maybe just in your favor? :ugeek:
So again- why were Zaft and Furious and Sexy not matched? I would like to see why 10 LB didn't match 9 LB.
The sad thing is that all of the larger clans can't even war with a normal roster in fear being matched with LB heavy rosters. Now the fear is facing LB heavy rosters matched with guild hansels to lower CS to match smaller clans. You have created a system in which the only way to guarantee a favorable match is by gaming the system. It just really sucks. You have two extremes in war: leaderboard unpinnable accounts and GH hansels. Why not just limit their use on rosters? Put a max number ? Or divisions based on number of LB players. Yes your algorithm might say it's fair but they are not. You cannot win a war when 80% of opponent plunder is in 5 unhittable LB players. Because you can't pin them: successful hit ratio=0% comprende? 12 preseason weeks with people saying the same thing over and over and over and all we do is tighten matchup parameters.... Always they same answer. Always the same outcome.
Devs just look at these wars over half were blow outs. It isn't hard to look at a matchup like we do when we get it. Ten minutes and you know if it's close. Once again just put eyes on matchup before sending them out. Plenty of time to do this. Don't rely on your program because obviously 50% is not a passing grade
The developers say the match ups are fair. They run their stats and the calculations through their models to prove the point. The customers who war are saying just give us a war with an opportunity to win a fair fight. Credit to those clans who do well. You've learnt the route to EE success is stack LB players or split the roster into 2, big players at the top balanced by GH at the bottom resulting in an "average CS clans" getting hammered by the big players on the other team. Also the scenario of few LB vs many LB can't be rationalised. If the devs can then the model needs reviewing. Everyone supports the efforts you've made trying to get KaW to war again but things still need fixing. I'd suggest let the weaker clan in wars recruit during the wars to balance up rosters. Locking the rosters prevents many fixes. I would allow ppl to leave but I think allowing ppl to join the underdogs would be interesting an create a new dynamic. Finally, I'd ask that you don't draw the line on changes for season 2. If things need fixing then you need to do just that otherwise you'll end up with a discredited war system that few ppl will sign up to. Great efforts so far, many of the comments made above are by ppl who've just "wasted" two hours in a war that was often decided before the first hit. Let's add some dynamics and create some surpises in the wars. That will also bring back fun into the wars.