Perhaps a hair brained suggestion . . . . and feel free to criticize--but what if some of the wars were matched up along the lines of last year's all star wars. For those wars, clans did not sign up, individuals did. Then the devs made up the various rosters. I know this would not promote the "clan unity" portion of EE, and I am not suggesting that every war be structured this way. But along with set, random or advantage ko times, perahps for some wars you sign up and find out who is on your team when the matchups are made. Sorting among the hundreds who regularly sign up for EE wars, i would think the devs could find two kingdoms which are very similar in Build/BFA/BFE and place them on opposite teams. Keep finding similar kingdoms and place them on opposite teams. Then you get two teams of fairly even strength battling. The obvious objections to such a matchup are: who will be the leaders/trackers/strategists (i.e. watch the ego's clash); little time to prepare a strategy (i.e. perhaps for one war you have lots of GH, others almost none, perhaps you are LB heavy, hansel heavy, and innumerable other roster variants); no way to know if someone actually knows how to war with their kingdom (unless you have crossed paths before), etc. etc. On the plus side, there would be very little room to argue that clan X or clan Y ____________ (was so much stronger, had LB players, was stocked with GH, had more BFA, had more BFE, used this "exploit", gamed the system). The war would be fought and won/lost based on skill, strategy, activity alone. I will profess to no knowledge as to how hard this would be to pull off from a logistics (or programming) standpoint, it is just a thought. Just a thought. Feel free to criticize, offer suggestions, support or ignore. Cheers, Kage.
Ok -- so a few things :::: FIRST AND FOREMOST I THINK EVERYONE JUST WANT A DECENTLY FAIR MATCH! -- A few things you can't stop lb guys From warring ( they are the biggest customers ) - you can't ELIMANATE guilds either ( why not make them pay like a regular build ( for those that say its no an exploit why do you tell them no adp ? Because they pay even less 3- ppl are always gonna try to find the easy way for wins ( example now their are clans just opting in and collecting mith from vp ( get rid of vp you lose you get 14 mith back( no investment or effort= no reward ) - devs ppl cried like crazy about no match u tried to fix no the screaming is about WE'D RATHER HAVE NO MATCH (smh) There's def a problem with hit ratio your matches seem to be based on strictly hit ratio now --- look at the jump in clans using 5-6 guild hansels just to throw off hit ratios -dtw what is the point. ???? If the top ten in the game can hit me in war and I can hit them - does not in anyway result in a fair match they will win almost all and. I will surely lose all attack strictly based on bfa alone -- the guild it's a catch build I see ppl talking about adjust ur build / build for war blah blah -- it doesn't matter I have good adt and ok sdt and when a guild with 154k attack can get through 2.5 mil adt for 100 mil plus and I hit back for 11 mil it's a problem ---- if your match system is flawed compensate the customer for bad customer service till you can find a fix ( IF YOU DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THE CUSTOMER SOMEONE ELSE WILL!
ok i will make one suggestion to devs and again be straight forward... gh should have diminishing returns on plunder for ee wich should be seperate from eb's. what do i mean? simple the bigger kingdome is the hansel is hitting raw stats the less they make from it... aka atm a gh can hit lets say a 20m raw stats account successfully... make it so the gh makes 200k instead of 50m or more. the closer to thier size the raw stats are the more accurate they make. just a thought please consider devs. its just one small helpfull solution... but not all simply put the matchup math is flawed!!!! SPECIAL NOTE: The longer u wait to fix these issues the more those that are axploiting will take advantage and get good gear etc... without skill/time luck, or money... aka simly look at rh crystal use... are they all using crystals... i think not or they don't need to.
@ Kaw admin wakey wakey have you forgotten something like this thread that you started you wanted feedback you have got it. Now you keep your side of the bargain and address the more popular feedback queries
Devs, when are you stripping the VP exploiters? When you introduced VP, you clearly stated you would be monitoring for exploits. Either strip the exploiters or reimburse those stripped for the gold exploit. There is no difference, stick to the standard you set. Thanks
The only major issue I have with the EE system is the potential for gross mismatches to occur (as many have mentioned). I see the biggest factor causing major matchup disparities as being static strength, most mention BFA, but really it is static strength from all sources: BFE; BFA; Towers; that is being massively undervalued by your current matchup formula. Some are arguing that to correct this ATA should just remove BFA (and to a lesser extent BFE) from EE wars entirely but punishing those who have spent lots of time and money gathering high static strength is a poor way to address this. Instead, my suggestion would be if ATA truly wants to get even matchups (and I am not convinced they do) than what they NEED to do is correctly weight the components accounts strength to make it possible (essentially there are just 2 components of a accounts strength, the dynamic component and the static component). The dynamic component of an accounts strength would mostly be non-tower build strength but really its anything that scales with troop level (attack buildings, spy buildings and percentage based items(including propacks and achievement bonuses)). This should be valued at far less than an equivalent amount of static strength (as most close ee wars are mostly fought from pin/KO this weighting should probably be somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 the weighting of static strength). Adding this weighted dynamic strength to the accounts static strength would give a ‘true’ total account strength, which would much more accurately give an idea of the accounts power. To get a EE clans strength for matchmaking simply sum the 29 account strengths to get the clan strength and match purely based on that. If decent tolerances were put in place (clan strengths within say 5 or perhaps 10 percent of each other) gross mismatches will be removed (after some real war testing to determine the appropriate weighting). Sample account strength calculations: LB account - 20mil CS no towers, propacks, BFE - 250mil, BFA - 500mil Build strength = 20mil x 1.42 x 0.25 = 7.1 mil (Note: 1.42 = 30percent item bonus + 12percent clan bonus) Static strength = 250 / 50 + 500 / 50 = 15 mil (Note BFE and BFA divided by 50 to be equivalent to CS) Total account strength = 7.1 mil + 15 mil = 22.1 mil New HLBC account - 15mil CS (1mil in towers), propacks, BFE – 200mil, BFA 20mil Total account strength = 14mil x 1.42 x 0.25 + 1 x 1.42 (towers) + 200/50 + 20/50 = 10.8mil GH Account ( High BFE/High BFA ) - 1.2mil CS, no propacks, BFE – 350mil, BFA – 200mil Total account strength = 1.2mil x 1.12 x 0.25 + 350/50 + 200/50 = 11.3mil GH Account (new account , low BFA/BFE ) - 1.2mil CS, no propacks, BFE – 100mil, BFA – 5 mil Total account strength = 1.2 x 1.12 x 0.25 + 100/50 + 5/50 = 2.4mil This shows (depending on the weighting used, in this case 25 percent or 0.25) the Maxed out GH above would be rated as stronger than the new HLBC account which is probably about right when both are fighting from pin due to the massive BFE/BFA advantage the GH account has. This would give a much more accurate picture of the ‘true’ strength of an account then the current system and lead to much more balanced wars. The weight value given to dynamic build strength could be tweaked based on real war results to determine an optimal value - 0.25 may be low, maybe 0.5 would be a better weighting, or perhaps it should be 0.2. Fixing the Guild Hansel plunder issue would then be as simple as using the total account strength instead of build strength as the basis for calculating payouts. The HLBC account hitting the maxed out GH account should payout as if he were hitting an account of the same or slightly larger size, instead of paying out (as it currently does) as if he were hitting someone 1/10th his size. Hitting a new GH with low static strength would continue to pay poorly (as it should). The other more minor fixes I would like to see to the EE system would be to allow clan members not involved in the war the freedom to leave the clan at anytime and removing the vanished paladins EB for losers and just give them 14 mith or allow members not involved in the war the ability to hit it without earning mith.
Don't get why the devs can't figure out gh issue it so easy step 1 refund all cost of teir 1 buildings in highlands. Step 2 make highlands teir 2 or higher...cons small accounts ***** they have empty land, fix 2x ambush for 14 days. Or now my lb account has to match others lb clans.
Lol kaw admin asks for feedback, posts worst graph in history of humanity , then goes silent for two days.
When I am at work and I promise my boss something by a specific time, and I don't deliver, It will upset my boss. In the same way, if u promise ur customers a response at a specific time, the least that can be done is to respond at that time with a "sorry we are not done but we will get back to u at x time... It is the lack of communication that frustrates most of the community. I hope we get some sort of response back soon... As for the graphs, it validates that the matches are for the most part blow outs. The lowest denomination shown is 25% difference. In a one hour war, If u won by 40-30 bil.. Would this be considered a close war? For a two hour war 60-80 bil? Close? Even if we consider that close, that only represents on average about 30-40% of the wars. Which means 60-70% of wars are blowouts. Although plunder is a not a good measure of match (it assumes all clans have great builds and strategy), even with this measure it looks like things are not working right. For those who are saying that match making is good and it's the best it can get with who signs up, consider this. When kings castle signed up for war 4 last week, they had 0 lbs and was matched to 10(7 that could hit) lbs. Were we the second strongest clan to sign up that war? No. Battlegrounds, night watch, warlor, faith, empire rising, Eslyuim all had at least 1 lb and more CS, BFA than us. So what tells me that as long as u can successful attempt an action on 75% of the clan with the hit ratio, then u can potentially get a match. This was part of the flaw in the algorithm we saw. Now it looks like dtw/dts has been tightened in war, which forces some accounts to sit on the sidelines and watch their clanmates war. Although we have directly benefited from this tightening of dtw and dts during war the last few wars, I am still against this whole dtw dts hit ratio. I think the hit ratio is a great tool to use when matching (not as a parameter for matching but rather a parameter for the algorithm to use to call no matches or poor matches). Just my two cents.
I find it ironic that I got flamed for demanding answers when the admins went silent awhile back and the same people that complained at me are demanding answers and complaining about admins not responding.... I want answers too though
Another day and still no reply from kaw admin This seems a familiar pattern the kaw community not happy so kaw admin ask for feedback then when it's feedback they don't want to hear they either don't answer or come up with same old bs that there looking at the algorithms Just gives us a general positive response to our questions instead of working out away to deflect major problems in ee by increasing plunder in ebs
What if they changed the way you win wars from the plunder system to a point system? Say 2 points for a attack or assasination. 1/2 point for a scout or a sucessfule deffence. Ko and sko still take same percent of points. And just leave the plunder portion alone since it no longer matters. It would solve a lot of the problem with gh.
Kaw_Admin Are you planning on addressing the information provided? I have not posted as I have nothing to add that was not presented, but I would appreciate your feedback on when and how the issues will be resolved.
Instead of constantly changing current war system just create new ones, give us options. Like the one Phil suggested sounded great or the ewar ranked 1v1 s or the 15 member free for all where it's everyone against everyone. All these sounded great. give us several different formats to war under the ones that are a failure wil come to light bc no one will be doing them, hard to get accurate feedback when there's one choice. The best feedback is through having choices, the ones your customers don't like wont get used
Asia war times should change to 20 max. Too few warring those to get even close to good matches. 20 is a more reasonable number on those wars. We don't even attempt those as no way we get 29 signups. I know many other clans are the exact same way on these wars.