How have you experienced the new matchmaking?

Hi,

I have decided to open this vote as a feedback for the devs. I will allow comments for this poll because I have only seen a few comments on it so far in the 4.3 update thread and some others, which is great, but I felt it is good to get an overview about this specific topic as well.

So please keep this thread only on the topic of how you have experienced the Conquest matchmaking in the Halloween Conquest.

Note:

No matter, if positive feedback or negative feedback a “why” is mega important. For example, “I enjoyed it because we were matched with equally strong alliances.” Or “I didn’t like it, because the alliances in our match were level 80 and we were level 12” (this shouldn’t have happened btw :grinning:

 

https://forums.flaregames.com/topic/46440-feedback-thread-for-new-version-43-patch-notes/?do=findComment&comment=236744

ps. We are level 31 alliance and one of our opponent is level 41. One is similar to us (a little higher level than us). The other one is high too? Or not? I forgot, but this one has alliance headquarters level 5 too (with those level 41 alliance). The difference is not that high as you stated (level 12 vs level 80) which is insane (did it really happen before? ?) but as you know strength lies in differences, not in similarities…

 I was joking.

I voted " Okay".

  1. I loved the new promotion/demotion system. Top20% go up, bottom 20% go down. It’s a great system and it’s miles better than what was previously in place.

This is the perfect way to naturally determine which alliance belong in which tier, in the short, middle and long run.

 

  1. My alliance was matched with 3 other alliances of similar strength. It would be hard to get a more balanced (strength wise) matchup than this.

This was in the 2nd highest tier. 4 alliances ranked 7, 9, 14 and 17 at the start of the Conquest.

 

  1. However, my problem with this is matchmaking is the following: since we’re all fighting for the same boosts and the same rewards (within this tier), the matchmaking should be 100% random and there is no need for any tweaking AT ALL with the matchmaking.

20% will go up, 20% will go down. Darwin’s Law in action. Natural selection at it’s finest. There is nothing more fair and honest than this.

If an alliance gets beaten badly by another alliance, it doesn’t mean that the matchmaking failed… it just means that one of these 2 alliances is in the wrong tier. The promotion/demotion system will naturally take care of this in an honest and fair way.

 

  1. Not every football team is Real Madrid, Barcelona or Bayern Munich and that’s okay.

Not everyone is first and that’s okay as well.

Not everyone can handle playing in the top leagues and that’s also okay (It takes time, dedication and a lot of team effort to get to the top leagues and play with the big boys).

 

  1. I would have voted “very good” if the matchmaking was 100% random.

I found the matchmaking in this latest conquest to be very well executed! Very fair alliance match-ups and everyone in our board got 250+ conquest score!! Well done flare! ??

Better use “level 1 vs level 80” in the future.

My team ranked 40ish was placed with opponents rank 2nd, 5th and 7th previously

This time we were rank 36th placed with 3 teams between rank 10th and 20th

It’s improved. A small improvement, but still improved

This time was fun. 4 Alliance close the same. something like 450,305,275 and 200. So no more 400,200,50,10 or worst. If the others are the same. this will become really fun in future

I didn’t check the rankings but the Alliance levels were similar. This was much improved over previous Conquests. There was still one alliance a bit stronger than the other 3 but with the shorter Conquest they weren’t able to dominate everywhere.

I also like how moving up and down between tiers works.

Absolutely alliance rankings (or at least level) needs to continue to be a factor in matchmaking to make it more fun and interesting for everyone. (This is in response to one of the comments made previously.) If not, you will have bad matchups at EVERY tier Every time, which would be a step backwards.

 

This Matchmaking = okay
Fairly equal strength opponents, just like regular war.
But I still have objection on that new Skull Bonus system. If developer’s already able to make matchmaking ‘more balanced’, why still implemented (add) that ridiculous loser bonus?
That loser bonus negate this already-fair matchmaking,  stronger teams become OP when attacking in group

I agree on my map we have attacked just by group of 4 or 5 and some of us have do 8,000 and 12,000 with +150% Skull Bonus. So imagine the one who have 32% SP + 150% SP bonus plus if they change the battle in 20 vs 3 or 20 vs 5. I don’t see how someone can win in this condition.

I have said it last time Conquest battle should have a pre battle phase of 12 hours. So everyone who want to join they join and after the battle is lock and a clock of 24 hours start. So in worst case i can see on my map will be 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 1 or 2 vs 3,etc… i am sure will avoid 10 vs 1 or 20 vs 2 or inegal battle

You will only have bad matchups UNTIL your tier is adjusted to the strength of your alliance.

That adjustment needs to happen.

 

The problem was never the matchmaking. The problem was that alliances were in the wrong tier (either too high and they got crushed, or too low and they crushed somebody else).

 

What makes no sense at all is rank150 alliances fighting other rank 150 alliances in the top tier, for the top/best rewards and boosts, not by merit and competence, but exclusively because of a skewed matchmaking system.

For my team it was fine. Only problem was the wisdom, research costs were too high. Research was much faster, but due to costs of the research, we were out of wisdom after 5-6 researches, while even members did donate wisdom. So those costs should be lowered somewhat. We don’t need to be able to research everything, but 40-50% should be possible.

I wonder why the energy costs during raids do increase when more opponents are in war with a single person, why not 30-50 energy per raid, no matter how many person raid you. Is it fair that a bunch raids you and you can’t even do anything back? That needs a change, energy of raids should not depend on number of members during a war.

Promotion/demotion is good, it should only not depend on other maps on same tier. When on one map teams agree peace, they can build freely and score high, while other maps where some keep raiding each others towers will score less. Number one on the map should promote, number 4 demote. Now we constantly need to verify the tier overview and check if we did enough or can relax.

But overall it was a good conquest. Only… the next one starts too soon. We should get a break for more than 16 days, before the next conquest starts. Many of us have jobs and a family and this conquest requires us to get online at uncomfortable moments. When the going gets tough, we are forced to be online at moments we really have no time for it. That makes it different with war seasons. There wars are declared and the player decides when he does his raids. Here the situation determines when you need to play, it can make or break a team.

This really should be max once a month, people will lose their job when caught playing. This can’t be seriously your intention keenflare. 

 

The matchmaking was good, but alliances joining force to beat another one is more common than you think, like I was saying in my other post.

2 or 3 alliances of the same strength joining force is not quite like if there was one with 2 or 3 times the strength but the result can be overwhelming for the targeted one. It comes from all directions.

A good matchmaking can only work without treaties.

I disagree 100%. The problem was always  matchmaking when alliance rank was not taken into account. You had bad matchups at EVERY tier, and would continue to do so for EVERY Conquest. And not just for a couple Conquests but for a vast majority of them.

Fighting where everyone is much more even makes for a better all around game for everyone involved.

The old system was prone for wild tier mismatches (too many alliances swung multiple tiers from 1 event to the next). This meant that a significant number of alliances were in the wrong tier for Conquests 2 and 3.

In this 4th Conquest there are still lots of teams in the wrong tier (just take a look at the top and 2nd top tier’s promotions), but the new matchmaking artificially masked that issue, by protecting weaker alliances that were too high (and it will keep masking the issue in future events). This was not (and is not) a problem in reverse, since strong alliances in lower tiers just got promoted anyway and will keep getting promoted until they reach their ceiling.

 

The new promotion system works (no wild tier swings) and will make sure that every alliancee ends up in the right tier, in a natural, honest and fair way. You don’t need to keep the training wheels on (as in the rank based matchmaking). Let the promotion/demotion system do it’s job.

Yeah matchmaking  was indeed way better.   

I voted okay, though from my alliance’s view it was very satisfactory. The other alliances were 66 and two 120+. As we are aound level 50, it was a little unfair for them.

matchmaking is better but I have to say that it s not necessarily the best team that gets promoted but the biggest spender…its good for flare but not for the alliances treasury…

I would have prefer to promote the first as it was said or at least the top 20% of highest scores of the first…and the lowest 20% gets demoted.

Because with this system, you dont have any other choices than to build build build build…there is no strategy, you just need tiles to build…

If there is other matchmaking going on within the tiers, then the alliance rewards should be adjusted accordingly and it should be made obvious when that happens, or just keep it completely random within the tier (and make more tiers).

The promotion/demotion tiers should also be viewable when conquest is not in progress (which also lets other alliances see the scores from the last conquest).