Solution to Flare on Conquest and Diamong League matchmaking

First and foremost, I’ll start this post by saying this: there’s no way to please everyone.

 

However, this solution would probably make majority of players happy, because anyone who read between the lines in threads and posts in this forum will know why most players are frustrated. This isn’t just about Conquest, but about Diamond League as well.

 

I stand to be corrected, but the premise that is applicable for majority of players is this: lower level players want better matchmaking, and higher level players don’t want to get the same reward as lower level players if lower level players are not fighting with the same rules as the higher level players (i.e. skewed matchmaking).

 

A) Based on this premise, for CONQUEST:-

 

Alliances should be placed in tiers according to collective trophy as a whole. It is VERY difficult to exploit this by having an entire alliance to drop trophy. Even if they were to do that, they will then be competing for lesser rewards. This way, lower level alliances will almost never face a higher level alliances unless the much higher level alliances dramatically have all their members drop trophies collectively.

 

The lower level alliances will be happy even if they get less rewards as long as they don’t face unreasonably strong opponents (this is evident in the almost non existent complaints by lower level players that they don’t get the same ninja reward as the higher level players, i.e. they are fine getting less rewards as long as they don’t face the same ninja difficulty as the higher level players). Flare can even put in more voucher chests for the lower tier as lower level players have more use for them.

 

The higher level alliances will be happy too, as they know they are getting more rewards, proportionate to the time they have played the game. In fact, the higher tier pal chests are way more appropriate for only the higher level alliances, because giving lower level alliances the highest tier pal chests will mess up the natural order slowly but surely. Imagine low level alliances starting to get Primal Howl to level 8 and low level players will then have something to complain about.

 

 

 

B  ) Based on the same premise, for DIAMOND LEAGUE etc:-

 

  1. Way more tiers need to be created

 

  1. Players are then placed into tier leagues based on trophy range, provided that the higher tier has more reward of course.

 

Lower level players mostly don’t mind getting less reward as long as they don’t face unreasonably high level players with gap too big. Higher level players actually don’t mind fighting equal strength, provided they are getting higher rewards for fighting tougher battles.

 

Placing players according to trophy range but said players are all in diamond league with skewed matchmaking cannot work. Higher level players will then just lower trophies to get easier fights for the same reward. However, if reward is tier based, then higher level players will remain in their original trophy range so they can compete for more rewards.

 

note: While players of equal strength face each other, the medal bonus from ranks is still very relevant because medal bonus in ranks only apply to auto match making. Thus, if a player wants to get that medal bonus fighting opponents of equal strength, he will have to risk losing more trophies if he failed (a player loses way more trophies if it’s a failed raid from auto match), and he cannot also keep picking the same opponents in his favourite list that he is already familiar with.

 

 

 

Conclusion:-

 

I started with it and I shall end with it too, that there’s no way to please everyone, but I believe this solution will actually make MOST players happy. Lower level players will no longer get frustrated at facing unreasonably strong opponents and higher level players have an advantage for being at that ranks, i.e. the opportunity to get more rewards compared to lower level players

I agree that more tier leagues need to be created, however, I do not like the idea of having this system be based on the trophy range of players as it is very easy to manipulate. I do agree that higher level players deserve a better reward as the challenge is much more difficult. But, the system should be based on the hero level to keep things fair

I agree with everything else you said though. You made some really strong points

Ok, but why should the matchmaking change?, there is a poll that shows that more than 60% find the matchmaking good/okey. And the system did not change since then…

The poll was closed after one conquest. Flare asked how was the matchmaking after players experienced just once, which is flawed because they were already placed in their respective tiers after playing the previous conquest which was based on the old system. In short, it’s like having a very small sample size when a survey is being conducted.

 

Since then, many have been constantly complaining in the forum.

 

In any event this is just a suggested solution to those affected, doesn’t really affect me personally if status quo is maintained.

Exactly! Sure, one conquest is not enough information. There are gonna be those teams that did really good and then in the conquest with the poll did horrible and so their feedback was bad. In my opinion, there should be another poll opened, however, this one should be open for 4-6 months (4-6 conquests) in order to get fair results

Yes, it was only for the Halloween conquest. Players still were using the thread though for feedback after the poll was closed. I don’t mind opening a new one. However, I will make it for the vote only, because I don’t wanna lose the discussion that is on the other thread (meaning 2 discussions on the same topic).

I think to help the problem with Trophy Manipulation every player should have a Statistics of their highest Trophies Reached.  While some players will still try and keep their trophies low to manipulate this statistic, with the Ninja Event coming twice a month it is in everyone’s best interest to push their trophies higher. 

 

What’s the point with such statistics? It has no function at all. If a player’s trophies dropped, then he should be fighting in the lower tier. There are so many factors involved in that. For example, he may reach really high because he is very good in using boosted froster, but when his alliance loses the war boost, he drops tons of trophies from failed raids. Is he supposed to compete in a tier based on the highest he has ever achieved? Another example would be that a player’s strength would’ve changed dramatically if he switches alliances.

 

The solution is clean and simple, apportion proper rewards according to tier and players will then decide for themselves which tier they want to be in. The ninja event is already the perfect example for this, where players can drop trophies to have easier ninja, while others may push as high as possible, even higher than their usual trophy range, just to get into a higher tier for higher rewards. As long as the rewards are properly distributed in the respective tiers, there won’t be as much trophy manipulation as people think

 

The only scenario where massive amount of players would dramatically manipulate trophies is when the rewards are the same, i.e. if diamond league with the same 375 reward for 1st place uses a skewed matchmaking based on trophy range. In this example, there is no incentive whatsoever for players to then hold on to trophies, and trophies become an absolute liability.

This solution could actually work. The difficulty of each tier ( in absolute terms; not relative! ) should be proporcional to the rewards.

Everyone would either be in their appropriate tier or desired tier.

If an alliance drops trophies, the fewer rewards will act as a punishment.

If an alliance increases their trophies, they’ll get rewarded with better rewards.

 

 

Anyway, the current matchmaking system is absurd and really needs to be looked at. It’s not right to have different rules/benefits for alliances competing in the same tier. It’s not right to have rank500 alliances competing in the highest tier solely due to the fact that the matchmaker pushed them up the tiers. It’s not right and it’s not fair.

Who’s to say they didn’t negotiate their way to the top tier? And maintain staying there the same way.

The more alliances in each tier, the better the chances of rank 300, 400 and 500 alliances competing in the top couple of tiers. It is bound to happen no matter what.

Nah, they were pushed by the matchmaker.

It was not a matter of skill, diplomacy, strategy, effort, competence, even money or anything else that matters. The matchmaker just pushed them up.

Remove the skewed matchmaker and they’ll drop 2-3-4 tiers immediately.

Perhaps, though I’d doubt they’d drop 4  tiers. Just how many do you think are in each tier? We’ve had several rounds of Conquests. More and more lower ranked alliances will be in higher tiers as we move forward. There’s probably ~60-70 more teams competing in the top two tiers than when they added the extra tier 6 (?) Conquests ago. And another 30-40 more in tier 3 than before. That’s 90-100 more in the top 3 tiers than 3-4 months ago. Just by rank, a rank 500 alliance would be in the top third of tier 4.

With ~2000 alliances and only 7 tiers, each tier will eventually have over 275 teams. There’s already 200 teams in the top 2 tiers and some of them came from the top of tier 3, where there’s another 200 teams or so.

It ain’t all the matchmaking, though that is part of it. (However, the anecdotal evidence shows the algorithm leaves much to be desired.) Part is 20% moving up and down which pushes more teams up than down, since there are more teams in the bottom tiers than the top.

I like the ideas presented but please keep in mind the current Conquest system overall.

For example, in the top conquest tier, you can get all the chests and the Tent boost by reaching 250 points.  in the current system, you need to maintain and finish Conquest with a specific number of points in order to remain in your respective tier for next time. Otherwise you drop to a lower tier with lower boosts and rewards.  There is a risk and reward with the current system. 

If the tiers are reworked to go by total trophy count of alliances, then other facets of Conquest will have to be reworked in conjunction. Otherwise alliances can just keep hitting the 250 mark and know that next time they will compete in the same tier again based on trophy count.

Unless this facet is acceptable to all as a side benefit to reworking the matchmaking for Conquest.

So in essence, there is no risk factor and just rewards for Conquest. Keep in mind this would apply to all tiers of Conquest (low, mid, high). If this does happen, we should not see any complaints here from lower ranked alliances that Flare is favoring alliances with higher trophy counts since they get better rewards and “the only way to get those rewards is to spend more money to have a max level 80 alliance and high trophy players”. Because then the conquest matchmaking is based on equal strengths and every alliance has the opportunity to EARN it relative to the level your alliance is at.

Ok, maybe not 4… maybe they’d drop 3 tiers only.

The simple fact that we’re discussing if some top tier alliances would drop 3 instead of 4 tiers without a skewed match making, is enough evidence that the current match making is not fair and is hurting the game. 

The problem with this for conquest is that a 40 man alliance of 2000 trophy players will not stand much chance against a 20 man alliance of 4000 trophy players.  This would be a “perfect” match in your system, but would lead to pretty lopsided fights.  We encountered a similar thing recently in our last CQ, where there was a team with several 130 players, and we had only 3 between 110-118.  If a single 130 player attacked a tower, they just won because we couldn’t score enough skulls on their base.  If they were set as a guard, that tower was similarly effectively invincible.

Conquest matchmaking is extremely hard, and there is always something you can pick on to say why it isn’t perfect.  I have no idea how its matchmade currently, so maybe your system is still better than what we have now.

In general, I think they need to find a way to disincentive dropping trophies, as it skews all sorts of things in the game when people are easily able to manipulate their apparent power level.  Tying more reward payouts to trophies (i.e. ninja) seems like a good idea to me.

I see your point too. 

Maybe why Flare went with the current system of allowing teams to move up and down the tiers regardless of overall alliance ranking.

Maybe not, if some teams work their way up into the top tier and are outmatched by much stronger alliances, then you cannot consider the matchmaking as unfair. 

It could simply be the case where they moved into the top tier to attempt to gain better rewards and better prizes for their alliance as an advantage over other prior teams that they faced. If they dropped back some tiers, it may well be the case where they are back to where they belong. The complaints may be when some teams get knocked down a tier and then the next conquest face a much stronger alliance that also just happened to get knocked down from a prior tier. Victims of unintended circumstances.

 

Disagree it is hurting the game if it is providing better gameplay for those involved.

For some involved, it is not providing a better gameplay, but it is for others. 

But even more importantly, it is not fair to directly benefit some alliances that are competing in the same leaderboard.

It is also distorting the Conquest tiers. 

That hurts the game, whether some like it or not. 

Depends if you’re looking for Conquests that are competitive, where each team has a shot at winning or whether you’re focused on the rewards that the teams are playing for. I think most prefer the former over the latter as being more important. Few want lopsided matches where the winner is predetermined. That hurts the game more, imo.

If there’s a way for the former to factor in matchmaking but have them play for appropriate awards based on the team’s relative overall rank (or some other appropriate metric) that would be great, imo.

Difficult to do. Good example is the 40 players with 2000 trophies versus 20 players with 4000 trophies someone mentioned earlier. And that doesn’t even take into account trophy manipulation. Maybe compare the top 20 players total defense building/troops morale plus pearl upgrades they could field. Then compare next 20. I dunno.

5 tiers for leagues are enough: actually there are less than 200k active players.