lukeskywalker wrote:This is a tricky one. I agree that the factor for medals needs to be nerfed or replaced. The medal adjustment is too great right now. However, there is a good reason for some type of adjustment for playing time (experience, frag accumulation, etc.). There are always two sides of a coin. The player saying they are getting "fair" match-ups on attacks really mean they are getting bases they can 3 star without air support, that provide some degree of challenge. I'm pretty sure the person that just took the beating does not necessarily see that as a "fair" match-up. There's always someone who loses in each battle. Players seem to want defense to matter, but for that to happen, it means attacks get a lot tougher. That draws complaints. Vicious cycle.
As far as options go, player rank makes sense to some degree, since you can't manipulate it easily, although players could just start new bases with hindsight knowledge of what frags are important and then only focus on events and conflicts that have those frags available. That would slow down rank advancement, while getting maximum bang for the buck in terms of frag accumulation. Another option would be a secondary base score based on armory levels instead of medals, with Jets/Jumps, guard reserve, MTT's, ITT's/A5's all getting higher points than other units much like turrets and traps. All that said, the impact on Zynga's wallet will dictate whether something like this happens. Is there a way to adjust matchmaking, that does not negatively impact income? This competition, the game within the game, is what spurs spending.
The only other option that comes to mind is to really reward event and conflict points based on true level of difficulty of the opponent. Each base would need to be properly graded out, so an extremely tough base might give 8x to 10x the points vs. a low level dev base as an example. The factor would be based on the time differential in reload/cook times needed to face such a base and the fact that you might only walk away with 1 or 2 star wins. Maybe equate a 2 star win against those high level bases with enough points, to make the trade-off from attacking 6-8 dev bases that you could finish in the same 2 hour or 2 1/2 hour reload period. It does mean that the game could become somewhat unplayable if you just attack high level bases. That type of wait time is boring and the reason why so many of us have additional bases to fill in the down time. The profitability to Zynga again would also be the ultimate factor in whether such a move could be made.
GlockShanty wrote:I got "medal dumped" twice in the last several days. Both times by "Solar" of Death_Striker. One of yours, DS?
DarkRebel wrote:The goal of match making, and the game in general, is to match players with other equivalent players. Not more, not less, but equivalent.
DarkRebel wrote:DS, I understand players dumping medals to workaround the issue of mismatch caused by the current system. All I am saying is lets fix the system so that players don’t have to drop medals to get a fair match.
Boxers are matched based on 2 things: (1) their weight class, and (2) their ranking.
In SWC, weight class equivalence is the base rating and troop level, and ranking equivalence is medal count.
Players should be matched first based on base rating (class), then within the same class, matched based on medal count (ranking)
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], DarthYonir, Google Adsense [Bot] and 33 guests