My idea for a better (and not too difficult) matchmaking system:
Actual problems:
- too much guilds in the top league
- active fighter guilds are matched with slow, sleepy, less active guilds
- nothing to fight for (this isn't the matchmaking system's problem, but I find worth mentioning it)
How to identify active, fighter guilds?
- have more strong players than the average
- have the necessary treasury for building
- higher overall activity
- number of players
These attributes will result in a higher average advance number/player than most guilds. If the guilds have problems any of the above 3 points it will result lower average advance/player. One more thing has impact on the advances what a guild can do in a season - the other guilds in the group. If not one of them bothers to take any sector than the guild can't have as much advances as it capable of.
So my suggestion to sort the guilds for matchmaking based on the advances/player of the previous season. Lets see how this should work out for two 1000LP groups:
Guild | Headcount | Advances in season | Average advances |
Pink | 74 | 155000 | 2094 |
Purple | 55 | 125000 | 2272 |
Blue | 35 | 42000 | 1200 |
Orange | 12 | 2500 | 208 |
Light blue | 66 | 4800 | 72 |
Yellow | 27 | 31000 | 1148 |
Green | 6 | 580 | 96 |
Red | 41 | 15000 | 365 |
The bigger guilds has more potential fighting capacities, so this number should be multiplied with a number depends on the number of players.
The average guild size lets say is around 40 players, so the multiplier should be:
Number of players | Multiplier |
70-80 | 2 |
50-70 | 1,5 |
30-50 | 1 |
10-30 | 0,9 |
1-10 | 0,8 |
It is necessary to push the active, higher headcount guilds above than the active medium or small size guilds. Of course, if we have numbers probably the multiplier needs some adjustment. So if we go back to the original example the modified advances will be:
Guild (Headcount) | Average advances | Modified advances |
Pink (74) | 2094 | 4188 |
Purple (55) | 2272 | 3408 |
Blue (35) | 1200 | 1200 |
Orange (12) | 208 | 188 |
Light blue (66) | 72 | 108 |
Yellow (27) | 1148 | 1033 |
Green( (6) | 96 | 77 |
Red (41) | 365 | 365 |
Based on this calculation in the next season the guilds will be matched similar guilds in activity, strength and treasury, so it will result a fairer matchmaking. If seems necessary one more multiplier can be added based on the final placement in the group ( 3-4 should 1, above than this higher, 5-8 lower multiplier should be used) or the multiplier can be different in different leagues. I'm not sure if it is necessary, some experiment is needed
About the leage system:
- either
@Juber suggestion for the soft cap and progressive leage point can be used ( higher league provides less and less LP for winning) or a new league system can be used - for example a dynamic one what Inno uses at event leagues.
- higher league means less guilds in a group (top league has 4 guilds in a group, lower leagues have 5,6,7,8) same as in
@Juber suggestion
- a new league should be added for the top (crystal), same personal rewards as in diamond but a fix amount of prestige point should be added as rewards. For example: 1. place +2000 pp, 2. place 0 pp, 3. place -500 pp, 4. place -1500 pp. It will give a reason for the guilds to fight.
- HQ has 2 building slot where you can add fix SC, but price is high, about 50000 goods. Reason: this can't be lost, the price is paid once per season, make good use of it
- shorten the seasons. More rest time prevents burn outs and increases the activity during seasons. I think 6 days long season with 8 days rest make sense.
Thats it, more or less. A better matchmaking will give a chance for guilds to fight for similar guilds and will increase the satisfaction with GBG and activity in game. And no need to cap the siege camps