Warpath - I Solved The Matchmaking Balance Issue | (Harsh But Necessary)

[@tthundercookie]

You make a really good suggestion but I’d like to add to it just to make it fair to the top 3 alliances: Let them compete in ToC but every ToC they compete in will be between them three only (which isn’t exactly possible because it requires a lot of effort from the dev team). At the same time, their rewards are scaled down to a certain level which is will be the highest level that the most alliances take part in, for example, if there are 15 alliances capable if competing in Gold 1, then the top three will compete with each other ONLY, but with Gold 1 rewards instead of Epic 1. I just cane up with this idea so if it seems a little radical and disorganised that’s because I thought of it while watching the video, I could expand upon it if I was given the opportunity to plan it a little more and actively chat with more experienced players such as yourself (Deathwish) in a voice call, which in my opinion, is a lot more effective. Once again, sorry if you guys reading this think its a tad bit of a stretch, I didn’t really think it out fully yet but I thought I’d share the concept.

[@c0ldstinggaming]

Adding a power cap on alliances would also help....

[@angelanastasiou4884]

"match not found" means mega alliances will split, only to be allied together in ToC. For example 'AVE1' and 'AVE2' will be allies and together they'll make up what 'AVE' was before the split. So this doesn't fix the problem. While I agree with you, we need to add : "the split alliance cannot be placed together on the same ToC". Also, I agree with the power cap, or the limited players per alliance to 100 members. Lilith needs 3 days for matchmaking, and surely they know the coalitions by now, they can definitely do a better job, and I think everyone agrees that the situation is getting boring and needs to be fixed. I played at 1st paramount cup and I must say I'm sic and tired of epic, I too playing at gold now and have no intention to return to epic. And if gold1 ends up like epic, then I'll drop down to gold2 and so on

[@bulletwarpath4227]

Your solution, even though I do somewhat agree with, would never be implemented by Lilth. In many other type games like Warpath. If the attacking player is much stronger than the target, the target gets autoed game buffs or the attacker gets dubuffed.. Make it harder for the super strong to be able to wipe out an enemy in 2 hours. Take the average of power by the members in their L4 and make that the baseline. By doing that, if whales or players want to buy buffs, they can. You have to take their all time power. Many go powerless thinking to help with matchmaking.

[@TheYougonz]

The alliance's average number of refined components also signify qualities for matching opponents. I haven't encountered players with a substantial number of refined components who are uninvolved or lacking in skill. Successful alliances winning events, investing significantly, and implementing a strong farming strategy tend to possess abundant refined components. Ultimately, these components are rewards from events and purchases. Two crucial variables are the alliance's winning history and spending level.

[@LuisVillalobosYT]

What if we made TOC 4 alliances instead of 8. It would be easier to find 4 similar ones than 8 similar alliances

[@Warpath_Tony]

In My Opinion, let's start. On the last meeting of the R5,the Vip Players and Development Team , they said there could be an option to decrease alliance members. Instead, 255 could be 155 or something like that. That should solve your suggestion, bro. Real quick ! And also bring that balance and game lag stability 100% . It is not really hard to think because this already happened to the Epic 1 battlefields. How? Well, all top best, Strogest coalition team. Defeat the other side , as an example : S19,S14,S22,S30 Defeated : S21,S12,S27,S24 And Epic Alliances start migrating Or falling apart. Then later : S30, S21,S36,S3 Defeated : S14,S19,S22, etc. And Then All Of them started migrating or falling apart. And even before those matches , S14,S27,S19,S12,S24,S22 Everyone someday defeated another's coalitions as well . And then Teams Stared to Make Fusions or Migrating or Falling apart and All of that Stared to get clear sense Warpath build it ,the Paramount Cup. So Is The Same Thing, make the development team, denied Epic Alliances to join Epic 1 battlefields because there will be not enough, Coalition Allies or Paired Epic 1 Teams. Same as just decrease Alliance members Capacity.. The real problem is that the game just became in who can spend more money and migration tickets for be the Best Side. BEFORE was Who Can spend more money for Gain The Best Conquest Pay Buff . And like that, so many issues between events or updates will happen again and again, and you are right is Our problem is not entirely. This is what Warpath wanted to do this rivalry between servers making the Glory Status, Glory Regions, Paramount Cup, and Classic competitive modes on the Theater of Conquests. Players just try to get used to it, but the game made everyone's to start looking for another's options, so this is also Warpath Fault. I have been following the situation since the glory status gets developed. And now All Servers are Punishing Warpath, Epic 1 Battlefields not joining this time to that Paramount Cup. It's only S21,S30,S40,S36,S34,S3 The Ones Who actually have a decent power to compete, but still not enough because everyone is friends, just maybe S40,S36 doesn't. But we all know how all this happened. So if the game keeps this way ,probably next year, this game can close all servers and start resounding players. WARPATH Shouo finds a solution ,Fair for everyone, if Servers get spread the situation will be the same , more Allies in A couple Servers. we need a battlefield who (doesn't allow alliances to make peace and no Decreasing Alliance members Capacity) evey alliance with different Color Ping 🟠🟡🟣 that color defined they're Territory As well Or A Battlefield who (Only allows to choose one Allie but also decrease the players' capacity) with Different Color as well but that allie with The Normal Blue Color . then also a (only one cycle of tournaments) from S1 Thru S80 or something likethat, make R5 Able to Choose one map of the 5 ,in the same screen, same as the other 7 alliances R5 , The most Votes Choose the Map to play. (Epic 1 and 2 ,alliances able only to play Classic Modes) with no restrictions ,the rest (Gold and Down tiers alliances Can Decided to play Competitive or Classic Mode) , both Modes with Surprise attack! There's a lot of ideas around the community that can help. This Game keeping being fun and great. We just need to listen to them and get the problem SOLVED.

[@lrdgrd]

Makes sense. Having a hard cap on alliance power would be very interesting. Something like 50B, could change over time.

[@Spec_sy]

a Regional conquest is a good idea too. By power they are placed in regions and need to compete

[@mastmalang70hk]

very good , there are Alliances who Guns for hire , they pay to the big player to join he team

[@martinhofmann943]

Here’s what I think: 1. Alliance Structure: • Implement a cap of 150 members for alliances, introducing power tiers to ensure a balanced distribution and prevent an imbalance of powerful players within a single alliance. IE 4 member 600m+, 100 members 400m+, etc 2. Live Ranking System: • Introduce a live ranking scoreboard displaying alliance wins/losses and power, fostering a more dynamic and competitive environment. 3. Theater of Conquest (ToC) Enhancements: • Initiate a 3-day matchmaking period for ToC, allowing alliances to strategise and set conditions such as weather, troop levels, and power restrictions for more strategic gameplay. • Opt for a smaller ToC map and limit teams to four, intensifying the competition. 4. Matchmaking Considerations: • Implement a system that prevents alliances on the same server from being matched together, ensuring diversity in competition. Additional Points: • City Titles and Achievements: • Transform city titles into achievement-based rewards, tying accomplishments like 1 million kills or collecting 10 billion resources to specific titles. This means anyone can have a title by earning it instead of only select players / alliances having. • Hegemon Event Frequency and Individual Joining: • Increase the frequency of Hegemon events to enhance player engagement and excitement. This event is more fun and only goes for 1 hour. • Allow individuals to join in Hegemon events, sorting players into teams based on their power levels. This approach, akin to the team formation mechanism in Battlegrounds in various other games, ensures balanced and competitive gameplay experiences for all participants.

[@rs4race]

My last conquest looked pretty even, but a single team was able to 1v3 pretty easy. On a team size of ~100 members, they had about 30 low power alts. I believe this was a successful attempt to manipulate match making by dropping average power. Another issue with conquest is the strongest teams will ally and leave the battlefield really uneven. I think reducing alliance member count would help. I also think a 1v1 with forced coalitions might be good for conquest too

[@tatasweeps]

Fully agree.. our server 48 Last toc was a joke, extremely frustrating to have bases at 290M (i am 120M) seeing just two units burn our bases within 15 seconds. That should NEVER happen. At this lv a difference of 150M is massive!! It doesn’t even matter if units are restricted, the researches, generals make the difference and it truly takes the interest of continue playing the game if there’s absolutely nothing we can do against such differences, and not even mentioning if they for and army group, forget it.. Hope something else gets done to let us all have fun again…

[@KevMK92]

From your stream: Require alliances to have a minimum of 240 to 250 members to enter level 4 conquests. Also require a minimum player power depending on age. Currently 99% of teams are not full and half empty. That should not be happening.

[@weamaboudehn7819]

I totally agree that something needs to be done to make things fair and competitive but with all my respect, doing this will be like Lilith shooting itself in the foot.. Those are the biggest spenders we are talking about ie the biggest money generators to Lilith..

[@SamWtnify]

The power cap would need to be clearly stated ahead of time so players have the opportunity to sort things out themselves. If you set the cap at 50b power, there would now be 14 teams in the 40-50b power range and 13 teams in 30-40b power range. Pretty competitive and much better balance than 3 at the very top and three at the next tier down.

[@jtaylor8792]

My thought, Limit members to enter ToC, with their overall power. With a max power in a alliance, to match a competitive alliance. Say, 30 mil max for alliance. 20 mil, 15 mil, 10 mil, ect This would help, in my opinion

[@MrAaronc819]

I would agree however Lilith would NEVER do this as those top 3 teams is where all the $ is. Lilith would almost go bankrupt if the forced those teams to not compete

[@Mshannon75]

Cap the power level at 50B… that will create a level playing field. Once the gap closes, open up by 5B until.

[@RevolvingBlades69]

Put a total max power for an alliance…if over that number then you sit out until under.

[@DeathwisH-TV]

Interesting idea. I could see this being exploited for sure but if there was a way to prevent the exploitation of it maybe it could help

[@doctorstomp7468]

TOC and the Cup would be more competitive if they made it like Hegemon. give everyone the same amount of "points" to spend on units, skills and officers and lets see who is the most organized, most active and better fighters. you would still need to have tiers based on overall top alliances but once the groupings are set everyone in the TOC or Cup would be on equal footing

[@adamsansome1419]

I just moved to a lower power alliance because it became no fun to fight against people 200 mill 300mill power more then my account, fighting at 200mill power against players who are 300-400 mill just is not fun,

[@paulwelch9906]

Is there a video out there showing how match making is actually decided? I'm having an issue finding the method to the madness.

[@lovresvorinic5388]

Or 2 vs 6 , or AVE on one side and s21 on another side and then they can pick their allies to make balance in paramount cup , just neutral player thoughts!

[@DeathwisH-TV]

Still doesn’t solve the issue of having truly fair and balanced teams competing though. Basically it would still be two much stronger teams with their “helper” alliances and that’s just the hard truth of the situation.

[@pwphotography2054]

There is still a problem with the matching throughout the game. Weaker teams are constantly being matched against stronger teams in every ToC that they can not compete against. There may not be a 20 billion alliance power difference, but even when there is a 2, 3, 4 or 5 billion power difference, that is a strength difference that is hard to overcome for a weaker team. The average player power are not being considered in those match ups. Teams almost everyone on them have full armies or modern units going against teams where most only have 1 to 3 modern units total.

[@Jufas_S36_S44]

I understand that throwing the problem into Lilith hands it's easier than put our hands into work, but why not Merge and get PC capable alliances instead of dividing into small ones (like you did) and migrate to newer servers to rule and smash on Lower Battlefields? You are doing the same if you think about it lol... the top 3 did the work, and continuously do it to get stronger... If all others foccused on doing the same there would be other stronger alliances. You are focusing on PC because the date approaches but this also happens in Gold... What you are saying is ok fck it, leave Ferrari (mere example replace it for another factory brand if you're not a fan lol) out of F1 because others cant compete to win :) ... I own and play 2 accounts, one in Legendary I and one in Gold I, this is not a top 3 problem, it extends to others as well. There's no other solution than merge, recruiting outside the server, be part of the solution ;) (Lilith already proved that they are aware of this difficulties by adding unit cap on lower battlefields like gold II, maybe they come up with a similar solution for the legendary ones) . Also let's be honest and not ignore the spending aspect of the game, when you got top spenders on top alliances you can't afford to keep them bored without a match... When people pay, people wanna play... and i'm not talking about a couple of bucks, i talk about a looot... Long Story Short, there's not one single solution to solve this, it's not as easy as it seems... a lot of variables come in place... Sorry about the looooooong text, it would be easier to send audio ahahah... Disclaimer: i'm not a hater, in fact i watch your videos mostly above all other KZbinrs producing warpath related content. Keep up the good work

[@universalgenie]

As a noob I need additional help to understand the match making. Which is or which are the criterias for match making? Does Lilith only work with the all time power of the alliances? I ask because some players say, it would be best to decrease power before ToC to get easier enemies, but I don't believe it is that easy.

[@Joebennett1995]

Why not just restrict the amount of people in each alliance to 100 people then there will be more balance between size not all the whales will be on one team

[@conrad2140]

I agree that's exactly what I was thinking . Whales will have to split and the gap between all alliances will be way lower.

[@bulletwarpath4227]

Average power of AVE is 400m. 100 players would still be larger than the biggest percent of Alliance's.

[@Warpath_Tony]

I remember those days when ToC opened and everyone was asking themselves, "Who we will face this time?" I think after S36 or S40 , I don't see any more strongest servers, and we have like 90 already, Lol . So , better listen to my Bro DeathWish, Warpath Development Team.

[@jasonmcgrath2862]

ToC needs to be less time, 2 weeks max. No coalitions, no first captures only ‘hold at the end/time’, take away everything to do with alliance rewards or any sort of coalition help. Too many are won before it begins just through diplomacy.

[@jasonmcgrath2862]

Abolish alliances for ToC, match individuals to teams.

[@GatoradeBreak]

We need different lvl cups !!! There should be a cup for every lvl. They need to loosen up on the migration rules , a player shouldn’t be forced to stay in a dead server.

[@longrangekilla07]

My idea is cut down the max amount of players. In my opinion, 255 is too much. Maybe cut it down a little to like 180 or something? Something balanced though.

[@datzonclanclan2945]

Make it a draft... fantasy warpath you can pick from all allainces

[@DeathwisH-TV]

This is actually a super creative idea I’ve had mentioned before. I personally think it would be a blast BUT the issue would be people wouldn’t be able to play with who they wanted to more than likely so not sure how well that would go over with players. Maybe a game mode like this would be really fun though

[@mariusneamtu6278]

hy! in gold is it the same problem big bap betwin aliances

[@DeathwisH-TV]

Because of the issues in Legendary. It’s a trickle down effect.

[@davidoviedo9325]

Bro nos encontramos en este san Francisco soy de U-30

[@spinepullercodzombies7054]

Alliance power cap in epic, gold lvl 4 would balance top ends .

[@jakeebdon6199]

I say fuck the system just make the devs match make by hand 😂😂

[@thedigitalshaman5704]

That's dumb AF imo. You don't sideline and sh*t on your biggest customers.

[@AznFtw123]

Biggest Issue, Warpath community is just full of sore losers.... majority of the time when an alliance loses, instead of focusing on getting better or recruiting they just disband and split and try to go into lower tier battlefield.

[@DeathwisH-TV]

That goes back to people chasing the next best thing. To be fair, sometimes it’s good/healthy for players to start fresh somewhere if their current situation just isn’t good and it’s out of their control but for some players they just are always chasing the next best thing but then complain about the situation they’ve helped contribute to. That’s where it becomes a problem. In my opinion at least.

[@delinger7738]

NICE ONE.... You hit the spot.. death wish gaming..🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@Warpath77.]

Everyone wants a solution but this one ain’t it.

[@DeathwisH-TV]

If this one isn’t it.. I’d love to hear what your solution is that is it?

[@ynW1CK3D]

​@@DeathwisH-TVan algorithm that specifically keeps track of wins and losses. an alliance with multiple losses wouldn't be a great match-up with one that wins every conquest.

[@mroch487]

3 days for matchmaking is awful delay. where can we complain about this ?

[@datzonclanclan2945]

I think they should consider how many times allainces have won historically too

[@chriscalvert7774]

I know how to fix it. If you migrate forward, you can't migrate backwards.

[@DeathwisH-TV]

That’s actually a super unique idea🤔

[@quentincooper7121]

Matching at the lower level isn't great either currently in San Fran gold 1 in both gold 1 events there is 4 alliance of 28b power or more in the event 4 alliance 24b or lower and in the other gold 1 is structured the same why not put the 8 alliance of 28b power in 1 event and all those that are 24b in the other instead of making deficit between alliances on a side note individual player power should be a requirement for events there's no reason players of 580 million should be in any gold battlefield

[@DeathwisH-TV]

I mean it’s impossible to have 8 identical teams in terms of players and power matches together. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking for here but 4B difference in power is still able to be overcome with organization and activity. Almost 50B is not even close to fair. Those two situations and not comparable.

[@quentincooper7121]

@@DeathwisH-TV I think you missed the point the point I was trying to make is when possible alliances should be paired with other alliance ls as close to there power as possible when there are 8 alliances close to 30b power and 8 alliance close to 24b there it's obvious how they should have been paired

[@quentincooper7121]

@@DeathwisH-TV also if they want more Legendary teams they need to implement individual players power for each battlefield which would force high power players out of gold and silver and create more teams for the legendary and gold 1 battlefield I think this is most important thing is to have players actually play at there individual power ranking against others of similar strength

[@high-tower]

Good idea, but please focus on quality not quantity. Your videos could be much more to the point. Your excellent idea comes around minute 10 out of 14. Way too much intro and way tooooo much repetition. Just state each message once and several times. Also I miss tests providing insight. Why .not an in depth test of the new officers instead of explaining the old ones. Just my 2 cents.

[@esequielrodriguez569]

Or better yet just make it optional to join epic have if only 2 teams joins then eff it 2 it is let them fight it out for a whole month

[@ebaadkhan1005]

Its look like lilith listen and do whatever they want. They bought this game and we feed them with money. if you agree

[@11Powerstroke]

Players fault.... Last pc had 8 good alliances. First G27, HBR, 24 split up. Now 14 and Mass. That isnt liliths fault. How about restricting whales from entering silver and gold conquest. Force them to go to more powerful alliances. All of you that jumped to be on 30b alliances are the problem.

[@uruka26]

You've forgotten something important, those alliances spend tons of money in the game. If you think LILITH will do that to players who generate economic benefits, I'm sorry, but you're delusional.

[@DeathwisH-TV]

Must’ve slipped my mind.. silly me 🤣

[@GhanaA-ii2bo]

Mis match has more fun 😂

[@pochta27]

Get to the f point already

[@DeathwisH-TV]

What’s f point? Is f because I already got to the a, b, c and d points?

[@pochta27]

You always taking to long to deliver information, sorry bro

[@LuisVillalobosYT]

He did ramble a lot on this video like he was scared to say it. Lol. Like when you trying to ask your crush out for the first time 😂