EvE Matchmaking Explanation

[mr_teflon]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

Win big don’t move.
Lose big don’t move.
Win close jump up 100 spots
Lose close fall 100 spots.

If your in close contests then you are where you need to be. No idea why winning a close game means your way better than your placement.

If you win big jump up. Your obviously better than your placement. Lose big fall down to your level.

Why is it backwards?

I remember a long time ago this was explained on this forum somewhere, its something to do with if a war is really close then your empire is really going for it and the amount of participation needed to win this war could be stuff like everyone watching their screens doing all they can to bring home the win, now multiply that by 4 wars a day or 3 like loads of people attend and to some that might be fun but is overkill for a lot of people to sit there and watch a screen constantly, so winning a close war pushes you up in the rankings alot so you dont have too many of these types of war and you either get smashed by a higher team or if you lose a close war you go down a lot so you get a easier team in theory to smash, think it was explained by the devs to stop players burning out playing 3 wars a day like this.

[Mobile Mob]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

I have a newer empire, lower levels, level 2 hq. We are generally active, 11-19 show up for wars, and in the beginning we started off with a big winning streak. Since then we have had so many bad matchs, going up against shields and nuke silos and research labs, all high level fams. We bounce back and forth between gold and platinum league, our win /loss is pretty much even.
Lol I would love to come across game with at least similar range of upgrades (like other games it looks at hq level kinda thing). I know level ranges are all over the place. But it would be nice to have a few more balanced wars. The wars are fun, and are funniest when closer matches for sure.

I have the same problem.
Empires with full upgrades don't belong in silver /gold.
EDIT: empires with HQ level 1,2 and 3 silver and gold
EDIT: empires with HQ level 4,5 and 6 diamond, platinum and legend

Silver and gold are there for new empires recruiting, building and upgrading.

[alexian]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

One of the criteria for "match making" is the empire strength. If an empire has many strong inactives, used only as meat shields, they artificially increase the empire strength ( sum of members attack / defense power). Which leads to incorrect matching.

The problem that I see with auto booting is next. In case of auto booting, the active players will gather in 200 (ish) empires, which will lead to lack of variety in matches. Which is, actually, a problem of retaining the players.
If many players (myself included) will prefer to remain in empires with 20ish members, fine, they can continue like that.

What I think could help in the long run? Auto boot from empires (not toon delete from game) of inactive members, that don't appear in last month's leaderboard (if they are just in a holiday, they can easily join again the empire). And a 2nd server for new players, up to 5k sp. That way, new players find more easily even wars and are not thrown together immediately in the mix with the veterans. At 5k sp (2k en, 1k st, 1k attack or defense) they are considered strong enough to be moved in the big toons server.

[Irish]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

Problem with this is that alot of people dont want to move (myself included) because me and my group have built this empire for 3 years. And then go somewhere and what? Fight a bunch of guys way stronger than us? Take losses all game? Feel like your not contributing very much? There has to be varying levels of strength and activity. So that matchups are fun for all players.

[alexian]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

The ideea was to keep the the empires more close together. Not every time top 10 fought each other, basically every empire that met a top 5 got a big lose. They weren't penalized so big and lose contact with top places.

That was two (? maybe more) years ago. When there were more competitive empires, and basically only 3-4 "top" empires. Maybe an update is needed, indeed.


Or you know, the ideea from forum with auto-boot of inactives and so, hopefully an auto-equilibrium of empires, actives gathering more in active empires.

[Xcali1985]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

This was answered somewhere but basically from what i can remember wins or losses that are fast dont count as much toward moving rank either way. This was due to the idea that most empires have a sort of down time when most members arent playing and so this down time wouldnt help raise the rank of the winning team or lower the rank of the losing team very much.

Win big don’t move.
Lose big don’t move.
Win close jump up 100 spots
Lose close fall 100 spots.

If your in close contests then you are where you need to be. No idea why winning a close game means your way better than your placement.

If you win big jump up. Your obviously better than your placement. Lose big fall down to your level.

Why is it backwards?

[Irish]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

This was answered somewhere but basically from what i can remember wins or losses that are fast dont count as much toward moving rank either way. This was due to the idea that most empires have a sort of down time when most members arent playing and so this down time wouldnt help raise the rank of the winning team or lower the rank of the losing team very much.

[Demo Diva]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

From what I have read I get the impression that winning a fast battle is given more weight for the winning empire in determining rankings rather than winning a 2 hr battle where the score is closer. For the loser of a fast battle the loss doesn’t weigh against them in EvE rankings as much as if the loss was fought for a full 2 hrs and the score between the winning/losing empire is closer.
Example 1) Empire A beats Empire B, clearing the board in 30 minutes or less with a final score of 160-10.
Example 2) Empire A beats Empire B in a full 2hr long battle with a final score of 140-110.
Take into consideration that Empire A and Empire B are ranked within the top 3 empires please tell me how Example 1 and 2 affect Empire A and Empire B in relation to EvE ranking.
Which example is better or worse for the winning and losing empire?

[Diamond_DS]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

I have a newer empire, lower levels, level 2 hq. We are generally active, 11-19 show up for wars, and in the beginning we started off with a big winning streak. Since then we have had so many bad matchs, going up against shields and nuke silos and research labs, all high level fams. We bounce back and forth between gold and platinum league, our win /loss is pretty much even.
Lol I would love to come across game with at least similar range of upgrades (like other games it looks at hq level kinda thing). I know level ranges are all over the place. But it would be nice to have a few more balanced wars. The wars are fun, and are funniest when closer matches for sure.

[DFish]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

Can we please stop with the redundant match ups. We played the same team 3 times in 6 matches. Really? And none of them were even close. The score was 160 to 45 in the most "competitive" of the matches. I'm sure there was some other team we could have played during two of those.

[Aen]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

What happens when there is an odd number of empires? Let's say that there are 1001 empires queued up to do battle in all Leagues. There would be 500 wars and that would mean one empire would have no one to battle. What happens? Does that odd empire not not get to battle?

I believe you fight an empire a league below you. And you won't run out of empires to face there's 100s of inactive ones even for free pts

[Bugo]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

What happens when there is an odd number of empires? Let's say that there are 1001 empires queued up to do battle in all Leagues. There would be 500 wars and that would mean one empire would have no one to battle. What happens? Does that odd empire not not get to battle?

[bigG4444]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

I completely agree with many of the statements in this thread. Although each season is a THREE MONTH MARATHON, your final ranking is basically an assessment of your last 3-4 wars. It is very unfair. Last season consisted of 368 wars. But realistically, the actual final standings are based on the last 3-4 wars and more specifically, your very last war. Two seasons in a row, my empire were in the lower 100s in Legend heading into the last war. Which we lost both times, and of course, fell to top of diamond league. There must be a better way to determine an Empire's strength for a THREE MONTH season other than their very last war.

[Noodles]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

That happened to my empire too cuz after.we won a war by 2 points, we versed a team whose average level was 300 while ours is like 50ish 100osh and of course we lost by like 20 points lol

[DFish]

Re: EvE Matchmaking Explanation

EVE is the best and worst part of this game. It is great when a war comes down to the last 5 mins, but horrible when's if over before it even starts. Sadly it seems like there are more and more wars over before they start.

Usually Tank is helpful in his posts, but I don't know anymore about the match up system than before the post was created. More information would be helpful.

First, rank and match ups should be separated and only loosely connected. Our new empire has been as high as legend 187 and all the way down to gold. At the end of the season, if somehow we made legend because of 3 wins in a row, but had a losing record, that would be just stupid and unfair for an deserving empire who had one bad war on the last day. Ranking should be wins and loses and total points (in case of tie breakers) in wars during the season, period. Maybe you weight the last 50 or 100, if a team had several strong players join and they get a good streak going at the end of the season. What if LS goes undefeated until the very last match of the season and finishes 10th or 20th? Is there any doubt they aren't the strongest empire, yet the current system could punish them for losing one war. This isn't the old college football BCS.

The algorithm for match ups is screwed up for all the levels except legend. It does not meet any of the 4 goals posted for mid level teams.

You need an apples to apple comparison for empires to create your pool. How are you tracking activity? Is it just number of people who log in, is it number of battle points earned? Empires should be matched up by taking upgrades, number of actives, level of players, age of the empire, and even the war slot, into account.

Our empire is less than 3 months old, but every time we win a war, the next one is a team we have no shot at beating. They have higher level players and more actives and more upgrades. As the game grows players, we need more empires, though I admit there are too many empires. If newer empires are punished for being new, then you lose future players and revenue. Match ups for the mid level teams needs a lot work to keep things more evenly matched.