**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Why people are not sharing - AW matching isn’t right and it’s unfair for many of us.
Xthea9
Posts: 829 ★★
AW matching with another alliance is based on Majorly AW ratings, our alliance was close to 1700 AW rating and we were in tier 3 but we matched twice in a row with 10+ million alliance and we are 7 million alliance. We lost both wars and now we are in tier 4 and we lost another war in sequence and now our rating is 1500.
If I post this Complaining about AW matching, people will perceive that I am whining cause I lost in AW , which is true and it hurts when we lose , but why those alliance are not coming up and saying fighting with low Alliance rating isn’t a good fight, it’s not just me , the higher alliance rating alliances should also acknowledge this and should say and come upfront admitting that this isn’t a fair match up.
If we all come up and say this together and loud enough that this AW matching isn’t fair , I just hope kabam will listen before we get into the AW season.
If I post this Complaining about AW matching, people will perceive that I am whining cause I lost in AW , which is true and it hurts when we lose , but why those alliance are not coming up and saying fighting with low Alliance rating isn’t a good fight, it’s not just me , the higher alliance rating alliances should also acknowledge this and should say and come upfront admitting that this isn’t a fair match up.
If we all come up and say this together and loud enough that this AW matching isn’t fair , I just hope kabam will listen before we get into the AW season.
7
Comments
Would open a door otherwise to recruit low rating members and let them sit out wars and do 2 BG for wars? Or perhaps even everyone selling most of their champs to get a low rating as possible
Your structure is not a fix but will cause more problems.
nothing wrong with it
My only concern is when the AW season is in play ... these match up will play a strong role and losing just because of this is unfair.
And the people from 7.5 million alliance will never say a word in this forum cause they got an easy win , and my intend of this post is to come up together and bring this point for discussion that the matching system isn’t fair for all.
that results in extremely long matchmaking ... with much higher chance of missing out on 3 wars over the course of a week.
kabam already tried it a month or so ago (incorporating what appeared to be both AW rating and alliance prestige), just didn't announce it. it went horribly for many (you can search the forums for the complaints if you'd like), with normal matchmaking times taking 2-3 hours, sometimes longer.
if you get high in AW war rating and face a stronger alliance, then your alliance isn't strong enough to keep winning. instead of complaining on the forums, focus on growing your account/getting better.
First , if you use public forum and comment on any post , make your facts accurate and prove when needed.
Second kabam tried without announcing but they whispered in your ear..... that’s awesome
Third, if you have seen match making still takes minimum 1 hour to get matched.
I don’t see any relevance of your comment with this post.
Can you please read the post, think and then comment.... what is your point , match making will take long time to get matched with an equivalent alliance..... why , do you have answer for this “WHY”. Does anyone officially announced that long match making is caused by some “x” reason. Either you know how this match making works and can enlighten all of us in this forum so that we understand how this match making works or you just move on commenting other post and just leave this post.
Please read the post, that’s what I am asking why those alliances are not coming up and saying we have matched with an low alliance rating alliance and that match isn’t fair.
If the alliance who were in low alliance rating post in the forum, people like you or others will perceive that it’s whining and crying about loss , but if an alliance who were higher in alliance rating comes up with the statement that they got matched with an low level alliance would makes a difference, that’s what we need.
We have players in my ally who have a 400k+ rating, and others who are only 250k who have bigger champs. I am at 350k and there are guys who are only 100k who can run circles around me because they sell everything they don't need. All of the guys in my ally with 6* champs actually have lower ratings than me because I've maxed out most of my 1-3* champs.
Overall rating is merely a guide and has no place in AW matchmaking.
Now if you were to say it's based on prestige of each player's top 5-10 champs, then it's a different story...
Yes I did but all u did was complain it’s not fair instead of giving any ideas what would be fair. My point is someone will complain about any format there is.
Lol... seriously, it’s that hard to understand,” instead of giving ideas “.... I can bet if I have mentioned any idea , you have commented how stupid this idea was .... some people don’t understand the meaning of discussion and just jumped over to the conclusion.
No point arguing with you on this topic ....
Nobody will do that my friend, all ppl care is to win
You are 7m and you are at 1700? You are too high up, thats why you are losing. Get a grip on reality
Back when Wars first came out I was in a 2 mil alliance in Tier 1, why? Because it used our alliance rating when finding matches, 90% of Wars we had no defence to beat because our opponents didn’t place one, now is it fair that we scrubs with our 4 3*s were earning the same rewards as the strongest alliances that were also tier 1, with no chance of being matched against them because the ratings were so far apart? No it wasn’t.
If you’re at a high war rating and being matched against stronger alliances it means you’re playing above your rating, so rather than complaining about it, think of it in a positive manner, accept that losses happen.
Why are you upset, did I ever mentioned about how good my rating is , I am amazed how people can react when they read stuff. Our alliance started with Zero rating so what ever we have achieved... it’s based on the system that we all are in , if this system calculate this way and by your methods and means we should loose cause we are too high in rating then I can’t do anything in this .... this is how it is .... that’s why we started this discussion about matching and how system works.
What kind of reality are you referring here .... what is your point.
My friend that’s what I am talking about, we achieved this rating from zero , so if what you are saying is true then the calculation behind this AW rating is wrong .... so how come we can say the AW matching is fair.... I don’t know if you get my point but the discussion is only based on this not that we lost and now we are crying out loud.
We matched with the AW rating, everything else is beyond our reach , I don’t know what calculation system does to find a match but this is not a match , they all have 4/55 5* champs , and they can easily beat our defense and we have to struggle.... even if we manage to explore 100% , we can’t win , diversity and attack bonus will beat us ....
You said it yourself: the match system matches based on AW rating. That is the correct way to find matches.
You say this match up is unfair, but the question is: why did a 10 million alliance have a 1492 rating? They cannot possibly be just destroying alliances like yours all the time, because if they did they would have a higher rating. There's only a few possibilities for how an alliance like this can have that kind of AW rating. One: that rating accurately measures their ability to fight a war. When matched against higher alliances, they tend to lose. That causes them to drop rating and face lower alliances, like yours. And even then, many of them win, or as I said, they would then be rated higher. Two: their players jumped rating very quickly recently, either through recruitment, rank ups, or the alliance was built yesterday. In that case, their current rating started at zero and they are working their way up - which I will point out is what most players DEMAND that new alliances start at, so that new alliances cannot simply start gaining higher tier rewards immediately upon being created even if their players have high rating. That means you got unlucky and faced an alliance working their way up. That's unfortunately, but that's also simply part of how the system must work: you either force alliances to start at the bottom, which means they will be facing the bottom, or you give them a free ride to higher tiers so they don't face lower competition and also skip straight to better rewards.
The notion of using win/loss record to determine rating for the purposes of match up isn't something Kabam dreamed up: its the basis of most real tournament rating systems. ELO, for example, which rates Chess players, uses a system like this.