Please come up with a solution with Aw matchmaking

I have nothing against the alliance we are facing for this war. It's not their fault for why got matched up for this war. How ever. The system on how this matches are set up, need to be change. War rating is completely irrelevant when it comes to alliance total rating. Please find a solution cause I'm sure my alliance isn't the only one that goes through this.

Comments

IAmNotUrMom

You got owned. That's a tough pill to swallow for sure.

Vdh2008

I'm not bashing you, but if you're matching against teams like this, it means your war rating is inflated, and you "deserve" a lower one. Maybe you got some lucky wins in the past to get you where you are.

If you can't compete at that level, rest assured that eventually you will get to a tier where you face the "right" level of alliance about 80% of the time.

I am assuming that you are in T2 ish. from your rating. You'll get a lot of matchups like this if you can stay in T2.

Shrimkins

looks like matchmaking is working as intended.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Deadbyrd9

People from differnet alliance could have started a new alliance and are just climbing the tiers or they took over a shell

IAmNotUrMom

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

People from differnet alliance could have started a new alliance and are just climbing the tiers or they took over a shell

Maybe Kalizo's alliance is the shell that switched up and is now in the process of falling back.

LocoMotives

Well you didn't state your alliance rating so it's hard to judge how difficult the match is. You also didn't state who the main boss was on your map. There are lots of 10-11 mil allies at that level, maybe you had just gotten lucky on previous matchups.

At your war rating, you could conceivably be matched up with any level of ally.

Vdh2008

KALIZO wrote: »

Vdh2008 wrote: »

I'm not bashing you, but if you're matching against teams like this, it means your war rating is inflated, and you "deserve" a lower one. Maybe you got some lucky wins in the past to get you where you are.

If you can't compete at that level, rest assured that eventually you will get to a tier where you face the "right" level of alliance about 80% of the time.

I am assuming that you are in T2 ish. from your rating. You'll get a lot of matchups like this if you can stay in T2.

then the rating points u get from Winning has to be fix. Skills is what got us here . Not Lucky wins. The question is why a Team like that has a lower ratin number

They are only 3 mil higher rating than you... My alliance is over 9 mil and only mid 1600 war rating, as we have a no forced spend policy.

This is a fair match for you. If you can't win, take a break and enjoy a lower tier.

unknown

This content has been removed.

IAmNotUrMom

KALIZO wrote: »

Understandable. I take everyone's feed back and constructive criticism. By any means, we have not taking on a shell alliance. We are 8.3M or so. The boss who was sitting at top was a 4/50 magik..
Thank you guys for ur input

Would you feel better about the matchup if the rewards for losing were not so bad?

HoidCosmere

Honestly, I think it is perfect the way it its. Sometimes you get an easy match, sometimes hard match, sometimes an even match and sometimes an impossible one. If you run into one of those, just fight and kill who you can, don't use resources and take the loss. It really isn't a big deal. I'd rather that sometimes than one that is a little hard and you spend resources and get the boss kills and exploration and you lose by one defensive kill or a few points on placement rating. Those are the really frustrating ones.

Kronos987654321

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

rwhack

IMO the problem in AW is the rewards for winning aren't great enough and neither are they for losing. He had a matchup with an alliance that was probably a shell a better one dropped into. When you see that or have that my recommendation is not to spend. More importantly the rewards for being in tier 1 versus tier 2 or even tier 3 are different enough to dissuade alliances from dropping.

If Kabam gave something for being in tier 1 or tier 2 that was interesting for winning and still interesting for losing this would not happen.

Draco2199

Bet he used gwenpool

Vdh2008

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

Shrimkins

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

Completely agree. spending in war is about the dumbest thing ever. No matter how many you win, you will always get matched up against opponents significantly stronger than you.

All spending items does is artificially inflate your WR for a period of time. Definitely not worth it considering the rewards for tier 1 or 2 aren't much better than tier 3 or 4.

Kronos987654321

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

We don't spend our way to victory. What gave you that impression? Tired of people on this forum assume because you do well you must spend. Hardly anyone in my alliance spends and we never require it. I don't regret saying because someone who brags about beating down an alliance 3mil smaller than him deserves to hear it. Trash talking is one thing but that guy is a

Vdh2008

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

We don't spend our way to victory. What gave you that impression? I don't regret saying because someone who brags about beating down an alliance 3mil smaller than him deserves to hear it. Trash talking is one thing but that guy is a

My bad... I guess I just assume that with an alliance rating that big, you'd be spenders. I know a lot of the T1-2 guys are "win at all costs" players.

LocoMotives

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

We don't spend our way to victory. What gave you that impression? I don't regret saying because someone who brags about beating down an alliance 3mil smaller than him deserves to hear it. Trash talking is one thing but that guy is a

My bad... I guess I just assume that with an alliance rating that big, you'd be spenders. I know a lot of the T1-2 guys are "win at all costs" players.

Not nearly as much as you'd think. That's really more of a top 50 mentality, and even then it's not for all of them. Sure there are some big spenders down lower in the ranks, but it's few and far between when allies will go over 120+ deaths. But I have seen some top 50s go over 250 deaths in a single war, and that's just pure insanity lol.

Kronos987654321

LocoMotives wrote: »

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

We don't spend our way to victory. What gave you that impression? I don't regret saying because someone who brags about beating down an alliance 3mil smaller than him deserves to hear it. Trash talking is one thing but that guy is a

My bad... I guess I just assume that with an alliance rating that big, you'd be spenders. I know a lot of the T1-2 guys are "win at all costs" players.

Not nearly as much as you'd think. That's really more of a top 50 mentality, and even then it's not for all of them. Sure there are some big spenders down lower in the ranks, but it's few and far between when allies will go over 120+ deaths. But I have seen some top 50s go over 250 deaths in a single war, and that's just pure insanity lol.

Yeah we've never touched that number or any close to it but I've definitely seen it

Kronos987654321

Dropfaith wrote: »

I've actually won a war down a boss kill because the other team died more then 170 times more then us and we inched them on explore...

Yep we had one of those recently. They had triple our deaths but up a boss and thought they had it. Apparently none of them could do math

Kabam Vydious

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Kronos987654321

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Are you guys working on a way to address the alliances that are moving into shell alliances and blasting up through the tiers? This seems like
blatant manipulation of the system and, I would argue, against the TOS.

Kabam Vydious

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Are you guys working on a way to address the alliances that are moving into shell alliances and blasting up through the tiers? This seems like blatant manipulation of the system and, I would argue, against the TOS.

We're looking into all avenues based on discussions such as this one.

Kronos987654321

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Are you guys working on a way to address the alliances that are moving into shell alliances and blasting up through the tiers? This seems like blatant manipulation of the system and, I would argue, against the TOS.

We're looking into all avenues based on discussions such as this one.

The way you have formatted AQ really fixed alliance shells imo. There is no benefit for an alliance to drop brackets now as there are only 3 and then spot within those brackets (hence why I have been advocating for adjusted AQ blackout periods), couldn't you guys figure out something similar for AW? The rewards are kind of weird anyways. There is hardly a difference in rewards right now yet tier 1 is significantly harder than tier 3 or 4.

LocoMotives

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Are you guys working on a way to address the alliances that are moving into shell alliances and blasting up through the tiers? This seems like
blatant manipulation of the system and, I would argue, against the TOS.

How exactly would that be against ToS? Legit question as I don't recall anyone using this argument for this circumstance. I can't imagine how this would be against ToS and therefore worthy of a ban...

Kronos987654321

LocoMotives wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Are you guys working on a way to address the alliances that are moving into shell alliances and blasting up through the tiers? This seems like
blatant manipulation of the system and, I would argue, against the TOS.

How exactly would that be against ToS? Legit question as I don't recall anyone using this argument for this circumstance. I can't imagine how this would be against ToS and therefore worthy of a ban...

There is a section regarding in-game manipulation I believe. It was brought up when this was happening in AQ

LocoMotives

you believe means you don't know, yet you would argue it's against ToS. Nobody ever got banned for ally swapping in AQ. You can argue it shouldn't be done or should be corrected with different rules, but it's not against ToS.

Kronos987654321

LocoMotives wrote: »

you believe means you don't know, yet you would argue it's against ToS. Nobody ever got banned for ally swapping in AQ. You can argue it shouldn't be done or should be corrected with different rules, but it's not against ToS.

Alright then. Really not the point of the post though so let's stay on topic. This feels like an argument for the sake of arguing.

LocoMotives

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

LocoMotives wrote: »

you believe means you don't know, yet you would argue it's against ToS. Nobody ever got banned for ally swapping in AQ. You can argue it shouldn't be done or should be corrected with different rules, but it's not against ToS.

Alright then. Really not the point of the post though so let's stay on topic. This feels like an argument for the sake of arguing.

Sorry, slightly off topic but I see that argument a lot and it's not always valid