What is going on with War matchmaking???

They are also 6-7M more than us... FFS And this is every single war, im sick of it... My teammates doesn’t deserve that!

Comments

Sixshot1

It's based on war rating. Nothing else. This has been covered many times on these forums

Frosty

The difference in war rating there is probably due to you guys getting matched before the last war was accounted for. My guess is you guys were almost equal in war rating when the algorithm matched you but your team lost the last war and the other guys won theirs. This would account for the 100 pt difference in war rating

DNA3000

Frosty wrote: »

The difference in war rating there is probably due to you guys getting matched before the last war was accounted for. My guess is you guys were almost equal in war rating when the algorithm matched you but your team lost the last war and the other guys won theirs. This would account for the 100 pt difference in war rating

That's possible, but that shouldn't be happening. Higher tier alliances should be getting matched first, and thus starting earlier, and thus ending earlier, and as a result their war should have been over long before match making calculations started. If this were happening, we'd expect everyone's matches to be equally bad, but they aren't.

I suspect this is happening because someone got a little too cute with the match making algorithm and instead of just matching top-down like they implied the system would do, the system is actually breaking up the alliances into war rating "bands" and then doing random matches within each band. This would be fine if the bands were narrow with all alliances having similar rating, but near the top I bet the bands are too wide and alliances are being matched against alliances anywhere within a range of alliances directly above and directly below them in rating-order. Fifty places higher than an 1800 rating alliance could be an 1820, but the same fifty places higher than a 2500 alliance could be a 2600 alliance.

Frosty

DNA3000 wrote: »

Frosty wrote: »

The difference in war rating there is probably due to you guys getting matched before the last war was accounted for. My guess is you guys were almost equal in war rating when the algorithm matched you but your team lost the last war and the other guys won theirs. This would account for the 100 pt difference in war rating

That's possible, but that shouldn't be happening. Higher tier alliances should be getting matched first, and thus starting earlier, and thus ending earlier, and as a result their war should have been over long before match making calculations started. If this were happening, we'd expect everyone's matches to be equally bad, but they aren't.

I suspect this is happening because someone got a little too cute with the match making algorithm and instead of just matching top-down like they implied the system would do, the system is actually breaking up the alliances into war rating "bands" and then doing random matches within each band. This would be fine if the bands were narrow with all alliances having similar rating, but near the top I bet the bands are too wide and alliances are being matched against alliances anywhere within a range of alliances directly above and directly below them in rating-order. Fifty places higher than an 1800 rating alliance could be an 1820, but the same fifty places higher than a 2500 alliance could be a 2600 alliance.

I agree with you.

Some wars may be even if both alliances win the previous or both win the previous war which keeps the war rating close. I'm not saying this is a good way for matchmaking but I was just trying to give an answer for the discrepancy in war ratings

UncleRayRay

Yeah. Im just confused cuz before the new systems the matchmaking between 2 teams was 99% +-50 war rating, now when its supposed to be better is worse and we keep losing cuz of that. It gets me frustrated a lot

DNA3000

Frosty wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Frosty wrote: »

The difference in war rating there is probably due to you guys getting matched before the last war was accounted for. My guess is you guys were almost equal in war rating when the algorithm matched you but your team lost the last war and the other guys won theirs. This would account for the 100 pt difference in war rating

That's possible, but that shouldn't be happening. Higher tier alliances should be getting matched first, and thus starting earlier, and thus ending earlier, and as a result their war should have been over long before match making calculations started. If this were happening, we'd expect everyone's matches to be equally bad, but they aren't.

I suspect this is happening because someone got a little too cute with the match making algorithm and instead of just matching top-down like they implied the system would do, the system is actually breaking up the alliances into war rating "bands" and then doing random matches within each band. This would be fine if the bands were narrow with all alliances having similar rating, but near the top I bet the bands are too wide and alliances are being matched against alliances anywhere within a range of alliances directly above and directly below them in rating-order. Fifty places higher than an 1800 rating alliance could be an 1820, but the same fifty places higher than a 2500 alliance could be a 2600 alliance.

I agree with you.

Some wars may be even if both alliances win the previous or both win the previous war which keeps the war rating close. I'm not saying this is a good way for matchmaking but I was just trying to give an answer for the discrepancy in war ratings

I don't think the system is jumping the gun on war rating. I think the system is correctly calculating rating then looking for matches after that's done but looking by sorting the alliances by rating and looking in ranges of places, not rating points.

In other words, if you're an 1800 rating you might think the game looks for all alliances between 1790 and 1810 and randomly finds a match. That's how the old system sort of did it, but the new system can't actually do that due to the way matching now works. Instead, I think it sorts all alliances, breaks them up into groups of fifty or a hundred or something, and them randomly matches in the group.

So if the top rated alliance is 3500 and the 100th rated alliance is 2700, all of them are in group 1 and all of them could match against each other (this is an example of the idea: I'm not saying the "bucket" is 100 alliances big). If 101st place is 2698 and 200th place is 2450, all of them could match against any other in that group. And then so on. As you go lower, there are more alliances clustered around similar ratings, and this isn't a problem. Eventually you have a group from 1850 to 1790 and matches in there aren't too far apart, and even lower you have a hundred alliances from 1650 to 1635. But above a certain rating, there aren't enough alliances nearby, and the "bucket" gets too big.

Why not just match #1 v #2, #3 v #4, etc? Because that would cause a lot of rematches as alliances alternately win and lose. I think Kabam tried to avoid this, but did the match windows wrong.

MaatMan

UncleRayRay wrote: »

They are also 6-7M more than us... FFS And this is every single war, im sick of it... My teammates doesn’t deserve that!

looks fair.
130 points war rating difference at that level is nothing.
thats like 2-3 wins thats it.
this is not a match to complain about.