Flawed is the fact that we have been paired against the SAME alliance this AW season (2 out of 6 pairings) twice! We are not even in Masters tier... should not be happening with hundreds of alliances in Platinum tiers.
I'm going to update my list later in the week when alliance prestige is made public. Then people will start freaking out when they see so many 4-6k prestige alliances in platinum.
Not really, the top alliances are still in the top tiers. Nothing is going to prevent that which is fine because they have the resources, rosters, and skills to be in those positions.
It’s only when you have allies openly admitting to using a shell that makes it annoying. I get top guys find fighting the same teams over and over a pain, but that comes with the territory of being on top....
Perhaps they should just turn Seasons into TRUE ROUND-ROBIN TOURNAMENT each Season, consisting of 13 Alliances each, with qualifying positions within those brackets being based on previous season. At least for alliances down thru any of the Gold levels.
So top 13 from one season/tournament get put together in TOP Round Robin Bracket for the next Season/Tournament, next 13 are in next bracket, etc, etc. all the way down the line. And you face EACH of the other alliances in that bracket exactly one time during that season/tournament.
Instead of current TIER MULTIPLIER, there would be a Bracket-Wide Multiplier (everyone in that bracket gets same Multiplier, and then the next lower 13-Team bracket would have a slightly lower Multiplier, etc, etc all the way down.
After Gold Level, then everyone else basically runs Seasons the way it is now, in one large pool, based on War Rating, Prestige, (or whatever else it’s based on)
** There would have to be an OPT-IN Period to sign up for next season, so that if an alliance were going to (or has) disband, they could be ignored from taking up a “dead” spot in the Bracket.
...and alliances that only run 1BG or 2BG wars would also be put down into the current method General Pool matching method.
But those 3BG Round Robin Tournament brackets would have specified rewards that would be above whatever any other lower “General Pool” alliance would be able to get. So no lower one would be able to sneak into better rewards, although it MAY qualify them to be part of the bracketed tournaments for the next season.
A guy who I rejected from joining my alliance coz he's stupid and not skilled just texted me with a picture showing master rank 14. I mean it's ridiculous how that alliance is anything above gold. But it's the way Kabam is matching wars.. They are definitely denying everyone below them one rank further in the chain. Have Kabam ever responded to if they are going to fix this issue??
There are definitely a few anomalies in the OP list but those aside, you would need to see what tier the alliances are competing to draw meaningful conclusions.
All the OP list shows is where an alliance placed. It doesn't take account of number of BG's or number of wars fought.
There’s no way to rank that high in platinum or master without playing 3 BGs and having a high multiplier. You can go 12-0 in tier 8 running 3 BGs and still won’t make plat.
Suppose an alliance has war rating of 3000. And everyone who actually fought and brought that alliance to 3000 leaves. But before the last guy leaves, one guy with prestige of around 6000 joins that alliance and becomes leader. Now he adds 29 other members of prestige around 6000~7000. Now this alliance will be matched with other alliances of prestige around 6000~7000. But their war rating would not be 3000, it'll be around 1500~2000. What'll happen?? 1500~2000 war rating guys would be playing in Tier 2. Neither of them will finish the map in most cases, I have proof, where both alliances have given more than 150 deaths and just left the map. Both parties had defenders remaining. Anyway, this botched war would do the 3000 rating alliance benefit as they are definitely more versed in tier 2 than the unsuspecting first time tier 2 war playing alliance who got to be their unfortunate opponents. That's how they are getting season points, because the multiplier is still high.
I have updated my chart to show the prestige of each alliance for the top 50 in each tier from Gold 2 on up. This took a bit more time to compile as it's a lot more clicks to gather alliance prestige rather than alliance PI. I did this over the past 2 days while there was no movement in war rankings.
Green represents the top prestige in that tier. Orange is an alliance that is 20-30% less than prestige than the top in that tier. Red represents 30% or more prestige difference from the top rated alliance in that tier. Yellow represents a 10-20% prestige difference but I only used it on the master rankings. While it is feasible for an alliance to beat another with a 10-20% prestige difference, these 2 alliance are under 9k prestige while everyone else in master is over 10k.
All of the alliances are full and hence not likely to be recently exited shells. Typically shells in this range have alts that starts war only to lose in order to lower war rating.
You can clearly see that match making heavily favors prestige. There's no way an alliance with 30% less prestige will beat a higher rated alliance. Take a 7k prestige alliance that is probably fielding a few R4 5* for defense versus a 10k prestige alliance that is placing mostly R5 and R4 for defense; I don't see that 7k alliance ever beating a 10k regardless of skill.
Worst case is that 4330 prestige alliance near the top of Gold 1. You're telling me they are taking their R4 4* attack team and beating all these other alliances in that tier with R4/R5 defenders. That's just not happening if they were ever to be matched against one another.
Kabam, you really need to take a hard look at your match making algorithm. Clearly this is only favoring the smaller prestige alliances that happen to be good at war. How does it make that 10481 prestige alliance sitting in Gold 2 feel seeing a 4330 prestige alliance ranked much higher than them.
I'd love to be paired against a 6.2k PI Alliance in Platinum... instead... we have played against two different opponents... twice this season. Should be an algorithm modifier to prevent playing against the same alliance more than once per season within a division unless there is no one else.... which would only be the top Master's alliances.
When it comes to seasons, Prestige and Hero Rating should never be a part of matchmaking once brackets/tiers have been established. I can see War Rating being used in the first week in order to establish the brackets/tiers.
If a team doesn’t have the roster to compete in against teams with the same War Rating, then their War Rating doesn’t adequately reflect their skill level. I know alliances complained about fighting alliances with large gaps between Prestige and Hero Rating, but that happens in open tournaments.
I just can’t see a 4K-8K Prestige being able to compete unless they are able to flawlessly play against a team with a 10k+ Prestige. The R4 5* to R5 4* defense would be torn apart by most 10K Alliances with little to no effort.
Meanwhile, their R4 5* and R5 4* offense would be up against a much harder climb. If they do win consistently, they obviously deserve to be in Platinum-Gold. However, that argument cannot be made if they are not fighting against their peers in their current bracket.
I wish Kabam would at least comment about what the Developers have to say on this matter. No one is saying these teams shouldn’t be there, but more that the higher HR and Prestige teams don’t seem to be fighting these lower teams. We tend to only see our alliances pitted against really close Prestige and HR matches. It is leading to the perception that these teams are not truly earning their positions during Season game play.
I really hope that Kabam at least speaks up about taking these concerns to the development team and shedding light on what is happening. The game doesn’t need more players becoming disheartened after investing so much time to the game in order to develop their skills and their rosters only to be overstepped by teams that they never have a chance to compete against and a harder schedule due to the matchmaking algorithm.
@QuikPik I have war details of this season, of one of the alliances that are benefiting from this botched system. It's a video I got from a member of that alliance. It clearly shows war history and details. U can see that the opponents have not even cleared their map and left as many as 60 defenders standing on the map. The result? - they have skyrocketed in season rankings and are now platinum 1. I spoke to the player who provided me the video and he said they always get matched up against tier 4-5 players, and well like I said earlier, those low tier players can't play in the higher tier 2 when suddenly matched like this. Anyway, Let me know if you want the video and if it might help us win this battle with Kabam.
Agree there’s a massive issue here. match making seems to be based on alliance prestige. So many higher alliances are struggling to stay in platinum while lower alliances sit there no issue. It’s fundamentally flawed when (all else being equal) an 9k prestige alliance has a higher war rating than a 10k. Yet if they got matched 10k beats 9k everytime. People will stop pushing prestige or give give up all togther. I seen solid p2 alliances drop to p4 and they are Fed up. This really needs looking at.
A perfect example is couponing, stores would offer double up value on $0.50 coupons or less and allow multiple coupons. However, Extreme Couponing led to huge exploits, sales and these types of offers could lead to a customer getting paid to actual buy the items or getting a $3 item for $0.50. Seriously, I use to extreme coupon and I know how easy it could be done. The issue is that more and more people started doing it and it was becoming an issue with profits and the customer experience of bare shelves for others who didn’t take advantage.
I hear what you're saying but the example you're giving is a bad example. A manufacturer issuing a coupon is paying that in real dollars to the retail company. If they allow for stacking then the only party "exploited" is the manufacturer who consciously issued those coupons for their own reasons. It's not an exploit or a bug it's how those coupons were designed to work. An exploit would be when a coupon scans for a product which is not indicated in the coupon. One of the primary reasons coupons are issued is exactly to clear the shelf of that product. Not a bug, not unethical, working as intended.
Yeah to get on point, the issue isn't people exploiting the issue is a system where you're not always trying to win. If the system incentivizes throwing or swapping it's a bad system.
Make “Laddered” brackets of 13 alliances each (progressing in groups of the top 13, then the next 13, etc, etc all the way down thru Gold levels or say down thru WR Tier 8 or such) and play each Season as a ROUND ROBIN TOURNAMENT (12 wars, each against a different ally in your bracket).
And use English Premiere League style of moving ‘xx’ amount of alliances Up/Down based on standings between one season and the next.
Make “Laddered” brackets of 13 alliances each (progressing in groups of the top 13, then the next 13, etc, etc all the way down thru Gold levels or say down thru WR Tier 8 or such) and play each Season as a ROUND ROBIN TOURNAMENT (12 wars, each against a different ally in your bracket).
And use English Premiere League style of moving ‘xx’ amount of alliances Up/Down based on standings between one season and the next.
Elimination tournaments might work. Round Robins won't, because there are thousands of alliances. Since the only way to move up is in between tournaments if the matches are fixed, it would take hundreds of seasons for a low alliance to work their way to the top. That isn't practical.
This maybe controversial and some may not agree but it is about time they start from scratch again with war rating and match making. I can only speak to my little neck of the woods but moving up from gold to plat 4 or plat 4 to plat 3 has become next to impossible. I currently play in a gold 1 alliance that over the last 2 seasons have matched 3 alliances in excess of 45 million over all rating. we are 7-3 in our last 10 wars, 2 of the losses against alliances in the top 15 in aq scoring, and we had to win our last war just to make sure we didn't drop out of gold 1. If we win this war we will finish in the bottom third of gold 1 having gone 8-3 in our last 11. Meanwhile there are alliances half our rank placing in plat facing off against similar alliances as themselves due to prestige factor. IDK, just seems pretty broken to me.
I am not complaining about it, for what I am looking for Gold 1 is fine, just don't think the system functions as a fair representation of which alliances are the best. I think a lot of this has to do with the locked war rating in the off season. In the past you could continue to push so that come next season you were at a higher multiplier. Now, you are locked and you can go nearly perfect an entire season without climbing up a map difficulty.
anyway season is over and we will see what comes next
I guess I should add that we are a 10K prestige alliance sitting at the bottom of gold 1
Make “Laddered” brackets of 13 alliances each (progressing in groups of the top 13, then the next 13, etc, etc all the way down thru Gold levels or say down thru WR Tier 8 or such) and play each Season as a ROUND ROBIN TOURNAMENT (12 wars, each against a different ally in your bracket).
And use English Premiere League style of moving ‘xx’ amount of alliances Up/Down based on standings between one season and the next.
Elimination tournaments might work. Round Robins won't, because there are thousands of alliances. Since the only way to move up is in between tournaments if the matches are fixed, it would take hundreds of seasons for a low alliance to work their way to the top. That isn't practical.
Yes, each new Season (Tournament) would have new placements set. But yep, would have to actually be basically determined by then-current WR Rating, but wanted to toss in at least a minimum amount of Up/Down per 13 team bracket regardless of whether their War Rating would have otherwise kept them in the same bracket.
Such as the bottom 3 or 4 ally’s in one season's 13 ally tournament in the “ultimate top” bracket would be forced to move down a bracket, even if their War Rating would have otherwise dictated that they should have stayed in that top bracket.
If an ally's new War Rating would let them move up or down even further (MANY Tournament Brackets worth) for the next season, then they would still do so (just that at a minimum there would be xx amount that would at least move up/down 1 bracket regardless of WR, just on previous tournament/season results alone).
Kabam, since this season is just about over; it's a perfect time to revisit how you do match making. At no point should there be more than a 30% prestige gap within a tier. The difference between a 10k and 7k alliance is immense. Even the most skilled alliance is not going to beat 10k alliance often enough to maintain a high war rating.
And the 6000+ prestige gap in Gold 1 is plain ridiculous. An alliance fielding all R4 4* for attack and defense is better at war than all the 9k+ alliances sitting in Gold 1 and 2?
You can change the primary criteria back to war rating with possibly a 2000 prestige gap limiter. You will also need to change the +/- to a straight up number like 50 for alliances above 2000 war rating. Because all the lower prestige alliances will be start fighting higher alliances and having +90/-2 result is going to take a long time to lower their war rating. Yes some of these alliances are going to start losing a lot of wars but they've been on the collecting higher tier war rewards for awhile.
Kabam, since this season is just about over; it's a perfect time to revisit how you do match making. At no point should there be more than a 30% prestige gap within a tier. The difference between a 10k and 7k alliance is immense. Even the most skilled alliance is not going to beat 10k alliance often enough to maintain a high war rating.
The great irony here is that the system we have now was prompted by other people claiming that matches of disparate alliance rating were unfair. If only Kabam ignored *everyone* who looked at *anything* besides war rating, we wouldn't be having any of these problems.
The moment you say well, this alliance or that alliance don't "belong" in a particular bracket or war tier, you're just contributing to the problem. Maybe you don't realize this, and maybe I'm incapable of convincing you of that fact, but I'm pretty sure there's lots of other people who remember when matches were done based solely on war rating, and tons of people complained about being matched against alliances with much higher rating, and demanding changes because that was unfair.
Alliance rating doesn't matter. Prestige doesn't matter. The war system should look at war rating, and only war rating, and so should the players. But as long as people keep talking about alliance rating or prestige, Kabam is going to keep fiddling with the system in ways mathematically provably broken. If they used math.
Kabam, since this season is just about over; it's a perfect time to revisit how you do match making. At no point should there be more than a 30% prestige gap within a tier. The difference between a 10k and 7k alliance is immense. Even the most skilled alliance is not going to beat 10k alliance often enough to maintain a high war rating.
The great irony here is that the system we have now was prompted by other people claiming that matches of disparate alliance rating were unfair. If only Kabam ignored *everyone* who looked at *anything* besides war rating, we wouldn't be having any of these problems.
The moment you say well, this alliance or that alliance don't "belong" in a particular bracket or war tier, you're just contributing to the problem. Maybe you don't realize this, and maybe I'm incapable of convincing you of that fact, but I'm pretty sure there's lots of other people who remember when matches were done based solely on war rating, and tons of people complained about being matched against alliances with much higher rating, and demanding changes because that was unfair.
Alliance rating doesn't matter. Prestige doesn't matter. The war system should look at war rating, and only war rating, and so should the players. But as long as people keep talking about alliance rating or prestige, Kabam is going to keep fiddling with the system in ways mathematically provably broken. If they used math.
The old system worked better. Yes there were complaints but in the end imo it worked out better. Now you have alliances that have no place being in gold 1 finishing in plat 3 and alliances that should be in plat 3 struggling to maintain gold 1. It’s honestly a mess in many ways.
I agree that it should only be war rating. It used to be that way but people manipulated the system by tanking during the off season. This is when people complained because at the start of the season they could get harder match ups against alliances that tanked. Tanking has been somewhat addressed by freezing war ratings for tiers 5 and below. And half victory/loss changes for other tiers.
I only put a prestige limiter on match making because that's what Kabam uses now. I Kabam changed it back to strictly war rating. All those 6k prestige alliances in plat are going to only get matches against 9k+ alliances. Then again that's way it should be since their war ratings are probably pretty close.
It used to be that way but people manipulated the system by tanking during the off season.
Could someone elaborate on this? What was the purpose of tanking in the off season? I think WR makes the most sense but this bit here is throwing me because wouldn't tanking your WR just ensure you get less rewards?
Comments
So top 13 from one season/tournament get put together in TOP Round Robin Bracket for the next Season/Tournament, next 13 are in next bracket, etc, etc. all the way down the line. And you face EACH of the other alliances in that bracket exactly one time during that season/tournament.
Instead of current TIER MULTIPLIER, there would be a Bracket-Wide Multiplier (everyone in that bracket gets same Multiplier, and then the next lower 13-Team bracket would have a slightly lower Multiplier, etc, etc all the way down.
After Gold Level, then everyone else basically runs Seasons the way it is now, in one large pool, based on War Rating, Prestige, (or whatever else it’s based on)
** There would have to be an OPT-IN Period to sign up for next season, so that if an alliance were going to (or has) disband, they could be ignored from taking up a “dead” spot in the Bracket.
But those 3BG Round Robin Tournament brackets would have specified rewards that would be above whatever any other lower “General Pool” alliance would be able to get. So no lower one would be able to sneak into better rewards, although it MAY qualify them to be part of the bracketed tournaments for the next season.
I mean it's ridiculous how that alliance is anything above gold.
But it's the way Kabam is matching wars.. They are definitely denying everyone below them one rank further in the chain.
Have Kabam ever responded to if they are going to fix this issue??
All the OP list shows is where an alliance placed. It doesn't take account of number of BG's or number of wars fought.
And everyone who actually fought and brought that alliance to 3000 leaves.
But before the last guy leaves, one guy with prestige of around 6000 joins that alliance and becomes leader.
Now he adds 29 other members of prestige around 6000~7000.
Now this alliance will be matched with other alliances of prestige around 6000~7000.
But their war rating would not be 3000, it'll be around 1500~2000.
What'll happen?? 1500~2000 war rating guys would be playing in Tier 2.
Neither of them will finish the map in most cases, I have proof, where both alliances have given more than 150 deaths and just left the map. Both parties had defenders remaining.
Anyway, this botched war would do the 3000 rating alliance benefit as they are definitely more versed in tier 2 than the unsuspecting first time tier 2 war playing alliance who got to be their unfortunate opponents.
That's how they are getting season points, because the multiplier is still high.
Green represents the top prestige in that tier. Orange is an alliance that is 20-30% less than prestige than the top in that tier. Red represents 30% or more prestige difference from the top rated alliance in that tier. Yellow represents a 10-20% prestige difference but I only used it on the master rankings. While it is feasible for an alliance to beat another with a 10-20% prestige difference, these 2 alliance are under 9k prestige while everyone else in master is over 10k.
All of the alliances are full and hence not likely to be recently exited shells. Typically shells in this range have alts that starts war only to lose in order to lower war rating.
You can clearly see that match making heavily favors prestige. There's no way an alliance with 30% less prestige will beat a higher rated alliance. Take a 7k prestige alliance that is probably fielding a few R4 5* for defense versus a 10k prestige alliance that is placing mostly R5 and R4 for defense; I don't see that 7k alliance ever beating a 10k regardless of skill.
Worst case is that 4330 prestige alliance near the top of Gold 1. You're telling me they are taking their R4 4* attack team and beating all these other alliances in that tier with R4/R5 defenders. That's just not happening if they were ever to be matched against one another.
Kabam, you really need to take a hard look at your match making algorithm. Clearly this is only favoring the smaller prestige alliances that happen to be good at war. How does it make that 10481 prestige alliance sitting in Gold 2 feel seeing a 4330 prestige alliance ranked much higher than them.
If a team doesn’t have the roster to compete in against teams with the same War Rating, then their War Rating doesn’t adequately reflect their skill level. I know alliances complained about fighting alliances with large gaps between Prestige and Hero Rating, but that happens in open tournaments.
I just can’t see a 4K-8K Prestige being able to compete unless they are able to flawlessly play against a team with a 10k+ Prestige. The R4 5* to R5 4* defense would be torn apart by most 10K Alliances with little to no effort.
Meanwhile, their R4 5* and R5 4* offense would be up against a much harder climb. If they do win consistently, they obviously deserve to be in Platinum-Gold. However, that argument cannot be made if they are not fighting against their peers in their current bracket.
I wish Kabam would at least comment about what the Developers have to say on this matter. No one is saying these teams shouldn’t be there, but more that the higher HR and Prestige teams don’t seem to be fighting these lower teams. We tend to only see our alliances pitted against really close Prestige and HR matches. It is leading to the perception that these teams are not truly earning their positions during Season game play.
I really hope that Kabam at least speaks up about taking these concerns to the development team and shedding light on what is happening. The game doesn’t need more players becoming disheartened after investing so much time to the game in order to develop their skills and their rosters only to be overstepped by teams that they never have a chance to compete against and a harder schedule due to the matchmaking algorithm.
Anyway, Let me know if you want the video and if it might help us win this battle with Kabam.
And use English Premiere League style of moving ‘xx’ amount of alliances Up/Down based on standings between one season and the next.
I am not complaining about it, for what I am looking for Gold 1 is fine, just don't think the system functions as a fair representation of which alliances are the best. I think a lot of this has to do with the locked war rating in the off season. In the past you could continue to push so that come next season you were at a higher multiplier. Now, you are locked and you can go nearly perfect an entire season without climbing up a map difficulty.
anyway season is over and we will see what comes next
I guess I should add that we are a 10K prestige alliance sitting at the bottom of gold 1
Such as the bottom 3 or 4 ally’s in one season's 13 ally tournament in the “ultimate top” bracket would be forced to move down a bracket, even if their War Rating would have otherwise dictated that they should have stayed in that top bracket.
If an ally's new War Rating would let them move up or down even further (MANY Tournament Brackets worth) for the next season, then they would still do so (just that at a minimum there would be xx amount that would at least move up/down 1 bracket regardless of WR, just on previous tournament/season results alone).
And the 6000+ prestige gap in Gold 1 is plain ridiculous. An alliance fielding all R4 4* for attack and defense is better at war than all the 9k+ alliances sitting in Gold 1 and 2?
You can change the primary criteria back to war rating with possibly a 2000 prestige gap limiter. You will also need to change the +/- to a straight up number like 50 for alliances above 2000 war rating. Because all the lower prestige alliances will be start fighting higher alliances and having +90/-2 result is going to take a long time to lower their war rating. Yes some of these alliances are going to start losing a lot of wars but they've been on the collecting higher tier war rewards for awhile.
The moment you say well, this alliance or that alliance don't "belong" in a particular bracket or war tier, you're just contributing to the problem. Maybe you don't realize this, and maybe I'm incapable of convincing you of that fact, but I'm pretty sure there's lots of other people who remember when matches were done based solely on war rating, and tons of people complained about being matched against alliances with much higher rating, and demanding changes because that was unfair.
Alliance rating doesn't matter. Prestige doesn't matter. The war system should look at war rating, and only war rating, and so should the players. But as long as people keep talking about alliance rating or prestige, Kabam is going to keep fiddling with the system in ways mathematically provably broken. If they used math.
I only put a prestige limiter on match making because that's what Kabam uses now. I Kabam changed it back to strictly war rating. All those 6k prestige alliances in plat are going to only get matches against 9k+ alliances. Then again that's way it should be since their war ratings are probably pretty close.