Alliance War Matchmaking unfair [Merged Threads]

GroundedWisdom

Midknight007 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I've made the Arena example several times, but it's literally like an Arena. You want the higher Multiplier, and the highest Streak possible to get the most Points you can. You're not doing a fight-to-the-finish against everyone in Ranks above you.

Your Arena example is a poor comparison... My roster of 155 5* and 62 6* makes it hard for most to compare with me with spending. Especially with the 4* pulling death squads. I can put up 9.2 million points on just my 5* and 6*.

9.2 x 6 = 55.2million + 3 @ 5.1 million = 70.5 million without spending on refreshes. Someone with 800k would never stand a chance in 5* featured. Not to mention it is all about who is willing to put in the time or spend as to who gets the champions.

You could be speaking about the 4* arena, but that is the problem. Wasting time on 4* which is not going to help advance your roster.

Now I am supposed to believe someone not dedicated to develop a 5* roster DESERVES similar chances at Gold, Platinum and Master awards without having to experience the toughness of the bracket others have to face. Sure the prestige wars are “fairer”, but what about the players who run 5*’s and have to spend on boosts and pots? How is it fair to them to have tougher and more costly matches only to rank in lower Gold because other teams never have to spend or face anything hard?

What of years the upper player put into their rosters? Where is the fairness there? You are completely wrong and off base with your responses.

In War, the Rating of your Champs doesn't denote higher Rewards. Not in the current setup. Spending advances your Roster but that doesn't mean you deserve better Rewards automatically. It's what you do with those Champs within your own War Matches that earns the Rewards.

Monk1

GroundedWisdom said:

Mr_Platypus said:

.

GroundedWisdom said:

Das_gi said:

@GroundedWisdom you don’t get it at all. How should noname for instance be in master top 3? Screenshots were posted in another thread: they lost at least 60 AB to every opponent they ever fought and when they fought kenob (which has an easier defense than nyc, 4loki, ... because they go for max diversity) they died 90 times while they only got 3 kills.

While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s


Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket

Why are you counting Kills? Outside of Attack Bonus, they don't mean anything. Once again, people are focusing on an old mentality. There have been many changes to War since Defender Kills counted and the same Allies occupied the Leaderboard because they were the highest in Rating.

Are you genuinely arguing that if Aliiance A (10,000 prestige, full R5 5* defence, 2400 war rating, platinum 3 #101)
and alliance B (8000 prestige, 2-3 R4 5*s on defence per player, 2400 war rating, Platinum 3 #100)
are both fighting for identical platinum 3 rewards its ok for alliance A and B to never be matched up with each other?

Because that’s a very silly argument isn’t it, they are fighting for the same rewards and they therefore should have the possibility to match each other.
Alliance B shouldn’t just get an easier time just because their accounts aren’t as developed, they should work for the platinum 3 rewards and that means they should match ANYONE else that is close to them on war rating, not just those that are also at about 8000 prestige (which would likely expand the bracket in which they draw their opponents from to all the way down to plat 4, possibly even gold 1).

It's okay because they're not fighting each other for the same Rewards, they're fighting the Matches they get which are appropriate to them, and earning Points based on that.
Can a lower Ally fight better than a higher one? Absolutely. Within War, the Points are very clear. It's all in the scoring. That's what you're working towards for placements, Points. Not fighting every other Ally close to you. Points. That's what determines say, Master 2 vs. Master 3. Master 2 is ahead because they put up more Points. Not because 3 coulda shoulda and woulda beat them.

GroundedWisdom said:

Mr_Platypus said:

.

GroundedWisdom said:

Das_gi said:

@GroundedWisdom you don’t get it at all. How should noname for instance be in master top 3? Screenshots were posted in another thread: they lost at least 60 AB to every opponent they ever fought and when they fought kenob (which has an easier defense than nyc, 4loki, ... because they go for max diversity) they died 90 times while they only got 3 kills.

While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s


Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket

Why are you counting Kills? Outside of Attack Bonus, they don't mean anything. Once again, people are focusing on an old mentality. There have been many changes to War since Defender Kills counted and the same Allies occupied the Leaderboard because they were the highest in Rating.

Are you genuinely arguing that if Aliiance A (10,000 prestige, full R5 5* defence, 2400 war rating, platinum 3 #101)
and alliance B (8000 prestige, 2-3 R4 5*s on defence per player, 2400 war rating, Platinum 3 #100)
are both fighting for identical platinum 3 rewards its ok for alliance A and B to never be matched up with each other?

Because that’s a very silly argument isn’t it, they are fighting for the same rewards and they therefore should have the possibility to match each other.
Alliance B shouldn’t just get an easier time just because their accounts aren’t as developed, they should work for the platinum 3 rewards and that means they should match ANYONE else that is close to them on war rating, not just those that are also at about 8000 prestige (which would likely expand the bracket in which they draw their opponents from to all the way down to plat 4, possibly even gold 1).

It's okay because they're not fighting each other for the same Rewards, they're fighting the Matches they get which are appropriate to them, and earning Points based on that.
Can a lower Ally fight better than a higher one? Absolutely. Within War, the Points are very clear. It's all in the scoring. That's what you're working towards for placements, Points. Not fighting every other Ally close to you. Points. That's what determines say, Master 2 vs. Master 3. Master 2 is ahead because they put up more Points. Not because 3 coulda shoulda and woulda beat them.

When you play in a top ally at end game level please rejoin the discussion. Until then random logic does not qualify a valid opinion.

Next thing you will claim a Celtic should get the same money and rewards as Liverpool cause they get more points (albeit playing the same rubbish teams 4 times a season).

War rating is what says on tin.. the rating to determine war. Nothing else should matter. If over inflated baby alliance get the ass handed to them for a few weeks then so be it... u think I like boosting to hell for r3 6* defenders all day. To get same, if not less pint than guys running 4* wars.. have a day off

Mr_Platypus

Midknight007 said:

If anything. Kabam should make divisions.... Elite 9000+, Veteran 6000-8999, Experienced 3000-5999, Beginner below 3000. Each can have its own brackets with appropriate rewards. This Prestige-based free for all will just mean AW will slowly die, as higher alliance will stop buying boost and pots for mediocre rewards.

This sounds like the best of both worlds tbh.
It means there’s no massive mismatches, everyone fights equal opponents for rewards that their opponents are also fightng for.

Midknight007

GroundedWisdom said:

Midknight007 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I've made the Arena example several times, but it's literally like an Arena. You want the higher Multiplier, and the highest Streak possible to get the most Points you can. You're not doing a fight-to-the-finish against everyone in Ranks above you.

Your Arena example is a poor comparison... My roster of 155 5* and 62 6* makes it hard for most to compare with me with spending. Especially with the 4* pulling death squads. I can put up 9.2 million points on just my 5* and 6*.

9.2 x 6 = 55.2million + 3 @ 5.1 million = 70.5 million without spending on refreshes. Someone with 800k would never stand a chance in 5* featured. Not to mention it is all about who is willing to put in the time or spend as to who gets the champions.

You could be speaking about the 4* arena, but that is the problem. Wasting time on 4* which is not going to help advance your roster.

Now I am supposed to believe someone not dedicated to develop a 5* roster DESERVES similar chances at Gold, Platinum and Master awards without having to experience the toughness of the bracket others have to face. Sure the prestige wars are “fairer”, but what about the players who run 5*’s and have to spend on boosts and pots? How is it fair to them to have tougher and more costly matches only to rank in lower Gold because other teams never have to spend or face anything hard?

What of years the upper player put into their rosters? Where is the fairness there? You are completely wrong and off base with your responses.

In War, the Rating of your Champs doesn't denote higher Rewards. Not in the current setup. Spending advances your Roster but that doesn't mean you deserve better Rewards automatically. It's what you do with those Champs within your own War Matches that earns the Rewards.

No... your champs determine the difficulty of your opponent... which should mean better rewards if you are able to win. However, it does not. A team with 4*’s only get the chance at the same rewards and they don’t face nearly as hard as a match.

I can beat 4* defenses all day with only using 4*s. I shouldn’t get top tier rewards. Try again. You don’t play at the top level, so you wouldn’t understand. Stop trying to troll and move along.

Midknight007

GroundedWisdom said:

Midknight007 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I've made the Arena example several times, but it's literally like an Arena. You want the higher Multiplier, and the highest Streak possible to get the most Points you can. You're not doing a fight-to-the-finish against everyone in Ranks above you.

Your Arena example is a poor comparison... My roster of 155 5* and 62 6* makes it hard for most to compare with me with spending. Especially with the 4* pulling death squads. I can put up 9.2 million points on just my 5* and 6*.

9.2 x 6 = 55.2million + 3 @ 5.1 million = 70.5 million without spending on refreshes. Someone with 800k would never stand a chance in 5* featured. Not to mention it is all about who is willing to put in the time or spend as to who gets the champions.

You could be speaking about the 4* arena, but that is the problem. Wasting time on 4* which is not going to help advance your roster.

Now I am supposed to believe someone not dedicated to develop a 5* roster DESERVES similar chances at Gold, Platinum and Master awards without having to experience the toughness of the bracket others have to face. Sure the prestige wars are “fairer”, but what about the players who run 5*’s and have to spend on boosts and pots? How is it fair to them to have tougher and more costly matches only to rank in lower Gold because other teams never have to spend or face anything hard?

What of years the upper player put into their rosters? Where is the fairness there? You are completely wrong and off base with your responses.

In War, the Rating of your Champs doesn't denote higher Rewards. Not in the current setup. Spending advances your Roster but that doesn't mean you deserve better Rewards automatically. It's what you do with those Champs within your own War Matches that earns the Rewards.

You just don’t get it... your roster determines the difficulty of your opponent... Someone with 6000-7000 prestige is facing 4* Defenses and against 100% FTP. Many cannot finish a map. So, why should they have a War Rating of 3000? Or 2500?

It isn’t skill at that level. It is skill when your facing 5/65 5* line up with the latest and great defenders. Where you spend on 30% boosts and 9500 pots only to lose or win by 1-2 death with all BG s cleared. Yet, there are those in Gold 2 with 9500 Prestige that gets these hard fights and use to be Plat 4 with the same win-lose rate.

Meanwhile, teams who don’t spend against teams that don’t put up half as much of a fight deserve Platinum and Master rewards? Man. your logic is astounding. What you are proposing is to continue with the old structure which will cause alliances to stop spending. Go ahead and kill the game while your at it.

gohard123

Midknight007 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Midknight007 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I've made the Arena example several times, but it's literally like an Arena. You want the higher Multiplier, and the highest Streak possible to get the most Points you can. You're not doing a fight-to-the-finish against everyone in Ranks above you.

Your Arena example is a poor comparison... My roster of 155 5* and 62 6* makes it hard for most to compare with me with spending. Especially with the 4* pulling death squads. I can put up 9.2 million points on just my 5* and 6*.

9.2 x 6 = 55.2million + 3 @ 5.1 million = 70.5 million without spending on refreshes. Someone with 800k would never stand a chance in 5* featured. Not to mention it is all about who is willing to put in the time or spend as to who gets the champions.

You could be speaking about the 4* arena, but that is the problem. Wasting time on 4* which is not going to help advance your roster.

Now I am supposed to believe someone not dedicated to develop a 5* roster DESERVES similar chances at Gold, Platinum and Master awards without having to experience the toughness of the bracket others have to face. Sure the prestige wars are “fairer”, but what about the players who run 5*’s and have to spend on boosts and pots? How is it fair to them to have tougher and more costly matches only to rank in lower Gold because other teams never have to spend or face anything hard?

What of years the upper player put into their rosters? Where is the fairness there? You are completely wrong and off base with your responses.

In War, the Rating of your Champs doesn't denote higher Rewards. Not in the current setup. Spending advances your Roster but that doesn't mean you deserve better Rewards automatically. It's what you do with those Champs within your own War Matches that earns the Rewards.

You just don’t get it... your roster determines the difficulty of your opponent... Someone with 6000-7000 prestige is facing 4* Defenses and against 100% FTP. Many cannot finish a map. So, why should they have a War Rating of 3000? Or 2500?

It isn’t skill at that level. It is skill when your facing 5/65 5* line up with the latest and great defenders. Where you spend on 30% boosts and 9500 pots only to lose or win by 1-2 death with all BG s cleared. Yet, there are those in Gold 2 with 9500 Prestige that gets these hard fights and use to be Plat 4 with the same win-lose rate.

Meanwhile, teams who don’t spend against teams that don’t put up half as much of a fight deserve Platinum and Master rewards? Man. your logic is astounding. What you are proposing is to continue with the old structure which will cause alliances to stop spending. Go ahead and kill the game while your at it.

Not just 5/65s. Imagine the nightmare that is 3/45 Domino on node 3. Also do not engage people that clearly do not understand what is going on.

Pulyaman

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.So, its no wonder people are surprised that they get terrible match ups and complain in forum. Its not their fault that they got those matches because that's how the system was working. Not everyone took advantage of the matchmaking process, so it would be nice if people stopped looking down on everyone who posts about unfair matches. Comments like "You have no business playing in this tier" or "You did not deserve those rewards" just make you seem arrogant.

Yes, some people got screwed over when matchmaking was by prestige, some people got screwed over when it became by War rating, ultimately it's Kabam who has changed the algorithm. So, I it would be good to see this kept civil from both sides because if Kabam could decide to change it again post season or mid season.

Worknprogress

Pulyaman said:

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.So, its no wonder people are surprised that they get terrible match ups and complain in forum. Its not their fault that they got those matches because that's how the system was working. Not everyone took advantage of the matchmaking process, so it would be nice if people stopped looking down on everyone who posts about unfair matches. Comments like "You have no business playing in this tier" or "You did not deserve those rewards" just make you seem arrogant.

Yes, some people got screwed over when matchmaking was by prestige, some people got screwed over when it became by War rating, ultimately it's Kabam who has changed the algorithm. So, I it would be good to see this kept civil from both sides because if Kabam could decide to change it again post season or mid season.

I agree and to be honest I haven't seen many people blaming the alliances themselves. All anyone can do is show up and try to beat whoever they get matched against in the end. Were there no alliances purposely keeping prestige down to keep getting better matches? I don't know personally but I'd bet if there were they were definitely the minority.

People have mostly just been saying that if an alliance can't possibly compete when matched with the majority of similarly rated alliances, then they've probably been benefiting from how matching was previously working for a while now. I feel bad for those in that situation personally as they'll probably get a lot of wars in the near future that feel pretty unfair but it certainly wasn't fair for much weaker alliances to continue to place in higher reward brackets than stronger alliances while never matching any of them at all either.

Pulyaman

Worknprogress said:

Pulyaman said:

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.So, its no wonder people are surprised that they get terrible match ups and complain in forum. Its not their fault that they got those matches because that's how the system was working. Not everyone took advantage of the matchmaking process, so it would be nice if people stopped looking down on everyone who posts about unfair matches. Comments like "You have no business playing in this tier" or "You did not deserve those rewards" just make you seem arrogant.

Yes, some people got screwed over when matchmaking was by prestige, some people got screwed over when it became by War rating, ultimately it's Kabam who has changed the algorithm. So, I it would be good to see this kept civil from both sides because if Kabam could decide to change it again post season or mid season.

I agree and to be honest I haven't seen many people blaming the alliances themselves. All anyone can do is show up and try to beat whoever they get matched against in the end. Were there no alliances purposely keeping prestige down to keep getting better matches? I don't know personally but I'd bet if there were they were definitely the minority.

People have mostly just been saying that if an alliance can't possibly compete when matched with the majority of similarly rated alliances, then they've probably been benefiting from how matching was previously working for a while now. I feel bad for those in that situation personally as they'll probably get a lot of wars in the near future that feel pretty unfair but it certainly wasn't fair for much weaker alliances to continue to place in higher reward brackets than stronger alliances while never matching any of them at all either.

I agree that some people have been benefiting, but no reason to kick someone when they are down. We had a war where the opponent was taunting us in War room chat about the matchmaking changing and how we were going to lose, We did lose but only by 2 or 3 attack bonus, So , I had no idea why they were being so high and mighty. Dont think people who are posting even knew how matchmaking was done, they just thought they were getting better because they were winning matches against equal strength opponents and getting the rewards? I don't think anyone in P4 to stone actually checks the prestige of all alliances in their bracket. I know some alliances do and more power to them. But, most of the players just play the game as it comes and don't dive deep into the mechanics of matchmaking and how prestige affects the aq score and all that jazz. So, my only request to all the people in the forums is that we all get screwed one time or another, Don't just throw stuff like "You don't deserve". We don't decide what we deserve. Kabam does

Das_gi

Pulyaman said:

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.So, its no wonder people are surprised that they get terrible match ups and complain in forum. Its not their fault that they got those matches because that's how the system was working. Not everyone took advantage of the matchmaking process, so it would be nice if people stopped looking down on everyone who posts about unfair matches. Comments like "You have no business playing in this tier" or "You did not deserve those rewards" just make you seem arrogant.

Yes, some people got screwed over when matchmaking was by prestige, some people got screwed over when it became by War rating, ultimately it's Kabam who has changed the algorithm. So, I it would be good to see this kept civil from both sides because if Kabam could decide to change it again post season or mid season.

Guess you’re a bit blind cause for the past 3 seasons there were several high prestige players in high prestige alliances talking about low prestige alliances above them in ranking that they never faced and that it wasn’t fair

Pulyaman

Das_gi said:

Pulyaman said:

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.So, its no wonder people are surprised that they get terrible match ups and complain in forum. Its not their fault that they got those matches because that's how the system was working. Not everyone took advantage of the matchmaking process, so it would be nice if people stopped looking down on everyone who posts about unfair matches. Comments like "You have no business playing in this tier" or "You did not deserve those rewards" just make you seem arrogant.

Yes, some people got screwed over when matchmaking was by prestige, some people got screwed over when it became by War rating, ultimately it's Kabam who has changed the algorithm. So, I it would be good to see this kept civil from both sides because if Kabam could decide to change it again post season or mid season.

Guess you’re a bit blind cause for the past 3 seasons there were several high prestige players in high prestige alliances talking about low prestige alliances above them in ranking that they never faced and that it wasn’t fair

Sorry, But if you could direct me to some of the forum posts, it would be helpful for me and for all the players who got stung by this change. Thank you

Addyos

Pulyaman said:

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.

You haven’t been paying much attention then. This post was active from February until April 21st, which was 2 days before this thread opened. Opened by Quikpik, who has made lengthy posts on this thread referring to this past post. Have a read.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/179826/flawed-match-making/p1

Pulyaman

Addyos said:

Pulyaman said:

I don't care either way how the matchmaking is done, if we get a tough war, we will tough it out. But the attitude of some of the players really disappoints me. I have been browsing the forums for the last 2 years and I have never seen a post about changing alliance war matchmaking to base on war rating.

You haven’t been paying much attention then. This post was active from February until April 21st, which was 2 days before this thread opened. Opened by Quikpik, who has made lengthy posts on this thread referring to this past post. Have a read.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/179826/flawed-match-making/p1

Thanks for the info, will read it. As i said, most people don't really go into the game and analyse very deeply. I was on of those guys, My alliance does not moan if we get a tough match or take it easy on a easy one, just play to our best and leave the rest to the overlords and let the chips fall wherever.

Gregdagr8

Matching by war rating and war rating alone is the only fair way to do matchmaking. Any other way is biased, not fair, and criminal.

xNig

Yup. And let the alliances gradually fall in place to the tiers (and multipliers) they deserve.

Greywarden

I've mentioned it before but if the algorithm can't get it right I feel like a strength of match or bonus points should be added on depending on the matchup.
No matter what anybody says the p2/3 alliances with a high rating only facing p4 and gold alliances shouldn't be worth the same points just because the tier is the same.

GroundedWisdom

Mr_Platypus said:

Midknight007 said:

If anything. Kabam should make divisions.... Elite 9000+, Veteran 6000-8999, Experienced 3000-5999, Beginner below 3000. Each can have its own brackets with appropriate rewards. This Prestige-based free for all will just mean AW will slowly die, as higher alliance will stop buying boost and pots for mediocre rewards.

This sounds like the best of both worlds tbh.
It means there’s no massive mismatches, everyone fights equal opponents for rewards that their opponents are also fightng for.

Separating Rewards based on Prestige was a thought that occured to me. You could actually go so far as to have a separate Rewards Tier for each Prestige Bracket. Different Top Prizes. A bit more complex, but a possibility. Although I still maintain that Rewards should be dependent on performance. Just because stronger Champs are being used to fight stronger Champs doesn't mean the War perfomance is necessarily better.

Onmix

GroundedWisdom said:

Mr_Platypus said:

Midknight007 said:

If anything. Kabam should make divisions.... Elite 9000+, Veteran 6000-8999, Experienced 3000-5999, Beginner below 3000. Each can have its own brackets with appropriate rewards. This Prestige-based free for all will just mean AW will slowly die, as higher alliance will stop buying boost and pots for mediocre rewards.

This sounds like the best of both worlds tbh.
It means there’s no massive mismatches, everyone fights equal opponents for rewards that their opponents are also fightng for.

Separating Rewards based on Prestige was a thought that occured to me. You could actually go so far as to have a separate Rewards Tier for each Prestige Bracket. Different Top Prizes. A bit more complex, but a possibility. Although I still maintain that Rewards should be dependent on performance. Just because stronger Champs are being used to fight stronger Champs doesn't mean the War perfomance is necessarily better.

I’ve been reading your comments and I really don’t get it.
There’s an ally with 4* that plays only against 4*. And they get, let’s say, Plat 1 rewards. In your opinion that’s ok because FOR THEM the war was as difficult as someone with 6* playing against 6*?

If that’s what you’re saying. I don’t agree. In the least.
But let me ask you this. Those with big rosters didn’t get there by chance. Either time or money was spent to get where they are. So, why does someone that hasn’t spent the same amount deserve the same rewards?
My point is this. It’s not like because someone has R5/R2 champs, wars against R5/R2 are easier for them. They need to keep grinding and/or spending to have the best defenders, the best counters, etc
How can that level of playing (doing every month what is required to stay there) be the same as someone with 4* only?

Using War Rating only guarantees that you place where your wins/loses got you. And you’ll play against alliances in the exact same situation. There will be an adjustment period but it’s a needed one. The same as high prestige allies are suffering now against alliances that are way over their league.

lowlevelplayer

qartweli said:

it works as itended in my opinion

so I guess you've never done an AW

Thecurler

Prestige matched again. Anyone else?

hungryhungrybbq

Thecurler said:

Prestige matched again. Anyone else?

Yes

Gregdagr8

Another prestige war for us! Opponent is 244 spots away from us and matched because of prestige. Garbage, get rid of these prestige wars.

hungryhungrybbq

Again, this could be coincidence, but obviously the more times in a row it occurs the less likely that it is. I'll reserve judgement for now, but if prestige matching is back I'm pretty sure that will be what finally kills the enjoyment of aw for me.

Burro

Kabam thank you for whatever changes you recently made to alliance war match making. My alliance was formerly in plat 2/3 and tier 2-4 until we decided to take a few season off which dropped us to tier 5-6. Under the only match making system we haven’t been able to climb back to where we once were due to getting matches like Asgard, plat 1 shell alliances, and other alliances like us that had no business in tier 6. We could run 100% diversity and have zero KO and the best we could hope for is a tie. It made it impossible to get back to competitive AW. I get that some alliances are now facing a lot tougher matches and that seems unfair. But you’re starting to face the types of alliances you should have always had to face to be in tier 1-2 /master-plat. It’s going to be rough for a bit but should return to normal soon. I personally know of 3 alliances my friends are in that were intentionally taking advantage of the war matchmaking system by manipulating/keeping low their alliance rating and prestige. In the beginning they had an war rating that was within a few points of my alliance, however, they would get matchups where the other team would die 100+ times and not clear the map whereas we would place harder defense and be lucky to get 10 KO. I’m sorry but there was nothing fair about that.

TLDR: Kabam keep whatever changes you made despite the backlash. There are plenty of other alliances that were being punished under the old system for just trying to play legit and not take advantage of loopholes. The new system fixes that.

QuikPik

Yup prestige war again.

xNig

Yup total BS.

-sixate-

Why even have a war rating if it's going to be prestige wars? Then make the multiplier dependent on an alliances prestige just like AQ.