**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.
Options

Alliance War Matchmaking unfair [Merged Threads]

1…5681011…20

Comments

  • Options
    Das_giDas_gi Posts: 320 ★★


    @FRITO_Man here’s a little update, and yes I do think this is fair cause we’re not that far apart in both season rankings and war rating
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,250 ★★★★★
    Denta89 said:

    xNig said:

    Denta89 said:

    xNig said:

    Welcome to the adjustment period where wars are, and should be, based on war ratings.

    If you find yourself losing and losing and losing, you have been a beneficiary of a matchmaking system that matched alliances unfairly, resulting in your alliance having a war rating much higher than the actual war capabilities in the entire pool.

    The adjustment period is going to be tough for those who have been benefiting for the past 8 seasons, and easy for those who have been getting the short end of the stick.

    Good luck, have fun. This matchmaking system should have been introduced the moment war ratings were frozen in the off season.

    And what is with the Alliance there are going after the season in a Low Rating alli? Make no sence. It should be based on Season Placement. Warrating is still broken, says nothing about a good or Bad alli, because they f***ed up the system since yeahrs
    You can NEVER get a Season Placement before Season ends. And by the time Season ends, you cannot match alliances for that Season. It’s common sense.

    If you’re talking about interim Season placements (that you see in the rankings currently), then such matching CAN still happen.

    Let me give you an example.

    An alliance that loses in Tier 2 at 3k war rating scores 150k x 7 = 1.05m points.

    An alliance that wins in Tier 4 at 2.5k war rating scores 200k x 4.5 = 900k points.

    If this were the first war of the Season, both alliances will land in Plat 3 on the interim Season Rank and can match each other. Will this be a fair matchup? Likely no. So using Interim Season Ranking is not a good matchmaking criteria as well.
    This make more sence like a war rating Matchmaking lol. Whats about when a master Alliance with 3400 warrating buy a 2800 warrating Alliance? They will get 12 free wins in the Season and 12 alliances are fu**ed. how is this even fair?
    That’s not fair, true. But that is an ENTIRELY separate issue that needs to be tackled with an entirely different solution.
  • Options
    LordSmasherLordSmasher Posts: 1,362 ★★★★★
    edited April 2020
    What's amusing is half the alliances are thinking the match making is grossly unfair why my alliance, which has only won 1 war this season, is thinking "how does this alliance we're fighting now have a higher war rating than us?"
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,250 ★★★★★
    Mauled said:

    I don’t think there’s a perfect solution to it, but matchmaking should essentially match 1v2v3 etc. In your 12 wars you should face the 12 alliances who are closest to you on the leaderboard at the time of matchmaking.

    For instance you’re 1st place overall, you fight 2nd. You lose and end up dropping to 10th. Your next war you should be fighting 9th or 11th. You win this, you’re up to 4th, so you fight 3rd-5th etc.

    It feels like there’s two seasons running parallel to each other at the moment, whale wars and the sub-10k prestige alliances.

    Yeah I suggested this several seasons back as well.

    After each war, rank alliances based on war ratings and have #1 fight #2, #3 fight #4 so on and so forth. But the drawback is that tier multipliers will become an unfair advantage for the lower alliances within the same tier as they are facing relatively easier wars and earn the same points as those at the top of that particular tier.

    To combat this issue, I added a suggestion to make war rating count as a multiplier as well. Eg, Alliance A (3k WR) v Alliance B (2.9k WR) - War Multiplier = (3k+2.9k)/2 = 2.95k for both alliances.

    This will also have a secondary effect of removing shell alliances as they will lose more points if they were to drop to a lower WR alliance.
  • Options
    MauledMauled Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    xNig said:

    Mauled said:

    I don’t think there’s a perfect solution to it, but matchmaking should essentially match 1v2v3 etc. In your 12 wars you should face the 12 alliances who are closest to you on the leaderboard at the time of matchmaking.

    For instance you’re 1st place overall, you fight 2nd. You lose and end up dropping to 10th. Your next war you should be fighting 9th or 11th. You win this, you’re up to 4th, so you fight 3rd-5th etc.

    It feels like there’s two seasons running parallel to each other at the moment, whale wars and the sub-10k prestige alliances.

    Yeah I suggested this several seasons back as well.

    After each war, rank alliances based on war ratings and have #1 fight #2, #3 fight #4 so on and so forth. But the drawback is that tier multipliers will become an unfair advantage for the lower alliances within the same tier as they are facing relatively easier wars and earn the same points as those at the top of that particular tier.

    To combat this issue, I added a suggestion to make war rating count as a multiplier as well. Eg, Alliance A (3k WR) v Alliance B (2.9k WR) - War Multiplier = (3k+2.9k)/2 = 2.95k for both alliances.

    This will also have a secondary effect of removing shell alliances as they will lose more points if they were to drop to a lower WR alliance.
    I agree, we are currently one of the beneficiaries of the system at the moment so for the most part I’m just rolling with it. But our 3.2k allince did fight a 1.5k alliance 2 weeks ago. They fought our nodes, on their point multiplier and shard rewards. Had we lost we would have lost 60 WR, and 0 gains for a win and the opposite for them. Needless to say, they Only got past section 1 in 1bg in 1 section. We had about 100 defender left at the end of the war.

    I think 1v2 etc will introduce some motivation for alliance longevity too rather than switching alliances around constantly.
  • Options
    Bugmat78Bugmat78 Posts: 2,140 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Regardless of how or why matchmaking works, it shouldn’t be changed mid season or without being notified. You’ll now potentially get alliances who have fought and spent hard in the first 6 matches to increase their ranking/tier/bracket and will now just get completely screwed over in the last 6 wars.

    I'm agreeing with this - I can see why you want it only to be based on war rating (which it is now so that statement about various factors doesnt wash when you check the evidence). Makes sense long term.

    But this should have been thought of and implemented during off-season so people would know, not mid-season. It was one way for several seasons - changing it mid-season is just chaotic and disorderly.
  • Options
    AddyosAddyos Posts: 1,090 ★★★★
    Moltenhead said:


    Is this fair ? No its massacre.

    No it is quite fair actually. You’re fighting an alliance with a similar war rating to yours. As many others have mentioned already, if you can’t fight other alliances in a similar war tier to you, you have no business being there in the first place. Unless you’re talking about a shell alliance, a 4 million alliance with a high 1600 war rating is quite absurd in the first place.
  • Options
    Monk1Monk1 Posts: 745 ★★★★
    War = war rating as it always should
    Of been
  • Options
    MoltenheadMoltenhead Posts: 11 ★
    Addyos said:

    Moltenhead said:


    Is this fair ? No its massacre.

    No it is quite fair actually. You’re fighting an alliance with a similar war rating to yours. As many others have mentioned already, if you can’t fight other alliances in a similar war tier to you, you have no business being there in the first place. Unless you’re talking about a shell alliance, a 4 million alliance with a high 1600 war rating is quite absurd in the first place.
    Okay so explain this if some new players create an alliance where total rating of Alliance is 4m and war rating is zero where as some vetrans and strong players create an alliance with zero war rating and but they have 30m alliance rating and they got match against each other who do you think will win ? Right now there's thousand alliances facing same problem in the middle of a aw season. I saw alliance with 500 war rating but 12m alliance getting matched against 35m alliance with 500 war rating. And what about alliance prestige then ? Is it useless now? AND REMEMBER EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING RIGHT BETWEEN AN AW SEASON.
  • Options
    MoltenheadMoltenhead Posts: 11 ★
    Monk1 said:

    If someone posts a shot of huge difference in war rating for match up then I will spare some empathy.

    But all these pictures of 2300 vs 2310. Go away, that’s what should be happening!

    @Monk1




    Yes sir this is fair match.

  • Options
    SeraphionSeraphion Posts: 1,496 ★★★★
    We have to look at both sides tho.

    The timing from kabam is kinda bad. In the middle of the season this hits a lot of ppl very unexpected. I understand 100% why they did it. There was an alliance (for those that dont know) with 20 million and 9500 prestige that was place 1 in the world bc they only faced alliances of their own numbers from P4-P1. This cant be happening. Its unfair for every big master alliance. They abused the matchmaking to the maximum.

    They HAD to change it.

    What we now see it massive alliances matched with little ones. First reaction of the low alliance:
    Wow this is so unfair. How should we win this.
    I understand that as well.
    The warpoints and standings need some time to get cleaned up.

    Big alliances will climb up. Low alliances will go down. Im in one of the alliances that will prob go down. 20 million points + 9.500 prestige and we placed P1 2 seasons in a row.

    We will prob start facing hard allinaces as well (+40 million etc)

    I understand that a lot of ppl feel treated unfair but we need to give the system time to correct it self.

    Yes its annoying that it happens mid season.
  • Options
    Monk1Monk1 Posts: 745 ★★★★
    Moosetiptronic said:

    Moltenhead said:

    Monk1 said:

    If someone posts a shot of huge difference in war rating for match up then I will spare some empathy.

    But all these pictures of 2300 vs 2310. Go away, that’s what should be happening!

    @Monk1




    Yes sir this is fair match.

    A gap of 100 on war rating is quite big.

    The more important question, is how did an alliance with 3518 prestige get to a rating of 1623 without having to fight a single 900ish rating alliance with 7k+ prestige, that my 7300 prestige alliance fights in every, single, war?
    Exactly.. the 100 gap Is not ‘huge’, but large.. however the low ally has over inflated rating so in theory was always gonna happen.
  • Options
    AddyosAddyos Posts: 1,090 ★★★★
    Moltenhead said:

    Addyos said:

    Moltenhead said:


    Is this fair ? No its massacre.

    No it is quite fair actually. You’re fighting an alliance with a similar war rating to yours. As many others have mentioned already, if you can’t fight other alliances in a similar war tier to you, you have no business being there in the first place. Unless you’re talking about a shell alliance, a 4 million alliance with a high 1600 war rating is quite absurd in the first place.
    Okay so explain this if some new players create an alliance where total rating of Alliance is 4m and war rating is zero where as some vetrans and strong players create an alliance with zero war rating and but they have 30m alliance rating and they got match against each other who do you think will win ? Right now there's thousand alliances facing same problem in the middle of a aw season. I saw alliance with 500 war rating but 12m alliance getting matched against 35m alliance with 500 war rating. And what about alliance prestige then ? Is it useless now? AND REMEMBER EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING RIGHT BETWEEN AN AW SEASON.
    Doesn’t matter if your war rating is zero or 1700; your war ratings are similar, so Kabam apparently uses that now as the parameter for matchmaking and pairs both of you. Which brings me back to the same point; if you are in a high tier and cannot beat an alliance in the same tier, you have no business being in that tier. Using alliance prestige for matchmaking has caused this disproportionate placement of smaller alliances in higher ranks in war for far too long, and it is good that Kabam has seemed to make things right (and fair) now.

    Bad timing on your end regarding this change mid-season, but it’s a change that’s better late than never.
  • Options
    TP33TP33 Posts: 1,595 ★★★★
    So we lost our past 4 wars which isn’t ideal but we’re still in silver so it’s fine really (we aim for silver 2/3 each season) and we’ve now dropped 2 tiers (I think) since the start of the season


    Our losses /\

    Then we an 8 mil ally with an average member rating of 200k \/


    Come up against a 14 mil ally with an average member rating of over 500K! \/


    They cleared out our 2 BGs already and we’ve only got halfway up the map, this is the HARDEST war we’ve had ALL SEASON despite the fact that we’ve dropped 2 tiers and have lost 4 in a row! @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit @Kabam Vydious EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS FAIR and how last season they were only a bronze ally and this season they’re wiping the floor with us silver ally’s. Now we’re almost guaranteed 5 loses in a row. This season has by far been the hardest yet and is already an excellent display of how flawed your matchmaking system is. Will there be ANY news on ANY changes to the system or will you continue to ignore us? Please do something because this is RIDICULOUS!
  • Options
    TP33TP33 Posts: 1,595 ★★★★
    Also how do they have a lower war rating than us even though a lot of theym have 5/65 champions?
  • Options
    Agentk100Agentk100 Posts: 35 ★
    It’s because they have a similar war rating it’s a fair matchup unless it’s the case of they started a new ally and are climbing up in that scenario that’s just bad luck
  • Options
    TP33TP33 Posts: 1,595 ★★★★
    Agentk100 said:

    It’s because they have a similar war rating it’s a fair matchup unless it’s the case of they started a new ally and are climbing up in that scenario that’s just bad luck

    But matchmaking should take more into account than war rating, taking into account rating and average member rating/prestige would probably fix all the problems currently in AW. Also for all of its stresses/BS the rewards aren’t really good enough
  • Options
    Amms90Amms90 Posts: 335 ★★★
    Spaddicted said:

    Amms90 said:

    Das_gi said:

    @Amms90 you’re a 7.7 mil alliance with a 2.3k aw rating. You should never be that high if you still use R3 5*’s in attack phase. It ain’t your fault, it was the matchmaking systems fault but you’re gonna have a harsch rest of the season. My condolences

    We got that war rating by winning fair wars... It's not that we won wars against opponents that were a fourth of our size. They were sometimes a little bigger sometimes a little smaller, with similar war rating. We don't exactly attack with r3 but our defense is mostly made of those, yeah. Some 4* as well, cause we have smaller profiles of progressing players among us. But we play fairly. 3 war groups! That means each and every of my players can do his/her job and clear a path in war. This is if we play fair wars. If we get paired with such high level opponents we can do nothing but give up... And look if we end the season in gold 3 instead of the gold 2 we were aiming at, that's still okay for us. I surely hope we don't fall even lower, cause we haven't fought our way here just to get wrecked in all the next wars until the system decides we are in our rightful place. Be it silver or bronze, whatever they decide. We are people, not numbers. We played well and won. If we hadn't, we would have lost. I'll tell you more: with the same matchmaking system as before, we even lost a couple wars off season. Wars we intended to win. So my point is still the same. Why punish us for playing fairly and winning our way to the gold tier? Rather, if climbing the ladder is too easy then fix that. Pointless to give us a bunch of wars we simply can't hope to win to forcefully drag us down. That's not what fairness means.
    You just stop. It's ridiculous. If you are good enough as you said you should be able to beat alliance with same war rating.

    It's clearly that you are not good enough. I'm happy to see you get what you deserve.
    Dude you're seriously missing the point!!! I'm saying it's pointless to have this mode of gameplay if every war we get is impossible!!! We need to go down the ladder? Ok that's acceptable! But it's no fun to get this kind of matchmaking!!! We're not pointlessly wasting resources on a lost cause! I think it's full of people here missing the whole point. We should compete with other alliances of the same level, the way it's been up until now. It's the system that's broken. Imagine if this was football... Let's take English football. Let's take a team 3 leagues below the premier league and let's have a system where this team plays teams of the same league for the first 6 matches, then since they win the first 6 they start playing liverpool, chelsea, man city, man utd... What the...??? It's a broken system.
  • Options
    MoosetiptronicMoosetiptronic Posts: 2,109 ★★★★
    Amms90 said:

    Spaddicted said:

    Amms90 said:

    Das_gi said:

    @Amms90 you’re a 7.7 mil alliance with a 2.3k aw rating. You should never be that high if you still use R3 5*’s in attack phase. It ain’t your fault, it was the matchmaking systems fault but you’re gonna have a harsch rest of the season. My condolences

    We got that war rating by winning fair wars... It's not that we won wars against opponents that were a fourth of our size. They were sometimes a little bigger sometimes a little smaller, with similar war rating. We don't exactly attack with r3 but our defense is mostly made of those, yeah. Some 4* as well, cause we have smaller profiles of progressing players among us. But we play fairly. 3 war groups! That means each and every of my players can do his/her job and clear a path in war. This is if we play fair wars. If we get paired with such high level opponents we can do nothing but give up... And look if we end the season in gold 3 instead of the gold 2 we were aiming at, that's still okay for us. I surely hope we don't fall even lower, cause we haven't fought our way here just to get wrecked in all the next wars until the system decides we are in our rightful place. Be it silver or bronze, whatever they decide. We are people, not numbers. We played well and won. If we hadn't, we would have lost. I'll tell you more: with the same matchmaking system as before, we even lost a couple wars off season. Wars we intended to win. So my point is still the same. Why punish us for playing fairly and winning our way to the gold tier? Rather, if climbing the ladder is too easy then fix that. Pointless to give us a bunch of wars we simply can't hope to win to forcefully drag us down. That's not what fairness means.
    You just stop. It's ridiculous. If you are good enough as you said you should be able to beat alliance with same war rating.

    It's clearly that you are not good enough. I'm happy to see you get what you deserve.
    Dude you're seriously missing the point!!! I'm saying it's pointless to have this mode of gameplay if every war we get is impossible!!! We need to go down the ladder? Ok that's acceptable! But it's no fun to get this kind of matchmaking!!! We're not pointlessly wasting resources on a lost cause! I think it's full of people here missing the whole point. We should compete with other alliances of the same level, the way it's been up until now. It's the system that's broken. Imagine if this was football... Let's take English football. Let's take a team 3 leagues below the premier league and let's have a system where this team plays teams of the same league for the first 6 matches, then since they win the first 6 they start playing liverpool, chelsea, man city, man utd... What the...??? It's a broken system.
    To use your example, for the last 10+ seasons, the best teams in the conference, have been getting the same prize money as Manu and Chelsea, while only having to play semi pro and pub teams.

    It needed to be fixed, so that conference teams got conference division prizes. If you are too good for the conference, you will climb, but you'll have to beat league teams; 2nd division, championship and premier as you climb. You'll get better prizes as you go, but you'll no longer get premier league prize money for beating on Barnet FC and Aldershot town. If you want premier league, it even championship prize money, you'll need to beat those teams.
  • Options
    Das_giDas_gi Posts: 320 ★★
    Amms90 said:

    Spaddicted said:

    Amms90 said:

    Das_gi said:

    @Amms90 you’re a 7.7 mil alliance with a 2.3k aw rating. You should never be that high if you still use R3 5*’s in attack phase. It ain’t your fault, it was the matchmaking systems fault but you’re gonna have a harsch rest of the season. My condolences

    We got that war rating by winning fair wars... It's not that we won wars against opponents that were a fourth of our size. They were sometimes a little bigger sometimes a little smaller, with similar war rating. We don't exactly attack with r3 but our defense is mostly made of those, yeah. Some 4* as well, cause we have smaller profiles of progressing players among us. But we play fairly. 3 war groups! That means each and every of my players can do his/her job and clear a path in war. This is if we play fair wars. If we get paired with such high level opponents we can do nothing but give up... And look if we end the season in gold 3 instead of the gold 2 we were aiming at, that's still okay for us. I surely hope we don't fall even lower, cause we haven't fought our way here just to get wrecked in all the next wars until the system decides we are in our rightful place. Be it silver or bronze, whatever they decide. We are people, not numbers. We played well and won. If we hadn't, we would have lost. I'll tell you more: with the same matchmaking system as before, we even lost a couple wars off season. Wars we intended to win. So my point is still the same. Why punish us for playing fairly and winning our way to the gold tier? Rather, if climbing the ladder is too easy then fix that. Pointless to give us a bunch of wars we simply can't hope to win to forcefully drag us down. That's not what fairness means.
    You just stop. It's ridiculous. If you are good enough as you said you should be able to beat alliance with same war rating.

    It's clearly that you are not good enough. I'm happy to see you get what you deserve.
    Dude you're seriously missing the point!!! I'm saying it's pointless to have this mode of gameplay if every war we get is impossible!!! We need to go down the ladder? Ok that's acceptable! But it's no fun to get this kind of matchmaking!!! We're not pointlessly wasting resources on a lost cause! I think it's full of people here missing the whole point. We should compete with other alliances of the same level, the way it's been up until now. It's the system that's broken. Imagine if this was football... Let's take English football. Let's take a team 3 leagues below the premier league and let's have a system where this team plays teams of the same league for the first 6 matches, then since they win the first 6 they start playing liverpool, chelsea, man city, man utd... What the...??? It's a broken system.
    How is it broken? You’re talking about leagues? You’re aware there is just 1 league here which is the seasons ranking, so you’re like I’m blackpool or something idk and I’ve never been with the big boys so you don’t want to face them but you do want to get better rewards than them cause they keep fighting eachother while you have lots of low prestige alliances to fight? You do know there’s only around 150 10k+ prestige alliances of which 30-40 are 10.5k+ is and 15 are 11k+ so you want those 15 alliances to continuously fight eachother doing hard wars while you got lots of opponents to fight of which a lot that just can’t fight for S-H-I-T and get better rewards than a lot of those higher prestige alliances just cause they can’t face you? Is that fair? No and that’s how it has been the last 8 seasons. @Amms90
  • Options
    Agentk100Agentk100 Posts: 35 ★
    Das_gi said:

    Amms90 said:

    Spaddicted said:

    Amms90 said:

    Das_gi said:

    @Amms90 you’re a 7.7 mil alliance with a 2.3k aw rating. You should never be that high if you still use R3 5*’s in attack phase. It ain’t your fault, it was the matchmaking systems fault but you’re gonna have a harsch rest of the season. My condolences

    We got that war rating by winning fair wars... It's not that we won wars against opponents that were a fourth of our size. They were sometimes a little bigger sometimes a little smaller, with similar war rating. We don't exactly attack with r3 but our defense is mostly made of those, yeah. Some 4* as well, cause we have smaller profiles of progressing players among us. But we play fairly. 3 war groups! That means each and every of my players can do his/her job and clear a path in war. This is if we play fair wars. If we get paired with such high level opponents we can do nothing but give up... And look if we end the season in gold 3 instead of the gold 2 we were aiming at, that's still okay for us. I surely hope we don't fall even lower, cause we haven't fought our way here just to get wrecked in all the next wars until the system decides we are in our rightful place. Be it silver or bronze, whatever they decide. We are people, not numbers. We played well and won. If we hadn't, we would have lost. I'll tell you more: with the same matchmaking system as before, we even lost a couple wars off season. Wars we intended to win. So my point is still the same. Why punish us for playing fairly and winning our way to the gold tier? Rather, if climbing the ladder is too easy then fix that. Pointless to give us a bunch of wars we simply can't hope to win to forcefully drag us down. That's not what fairness means.
    You just stop. It's ridiculous. If you are good enough as you said you should be able to beat alliance with same war rating.

    It's clearly that you are not good enough. I'm happy to see you get what you deserve.
    Dude you're seriously missing the point!!! I'm saying it's pointless to have this mode of gameplay if every war we get is impossible!!! We need to go down the ladder? Ok that's acceptable! But it's no fun to get this kind of matchmaking!!! We're not pointlessly wasting resources on a lost cause! I think it's full of people here missing the whole point. We should compete with other alliances of the same level, the way it's been up until now. It's the system that's broken. Imagine if this was football... Let's take English football. Let's take a team 3 leagues below the premier league and let's have a system where this team plays teams of the same league for the first 6 matches, then since they win the first 6 they start playing liverpool, chelsea, man city, man utd... What the...??? It's a broken system.
    How is it broken? You’re talking about leagues? You’re aware there is just 1 league here which is the seasons ranking, so you’re like I’m blackpool or something idk and I’ve never been with the big boys so you don’t want to face them but you do want to get better rewards than them cause they keep fighting eachother while you have lots of low prestige alliances to fight? You do know there’s only around 150 10k+ prestige alliances of which 30-40 are 10.5k+ is and 15 are 11k+ so you want those 15 alliances to continuously fight eachother doing hard wars while you got lots of opponents to fight of which a lot that just can’t fight for S-H-I-T and get better rewards than a lot of those higher prestige alliances just cause they can’t face you? Is that fair? No and that’s how it has been the last 8 seasons. @Amms90
    I’ll agree but I’m fairly certain there’s more then 150 10k prestige allies
  • Options
    Amms90Amms90 Posts: 335 ★★★
    Das_gi said:

    Amms90 said:

    Spaddicted said:

    Amms90 said:

    Das_gi said:

    @Amms90 you’re a 7.7 mil alliance with a 2.3k aw rating. You should never be that high if you still use R3 5*’s in attack phase. It ain’t your fault, it was the matchmaking systems fault but you’re gonna have a harsch rest of the season. My condolences

    We got that war rating by winning fair wars... It's not that we won wars against opponents that were a fourth of our size. They were sometimes a little bigger sometimes a little smaller, with similar war rating. We don't exactly attack with r3 but our defense is mostly made of those, yeah. Some 4* as well, cause we have smaller profiles of progressing players among us. But we play fairly. 3 war groups! That means each and every of my players can do his/her job and clear a path in war. This is if we play fair wars. If we get paired with such high level opponents we can do nothing but give up... And look if we end the season in gold 3 instead of the gold 2 we were aiming at, that's still okay for us. I surely hope we don't fall even lower, cause we haven't fought our way here just to get wrecked in all the next wars until the system decides we are in our rightful place. Be it silver or bronze, whatever they decide. We are people, not numbers. We played well and won. If we hadn't, we would have lost. I'll tell you more: with the same matchmaking system as before, we even lost a couple wars off season. Wars we intended to win. So my point is still the same. Why punish us for playing fairly and winning our way to the gold tier? Rather, if climbing the ladder is too easy then fix that. Pointless to give us a bunch of wars we simply can't hope to win to forcefully drag us down. That's not what fairness means.
    You just stop. It's ridiculous. If you are good enough as you said you should be able to beat alliance with same war rating.

    It's clearly that you are not good enough. I'm happy to see you get what you deserve.
    Dude you're seriously missing the point!!! I'm saying it's pointless to have this mode of gameplay if every war we get is impossible!!! We need to go down the ladder? Ok that's acceptable! But it's no fun to get this kind of matchmaking!!! We're not pointlessly wasting resources on a lost cause! I think it's full of people here missing the whole point. We should compete with other alliances of the same level, the way it's been up until now. It's the system that's broken. Imagine if this was football... Let's take English football. Let's take a team 3 leagues below the premier league and let's have a system where this team plays teams of the same league for the first 6 matches, then since they win the first 6 they start playing liverpool, chelsea, man city, man utd... What the...??? It's a broken system.
    How is it broken? You’re talking about leagues? You’re aware there is just 1 league here which is the seasons ranking, so you’re like I’m blackpool or something idk and I’ve never been with the big boys so you don’t want to face them but you do want to get better rewards than them cause they keep fighting eachother while you have lots of low prestige alliances to fight? You do know there’s only around 150 10k+ prestige alliances of which 30-40 are 10.5k+ is and 15 are 11k+ so you want those 15 alliances to continuously fight eachother doing hard wars while you got lots of opponents to fight of which a lot that just can’t fight for S-H-I-T and get better rewards than a lot of those higher prestige alliances just cause they can’t face you? Is that fair? No and that’s how it has been the last 8 seasons. @Amms90
    No i don't wamt better rewards than them, in fact. I just want to have fun playing wars that we have a chance at winning if we give it our all. That's what I want. I don't want gold 1 prizes if we're too low for that... This is what I'm talking about
  • Options
    MauledMauled Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    Amms90 said:

    Spaddicted said:

    Amms90 said:

    Das_gi said:

    @Amms90 you’re a 7.7 mil alliance with a 2.3k aw rating. You should never be that high if you still use R3 5*’s in attack phase. It ain’t your fault, it was the matchmaking systems fault but you’re gonna have a harsch rest of the season. My condolences

    We got that war rating by winning fair wars... It's not that we won wars against opponents that were a fourth of our size. They were sometimes a little bigger sometimes a little smaller, with similar war rating. We don't exactly attack with r3 but our defense is mostly made of those, yeah. Some 4* as well, cause we have smaller profiles of progressing players among us. But we play fairly. 3 war groups! That means each and every of my players can do his/her job and clear a path in war. This is if we play fair wars. If we get paired with such high level opponents we can do nothing but give up... And look if we end the season in gold 3 instead of the gold 2 we were aiming at, that's still okay for us. I surely hope we don't fall even lower, cause we haven't fought our way here just to get wrecked in all the next wars until the system decides we are in our rightful place. Be it silver or bronze, whatever they decide. We are people, not numbers. We played well and won. If we hadn't, we would have lost. I'll tell you more: with the same matchmaking system as before, we even lost a couple wars off season. Wars we intended to win. So my point is still the same. Why punish us for playing fairly and winning our way to the gold tier? Rather, if climbing the ladder is too easy then fix that. Pointless to give us a bunch of wars we simply can't hope to win to forcefully drag us down. That's not what fairness means.
    You just stop. It's ridiculous. If you are good enough as you said you should be able to beat alliance with same war rating.

    It's clearly that you are not good enough. I'm happy to see you get what you deserve.
    Dude you're seriously missing the point!!! I'm saying it's pointless to have this mode of gameplay if every war we get is impossible!!! We need to go down the ladder? Ok that's acceptable! But it's no fun to get this kind of matchmaking!!! We're not pointlessly wasting resources on a lost cause! I think it's full of people here missing the whole point. We should compete with other alliances of the same level, the way it's been up until now. It's the system that's broken. Imagine if this was football... Let's take English football. Let's take a team 3 leagues below the premier league and let's have a system where this team plays teams of the same league for the first 6 matches, then since they win the first 6 they start playing liverpool, chelsea, man city, man utd... What the...??? It's a broken system.
    IDK man, if they played Utd before Christmas there's a decent chance they'd still win, at least they'd get an easy defence from Chelsea too lol.

    I get what you're saying, but if as it looks like, they've switched matchmaking to be purely based on War rating then it's going to take some time for things to settle. It's not going to be great for some alliances, while others are going to have a field day. I dare say my alliance - P1 but only 9.5k? ish prestige - are probably going to drop out of P1 as we face more and more of the huge whale alliances. On the flip side some of those massive alliances that have only been playing each other will probably rise a little bit in the ranks. I would say that we'll probably settle in around the bottom ½ of P2-3 as we're pretty good.

    It'll make it an interesting balance between skill and roster size. We're a low spending alliance so we don't have the gold for Map7, none of us really go in for sig stone deals to boost our prestige up so we prioritised AW as it's free to run, none of us can afford to take a champion to R5 every 2-3 weeks anyway and in terms of time management - 2-3 logins for Map 5, 2-3 logins for AW is a lot easier than the time commitment we need for M6+.
    I have been in some pretty Whaley alliances in the past and honestly, they got through Map6/7 easily enough, a lot spent items. But the second it came to AW people couldn't clear paths cleanly so it's not always about the size of your roster - though it helps.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    TP33 said:

    Agentk100 said:

    It’s because they have a similar war rating it’s a fair matchup unless it’s the case of they started a new ally and are climbing up in that scenario that’s just bad luck

    But matchmaking should take more into account than war rating, taking into account rating and average member rating/prestige would probably fix all the problems currently in AW. Also for all of its stresses/BS the rewards aren’t really good enough
    Problem with 2 bg wars is the pool is much smaller to match from so the odds of a mismatch is even higher. There are only so many alliances with similar war ratings and roster strength in the pool so if one of similar strength isn't available that's what you're going to end up with
  • Options
    Agentk100Agentk100 Posts: 35 ★
    TP33 said:

    Agentk100 said:

    It’s because they have a similar war rating it’s a fair matchup unless it’s the case of they started a new ally and are climbing up in that scenario that’s just bad luck

    But matchmaking should take more into account than war rating, taking into account rating and average member rating/prestige would probably fix all the problems currently in AW. Also for all of its stresses/BS the rewards aren’t really good enough
    That actually causes way more problems
    Prestige has been a factor in aw until very recently and it’s allowed low prestige allies to get into master/plat without facing any allies that actually belong there due to their low prestige
  • Options
    Nazzy12Nazzy12 Posts: 1
    sterbill20 said:

    Hello everyone! i want to ask if there was a problem with war matchups ! m alliance raiting is 16mill and the opponent is 26 mill this is unfair , they are very strong and there is no way t win them ! i think is unfair match making !
    i just want t discuss if we are the only one who have the same problem at this war !
    thanks

    yes mans, its in our alliance also, 2M vs 13M..
    How we get match up with much much bigger alliance rating....Remind me a movie "god may be crazy"

    ..lol….

  • Options
    Sugoi_DubaiSugoi_Dubai Posts: 107 ★★
    They had to change the matchmaking system when a low level alliance reached top spot in aw. It was not fair since all the high prestige alliances couldn’t fight them. Heck, we just fought 1 low level alliance that is in Masters and it was massacre. We steam rolled over them. They had no place to be in Masters. Now our second war is another low level alliance that is in Masters and we are totally destroying them. They don’t deserve Master rewards plain and simple. Those alliance are taking spots from other deserving alliances.
This discussion has been closed.