**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.
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.
Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anyways. I dont think there will ever be a system that pleases everyone, especially no matter what changes are made there will be people who benefit from status qou more than others.
That beeing said season 19 will be a crapshoot for many. After that quality of matchmaking will improve in my opinion and will work better than the current system to represent more accurate power level of each alliance.
Problem will be that looking in mirror and realising you might not be the hot stud that you thought yourself to be, well it will be hard to swallow for many.
Either way. Im glad these changes occurred, as i think this will be a move most will appreciate looking back at it a year from now.
If not then atleast it was fun to watch stupidity beeing elevated for everyone to see.
You're an actual contradiction to everything you say.
It. Will. Even. Out. Eventually.
Stop acting like these guys will never match with another alliance at their skill level ever again.
If you are getting overpowered now it will be a short term issue that is worth the long term fix.
Chief difference being, they were not G2 as our latest enemy was (where we finished low/mid G3) , nor were the alliances we faced 3 times our size in player prestige. So I fail to see how having faced alliances far more similar to our own in both war rating and prestige was somehow 'unfair'.
And that's kind of the entire point I'm trying to get across. If I sent a screenshot of our alliance plus our enemy, and had blanked out the war rating but left everything else (last season placement, prestige), would that have seemed like a matchup you'd say "yup, that looks fair and could go both ways"?
If you do, I dunno man, then I guess we see numbers entirely differently.
Don’t worry you’ll be back to having those fair matches soon, although at a lower tier multiplier.
A war is deemed fair SOLELY by war rating only, nothing else should matter. That’s the all-encompassing measure that is used to gauge an alliance’s AW capabilities.
This seems to be a very strange fundamental difference of opinion in what the point to a competition is. Some people think the point is to "test" alliances against equally composed ones, and not to actually expose them to the range of competition that exists. So much of the discussion is revolving around tangent issues of skill, cost, rewards, etc, when the issue is far more fundamental than that.
If someone believes, fundamentally, that no alliance should ever face another alliance of significantly different alliance rating or prestige, then they must fundamentally believe that all tournaments are unfair. An elimination tournament to decide the overall rankings of the alliances, where winners face winners and losers face losers is simply wrong. Even if you *start* with everyone facing materially identical strength alliances, *eventually* you have to face alliances of higher composition if you continue to win. You can only avoid facing higher rating alliances if you lose.
Here's the thought experiment that decides the issue for me. You have four alliances, two have 30 million rating called them A and B, and two have 15 million rating call them C and D. You want to decide who's #1, who's #2, and so on. You decide to be nice about it and have A face B and C face D. A wins and C wins. Now, what happens next: who does A face in round 2.
Either you believe A should face C next, or you believe A should face B again. If you believe A should face C next, you believe that's the fair match up even though they have wildly different ratings, and even if you believe A has a significant advantage, so in some sense that is not "a fair fight" it is in a larger sense the fair requirement overall. Winners must face winners to decide who's the best.
If you believe no 30 million alliance should never face a 15 million alliance because that's "not fair" then you believe A should fight B again and C should face D again. And if they both win again, then A and C tie for first place with two wins.
For anyone who actually believes the latter is "more fair" I don't think anyone can convince you otherwise, but you need to understand that the other 99% of Earthlings find this position to be not just untenable, but so completely ridiculous that they probably struggle to find a rational basis to argue against it.
Coventry would need to reach the premier league, and play Liverpool and against other premier league teams to compete for that prize money.
Not just have it handed to them because they were the best of the 3rd division teams.
The old matchmaking system was basically saying that Liverpool and Coventry deserve identical prizes because they both came first in their league, but the level of competition is vastly different, Coventry would likely struggle to get a win in the premier league so clearly they don’t deserve the same prize as Liverpool.
The problem with that argument is you aren’t just in a pool of similar alliances when it comes to season rewards. You are in a pool of every alliance big and small. And if you are a small one you shouldn’t just bypass the bigger ones taking their spot to those larger rewards above your level because you get matched against smaller less experienced alliances. The rewards are intended to go top to bottom to the best overall alliances top to bottom(roster and skill).
You need to be able to matched and be evaluated against every alliance. In matching this way you are not actually getting true rewards to your achievement as you are being ranked against everyone in the game for rewards while you are only playing people of your level and getting rewards not calibrated to your place in game.
I do feel bad for some because this will be painful for many alliances and yes when the dust settles you will be in lower tiers with lower daily AW rewards and lower season AW rewards than you were getting. But sorry the reality check this is where you really belong from a rewards standpoint based on your both you skill AND progression level in game. This is because you were higher in tiers than really you should have been and getting season rewards not intended for people of your Progression level unless you are extremely skilled to overcome large roster gaps as an alliance.
If you can overcome roster deficits verses those in the higher tiers great. If not grind more, challenge yourself more, clear more content, and put the time in many have to get to a place in the game where your roster can compete.
The match system's job isn't to look for fair fights for you. The match system's job is to use fights to figure out who's better than whom. In other words, the number one priority of the match system is to ensure that if we sort all alliances by war rating, that approximates the order we'd get if we sorted the alliances by their competitive strength.
In other words, war rating should mean something. Two alliances with the same rating should be roughly equal in strength. That's the job of the match making system: to serve the competition.
How do you determine that all the alliances with the same rating actually are about equal in strength? By matching them against each other. But this only works if in general every alliance of a particular war rating has some chance of facing any other. If all the 6k prestige alliances only face each other, and all the 9k prestige alliances only face each other, there's no way to know if all the 2500 war rating alliances actually are about equal in strength. In fact, you can be pretty sure they aren't.
If you are a 6k 2500 war rating alliance, the "fairest" fight might be with another 6k 2500 war rating alliance. But if the game *enforces* that requirement and no alliance *ever* faces any other alliance of dissimilar prestige, then we can no longer say that all 2500 war rating alliances are in fact of equal strength, and we can no longer say that the sorted order of alliances sorted by war rating approximates the strength order of the alliances, and then the idea that the competition itself is giving the highest rewards to the strongest alliances overall also breaks down.
But that's the point to the competition: to allow the strongest alliances to earn the highest rewards. In trying to satisfy the local requirement of each individual war being "as fair as possible" you break the global requirement to make the entire idea of war seasons as fair as possible, where fairness is defined to be the alliances that demonstrate higher war competitive strength get the higher rewards. And it is the global requirement that is the most important, or the idea that war seasons are a competition breaks.
This is an important enough idea that I think it is worth emphasizing. The job of the match system during war seasons is not to find the "fairest match" for each individual alliance. The job of the match system is to allow us to figure out how the strongest alliance is, who the second strongest is, and so on. If at the end of the season we have no idea who the stronger alliances are, because two alliances of the same rating could have wildly different strength because they faced totally different competition, then the match system is a complete failure. It had one job, and it failed in that one job.