Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

1235763

Comments

  • ch4rnch4rn Posts: 229 ★★

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    QuikPik said:

    ch4rn said:

    Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them

    And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
    That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
    They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
    I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
    Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam
    smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.
    Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
    Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Gmonkey said:

    Here is my war match exact same rating and tier, regardless of prestige this is the new normal that always should have existed. Gold 2 vs gold 2 with same rating.



    Let me guess. You're the 38. Would it look fine to you if you were the 18? I'd say not.
    Back when I did more competitive war, I didn't complain about alliance rating. If I matched against an alliance with significantly higher alliance rating, I assumed it was because they were not as good as most alliances of similar composition, and that increased the odds we would win. And most of the time, that is in fact what that meant: they were less strong than you would expect, and we tended to win more often than lose against such alliances. When we got destroyed, it was usually by alliances with very recent creation dates implying they were a new alliance working their way up, which is why their rating was unusually low for their strength. Either way, I never complained about it, because setting aside exploits that should be closed, I believe that competition should be about matching winners against winners and losers against losers, and war rating - which is the mathematical proxy for win/loss record - should be the only thing that decides match ups.

    Last season we (6k prestige, 14m rating) matched against a 9k 25m rating alliance. And beat them. By diversity points only. As far as I was concerned, it was a 2k v 2k rating match, so it was fair.
    That was likely when the system allowed people to win if they were skilled enough. Take a look at the Champs we have, differences in Ranks, new Nodes, and other factors at play right now. Let's stop pretending these Matches separate the skilled from the unskilled, and look at the reality of it. People are celebrating that Alliances have been placed in Matches they will never win no matter how skilled they are. What's worse is with Rating only locked in Tiers 1-5 in the off-season, it can still be affected and manipulated for Tiers 6-20, so that reasoning about War Rating being the only true measure goes out the window.
    I'm going to say it quite plainly because I'm frankly disappointed with the decision. This Season, the changes in Matchmaking, and the changes in Rewards, was solely designed to make the top happy because they kicked up some dust. Which shows total disregard for anyone else affected by this. They complained that they couldn't overpower weaker Allies in the same Bracket, so now they're handed to them on a silver platter. It's blatant disregard to anything reasonable or fair. I'm not about to put Chanel on a pig.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    naikavon said:

    Let me preface my comments with this: I feel for smaller alliances going through this pain.

    Now, that doesn't mean I think it is unfair. For those crying foul where were you when alliances larger then you were recieving lesser rewards? You honestly think it is fair for you to fight ONLY allys similar in strength to you? Why is that fair for the other alliances of greater strength/roster development competing for the SAME rewards?

    There exists only 1 set of rewards. Meaning everyone is lumped together and each alliance receives rewards based on their standings at the end of a season.

    What many of you are asking is simply not a fair solution to larger alliances. But there is a way I think all sides could be happy.

    What I have seen in many other games is a tiering (let's call it bracketing for MCOC) where allys are bracketed based on a range of strength. For instance, 0-5 million would be one bracket and 5 million and 1 to say 12 million etc etc...

    Each bracket has it's own set of rewards. Now there is a catch. Generally speaking rewards get much better the higher the bracket. The top rewards for a lower bracket tend to be on par with average rewards for the next bracket up. This encourages growth rather than complacency.

    This system would allow similar war rating allys to match with similar war ratings and comparable strength. You can tie growth to a new bracket based upon ally rating to encourage allys to grow.

    As an aside, shelling can easily be fixed. I think it is important to allow people free movement to change allys as things happen. However, there exists no reason to not associate a penalty to changing alliances associated with war. Preventing a member from participating in say 6 wars once joining a new alliance would deter shelling. 1 member is manageable, not ideal but manageable, 30 on the other hand... that's disastrous.

    naikavon said:

    Let me preface my comments with this: I feel for smaller alliances going through this pain.

    Now, that doesn't mean I think it is unfair. For those crying foul where were you when alliances larger then you were recieving lesser rewards? You honestly think it is fair for you to fight ONLY allys similar in strength to you? Why is that fair for the other alliances of greater strength/roster development competing for the SAME rewards?

    There exists only 1 set of rewards. Meaning everyone is lumped together and each alliance receives rewards based on their standings at the end of a season.

    What many of you are asking is simply not a fair solution to larger alliances. But there is a way I think all sides could be happy.

    What I have seen in many other games is a tiering (let's call it bracketing for MCOC) where allys are bracketed based on a range of strength. For instance, 0-5 million would be one bracket and 5 million and 1 to say 12 million etc etc...

    Each bracket has it's own set of rewards. Now there is a catch. Generally speaking rewards get much better the higher the bracket. The top rewards for a lower bracket tend to be on par with average rewards for the next bracket up. This encourages growth rather than complacency.

    This system would allow similar war rating allys to match with similar war ratings and comparable strength. You can tie growth to a new bracket based upon ally rating to encourage allys to grow.

    As an aside, shelling can easily be fixed. I think it is important to allow people free movement to change allys as things happen. However, there exists no reason to not associate a penalty to changing alliances associated with war. Preventing a member from participating in say 6 wars once joining a new alliance would deter shelling. 1 member is manageable, not ideal but manageable, 30 on the other hand... that's disastrous.

    You mean receiving lesser Rewards because they weren't winning Matches that were within their own range?
  • Romans58Romans58 Posts: 2



  • ch4rnch4rn Posts: 229 ★★
    Markjv81 said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    QuikPik said:

    ch4rn said:

    Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them

    And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
    That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
    They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
    I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
    Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam
    smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.
    Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
    Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
    Don’t think of it as penalised, think of it as properly rewarded.
    Word it as you will, but those alliances did nothing wrong at all. They played the rules Kabam set out. You can only play whats in front of you.

    This is certainly a way to hit those alli's for a season to "balance" out something which was caused by Kabam.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.
  • ch4rnch4rn Posts: 229 ★★

    ch4rn said:

    Markjv81 said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    QuikPik said:

    ch4rn said:

    Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them

    And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
    That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
    They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
    I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
    Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam
    smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.
    Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
    Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
    Don’t think of it as penalised, think of it as properly rewarded.
    Word it as you will, but those alliances did nothing wrong at all. They played the rules Kabam set out. You can only play whats in front of you.

    This is certainly a way to hit those alli's for a season to "balance" out something which was caused by Kabam.
    that's true. they didn't do anything wrong, and it was in place by kabam. however, kabam have changed their game so war is based off war rating which it should have been. alliances that are good at war will face other alliances food at war. there will be a transition phase, but it's for the better
    Totally agree with that, and not something I've argued against at all. It's just a pity that the small alli's are getting hit because of Kabam's flawed logic, which has ultimately caused this.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★

    ch4rn said:

    Markjv81 said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    QuikPik said:

    ch4rn said:

    Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them

    And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
    That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
    They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
    I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
    Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam
    smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.
    Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
    Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
    Don’t think of it as penalised, think of it as properly rewarded.
    Word it as you will, but those alliances did nothing wrong at all. They played the rules Kabam set out. You can only play whats in front of you.

    This is certainly a way to hit those alli's for a season to "balance" out something which was caused by Kabam.
    that's true. they didn't do anything wrong, and it was in place by kabam. however, kabam have changed their game so war is based off war rating which it should have been. alliances that are good at war will face other alliances food at war. there will be a transition phase, but it's for the better
    This is not a transition phase. This is forcing a large number of people to sacrifice their Season efforts to "fix" the system. It's a clear message that only the efforts of higher Alliances are worth something, and the rest are collateral damage, and expendable for the "system". That's about all I have left to say on the matter because quite frankly, it just makes me more angry.
    The one thing I wasn't about to do is sit and hear people downplay it like it's some inconsequential corrective measure. There are Players on the other end of this. People whose efforts are just as valuable as anyone else's. At least they should be, but it seems the only thing they're worth is "adjustment".
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    edited July 9
    Speeds80 said:

    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.

    The actual issue is we ended up in these tiers because of one split, which was caused by the matchmaking system and us ending up in gold 2, in the 2-3 week rebuild we lost a bunch of wars and ended up in Tier 11. once you are in lower tiers it was almost impossible to climb out of because any other alliance who had the same thing happen was also down there, we fought really good alliances repeatedly, no shortage of 30m alliances in tiers 12,13,14 and basically a graveyard for vet alliances, the good players get sick of the joke reward and leave it wasn’t good for the game. Alliances are the foundation of this game and the system was tiered towards rewarding new alliances rather than loyalty

    .....and you lost. I'm really not trying to take a shot by pointing that out. Just stating that you get out of it by winning. Not by taking it out on Alliances that have no possible chance to win against you.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 10,059 ★★★★★
    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    QuikPik said:

    ch4rn said:

    Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them

    And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
    That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
    They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
    I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
    Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam
    smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.
    Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
    Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
    Yes? I dunno what to tell you.
  • ch4rnch4rn Posts: 229 ★★
    QuikPik said:

    @ch4rn And all the higher prestige alliances did nothing wrong either when Kabam changed the match making criteria. You could go 6-6 or 7-5 and still see you ranking drop because all these small alliances moved past you without ever having a chance to face them.

    Again, not arguing with that at all. This is a mess caused and created by Kabam.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 10,059 ★★★★★
    Speeds80 said:


    Does this look like an alliance who deserves to be in silver 1 and having 900 prestige alliances place higher than us Last 4 seasons in gold 3/ silver 1

    How did you only win half the wars if you never belonged in silver 1?
  • ch4rnch4rn Posts: 229 ★★
    QuikPik said:

    @ch4rn And all the higher prestige alliances did nothing wrong either when Kabam changed the match making criteria. You could go 6-6 or 7-5 and still see you ranking drop because all these small alliances moved past you without ever having a chance to face them.

    Again, not arguing with that at all. This is a mess caused and created by Kabam.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    All I can say is the game will never come together cohesively until there is a fair system that values all Players. It's like we're always in this constant struggle between the Top and everyone else. Back-and-forth, trying to keep everyone happy. Focusing on everyone should be done all at once. Not at the expense of one or the other at a time.
    I realize that I was the one that suggested Prestige. At the time, it was the only thing that fit in response to Tanking, and manipulating War Rating. It probably would have been best to taper off using it when Ratings were frozen. However, I think it should all be frozen. I've said that many times on here. The only way to guarantee it won't be manipulated is to separate the two. Years ago when I first suggested Seasons, that was what I had in mind. Sort of Diablo 3-style, where only progress made in the Season was judged.
    I know I'm being harsh and all things considered, I'm not upset with Kabam. These decisions tend to be made in response to the current situations, and I get that they're doing their best for the best interests of the game. I'm more upset with the outcome than their decision. Switching to War Rating only isn't my objection. It's the way it's being implemented that has some pretty harsh effects on people, and that I just can't justify.
  • noregrets100noregrets100 Posts: 12


    This is some garbage.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    Plinko said:

    ch4rn said:

    Markjv81 said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    ch4rn said:

    QuikPik said:

    ch4rn said:

    Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them

    And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
    That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
    They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
    I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
    Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam
    smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.
    Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
    Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
    Don’t think of it as penalised, think of it as properly rewarded.
    Word it as you will, but those alliances did nothing wrong at all. They played the rules Kabam set out. You can only play whats in front of you.

    This is certainly a way to hit those alli's for a season to "balance" out something which was caused by Kabam.
    that's true. they didn't do anything wrong, and it was in place by kabam. however, kabam have changed their game so war is based off war rating which it should have been. alliances that are good at war will face other alliances food at war. there will be a transition phase, but it's for the better
    This is not a transition phase. This is forcing a large number of people to sacrifice their Season efforts to "fix" the system. It's a clear message that only the efforts of higher Alliances are worth something, and the rest are collateral damage, and expendable for the "system". That's about all I have left to say on the matter because quite frankly, it just makes me more angry.
    The one thing I wasn't about to do is sit and hear people downplay it like it's some inconsequential corrective measure. There are Players on the other end of this. People whose efforts are just as valuable as anyone else's. At least they should be, but it seems the only thing they're worth is "adjustment".
    So the people who have larger teams with higher prestige than yours. Are their efforts just ignored by you? Or by other people's efforts do you mean just yours? Because there's a lot of people who have put in more effort than you that are ranked below you. Is it unfair to earn a spot in those higher tiers by actually playing the teams that worked themselves there?
    You think I'm talking about me? I'm in Silver 1 with 2 BGs. Our Match is 5 Mil more than us, but we have a chance to win.
    It's not about me. It's about what's right. If Alliances higher than me are Ranking lower, they're not winning their own Wars. Simple as that. Did they have the possibility of winning? Sure did. Now we have Matches that people have no possibility at all of winning.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,679 ★★★★★
    How about the Alliances in the last few Seasons that decided to take a dive and avoid Defense Tactics, or protest Wars altogether. Does that factor in?
This discussion has been closed.