War Matchmaking is busted

Durzo

When is Kabam going to fix Alliance War matchmaking? My 14 mil ally is consistently matched against allys with at least 10 mil higher rating than us. We always get rolled, and it's ridiculous. Why are we getting matched against 24 or 30 mil allys in silver 1? It would be great if Kabam could put some work into improving the matchmaking process! Thanks so much for reading

Lormif

Durzo said:

When is Kabam going to fix Alliance War matchmaking? My 14 mil ally is consistently matched against allys with at least 10 mil higher rating than us. We always get rolled, and it's ridiculous. Why are we getting matched against 24 or 30 mil allys in silver 1? It would be great if Kabam could put some work into improving the matchmaking process! Thanks so much for reading

alliance rating has nothing to do with war.

Crcrcrc

If you cannot win you do not deserve your placement.

Durzo

The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!

Lormif

Durzo said:

The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!

So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them

AzKicker316

Another post where the OP doesn't want to face the fact that matchmaking is based on WAR RATING, NOT ALLIANCE RATING OR PRESTIGE!!!

If you win a bunch of wars, you will get matched against harder opponents. If you over achieved, you will see better alliances until you are in your proper season rank.

Durzo

Great, so it's about war rating. It still screws over the smaller allys if we get matched up against ones double our size, though. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the war rating system, but it still feels unfair. I mean, how would YOU feel if your alliance was two wins from gold 3 and you got matched against an impossible fight? Alright, you can call me an idiot as much as you want for being ignorant of the system, you got me there.

winterthur

I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.

From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.

Squirrelbr14

I feel your pain, my ally was very close to pushing into Gold 3 and we got matched with an ally who is demolishing us as we speak. But we have had an awesome season and have over achieved, Even have 2 wins over ally’s who were better on paper than us. The system is still working it self out and eventually things will be more balanced, but until then all you can do is give it your all and try your best!

GroundedWisdom

Lormif said:

Durzo said:

The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!

So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them

The entire argument for making the switch back was that "smaller" Alliances were getting better Rewards than larger ones. It's too late for that rebuttal. Size matters when it means a guaranteed Loss.

Mr_Platypus

10 mil rating difference isn’t a guaranteed loss. My alliance has beaten 45mil opponents and lost to 25mil opponents (we are 35mil).
Regardless, war rating is the best matchmaking system

Jestuh

I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.

Mr_Platypus

Jestuh said:

I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.

So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.

Jestuh

Mr_Platypus said:

Jestuh said:

I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.

So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.

The fairest system for all is a pretty ridiculous claim for something as paltry as, you win a war you get 30 points. You lose war, you lose 30 points.

And read what I said. I’m not advocating going back to the old system because that also sucked.

Kabam added the bg feature that lets officers assign people to a bg.

All I’m saying is have them do that before you enlist for the next war. Then you know pi, prestige, number of 5s/6s champs and their rank, number of war mvps, arena kill streak max, all that stuff people look at when recruiting a new person into an alliance. Then you can use that to place those most like each other together, then add a war rating/skill modifier based on how well those people do against opponents at their level and above.

I think we both agree the old system sucked.

But the current system also falls short because the bg war rating doesn’t depend on which players are actually doing the fighting. It’s just based on alliances which are always changing members.

A 1.5 million boss killer can leave an alliance that has mostly 400k players, he leaves mid season and the alliance rating stays the same for the next match. It may slowly lower over time as they lose more often. But the war rating won’t accurately reflect the loss. It won’t reflect that suddenly there are not duped, maxed r3 6s champs in the diamond and as minis.

You really going to tell me that’s the fairest system for all?

Mr_Platypus

You lose your boss killer you replace them or accept you’re going to lose, it’s something I’ve dealt with countless times over the years and its something my current alliance is going to have to deal with when our current main boss killers decide they’re sick of carrying some of the deadweight, so I guess I don’t see a problem, could even use a sports analogy to show my point but it’s too early in the day for that.
Doesn’t matter what system you use, if you have such a wide variety of players, or players that are much more skilled than their roster suggests, or players that have stacked accounts but are literally trash, you’re gonna get dodgy matches, whether it’s in your favour or not.

ItsDamien

Jestuh said:

Mr_Platypus said:

Jestuh said:

I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.

So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.

The fairest system for all is a pretty ridiculous claim for something as paltry as, you win a war you get 30 points. You lose war, you lose 30 points.

And read what I said. I’m not advocating going back to the old system because that also sucked.

Kabam added the bg feature that lets officers assign people to a bg.

All I’m saying is have them do that before you enlist for the next war. Then you know pi, prestige, number of 5s/6s champs and their rank, number of war mvps, arena kill streak max, all that stuff people look at when recruiting a new person into an alliance. Then you can use that to place those most like each other together, then add a war rating/skill modifier based on how well those people do against opponents at their level and above.

I think we both agree the old system sucked.

But the current system also falls short because the bg war rating doesn’t depend on which players are actually doing the fighting. It’s just based on alliances which are always changing members.

A 1.5 million boss killer can leave an alliance that has mostly 400k players, he leaves mid season and the alliance rating stays the same for the next match. It may slowly lower over time as they lose more often. But the war rating won’t accurately reflect the loss. It won’t reflect that suddenly there are not duped, maxed r3 6s champs in the diamond and as minis.

You really going to tell me that’s the fairest system for all?

Imagine having one person essentially carry an alliance to victory.

Does that sound fair?

winterthur

Jestuh said:

Mr_Platypus said:

Jestuh said:

I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.

So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.

A 1.5 million boss killer can leave an alliance that has mostly 400k players, he leaves mid season and the alliance rating stays the same for the next match. It may slowly lower over time as they lose more often. But the war rating won’t accurately reflect the loss. It won’t reflect that suddenly there are not duped, maxed r3 6s champs in the diamond and as minis.

Likewise, if that alliance gain instead a heavyweight Summoner, the comparable alliances will face the same problem.

Looks like no easy way out.

ABOMB

Dude you will never win this argument bra..these guys won't even try to understand.
They just want to feel tuff beating up on weaker alliances, makes them feel good about themselves i guess.
Ally prestige between alliances with a 10 million rating difference is usually a significant gap, especially for smaller allys around 15K or lower.
The fact that were basically 1 war away from concluding a second season of going by war ratings, and many allys are still having such lopsided wars is not cool.
Lower level players in smaller allys want to enjoy the game just as much as higher level players in better allys.
This war matchmaking needs adjustment of some kind to resolve this otherwise who knows how long this will keep happening.
Okay now all of you high rated players go ahead and disagree and quote and comment back. Wouldn't expect any less from you forum tuff guys.
I'll get my popcorn and enjoy!🤣

Mr_Platypus

As a 35mil alliance, we’ve beaten 45mil alliances and lost to 25mil alliances, it all depends on how it plays out on the day and whether our least skilled players decide they know how to use their thumbs that day.
You just want easy platinum rewards beating on some guys that match you in roster but are significantly weaker in terms of skill.

Mauled

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

Durzo said:

The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!

So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them

The entire argument for making the switch back was that "smaller" Alliances were getting better Rewards than larger ones. It's too late for that rebuttal. Size matters when it means a guaranteed Loss.

Only time size matters is in the bedroom or reaching for something on a high shelf

Mr_Platypus

ABOMB said:

They just want to feel tuff beating up on weaker alliances, makes them feel good about themselves i guess.

Just like that guy with the 1.7mil rating in your alliance huh?
He must really like bullying little alliances to hang around that at silver 1. The guys got a higher hero rating than me.
Is that why you so desperately want to return to prestige based matchmaking? So you can use his champs to roadblock your opponents whilst he steamrolls everything and carries an alliance to gold/platinum rewards?
The resources from gold/platinum would certainly help your guys that aren’t even uncollected that’s for sure.

Lormif

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

Durzo said:

The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!

So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them

The entire argument for making the switch back was that "smaller" Alliances were getting better Rewards than larger ones. It's too late for that rebuttal. Size matters when it means a guaranteed Loss.

I dont understand why you keep making these false equivalencies... There are no Guaranteed losses, there is only people who give up or dont have the skill, again a 5* r4 should be able to beat any 6* r3 in the game, heck 4*s can beat 6*s r3's as well, but you keep ignoring this....

Also it is never about "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it is about "less skilled" alliances getting better awards.

If you have a set of placed alliances as follows
1) alliance A
2) alliance B
3) alliance C
4) alliance D
5) alliance E
6) alliance F
7) alliance G
8) alliance H
9) alliance I
10) alliance J

In this reward structure if alliance B cannot reliably beat alliances C-J then alliance B should not be in that position, it does not matter if alliance B is 10X or 1/10th the size of the other alliance.

Thicco_Mode

Durzo said:

Great, so it's about war rating. It still screws over the smaller allys if we get matched up against ones double our size, though. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the war rating system, but it still feels unfair. I mean, how would YOU feel if your alliance was two wins from gold 3 and you got matched against an impossible fight? Alright, you can call me an idiot as much as you want for being ignorant of the system, you got me there.

that literally means you do not belong in gold 3. if you cannot beat opponents higher than you, you shouldn't go higher. do you expect that you should face 15 mil opponents all the way to masters?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Pulyaman

AzKicker316 said:

Another post where the OP doesn't want to face the fact that matchmaking is based on WAR RATING, NOT ALLIANCE RATING OR PRESTIGE!!!

If you win a bunch of wars, you will get matched against harder opponents. If you over achieved, you will see better alliances until you are in your proper season rank.

Is this what, the second season that the so called evening out is taking place? Great work Kabam.

ItsDamien

Pulyaman said:

AzKicker316 said:

Another post where the OP doesn't want to face the fact that matchmaking is based on WAR RATING, NOT ALLIANCE RATING OR PRESTIGE!!!

If you win a bunch of wars, you will get matched against harder opponents. If you over achieved, you will see better alliances until you are in your proper season rank.

Is this what, the second season that the so called evening out is taking place? Great work Kabam.

You can't really count the first season since, you know, half the wars were cancelled.

Pulyaman

ItsDamien said:

Pulyaman said:

AzKicker316 said:

Another post where the OP doesn't want to face the fact that matchmaking is based on WAR RATING, NOT ALLIANCE RATING OR PRESTIGE!!!

If you win a bunch of wars, you will get matched against harder opponents. If you over achieved, you will see better alliances until you are in your proper season rank.

Is this what, the second season that the so called evening out is taking place? Great work Kabam.

You can't really count the first season since, you know, half the wars were cancelled.

Sure, let's see how much time this will take. I am not doing wars, so it's not a problem for me. But, the fact that these posts have only increased is telling. It was said it will take a couple of seasons for the allainces to get to correct places. and the process was sped up by halving the war ratings. We are at season 1.5 after the change and we still are getting these uneven matches. Hopefully, by the end of next season, we won't have this issue.

Mr_Platypus

The number of posts is increasing but the number of complaints is decreasing, the first week or 2 after the change there’d be many that flocked to one of these threads with screenshots of supposedly unfair matches, now it’s just 1 or 2 complaints in a thread that dies after a week

Thicco_Mode

Mr_Platypus said:

The number of posts is increasing but the number of complaints is decreasing, the first week or 2 after the change there’d be many that flocked to one of these threads with screenshots of supposedly unfair matches, now it’s just 1 or 2 complaints in a thread that dies after a week

yeah far fewer people have been complaining. they make new posts instead of dogpiling on that one thread

The_Sentry06

In a game so vast, with so many players, you can't have a system to satisfy all. Honestly speaking, I don't get how Prestige should determine your rating and rewards. At the end of the day, why should you as an ally get high tier rewards despite being less skilled than a higher skilled ally just because you have a few members who upgraded more champs at a high PI. Rewards have to be earned. If you want platinum rewards, shouldn't you be facing platinum alliances.

Lormif

The_Sentry06 said:

In a game so vast, with so many players, you can't have a system to satisfy all. Honestly speaking, I don't get how Prestige should determine your rating and rewards. At the end of the day, why should you as an ally get high tier rewards despite being less skilled than a higher skilled ally just because you have a few members who upgraded more champs at a high PI. Rewards have to be earned. If you want platinum rewards, shouldn't you be facing platinum alliances.

It is actually worse, they want to be able to get higher tier rewards because they DONT have people with high pi or prestige, therefore they get only matched with easier opponents and can get more points and therefore more rewards.