Does this AW matching makes sense?

ShrimpR

The opponent alliance aw rating is nearly doubled compared with my alliance 😇

TheBair123

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

Unknown

This content has been removed.

BlackTuran

given that they're only plat 4 and have such a low war rating given high their total alliance rating is, they either don't take war seriously/are inactive in war, or they are just not good at war

ShrimpR

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

ShrimpR

BlackTuran said:

given that they're only plat 4 and have such a low war rating given high their total alliance rating is, they either don't take war seriously/are inactive in war, or they are just not good at war

they are also plat 3, the plat 4 is for previous season

ShrimpR

Zan0 said:

This is a fair match based on the war ratings

fair match? LOL

danielmath

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

what does alliance rating have to do with war? War success is mostly based on effort, planning, skill. Tons of alliance don't try in war, using alliance rating would be idiotic

Lvernon15

Yeah it makes sense, your war rating is similar

Lvernon15

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

Yeah, I mean, it’s so much more flawed than the old system where big alliances couldn’t go anywhere because they only faced other huge alliances, while tiny alliances were ahead of them who the big alliances would destroy if they matched

Ken1378

This is absolutely a fair matchup. Your War Ratings are almost identical.

If the other Alliance was so much better than yours at AW, either they'd have a higher War Rating, or you'd have a lower War Rating.

ShrimpR

danielmath said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

what does alliance rating have to do with war? War success is mostly based on effort, planning, skill. Tons of alliance don't try in war, using alliance rating would be idiotic

Are you saying the AW defence has nothing to do with alliance rating? Just think we only have one or two 6R3 defence champions but the opponent alliance have 20 or 30 6R3 defence champions, is that a fair game to you?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ItsDamien

Imagine that WAR rating affects the WAR match ups you'll face. What a wild concept.

TyEdge

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

Lvernon15

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

Yeah there was a thing a while back where an ally kept their prestige really low in tier 1 and just got easy matchups consistently, and kabam ended up changing the algorithm mid season so they didn’t end up winning, this was before the proper change

Etm34

ShrimpR said:

danielmath said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

what does alliance rating have to do with war? War success is mostly based on effort, planning, skill. Tons of alliance don't try in war, using alliance rating would be idiotic

Are you saying the AW defence has nothing to do with alliance rating? Just think we only have one or two 6R3 defence champions but the opponent alliance have 20 or 30 6R3 defence champions, is that a fair game to you?

Yeah it's fair if they perform similarly to your alliance in war.

ShrimpR

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

naikavon

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

But why?

I have around a 2 million roster. If I sell every 1, 2, 3 and 4 star champ in my roster what will my overall pi do? Imagine everyone in my ally doing the same. If we move firm l from 60 mill to 30 mill are we somehow now even?

It's an easily manipulated data point.

ShrimpR

For the guy who keep clicking Disagree, I hope your Alliance will always match double war rating Alliances in AW season

ShrimpR

naikavon said:

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

But why?

I have around a 2 million roster. If I sell every 1, 2, 3 and 4 star champ in my roster what will my overall pi do? Imagine everyone in my ally doing the same. If we move firm l from 60 mill to 30 mill are we somehow now even?

It's an easily manipulated data point.

OK, let's forget about alliance rating. Now you mentioned the pi, the opponent alliance average pi is 12269 and mine is 10355. Sounds fair to you?

TyEdge

ShrimpR said:

naikavon said:

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

But why?

I have around a 2 million roster. If I sell every 1, 2, 3 and 4 star champ in my roster what will my overall pi do? Imagine everyone in my ally doing the same. If we move firm l from 60 mill to 30 mill are we somehow now even?

It's an easily manipulated data point.

OK, let's forget about alliance rating. Now you mentioned the pi, the opponent alliance average pi is 12269 and mine is 10355. Sounds fair to you?

Yes, because they win and lose just as often as your alliance in war. Put the shovel down and stop digging this hole.

Matchmaking used to have a hidden prestige component to it. Our alliance was AQ-focused and languished in war mediocrity while trying to control spending. After many seasons, we found out we were being punished in war for focusing on improved prestige for AQ. It was garbage.

naikavon

ShrimpR said:

naikavon said:

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

But why?

I have around a 2 million roster. If I sell every 1, 2, 3 and 4 star champ in my roster what will my overall pi do? Imagine everyone in my ally doing the same. If we move firm l from 60 mill to 30 mill are we somehow now even?

It's an easily manipulated data point.

OK, let's forget about alliance rating. Now you mentioned the pi, the opponent alliance average pi is 12269 and mine is 10355. Sounds fair to you?

It does. You're spending an awful lot of time worrying about things outside your control.

Should everyone stop playing, gaining new champs and doing rank ups to wait for you? Their work should mean nothing?

You seem to want rewards of an particular level but somehow think it is unfair to have to participate against others going for the same rewards.


This game is full of smaller alliances beating larger alliances. As others have already pointed out, there is a great deal that goes into war rating.

Are they organized? Do they care? On and on it goes.

My point is, at least try. Maybe you win, maybe you lose. Either way valuable experience can be earned.

danielmath

ShrimpR said:

danielmath said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

what does alliance rating have to do with war? War success is mostly based on effort, planning, skill. Tons of alliance don't try in war, using alliance rating would be idiotic

Are you saying the AW defence has nothing to do with alliance rating? Just think we only have one or two 6R3 defence champions but the opponent alliance have 20 or 30 6R3 defence champions, is that a fair game to you?

yes defense is part of it, just like the other stuff i listed. If they were THAT much better then you, wouldn't their war rating be way higher because they'd be winning?

GroundedWisdom

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

Absolutely. You're not going crazy. Some people just refuse to acknowledge it because they favor the War Rating system, but fair is fair and there should be something regulating the differences in strengths.

ShrimpR

naikavon said:

ShrimpR said:

naikavon said:

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

But why?

I have around a 2 million roster. If I sell every 1, 2, 3 and 4 star champ in my roster what will my overall pi do? Imagine everyone in my ally doing the same. If we move firm l from 60 mill to 30 mill are we somehow now even?

It's an easily manipulated data point.

OK, let's forget about alliance rating. Now you mentioned the pi, the opponent alliance average pi is 12269 and mine is 10355. Sounds fair to you?

It does. You're spending an awful lot of time worrying about things outside your control.

Should everyone stop playing, gaining new champs and doing rank ups to wait for you? Their work should mean nothing?

You seem to want rewards of an particular level but somehow think it is unfair to have to participate against others going for the same rewards.


This game is full of smaller alliances beating larger alliances. As others have already pointed out, there is a great deal that goes into war rating.

Are they organized? Do they care? On and on it goes.

My point is, at least try. Maybe you win, maybe you lose. Either way valuable experience can be earned.

No, it's not about the reward, not matter we win or lose we will be at Plat 3 anyway. I just feel this match is a bit over balanced. My alliance had a lot of fights with other high rating alliances, I'd never bothered. But this one is just way too much.

ShrimpR

GroundedWisdom said:

ShrimpR said:

TyEdge said:

ShrimpR said:

TheBair123 said:

In theory, no, it does not. But you have about the same war rating, so you were matched. I know it sucks but that's just how flawed the system is

It’s insane that Aw match only consider the war rating but ignored the overall alliance rating

So if you keep your alliance deliberately crappy, you should be paired against other patsies you can beat up on? No. War success is determined by a mix of roster and skill. War rating encapsulates that combined performance by measuring wins and losses and adjusting accordingly.

I'm not saying the alliance rating should be totally equal to each other, OK? But at least it should have some weights in the game matching

Absolutely. You're not going crazy. Some people just refuse to acknowledge it because they favor the War Rating system, but fair is fair and there should be something regulating the differences in strengths.

Thanks, finally a sensible person

Remeli

Yes its fair. Both alliance war rating are pretty much equal.

naikavon

Well if it's too much there is a guaranteed way to not see these matchups. Lose. Just keep losing and eventually you won't see them.

We both know you're not gonna do that though so play who is put in front of you.

I've said it before and it bears repeating here...this game balances what is fair for a large group of people. The current system is what is most fair. Everyone has a shot at getting to the top under the current system. Sure it may take more from some... but that's life.

If you had your way, you'd only have to fight certain people bypassing others to get to the top. You may think that fair but others, particularly those you bypass, would think it unfair.

TyEdge

Someone’s clearly new here

pseudosane

They dont play war. We faced them last season and won. We are 10.8k prestige overall.