Unfair war match

This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance. We are in tier 2 and 2 wins most probably would have gave us p2. But this a for sure loss as all the maps are filled with insane champs that too r3’s. Kabam must look into this matter, not for us, but for all the alliances playing this game.

Their alliance 👇🏼

Our alliance 👇🏼

Comments

Lvernon15

War ratings are similar, looks fair to me

Qacob

As always... Similar war rating. If you can't beat them then their's will go up so they will fight stronger alliances and yours will go down so you will fight easier alliances

Aamir123

War ratings are similar, looks fair to me

Ratings are similar but alliances are far different from each other. Their maps are filled with all insane r3 champs and even champs like weapon x are there at r3’s and most people can’t handle him easily even in quests.

danielmath

worlds second top alliance? LOLOLOLOLOLOL those guys don't do war (is that asgard with a name change? i didn't even recognize it)

Aamir123

@Lvernon15 its easy to say what you said, but this loss will lose our p2 target for sure. Only those who face such situations know how this feels like.

ItsDamien

War ratings are similar, looks fair to me
Ratings are similar but alliances are far different from each other. Their maps are filled with all insane r3 champs and even champs like weapon x are there at r3’s and most people can’t handle him easily even in quests.

Then you'll lose and fight someone more appropriate as your war rating goes down. That is how the match making works. Prestige and Total alliance hero rating mean nothing in War.

LeNoirFaineant

The world's top second alliance? I wonder who the #2 second alliance is.

Aamir123

worlds second top alliance? LOLOLOLOLOLOL those guys don't do war (is that asgard with a name change? i didn't even recognize it)

Im saying this in terms of alliance rating.

CoatHang3r

we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance. We are in tier 2 and 2 wins most probably would have gave us p2. But this a for sure loss as all the maps are filled with insane champs that too r3’s. Kabam must look into this matter, not for us, but for all the alliances playing this game.

They’re the 128th alliance and you’re the 136th.
They are in the same tier as you.
There is nothing to look into as you were matched based on War Rating and not feelings.

CoatHang3r

worlds second top alliance? LOLOLOLOLOLOL those guys don't do war (is that asgard with a name change? i didn't even recognize it)

That’s the new [LOAD] (loaded Odins paid off).

Seanl85

worlds second top alliance? LOLOLOLOLOLOL those guys don't do war (is that asgard with a name change? i didn't even recognize it)
Im saying this in terms of alliance rating.

Alliance rating only shows how many ranked champs they have, not skill level. Given they were p4 last season you were p3 and you have a similar war rating i would say its a fair match. If your alliance is skilled enough it can actually win this war

unknown

This content has been removed.

BlackTuran

bruh there's a reason their war rating is the same as yours, it's because they underperform in war

Demonzfyre

Lvernon15 its easy to say what you said, but this loss will lose our p2 target for sure. Only those who face such situations know how this feels like.

So go out and do your best. You're in P3 with hopes of being in P2. You think it's going to get easier the higher you go? With your attitude, you don't even deserve P3.

DNA3000

This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance.

I know it has been a while since I followed war seasons very closely, but how is it that the second strongest alliance in war has a 2388 rating and placed Platinum 4 last season? The strongest alliances in war are the ones that win, not the ones with the biggest rosters.

Let me put it another way. Your alliance placed P3 last season, and you're trying to get to P2 this season. P2 is rank 50 to 100, so to get there you would have to climb to the top 100 alliances in season points overall. But your current alliance rating of 44 million means you're nowhere near one of the top 100 alliances by rating (#100 has a rating of 55 million). There's only two ways to get there. Face top 100 alliances, or face alliances completely outside the top 100 and still jump into the top 100.

You think facing a higher rated alliance is unfair, even though you have the same war rating. Fine, if that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, if you think that's unfair then the game should not allow you to face those alliances, not even to climb up in rewards. So P2 would permanently be out of the question. Your alliance would not be allowed to even attempt to climb to that level of rewards.

How about the alternative? You keep facing top 300 alliance and yet jump to top 100, and all of those alliances you never faced are just out of luck. They had to face each other, and you were allowed to leap over them having never had to face any of them, ever. Sounds great, for you. Except the same thing will happen to you. A one million rating alliance could face nothing but other one million rating alliances, win every war, and by virtue of never losing they could end up being a tier 1 alliance with master rewards, outperforming your alliance by a mile while never having to face you or any other alliance remotely strong. How would that feel?

The current system forces you to face whatever alliance is in your way, regardless of alliance rating. All that matters is they win and lose as often as you do, as measured by war rating. If you want the game to avoid those kinds of match ups for you, it has to avoid them for everyone else, and your alliance is exactly the kind of alliance the current system protects. In the previous iteration of match making, where alliances did not face alliances of dissimilar alliance rating, you'd probably be placing lower. You're currently overperforming: placing higher in war seasons than your alliance rating rank. In the old system, you wouldn't face these kinds of match ups, but alliance much lower than yours would also be ranking higher by avoiding those kinds of match ups, and the net result is more alliances would likely jump past you through easier matching than you would.

Snizzbar

Un fair war match

Mobile_P0tat0

Y'all got this, I believe in you. Boost up, keep it clean, and talk a big game in the war room

Reference

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/1736012

Agent_X_zzz

worlds second top alliance? LOLOLOLOLOLOL those guys don't do war (is that asgard with a name change? i didn't even recognize it)

Load with name change

Geralt_123

Most likely you became the prey of top tier alliance looking to maintain lower rank to reduce war stress.

ChaosMax1012

Seems fair to me

Lvernon15

worlds second top alliance? LOLOLOLOLOLOL those guys don't do war (is that asgard with a name change? i didn't even recognize it)

its load

Will3808

You realize that war matchups are made based on war rating and don’t take pretty much anything else into account, right? If your alliance is up there then that’s a fair matchup based on the games standards.

FlyGalaxyBomb

They could honestly be a bunch of beached whales

pseudosane

OP, i feel for you. But while their defense is tough, their attack isnt as serious. We faced Asgard, more than double our rating and of course 3k~ish higher prestige, and we won. Bring your A game, you got this.

MAERvelGOD

Sometimes the war matchmaking really does suck

I think that an the overall rating of each Alliance should be taken into consideration not just the war rating and here's why

Sometimes matchmaking has been bad in our favor against a very weak opponent where we clear all three maps & they barely have any Defenders placed so we scored a ton of points and sometimes that happens more than one war in a row

And the next thing you know we move up to a more difficult map and our total rating is around 13 million and our last war opponent that we lost to was over 35 million so nearly triple what we are and I believe all but maybe two of their members were over 1 million rating individually meanwhile we have one member who is over a million and a small handful that are even over 500,000, which generally translates to less maxed out five-star Defenders or rank three six-star Defenders

We had similar War ratings because they are beating alliances like ours and maybe they had some easy matchups as well but by the way, we had artificial higher War rating numbers based on matchmaking that put us against weak if not almost completely dead alliances where there might only be a couple of active members

We hold our own we did just win an alliance War against an opponent who was over 20 million and again we are only about 13 million and they even had some fairly strong Defenders but they obviously lacked the skill on attack because we cleared all 3 maps and they only took out two of our bosses which was kind of surprising so it's not impossible to beat an alliance in war that is overall stronger than you had to head but the war rating is a skewed number oftentimes that should not be the only means for matchmaking

Mr_Platypus

Sometimes the war matchmaking really does suck

I think that an the overall rating of each Alliance should be taken into consideration not just the war rating and here's why

Sometimes matchmaking has been bad in our favor against a very weak opponent where we clear all three maps & they barely have any Defenders placed so we scored a ton of points and sometimes that happens more than one war in a row

And the next thing you know we move up to a more difficult map and our total rating is around 13 million and our last war opponent that we lost to was over 35 million so nearly triple what we are and I believe all but maybe two of their members were over 1 million rating individually meanwhile we have one member who is over a million and a small handful that are even over 500,000, which generally translates to less maxed out five-star Defenders or rank three six-star Defenders

We had similar War ratings because they are beating alliances like ours and maybe they had some easy matchups as well but by the way, we had artificial higher War rating numbers based on matchmaking that put us against weak if not almost completely dead alliances where there might only be a couple of active members

We hold our own we did just win an alliance War against an opponent who was over 20 million and again we are only about 13 million and they even had some fairly strong Defenders but they obviously lacked the skill on attack because we cleared all 3 maps and they only took out two of our bosses which was kind of surprising so it's not impossible to beat an alliance in war that is overall stronger than you had to head but the war rating is a skewed number oftentimes that should not be the only means for matchmaking

They should not take alliance rating into account whatsoever.
That just means you’ll get to leapfrog over opponents you’d never be capable of beating and earn better rewards even though you’re worse.
So unless you’re ok with also having rewards scaled based on alliance rating too so you’ll get worse rewards for being a weaker alliance... which of course has plenty of other issues.

As for OP...
Imagine being far enough into the game that you’re fighting for plat 2 rewards and whining about matchmaking, you should know better than all the others that make these posts why matchmaking should only take into account war rating.

pseudosane

Sometimes the war matchmaking really does suck

I think that an the overall rating of each Alliance should be taken into consideration not just the war rating and here's why

Sometimes matchmaking has been bad in our favor against a very weak opponent where we clear all three maps & they barely have any Defenders placed so we scored a ton of points and sometimes that happens more than one war in a row

And the next thing you know we move up to a more difficult map and our total rating is around 13 million and our last war opponent that we lost to was over 35 million so nearly triple what we are and I believe all but maybe two of their members were over 1 million rating individually meanwhile we have one member who is over a million and a small handful that are even over 500,000, which generally translates to less maxed out five-star Defenders or rank three six-star Defenders

We had similar War ratings because they are beating alliances like ours and maybe they had some easy matchups as well but by the way, we had artificial higher War rating numbers based on matchmaking that put us against weak if not almost completely dead alliances where there might only be a couple of active members

We hold our own we did just win an alliance War against an opponent who was over 20 million and again we are only about 13 million and they even had some fairly strong Defenders but they obviously lacked the skill on attack because we cleared all 3 maps and they only took out two of our bosses which was kind of surprising so it's not impossible to beat an alliance in war that is overall stronger than you had to head but the war rating is a skewed number oftentimes that should not be the only means for matchmaking

That was the issue of the previous system. It allowed low alliances (alts) with skilled players to game their way to the top. The current system, while giving "unfair" matchups, actually provides a fair system where every team has a chance to move up. Your alliance isnt strong enough, it will eventually be strong enough to move up.

naikavon

Here's the thing, folks take matchmaking personally, when it's not.

What is fair and unfair has little to do with individual matchups and more to do with the overall competition. It's not fair to bypass folks who work just as hard as you do becuase they have bigger rosters than you or whatever other excuse one might use. Other alliances are entitled to try and get the SAME rewards you are chasing too. Win play harder allys, lose play easier. Pretty simple concept.

If you want to play only alliances your "size" than war brackets are your thing. But that generally means lesser rewards... and people complaining about that. So yeah...

In no competitive world does it make sense to be able to bypass potential adversaries to win prizes both are competing for. That would be unfair.

BitterSteel

This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance.
I know it has been a while since I followed war seasons very closely, but how is it that the second strongest alliance in war has a 2388 rating and placed Platinum 4 last season? The strongest alliances in war are the ones that win, not the ones with the biggest rosters.

Let me put it another way. Your alliance placed P3 last season, and you're trying to get to P2 this season. P2 is rank 50 to 100, so to get there you would have to climb to the top 100 alliances in season points overall. But your current alliance rating of 44 million means you're nowhere near one of the top 100 alliances by rating (#100 has a rating of 55 million). There's only two ways to get there. Face top 100 alliances, or face alliances completely outside the top 100 and still jump into the top 100.

You think facing a higher rated alliance is unfair, even though you have the same war rating. Fine, if that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, if you think that's unfair then the game should not allow you to face those alliances, not even to climb up in rewards. So P2 would permanently be out of the question. Your alliance would not be allowed to even attempt to climb to that level of rewards.

How about the alternative? You keep facing top 300 alliance and yet jump to top 100, and all of those alliances you never faced are just out of luck. They had to face each other, and you were allowed to leap over them having never had to face any of them, ever. Sounds great, for you. Except the same thing will happen to you. A one million rating alliance could face nothing but other one million rating alliances, win every war, and by virtue of never losing they could end up being a tier 1 alliance with master rewards, outperforming your alliance by a mile while never having to face you or any other alliance remotely strong. How would that feel?

The current system forces you to face whatever alliance is in your way, regardless of alliance rating. All that matters is they win and lose as often as you do, as measured by war rating. If you want the game to avoid those kinds of match ups for you, it has to avoid them for everyone else, and your alliance is exactly the kind of alliance the current system protects. In the previous iteration of match making, where alliances did not face alliances of dissimilar alliance rating, you'd probably be placing lower. You're currently overperforming: placing higher in war seasons than your alliance rating rank. In the old system, you wouldn't face these kinds of match ups, but alliance much lower than yours would also be ranking higher by avoiding those kinds of match ups, and the net result is more alliances would likely jump past you through easier matching than you would.

Agreed.
It would be like if I was the coach for an under 12 football team and managed to beat New England patriots in the league and win top prize because we beat all the other under 12 football teams.

We never got matched with patriots because they were so much better than us.

See how unfair that is?