War matchmaking so wrong.

3 wars this season, got to fight vs 50 to 120% stronger alliances.

At silver we still have 4* in our defense, while the other teams have 6* R3 in theirs.

Seriously, that sux.

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

Diablord

3 wars this season, got to fight vs 50 to 120% stronger alliances.

At silver we still have 4* in our defense, while the other teams have 6* R3 in theirs.

Seriously, that sux.

Some alliances have thronebreakers who do not want too much aw stress and want to relax.
And also, if you are silver 2 or up, then 4*s on defence is a big no no.

Turguz

Cmon.... now todays war is vs an ally 22 million higher than us. This is total bs.

BitterSteel

Cmon.... now todays war is vs an ally 22 million higher than us. This is total bs.

War matchmaking isn’t decided on alliance rating, it’s decided on war rating. If you win wars it goes up, if you lose wars it goes down. That’s how we don’t end up with a 2 million alliance coming in the top 100 alliances in the world because they won 12 wars in a season matched against similar rated alliances.

What you’re asking for is a system where the a small village football team could win the world championship and avoid playing Barcelona because they won more matches against other village teams.

Mauled

As BitterSteel said, it’s based on War Rating. The more you win, the higher your rating and the better alliances you come up against. If you’re a small alliance who takes war seriously you’re going to start coming up against big alliances who don’t take it seriously. If you’re particularly good for your size you might even come up against fairly large alliances who take it seriously.

Eventually you’ll find your level. And yeah, 4* shouldn’t be in defences after your first couple of months of play time if you want to progress.

DNA3000

Cmon.... now todays war is vs an ally 22 million higher than us. This is total bs.

I understand, really I do. As others have said and as I've explained tons of times, war matches are decided by war rating, which is a mathy way of basically matching winners against winners and losers against losers. If you win constantly you go up in rating, and face other alliances who win all the time, and eventually you face a "fair" fight where both sides have about an even chance to win.

The problem is "even chance to win" is not the same thing as a fair looking fight. In the middle tiers, even chance to win more often involves groups of alliances that sometimes win big and sometimes lose big. Our alliance doesn't take war very seriously. We don't really spend on war, I let people place whatever they want on defense, and we don't even get full participation in every war. So of course we lose a lot. And we lose, and we lose, and we keep losing until we face an alliance that even our sketchy efforts can win. Usually, that happens when we drop so low we start facing alliances that are very unlikely to beat us unless we all accidentally forget to enter the attack phase. Our defenses tend to win more often than our offense.

This is an unfortunate problem with the way war seasons currently works. Not everyone wants to push equally hard in war, because of a ton of other problems with war (the difficulty ramp is ludicrous, the cost if you spend at all is crazy high, the stress literally breaks up alliances). To make war palatable for my alliance, I try to keep things loose and easy going. This means we lose a lot, but it also means we face alliances much weaker than we would be, if we were full of hard core war fighters.

Unfortunately, this is not an easy problem to solve given the current war structure, because any attempt to try to make "fair wars" instead of fair match ups (which as I said above are not the same thing) allows very low strength alliances to gain very high rewards by just beating up equally weak alliances. If you only fight alliances that look like you on paper, the strongest of you will go undefeated and have the same record or better than alliances that are much stronger, fight much harder competition, and simply can't beat all of them. That happened in the past due Kabam originally trying to solve the "overmatched" problem, and it basically broke war seasons.

That's why it is the way it is now, and that's why you're never going to avoid facing super strong alliances on paper that are in lower tiers because they don't want to push hard (or spend, or force everyone to participate, or it could be a brand new alliance that was recently formed and started off basically from zero, or a cheating alliance that was docked rating).

unknown

This content has been removed.

Shadowstrike

My defence is indestructible as I don’t have any

The best defense is a good offense

Turguz

Todays war, other ally is 12 million higher. Yay!

Imthatdamnbad82

Todays war, other ally is 12 million higher. Yay!

At this point youre just whining about it as its already been explained to you.

Lemon_Man44

At silver we still have 4* in our defense, while the other teams have 6* R3 in theirs.

Damn man. My ally place 6 star r3 and we go against alliances that place 4 stars. I feel bad when we defeat them

BitterSteel

Todays war, other ally is 12 million higher. Yay!

You’re complaining about an utterly unrelated stat. To me, this comment reads as “Today’s war, other alliance has 1,000,000 PVP matches won. That’s so unfair.”

It isn’t taken into account when match making. The reasoning for this has been explained, I’m not sure what you’re expecting to be told now. This system is the best system, you will find the spot where it balances out over time.

phillgreen

After 1,300 odd days of hearing my officer complain about wanting to do AW again I finally cracked and wading into the cesspit we go.

We had a solid 126 rating at the start of the week along with a nice participation title from season 1.

I feel bad about placing 6r3 and 5/65 on defense and its odd seeing my previous attack team consisting of 4r4 but that's just the way it is. The biggest problem we have is never ranking "defenders" because there was no need so there are a bunch of easy 5r3, 6r1 fights as well.

It obviously hasn't bothered the opponent, first ally placed no defense at all, second tested our mettle with 4 1* champs. Neither moved in attack.

So the question is, should we be placed with alliances of similar strength which means jumping the queue ahead of others who have been taking it seriously or do we need to earn our place, which means starting at the bottom and beating on much weaker alliances for a while?

ChiliDog

I rarely see this unless an alliance is new or went through some member changes. The other way I see this is if you are switching the number of BGs. So if you typically place 2 or 3 and drop to 1 BG for example.

The old system was horrible. It allowed middle school teams to beat college teams in rewards. This avoids having to "tier" an alliance rewards which can also be manipulated by alt accounts that only play war.

Another good change they made was locking rankings because alliances would lose on purpose after season. My old alliance once faced a 1 or 2* hulk as the final boss as teams lost on purpose.

unknown

This content has been removed.