Options
This goes to show how bad match marking is
Glads
Posts: 397 ★★★
All is on the line, last war of the season after a big rebuild last war season. Kabam, this is why people are frustrated for something which should be easy.
Also this post goes to show how useless the war rating system is, and what a black box it is. Firstly we face an alliance 30million more than us, this need to be really taken into account I know this does affect war rating bit it should and I know that money can buy a good account but not skill. Secondly how can an alliance ranked approximately 250 place ahead have a war rating around 10points higher. This is clearly not a great match up for underwraps but a very good match up for death knights. The problem is the war rating is not dynamicit doesnt change fast enough. There are clearly fundamentalproblems and please can play the system, war rating should emcompass all factors % of people thronebreaker, alliance rating, alliance quest scores and the factors surrounding the out of date war rating.
Another way to think about it if one if the top 3 took 2 seasons off there is no way they should be playing gold 1/ platinum 4 allianceit just doesnt make sense.
As a leader i know how many ppl are annoyed and kabam does to by account activity levels. As someonewho loves war the currentwar rating system is so far out of date and needs immediateattention
Also this post goes to show how useless the war rating system is, and what a black box it is. Firstly we face an alliance 30million more than us, this need to be really taken into account I know this does affect war rating bit it should and I know that money can buy a good account but not skill. Secondly how can an alliance ranked approximately 250 place ahead have a war rating around 10points higher. This is clearly not a great match up for underwraps but a very good match up for death knights. The problem is the war rating is not dynamicit doesnt change fast enough. There are clearly fundamentalproblems and please can play the system, war rating should emcompass all factors % of people thronebreaker, alliance rating, alliance quest scores and the factors surrounding the out of date war rating.
Another way to think about it if one if the top 3 took 2 seasons off there is no way they should be playing gold 1/ platinum 4 allianceit just doesnt make sense.
As a leader i know how many ppl are annoyed and kabam does to by account activity levels. As someonewho loves war the currentwar rating system is so far out of date and needs immediateattention
3
Comments
To give you some idea how far away from this alliance we are last war we had a massive win and only moved 10 positions.
War rating metric are not telling the entire story.
The numbers speak for themselves mathematical at least which I am better than most
The problem is the war rating doesn't change enough in the season
You earned your 2242 by winning against similar 2200 opponents. Your opponent also earned their rating in the same way. If you think they are too strong, that's either because you won more often than normal for your alliance strength, and the reward for that is earning more points but also facing stronger competition. Or, your opponents won less often than normal for their alliance strength and the penalty for that is earning fewer points but also facing lower competition. Or both.
Although there are corner cases - people switching alliances, and the sparse nature of the top couple dozen alliances - in general alliances earn their ratings, and face opponents that have earned similar ratings. That's all that matters, and that's all that should matter.
Also, the out of date rating system you're referring to is fundamentally ELO, which is the rating system used in a lot of competitive environments. Chess uses ELO to rate players for international competition. PUBG apparently still uses vanilla ELO. League of Legends used to use ELO but then moved to a custom rating system that is similar to ELO. In fact, I'll quote from League of Legends support article on ratings:
The idea behind the rating system is that the game matches people of similar rating, on the presumption that two people of similar rating will have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning a match (it is more complicated than that because of composite teams, but that's the general principle). In MCOC, war rating is computed using ONLY wins and losses because this is all important. An alliance with a particular rating is (assuming they haven't changed their composition radically recently) about equally likely to win or lose a fight against an opponent of similar rating. If they tended to win more often than 50/50, their rating would rise. If they tended to lose more often, their rating would decline. The war rating is an estimate of their strength for that reason, and matching alliances of equal rating results in wars in which the alliances are presumed on average to have a 50/50 chance of winning. That's the definition of fair match making, and it is a wide-spread definition that seems to encompass a lot, if not most of the serious competitive games that exist today.
Most competitive games that explain their ratings systems seem to say the same (obvious) thing: they want fair matching, their definition of fair is some version of "on average the opponents have a 50/50 chance of winning) and they attempt to achieve that by using the competitors own win/loss record to determine the odds of winning the next match.
Systems that try to include the other factors you mention violate this principle. They are no longer looking for fair matches, they are looking for deserved matches. If you're a 50 million alliance, you "deserve" to match against other 50 million alliances - so the idea goes. And if you win 90% of those match ups, that just means you're awesome, gg. No one defines fair matches this way, at least no game I've found that has put serious thought into their competitive rating system.
MCOC used to include other factors into their match making calculations. They were disasters, for the precise reason no one else does this, and this was removed. It isn't coming back.
I was just speculation how to adjust it, the ultimate problem is this rating doesn't move its not dynamic which lends itself to one sided wars.
The only reason I mentioned the other things I'd you can have great alliances who cushion a particular rating putting I resources to maintain and not to save loyalty and glory to focus on content kabam will have that info
Dark knight have accumulated
7,696,810 point
Underwraps
7,134,830
That's almost 562k points more or 8% more points separated by 5war rating points, or a 0.03% war rating differential mathematical it doesn't stack up. Rational of reasoning in completely lost
There are so many believers of the war rating does anyone actually know how it is calculated?
Match making is needs a functioning war rating system, put is basically its a mess
See these 3 wars? See the +/- on each? That's your war rating gain/loss for winning or losing. That's how your war rating is tallied up. Season points come from the tier your war is played in. It's possible your opponent played some wars at tier 4 and maybe even tier 3.
Here's the win from the first picture. Our war rating was 2711.
This loss cost is 46 points. That brought us to 2665. 2665-2711= 46.
This loss cost us 52 points. Bringing our war rating to 2613.
The war rating points you see on the match up screen are for win/lose. If you win, you gain those points. If you lose, you lose those points. The amount of points you can win/lose is based on your opponent. Bigger opponents usually mean more war rating points.
You can't do the math for your war rating right now because you didn't start from scratch this season and earn 2742 points. You'd have to have record of every win and loss for every season you have been in. The matchup is fair because your war rating is 5 points difference. You have 2742 and they have 2747.
Many of those alliances that are bigger are rarely taking war that serious. Go and actually try to win instead of complaining about the matchup here. If you want to Bamba and play with the big boys, gotta start somewhere.
I have looked at the equations for the war rating they have used its impossible to have war ratings so close yet separated but so many points
Not
If
You
Play
In
Different
Tiers