This goes to show how bad match marking is

AverageDesi

Demonzfyre said:

It's
Not
If
You
Play
In
Different
Tiers

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
You forgot to put these between

DNA3000

Glads said:

OK to put it another way
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

You're looking at season points, but those are not directly connected to war rating. War rating is determined ELO style: your war rating is compared to your opponent's war rating, and it is adjusted up or down depending on whether you win or lose and your rating differential.

So when a 1500 war rating alliance faces another 1500 war rating alliance, the winner will get some amount of points higher war rating based on a scale factor (I believe MCOC uses 130, which is super high, but implies they want alliance to move towards their intrinsic rating very fast). So in this example, the winner would get 65 points and the loser would lose 65 points of rating. The winner would be 1565, and the loser would be 1435.

War rating is used for two purposes. It is used to find war matches, and it is used to determine the point multiplier for season points. Every war scores a certain amount of points based on the war activity, generally between zero and about 150k points or so. If every alliance scored their intrinsic points only, we'd have a weird problem. An alliance with 500 war rating beating another alliance with 500 war rating would score about the same amount of points as an alliance with 2800 rating would beating another 2800 alliance. That doesn't make sense: it implies the best of the bad alliance could get more rewards than the best of the best alliances. There's no benefit to having high rating.

There's two approaches you can take here. The simple one is to introduce divisions. All the 2800s only face each other for 2800 tier rewards, all the 500 alliances face each other in a completely separate division for 500 tier rewards. Kabam chose to go the other way: everyone competes in the same pool of alliances but higher rating alliances gain multiplier bonuses, so the 2800 alliances score a multiple of their points towards season rewards. Your war rating places you into one of twenty war tiers, and each tier gets a certain multiplier from x1 to x8. This creates a pseudo separation of alliances into different scoring tiers, but without hard boundaries between them. This allows especially strong alliances from one tier to "overtake" particularly weak alliances in a higher tier with especially strong performances. It is also probably less problematic when it comes to thinly populated top tiers of competition. And having removed divisions from AQ, they were probably not interested in reintroducing them in alliance war.

Season rewards are determined by your overall war performance as measured by season points. But your match ups are determined by your war rating, which is determined strictly by your win/loss record against your competition. The difference is significant, because season points drives players to always do their best. If season rewards were only determined by war rating rankings, then the only thing that would matter is winning or losing. Once you know you're going to win, there's no reason to do anything more. If you know you're going to lose, there's no reason to do anything but just walk away from the war. But because how well you perform win or lose has an impact on season rewards, even losing alliances still try to score points, to prevent a loss from becoming a horrible loss and costing you your season bracket placement. This also reduces the impact any one player can have on an entire war season, reducing the stress of participating. And of course because war seasons are not mandatory tournaments, this also prevents an alliance from doing five good wars and then sitting out the rest of the season and hoping their rating holds up, and it prevents "lock in" where a single top alliance is simply impossible to displace from the top.

AverageDesi

Why do ally's lose 49 and gain 50 war rating after a war instead of the same number?

DNA3000

AverageDesi said:

@DNA3000
Why do ally's lose 49 and gain 50 war rating after a war instead of the same number?

That's a good question. With straight up ELO, the ratings adjustment should be equal if I recall the ELO calculations correctly. It might be some round off effect somewhere, or it might point to some formula tinkering by Kabam. I'll try to find out.

AverageDesi

Zan0 said:

DNA3000 said:

AverageDesi said:

@DNA3000
Why do ally's lose 49 and gain 50 war rating after a war instead of the same number?

That's a good question. With straight up ELO, the ratings adjustment should be equal if I recall the ELO calculations correctly. It might be some round off effect somewhere, or it might point to some formula tinkering by Kabam. I'll try to find out.

You can also gain 75 rating while the other alliance loses 63

Is that in t1?