AW match ups
Da2Vero33Man
Member Posts: 162 ★
There must be an issue with AW match ups.
We are fighting a team with max sig r4 6* champs! Most of the players on my team have r3 6* and one or two have a r4 but no one has a max sig r5 6* Doom. Most this team of attackers are r3 6* with all defenders also being r3 6*. That cannot be a fair fight.
We are fighting a team with max sig r4 6* champs! Most of the players on my team have r3 6* and one or two have a r4 but no one has a max sig r5 6* Doom. Most this team of attackers are r3 6* with all defenders also being r3 6*. That cannot be a fair fight.
0
Comments
But most of the forum disagrees with this opinion
It should be a combination of war rating, prestige & alliance rating IMO
That makes it much more fair, specially now when players can't sell champs
And prestige requirement will make sure lower alliances don't reach Masters
However it will result in a lot of repeat matchups which IMO increases the fun as it develops rivalry & healthy competition
Also has the potential to get the community closer where players can regularly interact with players from another alliance
Might also lead to different defense strategies for subsequent wars
In any sport you progress up the ranks until you reach your “natural” peak. Would you think its fair for you to play the majors golf tournament just because you have the best golf clubs? Or not be allowed to take part cause you don't have the latest and greatest?
If you want to compete at the top, then make your way into the top. That alliance will eventually get to a spot where the fights are matched. They will win everything in silver 2 and move past everyone else and this one loss should mot make or break your season
@Kabam Miike please move this request along to someone for serious consideration.
I still contend that the AW match-up mechanics is unbalanced and very discouraging.
They will go up defeating most of their rivals until certain point.
Same goes for every other alliance.
This is common in every sport, game, event, life, everywhere.
If someone is that much "stronger" than your alliance but has the same rating, they obviously don't take the mode overly seriously. Plenty of "weaker" alliances win those matches just based on effort and ability.
In what planet is that fair? If everyone is competing for the same aw season rewards that are awarded based on aw rating then of course that is the only thing that should matter in aw matchups.
So your sports analogy is nonsense.
And the current matchmaker is garbage.
There’s a vocal and angry group of forum members that insist it’s fair because by their logic it should be, despite matchups happening between alliances that differ by over 1000 alliance prestige.
The only fair way to fix the matchmaker is by having bgs assigned and locked in for war BEFORE being matched to an opponent, then matching them based on their average pi, prestige, and distribution of each within the group (to prevent sand bagging).
But kabam can’t even make block work so good luck getting matchmaker fixed.
Keep ranking champions and you’ll be able to compete more.
There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
Come on. You know that’s ****.
And if aq gave 6s shards I’d be all over that. But it just gives glory and mats. So if I want new champs I need to do war and that means putting up with the crappy matchmaker.
Because war rating is specific only to an alliance and not an individual player, you can game the system by changing the makeup of an alliance. It’s a completely useless metric in terms of evaluating fair potential matchups.
It’s like that commercial where the little kids are playing pickup and one team picks Charles Barkley.
Maybe that’s fine for where you’re at and the effort you want to put in, but for players trying to grow their account through war, it’s endlessly frustrating. The old system made far better matchups way more often imo.
Do you really think it’s fair for paragon or tb players to go against uncollected or new even cav?
A silver two alliance matching against a gold alliance has literally happened to me. We matched against them and they had like 1800 higher prestige than we had. I checked in on them later in the season and they were in gold 1 and we were still at silver 2.
Some of you seem to believe that because the alliance rating is fair on paper that it’s fair in practice and it just doesn’t happen that way at all.
Maybe if you’re plat and master and always run 3 bgs it seems like it does, but if you’re in silver or gold or outside the top 1000 alliances in war, mismatches happen very often.
You can fight really good until a certain point but when you and your teammates have a handful of 5* r5 and on the other side they have 6* r4 in defense and also in attack how can you possibly tell me that this match up is close as it gets?! Do we want to talk about the general ally rating? 25 mil vs 65 mil? Or the general members rating 800k vs 2000k? How is this close?
If you make it based on base rating, you could get a low alliance that wins 12/12 matches against equally low alliances and get number 1 place. They could have made it into tier 1 because they’re only facing equally low alliances. Do you think that’s fair? The top alliances being beaten because they aren’t facing their opponents?
It’s like if you had a professional team sport competition, let’s take Football (soccer). You have a bunch of 12 year olds in grass roots teams facing only other 12 year olds. 1 team of the 12 year olds manages to win every game of their season and as a result, place higher than Barcelona and Real Madrid. Is that really fair? Avoiding the top teams because you are only able to match up with someone around your ability?
Or is it fairer to have a rating based on ability, and to match up with those around your ability?
Not to mention it’s counter intuitive to incentivise people to stop ranking champions or increasing prestige so they get easier match ups in war. Everything goes against your proposed system.
The only downside of war rating is that occasionally you will face matchups with stronger alliances. But the reason they have their war rating is that they have won the same proportion of their match ups as you have, there’s a reason they are losing their matches. Maybe they don’t play well, maybe they don’t take it seriously. Or maybe they’re on the way up and they’re a new alliance. In which case they won’t be at that war rating for long.
I know it sucks, nobody is saying it’s a good part of the system. But unfortunately it’s the best of all other systems. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This system is good, no system is perfect. The systems you suggest are bad.
I get you want easier matches but as I've already said, if someone is that much stronger and still has the same rating, they aren't trying very hard or just aren't any good.
For example, my alliance is full of massive accounts (72 million alliance rating and a lot of us are paragon) but we are also mostly semi retired from the game and dont care about aw. We run 1 BG of optional and completely unorganized aw. No assigned defenders, no diversity, no assigned lanes, no one cares if don't finish a lane or if someone uses a dozen revives, we just don't care.
We usually are around silver, sometimes we get matched with alliances that are much much much lower alliance rating or prestige. These wars are often close and we lose a lot of them even though we are stronger, being strong doesn't make that big of a difference when we just don't care and put in zero effort.
That is the point many of you are missing, either your alliance trying waaaay too hard and is higher than it should be to get the bad matchups, or your dealing with alliances like mine that might be strong but put in zero effort and can easily be beat.
Even stronger alliances in terms of rosters will generally have a 50/50 chance against a weaker one with the same rating because there’s a reason their war rating is at that level in the first place. They may not take it seriously, they may rarely complete the whole map, or they may all be poor fighters.
Because this system is not entirely perfect, there are times where stronger alliances are moving up the ratings, maybe they’ve had a break, or they’re new, or they recently recruited much stronger members. But that is the small downside to an otherwise good system. And how else would you manage that? You have to let the system naturally sort people based on ability.
Skill and matches won is a much better factor for deciding match ups than total base rating or prestige. War rating is not perfect, but it’s the best of all the systems.
Long story short, both alliances my 2 accounts were in both finished in plat 3. This sounds about right for my main account in main alliance, but how in the world did my mini account who still had 4* stars in the profile (as did many of my alliance members in mini account alliance) finish at same AW tier?
The answer is obviously the system was broken because that alliance got nothing but matches against extremely weak alliances, while my main only got matches against extremely strong alliances, but at the end of the season they got the exact same rewards!
This means the alliance my mini was in took the spot in plat 3 of a much more deserving alliance who was much strong but got harder matches. How is it fair my mini alliance got better rewards than them? Also, plat 3 rewards for such a small account can quickly lead to game balancing issues.
This is why what some of you want isn't fair at all. A weaker alliance who can't compete with stronger alliances should not get the same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.