Options

AW match ups

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.



«1

Comments

  • Options
    Da2Vero33ManDa2Vero33Man Posts: 156
    Correction. R4 6* Doom at max sig. Not a r5 6*.
  • Options
    CrusaderjrCrusaderjr Posts: 1,059 ★★★★

    How close are the war ratings? That’s what matters.

    i think thats silver 2, you can see the icon in the pic of aw badge. im sure there are alliances with r4's in low tier wars
  • Options
    Krishna24Krishna24 Posts: 380 ★★★

    How close are the war ratings? That’s what matters.

    i think thats silver 2, you can see the icon in the pic of aw badge. im sure there are alliances with r4's in low tier wars
    that must be from last season, anyway if the war ratings match then that's the answer itself
  • Options
    TheWolf91TheWolf91 Posts: 3
    What a big joke has this game become!!! How can this match could be normal to Kabam? I stop playing for one year exactly for this reason: AW match up!!! Explain how is this possible? Are you all making fun of players?



  • Options
    AMS94AMS94 Posts: 1,776 ★★★★★
    IMO war rating should NOT be the only criteria for matchmaking
    But most of the forum disagrees with this opinion
  • Options
    AMS94AMS94 Posts: 1,776 ★★★★★
    edited June 2022
    Zan0 said:

    AMS94 said:

    IMO war rating should NOT be the only criteria for matchmaking
    But most of the forum disagrees with this opinion

    Because thinking it should be anything other than war rating is just wrong. If it was based on anything else you would see low rated alliances rise to the top and overtaking high rated ones simply cause they only get “fair” matchups.
    That's why I said it should not be the ONLY criteria
    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
  • Options
    Da2Vero33ManDa2Vero33Man Posts: 156
    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    No, of course not. But we should have similar golf clubs and golf balls. If I’m playing with a set from 5 years ago I’m at a disadvantage and so I have a serious up hill battle.

    I still contend that the AW match-up mechanics is unbalanced and very discouraging.
  • Options
    ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    Of course war rating should be the only factor in aw matchups. So you think it's fair to higher up alliances and players if lower rated alliances got matched up with only lower rated alliances, then get more wins and get higher rewards than the better alliances who only get harder matches?!

    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.
  • Options
    JestuhJestuh Posts: 273 ★★★
    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.

    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.
  • Options
    BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 9,260 ★★★★★

    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    No, of course not. But we should have similar golf clubs and golf balls. If I’m playing with a set from 5 years ago I’m at a disadvantage and so I have a serious up hill battle.

    I still contend that the AW match-up mechanics is unbalanced and very discouraging.
    Get better clubs then I guess is the answer to that

    Keep ranking champions and you’ll be able to compete more.
  • Options
    JestuhJestuh Posts: 273 ★★★
    Uvogin said:

    Jestuh said:

    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.

    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.
    My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone.
    There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
    So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?

    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?
  • Options
    UvoginUvogin Posts: 345 ★★★
    Jestuh said:

    Uvogin said:

    Jestuh said:

    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.

    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.
    My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone.
    There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
    So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?

    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?
    It's absolutely fair if you're competing for the same rewards. It's not like silver 2 is matching against platinum 2 alliance. If you're both in the same tier, you can't expect to not match them and still get the same rewards as them.
  • Options
    JestuhJestuh Posts: 273 ★★★
    Uvogin said:

    Jestuh said:

    Uvogin said:

    Jestuh said:

    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.

    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.
    My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone.
    There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
    So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?

    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?
    It's absolutely fair if you're competing for the same rewards. It's not like silver 2 is matching against platinum 2 alliance. If you're both in the same tier, you can't expect to not match them and still get the same rewards as them.
    That sort of thing happens all the time tho.

    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.
  • Options
    TheWolf91TheWolf91 Posts: 3

    TheWolf91 said:

    What a big joke has this game become!!! How can this match could be normal to Kabam? I stop playing for one year exactly for this reason: AW match up!!! Explain how is this possible? Are you all making fun of players?



    Your rating is 2 apart. That's about as close of a match as it gets.
    This match up was a big joke you all can write everything you want but I don’t think was/is fair.
    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?

  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Jestuh said:

    Uvogin said:

    Jestuh said:

    Thiartc said:

    It is war and thus war rating

    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

    Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.

    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.
    My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone.
    There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
    So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?

    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?
    The "old" system let alliances purposely leaving the prestige low get to the top of Master bc they never had to match anyone that typically placed there. It was a joke.

    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.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    TheWolf91 said:



    TheWolf91 said:

    What a big joke has this game become!!! How can this match could be normal to Kabam? I stop playing for one year exactly for this reason: AW match up!!! Explain how is this possible? Are you all making fun of players?



    Your rating is 2 apart. That's about as close of a match as it gets.
    This match up was a big joke you all can write everything you want but I don’t think was/is fair.
    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 prestige or base rating mattered at all you'd see NY and TCN dominating war as well as AQ. Guess what? They don't, like not even close.
  • Options
    ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    edited June 2022
    Something those of you arguing that getting matched by war rating not being fair are missing is that there is a reason why the two alliances have a similar war rating to get matched up to begin with.

    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.
  • Options
    BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 9,260 ★★★★★

    Something those of you arguing that getting matched by war rating not being fair are missing is that there is a reason why the two alliances have a similar war rating to get matched up to begin with.

    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.

    Exactly, the war rating is essentially a percentage chance of winning. Alliances with the exact same war rating will for the most part have a 50/50 chance of winning. That’s fairness.

    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.
  • Options
    ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    edited June 2022
    Years ago, when kabam made it where AW matchups didn't go by AW rating and went by other factors like prestige, it was ridiculously unfair. As an example, I was running two accounts then, an end game account (having completed 100% of game content at the time) in a competitive AW focused alliance and a silly little mini account that I mainly used to farm units to gift myself and that account was only UC at the time and was in a fairly weak alliance of mostly low cavalier and high UC players.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.