To me only AW rating should not be the only criteria for finding a match, there are so many factors that can be considered while finding a match.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating. ( some will say prestige, but I am not sure how this works) so I we go by the basics.
Our alliance has a current alliance rating of about 10 million. If I ordered everyone to dump all their 2* and 3* champions, it would probably drop to about 6 or 7 million. This would have no impact on our ability to win alliance wars. Alliance rating is a horrible measure of alliance war strength, and using it would encourage alliances to do things Kabam would not want to incentivize: dumping champions to reduce your alliance rating and find weaker alliances to fight. That is poison to a game that otherwise tries to attract players that like to spend time and money to collect things. This is first and foremost a collecting game.
Prestige is a better measure, but not that much better. Prestige focuses on the top five champions of each player in rating. So it doesn't count all those lower champions. But it does not factor in skill, or the differences in champions.
The overriding principle of the rating system is this principle. If two alliances were to fight a series of wars over and over again, and each alliance were to win about half the wars, then those two alliances are equal in strength. It doesn't matter what their alliance rating is, what their prestige is, what kinds of champions they have. If they beat each other half the time, they are equal in strength, period.
In your system, or any system like your system, alliances would be matched against a number that is calculated from players' rosters. If two alliances had the same score, whatever you pick for the score, and they fight, one alliance is likely to be better at running wars than the other. They would win more often. The system, however, would keep matching them against each other over and over, because their number score was the same.
Systems that factor win/loss record, and *only* win/loss record, are universally considered to be more fair in these situations, because they satisfy this condition. If the system is run for a long enough period of time, the system matches alliances that have a roughly 50% chance of beating each other.
So how this AW match making system is correct and I am wrong. ( now don’t say long wait time , that’s ridiculous, did kabam said officially that it’s takes long wait time ) if we have evidence of this( @DNA3000 I was referring to this evidence ) to prove matching with alliance rating takes longer time ( please don’t say we have seen this in past , we know war was taking time to matched but reason was unknown) . I don’t have anything to say but to accept the fact that the AW system will is broken and it’s not correct.
You propose making a system that factors in three factors: alliance rating, time zone, and war rating. But you don't specify how that is supposed to work, and the details matter because of the problem you seem to be dismissing. I think you believe the reason was unknown because you don't understand the details of matching. Let's go through it step by step.
I start match making for my alliance. At that moment, the game servers try to find a match for me. It cannot match me against alliances that aren't currently looking for a war. It must match me *only* against other alliances looking for war. So obviously, if literally no one else is looking for war at that moment, the match can't be made. The game must wait until someone else comes along.
My alliance currently has a 1279 war rating and a 10 million something something rating. Someone else starts match making. His alliance has a 2000 war rating and a 15 million alliance rating. Obviously, the game can't match us against him. So the game has to continue to wait. Waiting means the game can't find a match, and some alliances are just way too far apart to match.
Okay, now another alliance starts looking for a match. They have a 1300 war rating and a 7 million alliance rating. Now, you say that is an unfair match. Okay, so the game won't make that match. You say it should look at alliance rating first. So now an alliance comes along with a 10 million alliance rating and a 2000 war rating. You're saying *this* is a good match?
That seems to be what you are saying, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you actually want a match where the alliance rating *and* the war rating are the same. Well, now we have a problem. There are lots of 1300 war rating alliances out there, and a lot of 10 million alliance rating alliances out there. But what if there aren't very many alliances with simultaneous 1300 war rating and 10 million alliance rating? What if we are the only one looking at that moment in time, or even that *day*? Then what? Then by your rules, we cannot be matched against anyone. Match making starts taking a very long time, because we have to wait for just the right alliance to come along.
Not long ago, Kabam changed match making to require something like that: simultaneous match for war rating and prestige. How do we know? Because the alliances that were seeing very long match times looked into it, and discovered that when a match finally came along it was with alliances that had similar rating and prestige. That would be a weird coincidence unless the game was enforcing it. So while we cannot say with *certainty* what happened because Kabam never said, we do have enough data to know with *reasonable* certainty what happened.
So trying to match based on alliance rating alone leads to matches that are crazy unfair by most people's definition. And trying to match based on alliance rating and war rating simultaneously seems to lead to match making taking too long - Kabam already ran that experiment. So whether you want to match on those two criteria separately or together, both lead to a system that has problems most players don't want.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating.
I was thinking about this statement on the drive home when I believe I had an epiphany. But I would like you to confirm it for me. Please consider this thought experiment.
Suppose just for simplicity of discussion that there were only two alliances in MCOC that had an 8 million rating. They aren't the only two alliances, just the only two with about that rating. And lets further assume that that rating accurately represents the fact that the players of both alliances have similar rosters. In fact, lets just go ahead and assume everyone's roster is identical. I'm going to call these alliances Alpha and Beta.
When they match for war, in your system they would get matched against each other. I presume you would consider that a fair match, because they both have identical ratings and even identical rosters. They have identical "strength." But lets say that when they fight AW, Alpha always wins. Alpha's players are just that much better, and Alpha consistently beats Beta.
Now, I would like you to confirm two things for me. First, I want you to confirm that you believe this match up is fair: they both have the same rosters, so they must have identical strength as you would describe them.
Second, I want you to confirm that in your opinion, Alpha is winning every war "fairly" and regardless of how many times Alpha wins, you would continue to match them against each other if they continued to have identical ratings and identical rosters. Even if Alpha wins fifty wars in a row, the match up is still fair, and still a match between two alliances of equal "strength." You would never decide that Beta, an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 7 million alliances even though they keep losing, and you wouldn't decide that Alpha, also an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 9 or 10 million rating alliances. They should continue to fight 8 million alliances, and it just so happens that means each other.
Does this accurately represent your idea of "equal strength" and "fair match up?" If not, in what specific ways would you do it differently.
@DNA3000 yes , that’s how it should work, even if you say people will sell the champs to reduce the alliance rating, this has very limited down side, you are not the only one will do this , possibly who have enough in there plate will do this kind of thing .... but not everyone. But the real measure is, after few wars you will be facing those opponents who are strong enough to challenge you.... I don’t see any harm in this ... one limited down side which kabam can easily prevent this by adding this factor under observation like they do for cheats. And ban or put penalties on alliances who deliberately do this. If 4-5 people are selling there champs out of 30 will not make much of a difference.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating.
I was thinking about this statement on the drive home when I believe I had an epiphany. But I would like you to confirm it for me. Please consider this thought experiment.
Suppose just for simplicity of discussion that there were only two alliances in MCOC that had an 8 million rating. They aren't the only two alliances, just the only two with about that rating. And lets further assume that that rating accurately represents the fact that the players of both alliances have similar rosters. In fact, lets just go ahead and assume everyone's roster is identical. I'm going to call these alliances Alpha and Beta.
When they match for war, in your system they would get matched against each other. I presume you would consider that a fair match, because they both have identical ratings and even identical rosters. They have identical "strength." But lets say that when they fight AW, Alpha always wins. Alpha's players are just that much better, and Alpha consistently beats Beta.
Now, I would like you to confirm two things for me. First, I want you to confirm that you believe this match up is fair: they both have the same rosters, so they must have identical strength as you would describe them.
Second, I want you to confirm that in your opinion, Alpha is winning every war "fairly" and regardless of how many times Alpha wins, you would continue to match them against each other if they continued to have identical ratings and identical rosters. Even if Alpha wins fifty wars in a row, the match up is still fair, and still a match between two alliancespoint of equal "strength." You would never decide that Beta, an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 7 million alliances even though they keep losing, and you wouldn't decide that Alpha, also an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 9 or 10 million rating alliances. They should continue to fight 8 million alliances, and it just so happens that means each other.
Does this accurately represent your idea of "equal strength" and "fair match up?" If not, in what specific ways would you do it differently.
Hypothetically, first point can be considered as it can happen you matched with an identical opponent, mostly the chances are at the level were people have 5/65 champs in the roster... not talking about AW rating cause that doesn’t matter to me and it’s inconsistent.
Second point - No this is not a correct situation and can’t be considered as fair fight example.
It’s simple this way , you win your war with your skills and strength, not with your rating.
There was a guy in our alliance, 150k, he only had 25 champs, he had 3 r4 5*s and the rest were all at least r5 4*. he had sold all the rest... 30 like that would make an alliance 4.5m. There is no point to breaking the game because you get the odd matchup with a stronger team, in the long run this system evens out, you are saying the system is broken but it is not, all your suggestions are complicated and would lead to exploits and wars that you might never be able to win as you might get stuck with the same few matchups over and over again, (and the other alliances at your level might be more skillful and spend more)
As I said before they trialled prestige, it was terrible... a failure and had more people complaining than this system so they have reverted to it) , timezone an alliance in make s no difference, there is more than enough time to compete the map, it doesn’t really matter how fast you do it. At this point I’m leaving this conversation, I don’t find to be worTh repeating myself for, you have taken offence at a system that is actually working well, there will be the odd anomaly, but this system is so simple that it is quite safe from exploits. The 12m alliance facing a 2.5m alliance has just started their alliance and will soon be much higher and this is just them on their way up,
My point is match alliance based on AW rating and alliance rating, consider both things cause both are important and play a significant role in matching. A balance in between both will be a fair match up.
Back when Wars first came out I was in a 2 mil alliance in Tier 1, why? Because it used our alliance rating when finding matches, 90% of Wars we had no defence to beat because our opponents didn’t place one, now is it fair that we scrubs with our 4 3*s were earning the same rewards as the strongest alliances that were also tier 1, with no chance of being matched against them because the ratings were so far apart? No it wasn’t.
If you’re at a high war rating and being matched against stronger alliances it means you’re playing above your rating, so rather than complaining about it, think of it in a positive manner, accept that losses happen.
My friend that’s what I am talking about, we achieved this rating from zero , so if what you are saying is true then the calculation behind this AW rating is wrong .... so how come we can say the AW matching is fair.... I don’t know if you get my point but the discussion is only based on this not that we lost and now we are crying out loud.
Matching based on war rating is the fairest way for reasons I’ve stated above.
Man, trying to read this thread gave me a headache. I was going to post about how the first version of wars was exactly the one xthea hails as a perfect system, but ultimately failed miserably but then I realised it was pointless. If 4 pages of people explaining this to you dosen't convince you, nothing will.
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
The matchmaking system is the most “fair” now, as it has ever been.
Back when i still played. Our ally was #2 in war, and sometimes after searching for 3 hours. We would get placed with a tier 6 ally. Talk about unfair.
Legion, with everyone having 3 r4 5*’s would get matched against an ally that had a full 4* defense.
Xthea. You came here to look for sympathy, what you got was a dose of truth, your ally either did well, or got lucky and went higher than you should have. Now the war system is bringing you back to where you should be.
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
The matchmaking system is the most “fair” now, as it has ever been.
Back when i still played. Our ally was #2 in war, and sometimes after searching for 3 hours. We would get placed with a tier 6 ally. Talk about unfair.
Legion, with everyone having 3 r4 5*’s would get matched against an ally that had a full 4* defense.
Xthea. You came here to look for sympathy, what you got was a dose of truth, your ally either did well, or got lucky and went higher than you should have. Now the war system is bringing you back to where you should be.
Lol ... seriously what is your point, does AW rating tells you how strong alliance is yours. I am only talking about current system, does any of us having a accurate AW ratings .
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
Simple way to understand is , currently AW ratings are not accurate my friend, that’s why we are having this miss match. If the AW rating point score was accurate, I will not be in the higher ratings and I will be matched with an equally strong opponent in AW , my be few points up or down.
Understand the point , we all know the conclusion, that’s not required.
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
Simple way to understand is , currently AW ratings are not accurate my friend, that’s why we are having this miss match. If the AW rating point score was accurate, I will not be in the higher ratings and I will be matched with an equally strong opponent in AW , my be few points up or down.
Understand the point , we all know the conclusion, that’s not required.
So you say current war rating is inaccurate?
I agree. Your ally’s war is too high. And the system is working. Sadly i have no cheese to offer you along with your whine.
If you think AW Rating is inconsistent/inaccurate, despite being a much simpler stat that is less prone to manipulation, why would Alliance Rating, a much more variable stat that is subject to a many ways to modify or manipulate it, be any better?
But really... you are the only one who thinks AWR is inaccurate. Everyone else seems to recognize it as a fairer standard, and easy to determine.
We had this song and dance. When war was first introduced there were 100k ally in tier 1 cause of the same system that op says is better then the current.
Comments
Our alliance has a current alliance rating of about 10 million. If I ordered everyone to dump all their 2* and 3* champions, it would probably drop to about 6 or 7 million. This would have no impact on our ability to win alliance wars. Alliance rating is a horrible measure of alliance war strength, and using it would encourage alliances to do things Kabam would not want to incentivize: dumping champions to reduce your alliance rating and find weaker alliances to fight. That is poison to a game that otherwise tries to attract players that like to spend time and money to collect things. This is first and foremost a collecting game.
Prestige is a better measure, but not that much better. Prestige focuses on the top five champions of each player in rating. So it doesn't count all those lower champions. But it does not factor in skill, or the differences in champions.
The overriding principle of the rating system is this principle. If two alliances were to fight a series of wars over and over again, and each alliance were to win about half the wars, then those two alliances are equal in strength. It doesn't matter what their alliance rating is, what their prestige is, what kinds of champions they have. If they beat each other half the time, they are equal in strength, period.
In your system, or any system like your system, alliances would be matched against a number that is calculated from players' rosters. If two alliances had the same score, whatever you pick for the score, and they fight, one alliance is likely to be better at running wars than the other. They would win more often. The system, however, would keep matching them against each other over and over, because their number score was the same.
Systems that factor win/loss record, and *only* win/loss record, are universally considered to be more fair in these situations, because they satisfy this condition. If the system is run for a long enough period of time, the system matches alliances that have a roughly 50% chance of beating each other.
You propose making a system that factors in three factors: alliance rating, time zone, and war rating. But you don't specify how that is supposed to work, and the details matter because of the problem you seem to be dismissing. I think you believe the reason was unknown because you don't understand the details of matching. Let's go through it step by step.
I start match making for my alliance. At that moment, the game servers try to find a match for me. It cannot match me against alliances that aren't currently looking for a war. It must match me *only* against other alliances looking for war. So obviously, if literally no one else is looking for war at that moment, the match can't be made. The game must wait until someone else comes along.
My alliance currently has a 1279 war rating and a 10 million something something rating. Someone else starts match making. His alliance has a 2000 war rating and a 15 million alliance rating. Obviously, the game can't match us against him. So the game has to continue to wait. Waiting means the game can't find a match, and some alliances are just way too far apart to match.
Okay, now another alliance starts looking for a match. They have a 1300 war rating and a 7 million alliance rating. Now, you say that is an unfair match. Okay, so the game won't make that match. You say it should look at alliance rating first. So now an alliance comes along with a 10 million alliance rating and a 2000 war rating. You're saying *this* is a good match?
That seems to be what you are saying, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you actually want a match where the alliance rating *and* the war rating are the same. Well, now we have a problem. There are lots of 1300 war rating alliances out there, and a lot of 10 million alliance rating alliances out there. But what if there aren't very many alliances with simultaneous 1300 war rating and 10 million alliance rating? What if we are the only one looking at that moment in time, or even that *day*? Then what? Then by your rules, we cannot be matched against anyone. Match making starts taking a very long time, because we have to wait for just the right alliance to come along.
Not long ago, Kabam changed match making to require something like that: simultaneous match for war rating and prestige. How do we know? Because the alliances that were seeing very long match times looked into it, and discovered that when a match finally came along it was with alliances that had similar rating and prestige. That would be a weird coincidence unless the game was enforcing it. So while we cannot say with *certainty* what happened because Kabam never said, we do have enough data to know with *reasonable* certainty what happened.
So trying to match based on alliance rating alone leads to matches that are crazy unfair by most people's definition. And trying to match based on alliance rating and war rating simultaneously seems to lead to match making taking too long - Kabam already ran that experiment. So whether you want to match on those two criteria separately or together, both lead to a system that has problems most players don't want.
I was thinking about this statement on the drive home when I believe I had an epiphany. But I would like you to confirm it for me. Please consider this thought experiment.
Suppose just for simplicity of discussion that there were only two alliances in MCOC that had an 8 million rating. They aren't the only two alliances, just the only two with about that rating. And lets further assume that that rating accurately represents the fact that the players of both alliances have similar rosters. In fact, lets just go ahead and assume everyone's roster is identical. I'm going to call these alliances Alpha and Beta.
When they match for war, in your system they would get matched against each other. I presume you would consider that a fair match, because they both have identical ratings and even identical rosters. They have identical "strength." But lets say that when they fight AW, Alpha always wins. Alpha's players are just that much better, and Alpha consistently beats Beta.
Now, I would like you to confirm two things for me. First, I want you to confirm that you believe this match up is fair: they both have the same rosters, so they must have identical strength as you would describe them.
Second, I want you to confirm that in your opinion, Alpha is winning every war "fairly" and regardless of how many times Alpha wins, you would continue to match them against each other if they continued to have identical ratings and identical rosters. Even if Alpha wins fifty wars in a row, the match up is still fair, and still a match between two alliances of equal "strength." You would never decide that Beta, an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 7 million alliances even though they keep losing, and you wouldn't decide that Alpha, also an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 9 or 10 million rating alliances. They should continue to fight 8 million alliances, and it just so happens that means each other.
Does this accurately represent your idea of "equal strength" and "fair match up?" If not, in what specific ways would you do it differently.
Hypothetically, first point can be considered as it can happen you matched with an identical opponent, mostly the chances are at the level were people have 5/65 champs in the roster... not talking about AW rating cause that doesn’t matter to me and it’s inconsistent.
Second point - No this is not a correct situation and can’t be considered as fair fight example.
It’s simple this way , you win your war with your skills and strength, not with your rating.
As I said before they trialled prestige, it was terrible... a failure and had more people complaining than this system so they have reverted to it) , timezone an alliance in make s no difference, there is more than enough time to compete the map, it doesn’t really matter how fast you do it. At this point I’m leaving this conversation, I don’t find to be worTh repeating myself for, you have taken offence at a system that is actually working well, there will be the odd anomaly, but this system is so simple that it is quite safe from exploits. The 12m alliance facing a 2.5m alliance has just started their alliance and will soon be much higher and this is just them on their way up,
Matching based on war rating is the fairest way for reasons I’ve stated above.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
Back when i still played. Our ally was #2 in war, and sometimes after searching for 3 hours. We would get placed with a tier 6 ally. Talk about unfair.
Legion, with everyone having 3 r4 5*’s would get matched against an ally that had a full 4* defense.
Xthea. You came here to look for sympathy, what you got was a dose of truth, your ally either did well, or got lucky and went higher than you should have. Now the war system is bringing you back to where you should be.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
Lol ... seriously what is your point, does AW rating tells you how strong alliance is yours. I am only talking about current system, does any of us having a accurate AW ratings .
Simple way to understand is , currently AW ratings are not accurate my friend, that’s why we are having this miss match. If the AW rating point score was accurate, I will not be in the higher ratings and I will be matched with an equally strong opponent in AW , my be few points up or down.
Understand the point , we all know the conclusion, that’s not required.
So you say current war rating is inaccurate?
I agree. Your ally’s war is too high. And the system is working. Sadly i have no cheese to offer you along with your whine.
At least then i could draw a funny a funny face on it.
But really... you are the only one who thinks AWR is inaccurate. Everyone else seems to recognize it as a fairer standard, and easy to determine.
Sorry. Yours truly is a mismatch. Maybe, just maybe, OP will see this and realize that their matchup is just
Then precisely what would you do differently in that situation.