Unfair match making!!!!!

How is this possibly fair, I know I’ve posted before for this but it’s now starting to harm my alliance, people don’t stay in a loosing alliance and it’s hard to recruit. Trying to keep moral up when ur constantly being matched with alliances that are far far stronger than you! Can I have a MOD’s response on match making and how this is a fair system?

Comments

Cujo999

Sorry, looks like you got the short end of the stick. We were up against an 8+ mil Ally in our last war, and now we're up against you guys. It sucks, I know, but try to get everything you can. Good luck!

Thawnim

I get how it can be frustrating, but your war ratings were very similar. Just give it your best, you never know what could happen.

beyonder8421

Also average hero rating is very similar

Demonzfyre

you both have AW ratings in the 830's. Alliance Ratings don't always mean they are better than you. It means their member's have more maxed 1-3* champions.

Cujo999

Demonzfyre wrote: »

you both have AW ratings in the 830's. Alliance Ratings don't always mean they are better than you. It means their member's have more maxed 1-3* champions.

In this case, it's pretty lopsided, and I understand why the OP is upset. On average, our Defenders are about 1.5x higher PI than theirs. Unfortunately, AW matchmaking isn't perfect, and bad matchups like this happen from time to time. Sadly, that's not much consolation when the short straw gets pulled for your ally.

Speeds80

I actually prefer this, the last system they trialled meant even if you lost wars you still had to fight alliances almost your exact prestige, this way when you lose a few your war rating drops and you get easier matchups

Kriptonit3

Yeah, seems to be happening a little too regular lol, this is the war before.

DGC

You have the same war rating and fighting for the same tier rewards. Nothing unfair about it.

VandalSavage

DGC wrote: »

You have the same war rating and fighting for the same tier rewards. Nothing unfair about it.

It's "unfair" because they lost. If they had won, they would not have said a thing. They don't care about the actual game rules; they only care about the outcome, the results. The results determine whether it is "unfair" or not.

By MCOC rule of community law, every time you do not get what you want, it is "unfair". This is another way of saying that they want game changes where they will no longer lose.

Reggie

Though I can understand your point @VandalSavage I think the primary reason the OP is saying the matchup is unfair, is because the alliance they’re match with has an obvious advantage over their alliance. My alliance has been unfairly matched up on a few occasions as well, one of those times we got lucky because they were lazy, and because we only used 2 battle groups, and filled them completely, we were able to beat one of those unfair matches. The other two were indeed lost because of the unfair match up. With an alliance that was at the time only 1mil, going up a 6mil alliance with 30 members, with only 24 in mine, there is no way we could’ve felt that was a fair match.

Maybe it’s just not many alliances starting the war matchmaking process at the same time, and they simply need to just allow the system to keep searching until more similar alliances are looking at the same time. They do say it could take some time. So we do expect a delay. These close to auto finds seems a bit hasty, then we place defenders and 24 hours later, we’re disappointed to find we’re up against a fully staffed alliance, with an average member rating that’s greater than our highest ranking member.

I’ll say this, our current war, the alliance we’re up against didn’t even place defenders in BG2. So imagine how boring this war has been exploring an empty map.

mum_m2

it's fair because you have a similar war rating. someone explained it very nicely in an earlier post today. but basically, the way the system is designed is everyone has to work from the ground up regardless of their war rating. If a new alliance is created and war was based on alliance rating, then that alliance would have never had to go through the pains of moving up. just take your L and do your best.

Fyghter

You shouldn’t be entering war with 3 BGS if you only have 22 people.

Hulk_77

The only metric that matters is War Rating. This matchup is fair. If you're repeatedly losing that will eventually normalize as you fall to where you should be on the ladder.

Mrblackkk

Every time we lose a war it gets a LITTLE just a LITTLE easier. But then you win a war and BAM get matched with an alliance 3M higher than you. Win a war and get +60 points, Lose one and get -72. Kabam and staff... you guys are always so fair!

thanks.

Demonzfyre

Cujo999 wrote: »

Demonzfyre wrote: »

you both have AW ratings in the 830's. Alliance Ratings don't always mean they are better than you. It means their member's have more maxed 1-3* champions.

In this case, it's pretty lopsided, and I understand why the OP is upset. On average, our Defenders are about 1.5x higher PI than theirs. Unfortunately, AW matchmaking isn't perfect, and bad matchups like this happen from time to time. Sadly, that's not much consolation when the short straw gets pulled for your ally.

@Cujo999 technically it is fair. Alliance 1 has 22 people. Alliance 2 has 29. Depending on how many BG's they chose to run, it should be fair. Also, you can't see the top 15 champs of each player. We don't know who they ranked or anything like that. Myself, I don't rank 1-3* champs at all. I only focus on the ones that get me through content and are valuable. My player rating is 300k+. I could probably be over 400k if I ranked every champ I have. It doesn't always mean it's a lopsided matchup. Those numbers can be inflated.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Kriptonit3

Fyghter wrote: »

You shouldn’t be entering war with 3 BGS if you only have 22 people.

We’re doing 2 BG’s

Jefangel

I'm in a 10 million alliance that is Tier 11 with a 1000 war rating, we lost recently to a 3 million alliance in Tier 11 with a 995 war rating. How could we possibly lose!?!? Because the players on my team are mostly casual who really don't care about war....they use their best champs in AQ because they like that part of the game, they typically use their second string of champs doing the monthly and level quests...their third string of champs might be used for War offense which leaves a pretty low string for defense....they don't place their defenders anywhere in particular, just wherever they fit when you join the war. THAT is why we only have a 1000 rating, and why we lost to a 3 million alliance. War rating is fair.

Cujo999

Demonzfyre wrote: »

Cujo999 wrote: »

Demonzfyre wrote: »

you both have AW ratings in the 830's. Alliance Ratings don't always mean they are better than you. It means their member's have more maxed 1-3* champions.

In this case, it's pretty lopsided, and I understand why the OP is upset. On average, our Defenders are about 1.5x higher PI than theirs. Unfortunately, AW matchmaking isn't perfect, and bad matchups like this happen from time to time. Sadly, that's not much consolation when the short straw gets pulled for your ally.

@Cujo999 technically it is fair. Alliance 1 has 22 people. Alliance 2 has 29. Depending on how many BG's they chose to run, it should be fair. Also, you can't see the top 15 champs of each player. We don't know who they ranked or anything like that. Myself, I don't rank 1-3* champs at all. I only focus on the ones that get me through content and are valuable. My player rating is 300k+. I could probably be over 400k if I ranked every champ I have. It doesn't always mean it's a lopsided matchup. Those numbers can be inflated.

Those are all fair points. Alliance rating shouldn't necessarily the be all, end all of matchmaking, either. Alliances have their AW ratings for a reason. At the same time, I think most people want player skill to be the primary factor in winning or losing in AW. That was a big reason the community was angry that defender kills were removed from scoring and attack bonus was eventually added in. In this case, it didn't feel like player skill was the primary factor in winning and losing. They would have had to outplay us by a very wide margin to win. I think that if the scoring system can be tweaked to help ensure that the more skilled Alliance is rewarded, it's ok to do the same with the matchmaking system to keep one side from having too much of an edge over the other. Maybe instead of using Defender Rating in scoring, like they tried doing, they should try to use it in matchmaking. Maybe instead of queuing up, finding a match, and then placing defenders, you should get queued and matched up at the end of the placement phase.

Speeds80

Your alliance rating will settle you where you belong, there will be anomalies of the odd alliance that has just started out, (this was probably a shell alliance but the new war seasons will actually fix this happening too often, it’s not like the 12m alliance will stay in that tier for long, so it’s just a one off, people have to realise that unless you are the very too or very bottom, you basically settle at the level where you will win half of your matches, so when you get a tough matchup that’s just one of the ones that you have to accept and it will make your next matchups easier, the system isn’t broken there is just the odd anomaly. They trialled prestige as a factor and it was terrible, there were so many more complaints and if you lost a war by a few points it meant your next war would t be any easier, my alliance dropped 4 tiers during that system through some bad luck and several wars that we lost by 100 or less points, we are back where we were and were we belong as a 10m alliance (the place where we win half of our wars)

Bohdai

Here is our current war...

Bohdai

I guess we were matched up by date created.

Bmf420

I've been seeing a lot of posts like this. It could be kabam is actually favoring the stronger alliances to keep the whales on the hook. But I'm probably wrong.

Speeds80

Maybe they are trying something new because people complained about alliance war rating Not being fai, to be clear that is the worst matchup I’ve seen, feel sorry for you, clearly it is a mistake as your war ratings are completely different ends of The spectrum

MattScott

This is a totally fair matchup. Good luck.

Kriptonit3

And again lol, when will it stop 😒

Demonzfyre

Kriptonit3 wrote: »

And again lol, when will it stop 😒

Only 2 mil apart. Happens all the time in top tiers. If you are running 2 bgs it shouldn't be a big deal.

Willjackson16

3.4 mil against a 12 mil alliance the whole system is stupid

LeNoirFaineant

We are a 14 million alliance matched up against a 20+ million alliance lol. Sounds about right.

DukeZman

Hulk_77 wrote: »

The only metric that matters is War Rating. This matchup is fair. If you're repeatedly losing that will eventually normalize as you fall to where you should be on the ladder.

That's not true. I contacted support last week because we couldn't find a match in like 2 hours of searching and here was their reply:
"Please know that AW matchmaking system depends on a wide variety of variables, the first being accessibility. Matchmaking can occur at different times and sadly there is no way for us to know when the Alliances closest to you are available. The game attempts to make the closest PI match, if there is no close match found the game widens the search field until a match is found, which could sometimes include Alliances that have a much higher PI. The game does this to ensure that Alliances aren't waiting for an extended period of time before a match is found. This means that finding a match in alliance war is not instant, as it first tries to match your Alliance with an opponent of equal or similar strength. If such an Alliance cannot be found, the search will begin to expand until it pulls from all Alliances currently waiting on a match. " - Kabam Gabby

So war rating isn't even mentioned in the response. It checks alliance PI first and the goal is to match an opponent of "equal or similar strength."