both alliances happen to look for a war at the same time. now tell me, can you really say it is fair for these two alliances to get matched against the other, exclusively because they have the same war rating?
What War rating would you then assign to the new Alliance which has the 30 best players?
There does not seem to be (I may not have seen all of them; all those ideas suggested in the now archived forum) any concrete ideas to persuade the developers to change the AW match up system thus far.
You assign a new rating, calculated based on win points and prestige. Or you assign zero rating, but match algorithm takes prestige (or something similar) into account, so that those two alliances do not match-up, rather they do with opponents of similar strength.
basing exclusively on war rating is not a fair way, and it is easily proven with an easy example:
first, i go to school, talk to 30 kids that have never touched a phone before, much less played the game, convince them to play and make an alliance.
second, i talk to the 30 best players in the whole game. players with endgame accounts and thousands of war victories, convince them to leave their alliances and have them form a new alliance.
in both cases, i convinced 30 people to make a new alliance. a brand new alliance with no war history, therefore both have the same rating. both alliances start at 0 wins, 0 losses. same rating.
both alliances happen to look for a war at the same time. now tell me, can you really say it is fair for these two alliances to get matched against the other, exclusively because they have the same war rating?
Technically, yes. The goal of the current system is not to ensure that every single match up is between exactly equal strength alliances, because that's an impossible goal to achieve anyway. The goal appears to be to give alliances that lose weaker match ups and alliances that win stronger ones. This is considered "fair" because it satisfies an important long-term goal: alliances cannot be consistently matched up against opponents too strong for them to beat.
In any system where the computer *presumes* the strength of the alliance based on anything other than win/loss record, it is always theoretically possible for the system to guess wrong. In that case, it is possible for an alliance's strength to be presumed to be higher than it actually is, and to then be matched up against opponents they cannot beat, indefinitely. In the current system, it is essentially impossible for this to happen. The more you lose, the weaker your opponents will get. You will win eventually, and the *average* strength of your opponents should eventually approach your true strength.
You assign a new rating, calculated based on win points and prestige. Or you assign zero rating, but match algorithm takes prestige (or something similar) into account, so that those two alliances do not match-up, rather they do with opponents of similar strength.
This creates a second variable and I do support it, perhaps 3 or 4 or more variables has to be taken into account instead.
Say an endgame player leaves an alliance, start anew and gathered 19 players; all 19 at level 25 and none has max 3* (the end game player has more than 8 5* awakened max champs).
The opponent has 30 players, with members all at level 40 but none with champs higher than 4* rank 3.
Both has similar average prestige and war rating.
Fair match-up?
(I do understand I used a rather improbable example but I am also curious to find there are alliance with much weaker rating but very high war rating).
This is what I've found. The Alliance Rating factors in, but mostly indirectly. There are 3 factors that go into Matchmaking. Ally Rating, Average Player Rating, and War Rating. The system searches for a Match with similar APR and WR. The WR is the default. Most commonly, the APR and WR are in the same ballpark. Every once in a while, the AR will be similar because the APR is similar, but that's not always the case, since the APR is an average. The default is WR, and it all depends on who is Matchmaking at that time. If there are no similar APR's, the system will find the closest WR. It's exceptionally lopsided when starting a new Ally because everyone starts at the same WR (0). So, the APR could be similar but the AR could be different. If nothing else is close, the WR is the deciding factor.
And its well known that a group of the top alliances cheat on aw as they are in a "line" chat group and when 1 does a war match the others wait till they have a match and then the next goes, that way they dont fight one another and get more wins.
And its well known that a group of the top alliances cheat on aw as they are in a "line" chat group and when 1 does a war match the others wait till they have a match and then the next goes, that way they dont fight one another and get more wins.
That's a misnomer. While they avoid fighting each other, the system will still Match someone with a similar Rating. Which means they have every possibility of losing.
This is what I've found. The Alliance Rating factors in, but mostly indirectly. There are 3 factors that go into Matchmaking. Ally Rating, Average Player Rating, and War Rating.
I need a visual.
War Rating determines War Tier.
So it is the first determinant ( is this the truth and nothing but the truth).
This is what I've found. The Alliance Rating factors in, but mostly indirectly. There are 3 factors that go into Matchmaking. Ally Rating, Average Player Rating, and War Rating.
I need a visual.
War Rating determines War Tier.
So it is the first determinant ( is this the truth and nothing but the truth).
Next average player rating or alliance rating?
Think of it this way. The system tries to find a Match with similar Average Player Rating and War Rating. The War Rating is the default. Therefore it comes first. Second is APR, and if nothing similar is present, it goes on WR alone.
And its well known that a group of the top alliances cheat on aw as they are in a "line" chat group and when 1 does a war match the others wait till they have a match and then the next goes, that way they dont fight one another and get more wins.
That's a misnomer. While they avoid fighting each other, the system will still Match someone with a similar Rating. Which means they have every possibility of losing.
yes but they can only match with what they have and many times ive had a war against mmxiv and got totally stuffed, so no it does work in there favour.
And its well known that a group of the top alliances cheat on aw as they are in a "line" chat group and when 1 does a war match the others wait till they have a match and then the next goes, that way they dont fight one another and get more wins.
That's a misnomer. While they avoid fighting each other, the system will still Match someone with a similar Rating. Which means they have every possibility of losing.
yes but they can only match with what they have and many times ive had a war against mmxiv and got totally stuffed, so no it does work in there favour.
That may be your experience, but theoretically anyone could Match with them and beat them if they win. Mind you, I also agree that its shady because they're occupying multiple spots and creating a monopoly. However, if an Ally has the ability to beat them who is not in that pact, they can still lose. I'm not aware of any specific Allies doing so, so I'm not directing that at anyone. Nor are they breaking any existing rules. I just think it's monopolizing. Until someone comes along that beats them, that is.
And its well known that a group of the top alliances cheat on aw as they are in a "line" chat group and when 1 does a war match the others wait till they have a match and then the next goes, that way they dont fight one another and get more wins.
That's a misnomer. While they avoid fighting each other, the system will still Match someone with a similar Rating. Which means they have every possibility of losing.
yes but they can only match with what they have and many times ive had a war against mmxiv and got totally stuffed, so no it does work in there favour.
That may be your experience, but theoretically anyone could Match with them and beat them if they win. Mind you, I also agree that its shady because they're occupying multiple spots and creating a monopoly. However, if an Ally has the ability to beat them who is not in that pact, they can still lose. I'm not aware of any specific Allies doing so, so I'm not directing that at anyone. Nor are they breaking any existing rules. I just think it's monopolizing. Until someone comes along that beats them, that is.
they do lose as ive seen it happen but they are stacking the odds in there favour, lets say for instance the top 20 cant fight each other so you get the number 1 seed playing the team ranked 21.
if it didnt work in there favour they wouldnt do it, they know how to play the system and get away with it
And its well known that a group of the top alliances cheat on aw as they are in a "line" chat group and when 1 does a war match the others wait till they have a match and then the next goes, that way they dont fight one another and get more wins.
That's a misnomer. While they avoid fighting each other, the system will still Match someone with a similar Rating. Which means they have every possibility of losing.
yes but they can only match with what they have and many times ive had a war against mmxiv and got totally stuffed, so no it does work in there favour.
That may be your experience, but theoretically anyone could Match with them and beat them if they win. Mind you, I also agree that its shady because they're occupying multiple spots and creating a monopoly. However, if an Ally has the ability to beat them who is not in that pact, they can still lose. I'm not aware of any specific Allies doing so, so I'm not directing that at anyone. Nor are they breaking any existing rules. I just think it's monopolizing. Until someone comes along that beats them, that is.
they do lose as ive seen it happen but they are stacking the odds in there favour, lets say for instance the top 20 cant fight each other so you get the number 1 seed playing the team ranked 21.
if it didnt work in there favour they wouldnt do it, they know how to play the system and get away with it
I've said for quite some time that the War System needs a revamp. I love the idea of Seasons. Every Season, your War Rating is wiped. Then you build up again. It could introduce War Events, Titles, etc. Every Season, Allies would grow more and do better next Season.
Think of it this way. The system tries to find a Match with similar Average Player Rating and War Rating. The War Rating is the default. Therefore it comes first. Second is APR, and if nothing similar is present, it goes on WR alone.
If this holds true, then the range will be so wide. The posts created which highlights the mismatch does not look like these criteria are in place.
One other point. I tend to see the matchup much more difficult when starting two or more battlegroups.
Think of it this way. The system tries to find a Match with similar Average Player Rating and War Rating. The War Rating is the default. Therefore it comes first. Second is APR, and if nothing similar is present, it goes on WR alone.
If this holds true, then the range will be so wide. The posts created which highlights the mismatch does not look like these criteria are in place.
One other point. I tend to see the matchup much more difficult when starting two or more battlegroups.
Observe the Matches sometime. Regardless of the Ally Rating, pay attention to the APR. The War Rating is almost always close. You'll see what I mean.
the matching is unfair, i am in a newly formed 9 mil alliance with an alliance prestige or 4,800
were currently in tier 14 as we started in tier 20 with no war rating, at the start of every war we find ourselves analogising to the opposition as we get as little as 500k alliance, how is that fair on them?
Kabam needs to develop a system that accounts for alliance rating, war rating, prestige, and individual player effectiveness and round that up into a a single variable that is then used to determine matchmaking, but at the same time needs to keep the entire community in the dark on how this number is created that way some jerk does not figure out a way to abuse it.
Kabam needs to develop a system that accounts for alliance rating, war rating, prestige, and individual player effectiveness and round that up into a a single variable that is then used to determine matchmaking, but at the same time needs to keep the entire community in the dark on how this number is created that way some jerk does not figure out a way to abuse it.
Alliance number 4 will complain mismatch. Alliance 6 has very high AMR so the low WR suggest a rebuilding.
The question will be how wide is the band in one Tier.
You also have to factor in what is available when the system is Matchmaking. If there is nothing close to your APR, it goes with the closest WR searching at that time.
Not quite. Currently, you find a match first before you do placement. For those that run 1 or 2 BGs, we could still end up with a mismatch when one alliance's top players are playing, while the other alliance's weaker players are playing.
What Kabam should do is do the matching *after* the alliance have chosen how many BGs to play and who are the players playing. Then we know that those playing are truly being matched more evenly. This will also allow each alliance to choose the champs they like to bring in without worrying that they end up disadvantaging the alliance. For example, some players may be stuck in LoL or RoL with their strongest champs, so using weaker champs won't cause the alliance to lose the war. Also remember the time when there were alliances looking to only place 2* in AW? There was the fear that after one alliance has placed 2* champs, the other alliance then place 4* champs. If you do the matchup after placement, you won't have a mismatch of strength.
basing exclusively on war rating is not a fair way, and it is easily proven with an easy example:
first, i go to school, talk to 30 kids that have never touched a phone before, much less played the game, convince them to play and make an alliance.
second, i talk to the 30 best players in the whole game. players with endgame accounts and thousands of war victories, convince them to leave their alliances and have them form a new alliance.
in both cases, i convinced 30 people to make a new alliance. a brand new alliance with no war history, therefore both have the same rating. both alliances start at 0 wins, 0 losses. same rating.
both alliances happen to look for a war at the same time. now tell me, can you really say it is fair for these two alliances to get matched against the other, exclusively because they have the same war rating?
But it IS fair in that case. The thing about war rating is this: the longer it runs, the more balanced the matches will be. You will not always find you come up against an even opponent in ANY kind of contest.
But it IS fair in that case. The thing about war rating is this: the longer it runs, the more balanced the matches will be. You will not always find you come up against an even opponent in ANY kind of contest.
There is a tier system which gives expectation of similar match-up, until a jump up to next tier.
it is not about winning or losing, it is about how lopsided the fight is
Except that at the end of the day it is about winning or losing. Anyone who is trying to argue for different AW matchmaking either has a short-sided view, or was not around for the start of AW.
I've been here since AW conception. My alliance was chosen for the first wave of beta testers. I've seen all the evolutions of the matchmaking system.
What you guys want was the system they had in place from the beginning but I'm telling you there were major flaws with that system.
Okay guys, we probably let this thread go on longer than we should have, and it's time to shut it down.
To the OP: We're sorry that you were presented with a hard matchup, but the reason for the matchmaking system to be based on War Rating is a simple one: It's the only one that adjusts based on your Alliance's performance. As you win Wars, you rise up the ranks, as you lose them, you start to fall down the ranks.
As you win or lose matches, you start to settle into a place that is more comfortable for your Alliance. There will be occasional matches like this, but the more matches that more alliances have, the less and less this will happen.
You're going to win some, but you're also going to lose some. This is the nature of performance based rankings and metrics.
Comments
You assign a new rating, calculated based on win points and prestige. Or you assign zero rating, but match algorithm takes prestige (or something similar) into account, so that those two alliances do not match-up, rather they do with opponents of similar strength.
Technically, yes. The goal of the current system is not to ensure that every single match up is between exactly equal strength alliances, because that's an impossible goal to achieve anyway. The goal appears to be to give alliances that lose weaker match ups and alliances that win stronger ones. This is considered "fair" because it satisfies an important long-term goal: alliances cannot be consistently matched up against opponents too strong for them to beat.
In any system where the computer *presumes* the strength of the alliance based on anything other than win/loss record, it is always theoretically possible for the system to guess wrong. In that case, it is possible for an alliance's strength to be presumed to be higher than it actually is, and to then be matched up against opponents they cannot beat, indefinitely. In the current system, it is essentially impossible for this to happen. The more you lose, the weaker your opponents will get. You will win eventually, and the *average* strength of your opponents should eventually approach your true strength.
This creates a second variable and I do support it, perhaps 3 or 4 or more variables has to be taken into account instead.
Say an endgame player leaves an alliance, start anew and gathered 19 players; all 19 at level 25 and none has max 3* (the end game player has more than 8 5* awakened max champs).
The opponent has 30 players, with members all at level 40 but none with champs higher than 4* rank 3.
Both has similar average prestige and war rating.
Fair match-up?
(I do understand I used a rather improbable example but I am also curious to find there are alliance with much weaker rating but very high war rating).
So there need to be more constructive ideas.
That's a misnomer. While they avoid fighting each other, the system will still Match someone with a similar Rating. Which means they have every possibility of losing.
I need a visual.
War Rating determines War Tier.
So it is the first determinant (
Next average player rating or alliance rating?
Think of it this way. The system tries to find a Match with similar Average Player Rating and War Rating. The War Rating is the default. Therefore it comes first. Second is APR, and if nothing similar is present, it goes on WR alone.
yes but they can only match with what they have and many times ive had a war against mmxiv and got totally stuffed, so no it does work in there favour.
That may be your experience, but theoretically anyone could Match with them and beat them if they win. Mind you, I also agree that its shady because they're occupying multiple spots and creating a monopoly. However, if an Ally has the ability to beat them who is not in that pact, they can still lose. I'm not aware of any specific Allies doing so, so I'm not directing that at anyone. Nor are they breaking any existing rules. I just think it's monopolizing. Until someone comes along that beats them, that is.
they do lose as ive seen it happen but they are stacking the odds in there favour, lets say for instance the top 20 cant fight each other so you get the number 1 seed playing the team ranked 21.
if it didnt work in there favour they wouldnt do it, they know how to play the system and get away with it
I've said for quite some time that the War System needs a revamp. I love the idea of Seasons. Every Season, your War Rating is wiped. Then you build up again. It could introduce War Events, Titles, etc. Every Season, Allies would grow more and do better next Season.
If this holds true, then the range will be so wide. The posts created which highlights the mismatch does not look like these criteria are in place.
One other point. I tend to see the matchup much more difficult when starting two or more battlegroups.
Observe the Matches sometime. Regardless of the Ally Rating, pay attention to the APR. The War Rating is almost always close. You'll see what I mean.
were currently in tier 14 as we started in tier 20 with no war rating, at the start of every war we find ourselves analogising to the opposition as we get as little as 500k alliance, how is that fair on them?
Will go analyse the War history. Hope to report back.
Here are the stats. on last six matches.
WR AR AMR
0/ 842 1.7 ? <-- my alliance
1/ 816 2.2 76
2/ 902 1.6 55
3/ 869 1.6 54
4/ 618 0.5 44
5/ 857 2.6 89
6/ 791 1.5 107
Alliance number 4 will complain mismatch. Alliance 6 has very high AMR so the low WR suggest a rebuilding.
The question will be how wide is the band in one Tier.
War Rating x Alliance Prestige. Done.
You also have to factor in what is available when the system is Matchmaking. If there is nothing close to your APR, it goes with the closest WR searching at that time.
Not quite. Currently, you find a match first before you do placement. For those that run 1 or 2 BGs, we could still end up with a mismatch when one alliance's top players are playing, while the other alliance's weaker players are playing.
What Kabam should do is do the matching *after* the alliance have chosen how many BGs to play and who are the players playing. Then we know that those playing are truly being matched more evenly. This will also allow each alliance to choose the champs they like to bring in without worrying that they end up disadvantaging the alliance. For example, some players may be stuck in LoL or RoL with their strongest champs, so using weaker champs won't cause the alliance to lose the war. Also remember the time when there were alliances looking to only place 2* in AW? There was the fear that after one alliance has placed 2* champs, the other alliance then place 4* champs. If you do the matchup after placement, you won't have a mismatch of strength.
But it IS fair in that case. The thing about war rating is this: the longer it runs, the more balanced the matches will be. You will not always find you come up against an even opponent in ANY kind of contest.
There is a tier system which gives expectation of similar match-up, until a jump up to next tier.
Except that at the end of the day it is about winning or losing. Anyone who is trying to argue for different AW matchmaking either has a short-sided view, or was not around for the start of AW.
I've been here since AW conception. My alliance was chosen for the first wave of beta testers. I've seen all the evolutions of the matchmaking system.
What you guys want was the system they had in place from the beginning but I'm telling you there were major flaws with that system.
To the OP: We're sorry that you were presented with a hard matchup, but the reason for the matchmaking system to be based on War Rating is a simple one: It's the only one that adjusts based on your Alliance's performance. As you win Wars, you rise up the ranks, as you lose them, you start to fall down the ranks.
As you win or lose matches, you start to settle into a place that is more comfortable for your Alliance. There will be occasional matches like this, but the more matches that more alliances have, the less and less this will happen.
You're going to win some, but you're also going to lose some. This is the nature of performance based rankings and metrics.