End of war matchmaking issue - Platinum 2/3 against top 5 for last war

13»

Comments

  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,609 Guardian
    I've brought up before an idea that is gaining traction as the way to go, an opt-in opt-out button that could allow a window of when alliances want to start an alliance war. It would resolve the matchmaking issue that the OP started this thread for.

    Taking match making control away from the alliances is the only way to eliminate the problem. But this is more complicated than it appears to be, unless you are willing to take away some of the other properties the match system currently has, like deciding when to start the attack phase relative to player schedules (which, granted, AQ mostly does as well if you want to go all five days).
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I've brought up before an idea that is gaining traction as the way to go, an opt-in opt-out button that could allow a window of when alliances want to start an alliance war. It would resolve the matchmaking issue that the OP started this thread for.

    Taking match making control away from the alliances is the only way to eliminate the problem. But this is more complicated than it appears to be, unless you are willing to take away some of the other properties the match system currently has, like deciding when to start the attack phase relative to player schedules (which, granted, AQ mostly does as well if you want to go all five days).

    The possibility for abuse outweigh the minimal benefits of controlling your matchmaking. With seasons, most alliances should be playing 3 wars a week. In order to get 3 wars a week, you have to start matchmaking within a few hours of it opening already. Not even oversea alliances can wait to start matchmaking at the time most convenient to them, because the risk of missing out your 3rd war is too great. Alliance War also has significantly less fights/nodes/time to manage than Alliance Quest, which you mentioned starts at the same time every day and oversea alliances manage that fine. There really aren't any other benefits to controlling your own matchmaking time - seasons took that away.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,609 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I've brought up before an idea that is gaining traction as the way to go, an opt-in opt-out button that could allow a window of when alliances want to start an alliance war. It would resolve the matchmaking issue that the OP started this thread for.

    Taking match making control away from the alliances is the only way to eliminate the problem. But this is more complicated than it appears to be, unless you are willing to take away some of the other properties the match system currently has, like deciding when to start the attack phase relative to player schedules (which, granted, AQ mostly does as well if you want to go all five days).

    The possibility for abuse outweigh the minimal benefits of controlling your matchmaking.

    Perhaps, but I'm not quite as certain as you that a lot of alliances wouldn't feel like Kabam was taking an option away from them and giving them back exactly nothing. Because in reality, that is exactly what we'd be doing. The vast overwhelming majority of alliances would get no benefit from this change to match making. It only neutralizes a problem that less than 1% of alliances can ever really experience. It might be a very important problem to solve, but we'd be asking players that have nothing to do with the problem to shoulder all of the burden of solving it. Because as you say, for the top alliances this isn't a big deal because they can't really fiddle with their start times too much now, or risk losing the third war. But everyone else can, because they aren't at risk of highly delayed matches.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 5,074 ★★★★★
    What utter garbage. You guys will get knocked out of Plat 2 with an impossible match and they get an easy fight to stay in top 3. Working as intended?
  • My guess is they dropped down because of piloting and you got ****. That known aspect in general has been interesting to watch.
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I've brought up before an idea that is gaining traction as the way to go, an opt-in opt-out button that could allow a window of when alliances want to start an alliance war. It would resolve the matchmaking issue that the OP started this thread for.

    Taking match making control away from the alliances is the only way to eliminate the problem. But this is more complicated than it appears to be, unless you are willing to take away some of the other properties the match system currently has, like deciding when to start the attack phase relative to player schedules (which, granted, AQ mostly does as well if you want to go all five days).

    The possibility for abuse outweigh the minimal benefits of controlling your matchmaking.

    Perhaps, but I'm not quite as certain as you that a lot of alliances wouldn't feel like Kabam was taking an option away from them and giving them back exactly nothing. Because in reality, that is exactly what we'd be doing. The vast overwhelming majority of alliances would get no benefit from this change to match making. It only neutralizes a problem that less than 1% of alliances can ever really experience. It might be a very important problem to solve, but we'd be asking players that have nothing to do with the problem to shoulder all of the burden of solving it. Because as you say, for the top alliances this isn't a big deal because they can't really fiddle with their start times too much now, or risk losing the third war. But everyone else can, because they aren't at risk of highly delayed matches.

    All alliances can't fiddle much with their matchmaking because of the time matchmaking closes on Sundays. If they want to run less than 3 wars a week, that option is still available to them in an opt-in / opt-out system. The biggest benefit the average alliance will see is more fair matches and less overwhelming mismatches. With all alliances in the pool, Kabam's algorithm can match everyone more closely in rating and avoid situations like this whole thread is about, where a less than top tier alliance on the verge of a bracket change faces a practically unwinnable war. Judging by the amount of posts seen here about how unfair it is that their alliance was searching for 3+ hours and found no match justifies that it's not just the top alliances that have to worry about matchmaking times.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,472 ★★★★★
    edited June 2018
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I've brought up before an idea that is gaining traction as the way to go, an opt-in opt-out button that could allow a window of when alliances want to start an alliance war. It would resolve the matchmaking issue that the OP started this thread for.

    Taking match making control away from the alliances is the only way to eliminate the problem. But this is more complicated than it appears to be, unless you are willing to take away some of the other properties the match system currently has, like deciding when to start the attack phase relative to player schedules (which, granted, AQ mostly does as well if you want to go all five days).

    Curious how that would work. It could be possible to create a randomizer that doesn't queue chronologically and Match, but there would have to be parameters (War Rating), and that would result in the same problem because after a certain point, there are only so many Matches. It could be totally random, a type of War Lottery where Allies submit and are drawn into Matches randomly, but I fear that would be more problematic. I mean, if they wanted to go that route, there could be options, but I tend to agree with your comments about it being perceived as taking something away.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,472 ★★★★★
    Short of forcing Allies to Match within their Tier alone, there's not much feasibly that I could come up with at the moment for averting arrangements of when to Match and who you want to avoid.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 5,074 ★★★★★
    My guess is they dropped down because of piloting and you got ****. That known aspect in general has been interesting to watch.

    Nope. They are #3 right now.
  • Vinitlalka1988Vinitlalka1988 Posts: 246
    Come on guys...Lets cut them some slack...they might not be wat they seem...but they r humans...let Kabam decide whether they cheated or not before passing the judgement just because they r a top ally & it feels good to bash themmm...If they wrong they will be punished...

    I do feel for you guys for having a bad match....but take it in the stride and enjoy....Isnt that supposed to be the first goal...Have a fun chat with them in War group..Enjoy & move on peeps...

    Life throw lemons at u..make a lemon juice...
  • VoluntarisVoluntaris Posts: 1,133 ★★★
    Sometimes you get good matchups, sometimes you don't.

    However, removing the ability to choose your AW matchmaking start time would be awful for scheduling.
  • GabbrosGabbros Posts: 157
    edited June 2018
    AW map only takes 12 hrs or so to clear the whole map while you are given 24 hrs. All they needed to do was search an hr or two earlier by pushing one button. Work or not, dont matter. Lesson learned. Dont do things last minute!
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    Gabbros wrote: »
    AW map only takes 12 hrs or so to clear the whole map while you are given 24 hrs. All they needed to do was search an hr or two earlier by pushing one button. Work or not, dont matter. Lesson learned. Dont do things last minute!

    Ya, ur right. What were we thinking having our own lives and schedules to manage.

    We should have dropped everything last week and made sure all 30 of us quit our jobs. This was obviously going to happen. A 800 rating differential was clear as day........

    Believe it or not, but people have lives and when 99.9% of the time everything works right you expect the same on the most important war of the season.

    My ideas to fix this:
    1) opt-in/opt-out where you have to select a time range you want to have your war start.
    2) a playoff system where the last two weeks the top 10-20 in every bracket HAVE to play each other.
    3) something along the lines of #2 maybe make the points a bit more for winning a “ranked” match
    4) steal underpants
    5) profit
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    Voluntaris wrote: »
    Sometimes you get good matchups, sometimes you don't.

    However, removing the ability to choose your AW matchmaking start time would be awful for scheduling.

    I agree for the most part however this isn’t just a bad matchup....I don’t think there has ever been a point differential this bad ever. If someone can prove me wrong (during a season where these good/bad matches actually matter) please do....

    All of the top guys should be foaming to fight each other to really see who is the best....but sadly it seems like some (not all) do the exact opposite and try their best to avoid top tier fights.

    Congratulations to those who duck and dodge most if not the whole season on being the best at beating groups weaker than you....true testament of your skill.
  • GabbrosGabbros Posts: 157
    edited June 2018
    you make it sound so extreme that searching an hour earlier is so difficult. Nothing works certain when all is based on chance+ most here on forum have known that searching the last 3 hours may miss your match. Few have posted several times of the risks.

    I like the idea of mini playoff at end of season. But, these top20 prob should get extra rewards...which would lengthen the gap between those who got into playoff vs those who didnt. Not sure if people will be happy about that since many have the goal to climb up the ranks.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    Gabbros wrote: »
    you make it sound so extreme that searching an hour earlier is so difficult. Nothing works certain + most here on forum have known that searching the last 3 hours may miss your match. Few have posted several times of the risks.

    I like the idea of mini playoff at end of season. But, these top20 prob should get extra rewards...which would lengthen the gap between those who got into playoff vs those who didnt. Not sure if people will be happy about that since many have the goal to climb up the ranks.

    Valid concern but the answer to that is make the playoffs and not rely ok getting lucky via a terrible match making system.

    Beating teams way under you shouldn’t give you the same season points. Same way that you shouldn’t get a lot of rating, which is in place now.

  • GabbrosGabbros Posts: 157
    edited June 2018
    I
    Greywarden wrote: »

    Valid concern but the answer to that is make the playoffs and not rely ok getting lucky via a terrible match making system.

    Beating teams way under you shouldn’t give you the same season points. Same way that you shouldn’t get a lot of rating, which is in place now.
    I would agree with you only if it was possible to happen on normal match making conditions. In this case, it aint normal since u guys only matched them because none in tier1 and tier2 were searching at the time. If someone in tier2 was indeed searching, ud b matched with them and tier1 guys search would continue until another jumps in the queue.

    Lets face it: if u were matched vs an alliance in tier3, u wouldnt be here. All aw matches should b equally valuable. Coulda made better efforts to win before. You had the means and choices to take the safer smarter route.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    Gabbros wrote: »
    I
    Greywarden wrote: »

    Valid concern but the answer to that is make the playoffs and not rely ok getting lucky via a terrible match making system.

    Beating teams way under you shouldn’t give you the same season points. Same way that you shouldn’t get a lot of rating, which is in place now.
    I would agree with you only if it was possible to happen on normal match making conditions. In this case, it aint normal since u guys only matched them because none in tier1 and tier2 were searching at the time. If someone in tier2 was indeed searching, ud b matched with them and tier1 guys search would continue until another jumps in the queue.

    Lets face it: if u were matched vs an alliance in tier3, u wouldnt be here. All aw matches should b equally valuable. Coulda made better efforts to win before. You had the means and choices to take the safer smarter route.

    what safe route would that have been? Searching 4 hours earlier than our normal time where nobody would be able to jump in until 6-7 hours later and maybe not finish? As is, with our schedules we almost always finish with an hour or so left to go.....

    If we have to face anything it's that this match making system is terrible and if anybody should be as pissed as us it should be 4th place that now has no shot at 3rd....

    you can make all wars the same value per tier/bracket but something needs to be done about some of the top 10-20 conveniently never playing each other. It's obvious collusion and not as bad as piloting but a strong contender for the second worst thing you can do.

    Kabam wants to talk about the competitive spirit of seasons,.....what competitive spirit is there when groups are intentionally avoiding each other to get easier match-ups. Not only that but then they get rewarded with top tier rewards to further increase the gap which only allows them to further dominate the weaker groups that they're trying to match up against.

    What honor is there in being top 3 if you only faced a top 10 once or twice all season. Hell, we face a top 5 more than they do!
  • GabbrosGabbros Posts: 157
    From what i have heard most top10 guys did not play each other much during the whole season. Mayb once or twice or 3 at most? So, i can agree that the current top dont mean they walked vs each other often. They did however win most or all their wars, so do deserve the top position.

    I think you are mixing up the definition of collusion vs strategy. Colluding should involve 2 or more party attempting to manipulate or exploit the system.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    war is going great by the way is anybody was curious.

    Really astounding match making for the last and most important war of the season for A LOT of alliances.
  • mum_m2mum_m2 Posts: 1,708 ★★★
    MNG who is barely in the lead right now, has an 18 million alliance rating and just took out last season's champion a war or two ago. Original posters' alliance is a 16. I'm happy you got matched up with them honestly. and i hope you beat them as well. any time any where you gotta be ready for the best.

    People who were always complaining in the past about unfair matchmaking got us this **** system that we are in right now; where we only play against alliances that are close to our rating and war rating. It's quite stupid honestly, and I wish we would go back to the previous system of just basing it off War Rating.

    So this brings me back to the old style of matchmaking.
  • INTEGRALINTEGRAL Posts: 750 ★★★
    It is very unfair! Kabam ruined your season
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,609 Guardian
    mum_m2 wrote: »
    People who were always complaining in the past about unfair matchmaking got us this **** system that we are in right now; where we only play against alliances that are close to our rating and war rating. It's quite stupid honestly, and I wish we would go back to the previous system of just basing it off War Rating.

    The players who complained about this honestly didn't know, and most probably still don't know, that they were asking for something dumb: explanations why seemed to not matter. But what I originally suggested was a theoretical problem with matching against alliance rating pre-season one is something other players have demonstrated beyond any doubt is a real problem with this kind of match system in both seasons, and in more ways than I originally suspected. I hope Kabam takes note of it and changes it, even though it is likely that changing it back will cause an endless stream of people complaining about it because they don't understand the mathematics of it.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    mum_m2 wrote: »
    MNG who is barely in the lead right now, has an 18 million alliance rating and just took out last season's champion a war or two ago. Original posters' alliance is a 16. I'm happy you got matched up with them honestly. and i hope you beat them as well. any time any where you gotta be ready for the best.

    People who were always complaining in the past about unfair matchmaking got us this **** system that we are in right now; where we only play against alliances that are close to our rating and war rating. It's quite stupid honestly, and I wish we would go back to the previous system of just basing it off War Rating.

    So this brings me back to the old style of matchmaking.

    I don't think MMXIV who are 3300+ and us 2600 rating are anywhere near each other in rating......we got expertly shafted. They get to enjoy their top 3 rewards and we lose platinum 2.

    If we went up against another group in p2 or 3 and lost at least we would have had a chance going in but literally having zero chance is pretty demoralizing. We didn't boost and used whatever little items we could just to get the 100% because we knew there was no point.
  • GabbrosGabbros Posts: 157
    mum_m2 wrote: »
    MNG who is barely in the lead right now, has an 18 million alliance rating and just took out last season's champion a war or two ago. Original posters' alliance is a 16. I'm happy you got matched up with them honestly. and i hope you beat them as well. any time any where you gotta be ready for the best.

    People who were always complaining in the past about unfair matchmaking got us this **** system that we are in right now; where we only play against alliances that are close to our rating and war rating. It's quite stupid honestly, and I wish we would go back to the previous system of just basing it off War Rating.

    So this brings me back to the old style of matchmaking.
    Another cheating alliance with iiiiiiiiiiiiii names.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 538 ★★★
    I’ve been in a few alliances & 1 thing I’ve seen that’s universal is the idea that later searches = easier wars. They may have searched late to try and get a favorable match up which if we’re honest we all would prefer but you did as well. Stop whining cause it didn’t work out for you this time. If you had a similar match up in reverse we wouldn’t have heard a peep.

    Is it that hard to believe that we have to search late due to our time zones? We literally finish every war with like 30 minutes, maybe an hour to go tops.

    First war we searched our normal time, second war took almost an hour which pushes back the 3rd war search time. 3rd war took over an hour.

    And as an fyi, literally every single war we've had this season we've had the lower war rating save for one where we had a +20 rating, obviously not a 800 point differential like this but thought you'd like to know that.
  • MaidrilMaidril Posts: 289
    AW doesn’t have enough moves for you to need all 24 hours to complete. If it’s really taking you that long, you must have a lot of dead weight that can be loss.
Sign In or Register to comment.