Alliance War Matchmaking unfair [Merged Threads]

WHOz_R4GE · April 2020

Our AW this round appears prestige based as well. 15 point difference in prestige. They are 140 spots lower in season rank and one bracket down. Did Kabam switch matching for 2 AWs just to fix masters and then change it back?

Worknprogress · April 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
In the Arena, if someone with 800k Rating wins the Champ and someone with 1.5 Mil doesn't, you think that's unfair too?

No bc they're getting the same amount of points per fight per difficulty as everyone else in the arena. That's not how war works though.

GroundedWisdom · April 2020

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:
In the Arena, if someone with 800k Rating wins the Champ and someone with 1.5 Mil doesn't, you think that's unfair too?
No bc they're getting the same amount of points per fight per difficulty as everyone else in the arena. That's not how war works though.

It's not? People with a 30 Mil Rating getting more Points than those with less Rating in the same Tiers? I must have missed something in the scoring. Oh wait, they are getting the same amount of Points.

GOTG · April 2020

WHOz_R4GE said:
Our AW this round appears prestige based as well. 15 point difference in prestige. They are 140 spots lower in season rank and one bracket down. Did Kabam switch matching for 2 AWs just to fix masters and then change it back?

I hate it if they changed it again.

hungryhungrybbq · April 2020

Of course it's absurd. We've spent enough time and energy trying to explain to people that what's occuring now is a long overdue rebalancing of a skewed system. Just the sheer number of complaints in this thread are an illustration of how skewed the system actually was with prestige based matching.

And no, arena is a very poor comparison. You're reaching with that. War is a competitive game mode. Based on your ability to win tough fights against other alliances. Arena is about doing a repetitive action over an over. More over, to suggest that the only thing that separates higher prestige alliances and lower prestige alliances is roster size or strength is quite insulting actually. Older, stronger alliances are more experienced..cause they've played for longer and paid their dues already. They've all been where the smaller alliances are now, in the past. And they had to put in the time to grow their rosters, develope their skill and learn everything they've learned about the game over years of playing. So no, smaller alliances should not be shielded from competing with larger more experienced alliances if in fact they are competing for the same rewards (which are even more valuable for them relative to their progression).
A race is a race, for example. They don't have separate categories within the same race do they?
"Ok, guys.. in lanes 1-3 we have runners who are overweight, over 40 and have never trained before in their life..
In lanes 4-6 we have runners who have trained for years and are under 25.. "
No, the winner is the one who crosses the finish line first. Second place is the one who crosses second..and so on. There are no closed groups or categories within the same race. War seasons is a single race. There should be no closed groups or categories of winners. Especially when it's a ranking system. You can literally steal someone's rank without ever even being in danger of competing directly with them.

And now I hate myself for engaging:)

GroundedWisdom said:
It's not absurd at all. It's looking at performance and not ego-based lineage.

hungryhungrybbq · April 2020

And yeah, just for anyone collecting data. We have also matched with someone of similar prestige this war as well. Hopefully it's a coincidence. I looked around within our position on the leaderboard and it's still a mixed bag. Some with half our rating/prestige are still above us in war rating, but there are also similar prestige alliances close to us in war rating as well. It may just be coincidence.

GOTG said:

WHOz_R4GE said:
Our AW this round appears prestige based as well. 15 point difference in prestige. They are 140 spots lower in season rank and one bracket down. Did Kabam switch matching for 2 AWs just to fix masters and then change it back?
I hate it if they changed it again.

Thecurler · April 2020

hungryhungrybbq said:
And yeah, just for anyone collecting data. We have also matched with someone of similar prestige this war as well. Hopefully it's a coincidence. I looked around within our position on the leaderboard and it's still a mixed bag. Some with half our rating/prestige are still above us in war rating, but there are also similar prestige alliances close to us in war rating as well. It may just be coincidence.
GOTG said:

WHOz_R4GE said:
Our AW this round appears prestige based as well. 15 point difference in prestige. They are 140 spots lower in season rank and one bracket down. Did Kabam switch matching for 2 AWs just to fix masters and then change it back?
I hate it if they changed it again.

Same. We're very close on war rating and prestige in latest war.

synergy247 · April 2020

synergy247 · April 2020

We’re not close on prestige or war rating. Last war we had match up in our favour where war rating was on par but other ally had many 4* champs in AWD and attack so I think this is what screwed us this war from the massive win.

The war before that was a similar one to this one facing a 38m ally that would be more like a Plat 4 skill/roster level. One discrepancy I can see is that they didn’t do war season last time so maybe there is no base for the calc of matchmaking etc

Mr_Platypus · April 2020

Mercury79 said:

Mr_Platypus said:

DL864 said:
Man this is deja-vu. When aw first started long before seasons prestige was used and the same thing happened you had ally's that were in tier one and getting those rewards that didnt belong there. So kabam started basing fights on war rating and guess what? What we are seeing this week is what we saw years ago mismatches bad ones. It will straighten it self out and ally's will fall back where they are supposed to be. For those of you that benefited from this broke system good for you guys and be happy with those rewards you got trust me I was in an ally the first time that knew we shouldn't be getting the rewards we were getting at the time. We were grateful and took the L's until we settled where we should have been to begin with.

Mercury79 said:

Kabam Miike said:
Alliance Wars are not solely based on any one factor, but you will be matched with Alliances near your War Rating. This is a performance-based rating that changes with your Alliance's wins and losses. Alliance Rating can be manipulated, so is not a good matchmaking comparison.

We are continuing to work to improve our matchmaking parameters with every Season and even in between. Some Wars will be more difficult than others, but if you want to climb to the top, you're going to have to earn your spot!
Yeah but in my case we have huge diffrence we are 7m and they are 27m and we have 100 pts diffrence in alliance rating there are 1000_2000 alliance are between our raring

Looks fine to me, war rating is pretty similar.
You shouldn’t be at 1800 war rating anyways so just accept that you’ve benefitted from a broken system for far too long.
We were winning every single war match with exploring we use revives and hardwork and maintain that rating we grow at the bigning...lol it's not the luck or something we are winning by hardwork

You were winning because the broken matchmaking of past seasons allowed your alliance to play against other weaker alliances whilst earning the same rewards as the alliance you’re facing now. So if you genuinely think you deserve your 1800 war rating then you’ll have no problem facing an opponent at that war rating that is also competing for the same rewards.

Mr_Platypus · April 2020

synergy247 said:

Finally, someone that can genuinely complain about their matchup.

lowlevelplayer · April 2020

Guys, I figured out the solution
If you're not happy with it, join an AQ only alliance. Or click on the link https://youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ to watch my video on a good solution

Worknprogress · April 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:
In the Arena, if someone with 800k Rating wins the Champ and someone with 1.5 Mil doesn't, you think that's unfair too?
No bc they're getting the same amount of points per fight per difficulty as everyone else in the arena. That's not how war works though.
It's not? People with a 30 Mil Rating getting more Points than those with less Rating in the same Tiers? I must have missed something in the scoring. Oh wait, they are getting the same amount of Points.

We're talking about different tiers. That's like if those with large rosters got matched against nothing but death teams while those with smaller roster got normal matches in arena and yet got the same points per fight.

Then when those alliances that are not that strong are getting into higher tiers, they're absolutely getting more points per fight than everyone else at their strength level bc they now have a higher multiplier.

synergy247 · April 2020

One

Mr_Platypus said:

synergy247 said:

Finally, someone that can genuinely complain about their matchup.

Yep. Also I realised this opponent hasn’t got a ranking this season as they may only have entered it late ie missed first two wars and hadn’t done 3 minimum to get ranking updated

Evolve · April 2020

Das_gi said:

Evolve said:
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).

My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.

What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.

I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.

For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.

Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them.
I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with

No, THAT is not what I said...AT ALL! The basis for my response is that these changes to matching should have been done in the offseason and not midway through the season. Additionally, I NEVER brought up "alliance rating" as even a viable statistic by which to match. I SAID use a combination of War Rating and the alliance's PRESTIGE RATING, which is the only TRUE gauge of an alliance's strength. So, if they match on both War Rating AND Prestige Rating, that's a fair matchup. Heck, even matching on just PRESTIGE RATING is a fair matchup. Looks like you pretty much just talked about alliance ratings (the old way they matched) and obviously did not read my response but took the time to respond something that still made no sense to me.

xNig · April 2020

Prestige ratings? Lol.

That’s the measure that will ensure war matching is as screwed up as it is now.

Onmix · April 2020

Evolve said:

Das_gi said:

Evolve said:
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).

My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.

What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.

I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.

For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.

Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them.
I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
No, THAT is not what I said...AT ALL! The basis for my response is that these changes to matching should have been done in the offseason and not midway through the season. Additionally, I NEVER brought up "alliance rating" as even a viable statistic by which to match. I SAID use a combination of War Rating and the alliance's PRESTIGE RATING, which is the only TRUE gauge of an alliance's strength. So, if they match on both War Rating AND Prestige Rating, that's a fair matchup. Heck, even matching on just PRESTIGE RATING is a fair matchup. Looks like you pretty much just talked about alliance ratings (the old way they matched) and obviously did not read my response but took the time to respond something that still made no sense to me.

That’s how it is right now and it’s clear it doesn’t work...
Prestige has nothing to do with war. Only War Rating should be used.

synergy247 · April 2020

My alliance isn’t even close on war rating OR prestige so how does that work exactly... lol

xNig · April 2020

synergy247 said:
My alliance isn’t even close on war rating OR prestige so how does that work exactly... lol

Simple. Non 3BG wars.

xNig · April 2020

Pretty obvious from the past 2 Season ranks + Tier that you guys do 2 BG wars, which limits the pool and hence a bigger disparity in matchups.

GroundedWisdom · April 2020

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:
In the Arena, if someone with 800k Rating wins the Champ and someone with 1.5 Mil doesn't, you think that's unfair too?
No bc they're getting the same amount of points per fight per difficulty as everyone else in the arena. That's not how war works though.
It's not? People with a 30 Mil Rating getting more Points than those with less Rating in the same Tiers? I must have missed something in the scoring. Oh wait, they are getting the same amount of Points.
We're talking about different tiers. That's like if those with large rosters got matched against nothing but death teams while those with smaller roster got normal matches in arena and yet got the same points per fight.

Then when those alliances that are not that strong are getting into higher tiers, they're absolutely getting more points per fight than everyone else at their strength level bc they now have a higher multiplier.

No. We're talking about a system that awards the same amount of Points for each Tier respectively. Within that, there's a finite amount of Points you can earn, and it's the same whether the Alliance is 30 Mil or 10 Mil. With Matches that are relatively within range, both the 30 Mil and 10 Mil are fighting the same difficulty. You can't say they're fighting easier Matches because you're judging it based on your own firepower. No matter how many times I keep making that point, it doesn't get across. They're fighting easier Matches FOR YOU because you have what you have, and they have what they have. The War Leaderboard is essentially an Arena Leaderboard. You're not fighting out all the strongest Allies to the top. You're edging your way up with the Points you earn in your own Wars. Who you didn't come up against has zero bearing on where you Rank. It's a bygone mentality. You're fighting for Points. Not to beat out consecutive Allies on the board.

GroundedWisdom · April 2020

If an Alliance is 3 times the size at Rank 3 than the Alliance at Rank 2, that's because the second put up more Points. Not because they didn't Match them.

Rougeknight87 · April 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
If an Alliance is 3 times the size at Rank 3 than the Alliance at Rank 2, that's because the second put up more Points. Not because they didn't Match them.

Yeah the second put up more points by playing in a completely different bracket lol.
If the rank 2 alliance is really the rank 2 alliance they should have no complaints in facing the rank 3 alliance for season rewards.
What you want is different sets of rules for different alliances yet have everyone compete in the same system.
Ridiculous.

Rougeknight87 · April 2020

Take English soccer or any national soccer competition with relegation and promotion in place.
If the top team in tier 3 won 26 out of 30 matches for a season and the top team in tier one only won 25/30 does that mean the tier team 3 should be crowned champions of the country?
All the matches are worth the same points, that’s what your suggesting should happen.

hungryhungrybbq · April 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
If an Alliance is 3 times the size at Rank 3 than the Alliance at Rank 2, that's because the second put up more Points. Not because they didn't Match them.

Can't argue with that logic.. (sarcasm) I'm out.. good luck guys:)

GroundedWisdom · April 2020

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Tiers award the same Multipliers for everyone. At the end of the day, it's a Points tally. Those Points are awarded based on the Wars you fight. Not based on how much bigger you are than the Allies adjacent.

Rougeknight87 · April 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Tiers award the same Multipliers for everyone. At the end of the day, it's a Points tally. Those Points are awarded based on the Wars you fight. Not based on how much bigger you are than the Allies adjacent.

It is what your saying. I said that in my previous post. 3 points is 3 points whether you win them in division1 or division 3. The multipliers that lower alliance is receiving is a direct result of playing only alliances of the same prestige and level.

At the end of the day it’s a competition. If an alliance wants plat 3 or master rewards or any tier for that matter then they should have no complaints about facing any other alliance in the same tier and on the same amount of points.

That’s what competition is about, you want to be the best then you have to beat the best.

Rougeknight87 · April 2020

How can anyone argue that’s it’s unfair for an alliance to face another because it’s an uneven matchup yet in the same breath argue the case for them receiving the exact same rewards as the alliance that they were not In the same league as in the first place? 😂

Unreal

Shadowdemon · April 2020

I agree there is a matchmaking issue Kabam is looking for ideas on how to fix it and make it better. If you have ideas on this follow my posting on recommendation section

ShadowDemon

synergy247 · April 2020

xNig said:
Pretty obvious from the past 2 Season ranks + Tier that you guys do 2 BG wars, which limits the pool and hence a bigger disparity in matchups.

Yeah we do two BG wars. Usually though if a suitable opponent can’t be found - and let’s face it neither of us are - you get a bye. Not this season though it seems and I don’t think we have ever had one

Alliance War Matchmaking unfair [Merged Threads]

Comments