Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Speeds80 · July 2020

It’s war it’s not bullying to beat the weaker team

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

It is bullying if one side CANNOT win no matter how skilled they are because the system makes it numerically impossible before it's even fought.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

But please continue to try and sell me of the trials of being entitled to knock people down.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Skill has nothing to do with a Match that's literally over before it starts.

Stingerbk · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
It is bullying if one side CANNOT win no matter how skilled they are because the system makes it numerically impossible before it's even fought.

If you aren't equipped enough to beat them, don't expect to finish above them, simple.

GinjabredMonsta · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
Skill has nothing to do with a Match that's literally over before it starts.

How would you have made the changes then to make it more fair? Things are going to be rocky for some alliance because things are being balanced out. It may not seem fair and will cause losses, but it is to help fix the system that was previously broken. There's no bullying lower alliances, it is them fighting against their rating which should show their skill

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

GinjabredMonsta said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Skill has nothing to do with a Match that's literally over before it starts.
How would you have made the changes then to make it more fair? Things are going to be rocky for some alliance because things are being balanced out. It may not seem fair and will cause losses, but it is to help fix the system that was previously broken. There's no bullying lower alliances, it is them fighting against their rating which should show their skill

I've already outlined a number of options on how I would habe handled it differently, none of which involved a month's worth of work down the drain when it matters most. Rocky is downplaying it. It's intentionally setting people up to fail for the sake of changing the system.

MJROCKS · July 2020

Stingerbk said:

GroundedWisdom said:
It is bullying if one side CANNOT win no matter how skilled they are because the system makes it numerically impossible before it's even fought.
If you aren't equipped enough to beat them, don't expect to finish above them, simple.

Really? Force 2 unequal alliances into battle and expect the weaker one to win it even when it was fair before? It's like a talented 10-year-old who used to fight other talented10-year-olds is suddenly forced to beat an 18-year-old dude and expected to see it as being "fair". RIP Logic

Worknprogress · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

GinjabredMonsta said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Skill has nothing to do with a Match that's literally over before it starts.
How would you have made the changes then to make it more fair? Things are going to be rocky for some alliance because things are being balanced out. It may not seem fair and will cause losses, but it is to help fix the system that was previously broken. There's no bullying lower alliances, it is them fighting against their rating which should show their skill
I've alrwady outlines a number of options on how I would habe handled it differently, none of which involved a month's worth of work down the drain when it matters most. Rocky is downplaying it. It's intentionally setting people up to fail for the sake of changing the system.

If an alliances rating was so inflated they get lots of mismatches you realize they can basically just tank the season and not even bother attacking until they level out right?

It costs them nothing but time. I know that's what I would do if I was in that situation. It basically just becomes taking a season off war all together which is nothing really. Just spend a few weeks on content instead as you won't have to worry about champs tied up in war

Stingerbk · July 2020

Daphboy said:

A l p h a said:
So the point is for the first couple wars to let some alliances be absolutely bowled over?
Apparently, my group was matched against a 16mil alliance... we are nearly 34mil. I mean, thanks for the easy win, but I do feel bad for the people on the receiving end. I know we wouldn’t be very pleased and totally demoralized if all of the sudden we got thrown up against a master alliance.

Also, holy moly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many people agree with GW.

You are only gonna be facing Ally's with similar war rating which in turn means similar tier.

Aleor · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
Skill has nothing to do with a Match that's literally over before it starts.

Previous wins and losses define your rating. Rating defines your match. Therefore you're wrong.

Worknprogress · July 2020

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be

Tanking and shells more than likely

Demonzfyre · July 2020

ch4rn said:

Demonzfyre said:

ch4rn said:

QuikPik said:

ch4rn said:
Really is unfair. My 36 mil alli got paired with a 9 mil alli. I feel bad for them
And that 9m alliance has been getting the same season rewards as you for the past 10 seasons.
That's Kabam's fault, and issue to have fixed in a better way. Now lower teams will get hammered, and it'll more than likely lead to alliances not bothering to even run war
They are correcting the system. You shouldn't have been where you are at now in the first place. Would you rather them just cut your war rating and put you in a lower bracket automatically?
I'd expect them to do a better where job where smaller alli's don't get a pummelling.
Its certainly free rewards for my alli to face a 9mil alli, but it's clear that the smaller alli's are totally out of favour due to kabam

smaller alliances have been taking advantage of a broken match making system and now they are being brought inline with where they should have been the whole time.

Greekhit · July 2020

Worknprogress said:

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be
Tanking and shells more than likely

Kabam either should lock aw rating off season or run seasons back to back with a few days break (without ranked wars of course). It’s been also discussed two seperate on/off season war ratings. That’s more complicated but still a solution.

Worknprogress · July 2020

Mcord117 said:

Worknprogress said:

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be
Tanking and shells more than likely
Unfortunately cheating and manipulation isn't going anywhere. It impacts only a few but the fixes impact the vast majority. I never could understand any of it, its a game. Running shells or trying to manipulate match making always seemed so petty to me.

Oh I know it's not going anywhere. When everyone was in an uproar about then I told them be careful what you ask for bc half the time when they "fix" something in this game what you end up with is worse. We got the old matching system....

I never really thought it made much of a difference personally. I was in an alliance that tanked for a while and never saw any noticeable difference in matches. Is what it is though, people will always try to game the system

Aleor · July 2020

Worknprogress said:

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be
Tanking and shells more than likely

All it takes to avoid those is to make sure long win streak through season from lower tier to tier X gives less points, then 50/50 ratio in that tier X.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Stingerbk said:

Daphboy said:

A l p h a said:
So the point is for the first couple wars to let some alliances be absolutely bowled over?
Apparently, my group was matched against a 16mil alliance... we are nearly 34mil. I mean, thanks for the easy win, but I do feel bad for the people on the receiving end. I know we wouldn’t be very pleased and totally demoralized if all of the sudden we got thrown up against a master alliance.

Also, holy moly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many people agree with GW.
You are only gonna be facing Ally's with similar war rating which in turn means similar tier.

That doesn't mean anything. We all know they just changed the system all at once, so that's just obtuse. The issue is these Matches involve people fighting Wars they'll never win no matter what they do. That's the argument, and it's 100% not okay.

DNA3000 · July 2020

Mcord117 said:
ok I am going to be the bad guy here.An alliance under 20 mil and 9k prestige should not be able to finish plat 4. There are sooooo many alliances that are far larger with higher prestige that will steam roll either of those alliances that were struggling to hold onto gold 1 under old match making

I think "should not be able" is not the right way to phrase that. I think the correct thing to say is that any alliance can reach any war tier, and indirectly any season bracket, if they are required to face and beat the competition at those tiers. If the entirety of tier 3 is composed of 12k prestige and 25 million rating alliances, an alliance with 8k prestige and 14 million rating should be able to reach tier 3 (and related season points) if they can beat those alliances. If they can't, then they shouldn't. Period. They shouldn't be able to say that the only fair competition is another 8k prestige and 14 million rating alliance, so they should be allowed to evade all those other stronger alliances and *only* fight other alliances of similar alliance composition.

It comes down to the fairness of the multiplier. Higher war tiers equals higher point multipliers equals higher season rewards. Winning wars increases war rating and thus war tier. But if some alliances are allowed to rise to a higher multiplier facing weaker competition, that makes the points earned by different alliances unfair. It would be perfectly fine if alliances only faced alliances of similar prestige and alliance rating if their multiplier was frozen during the entire season. But it is not. Multiplier can and does rise during the season with wins. It should only do so if everyone is facing the same pool of competition to earn that multiplier.

In effect, a lower prestige or alliance rating alliance that wants to climb into higher tiers is trying to displace an alliance already there, since tiers are set by percentages. If I enter tier 6, a tier 6 alliance drops to tier 7. I just took their multiplier and handed them mine. So when someone says a war is "unfair" because of either prestige or alliance rating differences, what they are actually saying is they want to take the multiplier of higher rating alliances but don't think it is fair they have to face them and beat them to do it. That's basically ridiculous. If it isn't fair that an alliance has to face another alliance of higher prestige, it also isn't fair that the lower alliance should ever be allowed to get those higher point multipliers either.

You can't say I only want to fight these guys over here and if I beat them enough times I deserve to take the tier and multiplier of those guys over there. That has never made sense, and it is something the match and rating system always needed to eliminate as a possibility.

Basically, anyone who wants to match by prestige instead of war rating should also demand that tier/multiplier be set by prestige instead of war rating. No matter how many times you win, you can never, ever, ever gain higher tier or multiplier except by increasing prestige. And when you do, you will always face competition from that prestige bracket. Even if you lose every single war, you will still match against those prestige alliances, forever.

Worknprogress · July 2020

Greekhit said:

Worknprogress said:

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be
Tanking and shells more than likely
Kabam either should lock aw rating off season or run seasons back to back with a few days break (without ranked wars of course). It’s been also discussed two seperate on/off season war ratings. That’s more complicated but still a solution.

Not having an off-season would make changing alliances a nightmare

BigManOnCampus · July 2020

og_steele said:
This was the point. You guys with lower ratings shouldn’t be ranked so high. Many other alliances who are 30-40M are being pushed out of platinum by low ranked teams.

I’ve even seen plat 2 & plat 1 alliances that have only 5M team rating. With a very limited amount of spots in these top tiers they should go to the teams that actually deserve it. This matchmaking is meant to push teams like yours to the spots they really belong in. This is a long time coming.

Best of luck.

Amen !!

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Worknprogress said:

Greekhit said:

Worknprogress said:

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be
Tanking and shells more than likely
Kabam either should lock aw rating off season or run seasons back to back with a few days break (without ranked wars of course). It’s been also discussed two seperate on/off season war ratings. That’s more complicated but still a solution.
Not having an off-season would make changing alliances a nightmare

No, but all Ratings should be locked in the off. Not just Tiers 1-5.

Worknprogress · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

Greekhit said:

Worknprogress said:

Mcord117 said:
Lets put it this way. Many alliances have achieved rewards that in all likelihood were not warranted for the last couple of seasons. They spent entire seasons only playing against other alliances with similar strength. Alliances that were much stronger than them received lessor rewards because they only faced stronger alliances and were prevented from climbing.

you should be thanking kabam for the gift of the last couple of seasons rewards. If you want the same rewards, you will now have to beat the stronger alliances. If you do, kudos, if you don't, you will land in the bracket you should have been the last couple of seasons.

This is the only fair way to match make, I cant understand how the other system ever came to be
Tanking and shells more than likely
Kabam either should lock aw rating off season or run seasons back to back with a few days break (without ranked wars of course). It’s been also discussed two seperate on/off season war ratings. That’s more complicated but still a solution.
Not having an off-season would make changing alliances a nightmare
No, but all Ratings should be locked in the off. Not just Tiers 1-5.

Fine with me. People just use shells at that point though which is equally as annoying but ah well

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Comments