Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Comments

It is not fair. People pointing out that the War Rating is similar is just ignorant to the fact that we all know it was going to change abruptly and the Matches were going to be hell. Let's stop acting like everything is as it should be. This is exactly what I predicted, so stop complaining the Threads are here. The Matches are unfair, and people have every right to complain.
By your logic as a high rated alliance that has been screwed for seasons I can also complain as well that this was long overdue. Too bad for the lower rated alliances but if they are good enough they will still rise to the top regardless of rating.
You were screwed for Seasons because you couldn't bully Alliances that have no chance of winning? Right.

Too bad there's no longer a flag button when you actually need it. This is antagonistic and unnecessary.

DNA3000

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.
Ohhhhhhhhh... so its the "small" alliances fault for winning wars, when the entire blame for the flaw is on Kabam?
Now that Kabam want to "fix" this mess, they penalise the alli's that did nothing wrong.
Don’t think of it as penalised, think of it as properly rewarded.
Word it as you will, but those alliances did nothing wrong at all. They played the rules Kabam set out. You can only play whats in front of you.

This is certainly a way to hit those alli's for a season to "balance" out something which was caused by Kabam.
that's true. they didn't do anything wrong, and it was in place by kabam. however, kabam have changed their game so war is based off war rating which it should have been. alliances that are good at war will face other alliances food at war. there will be a transition phase, but it's for the better
This is not a transition phase. This is forcing a large number of people to sacrifice their Season efforts to "fix" the system. It's a clear message that only the efforts of higher Alliances are worth something, and the rest are collateral damage, and expendable for the "system". That's about all I have left to say on the matter because quite frankly, it just makes me more angry.
The one thing I wasn't about to do is sit and hear people downplay it like it's some inconsequential corrective measure. There are Players on the other end of this. People whose efforts are just as valuable as anyone else's. At least they should be, but it seems the only thing they're worth is "adjustment".
Were the previous seasons a clear message that only the effors of lower Alliances were worth something, and that lots of higher groups are collateral damage, and expendable for the "system"? One season with some early losses while groups adjust to where they ought to be isn't the end of the world.
No. The previous Season showed that Alliances given even Matches were winning what they earned. If the issue was the Rewards, that could have been handled differently. It's not their fault higher Alliances weren't winning their own Matches. It has nothing to do with fairness. Some Top Allies made a stink about not being able to massacre the little guys, so Kabam made it possible. Point blank.

People have been complaining about these non-war rating match ups for a very long time. Since they first showed up, in fact. A poster who's name currently escapes me did a very good job of illustrating the problem with a post describing the issue as alliances being in "silos" of rating, and while I always knew it was a problem I believed it was a trivial problem until the full ramifications of the issue were laid out. After I was convinced, I went back and redid all the math for what would happen over time if that match system was left to persist, and my conclusion was that it would completely wreck the ratings system mathematically given enough time. Neither I nor anyone else who noted the problem were able to make a lot of headway against the "but its not fair that I have to fight someone with more alliance rating than me" people, so I sort of gave up on it after a while, and didn't give it a ton of thought until another poster revived the issue last year.

This has nothing to do with top alliances being able to "massacre the little guys." First, the mathematics of rating systems has been pretty well established: the game uses a version of ELO, which ha been around for about sixty years. Second, if the system had stuck to matching the correct mathematical way from the beginning, and not listened to players who had no idea what they were talking about, top alliances would have never *seen* the little guys, unless those little guys demonstrated they were just as capable of beating equivalent competition. You can't *have* the same rating in the correct system unless you're actually just as strong, and so you can't *match* against alliances way weaker than you are.

If you have the same war rating as another alliances, that is in effect a claim you're just as strong as they are. That's what rating means. It isn't a reward for beating up the other kids on the playground. Having rating X is a claim: I can beat the other alliances that also have rating X. The game matches you against each other to see if you're right.

I can't believe ELO has to be defended against attacks it discriminates against stronger alliances. I would not be more surprised if I had to defend the Pythagorean theorem against claims it discriminates against rectangles.

Demonzfyre

We had the same experience. I got an alliance of newer players none of whom have a rating above 190 and most well below that and we are facing an alliance where not one member has a rating below 500k.

That doesn't mean much. You can have a 500k rating and still not have high ranking champs. Just means they could have ranked all their champs from 1-4*'s.

GroundedWisdom

@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.

Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.

Speeds80

@GroundedWisdom we won over half of our wars, yet we continued to drop in tiered ratings, because people in the unfair system were winning more than us against easier alliances and bypassing us in rewards. We got to tier 12 because of an alliance breakup over that new system when it was implemented, I don’t think I’ll actually convince you but I don’t to see what happened last time, that system which after 10 seasons is obviously broken if you look at the data of top tiered teams, 3* organised alliances could exploit the 3* new and unorganised alliances And ride all the way to g1. It Was implemented by people complaining about the outliers of Them having to face a big unorganised alliance who had lost a few, after that smaller alliance had won a few, and that was a leveling system, unbelievably fairer than what’s been in place and these giant mismatches are the result as @Markjv81 just said that the system had been in place too long and was too exploitable, these mismatches won’t be here next season in anywhere near the same amount, could kabam have done better? absolutely, I’m not defending this abrupt rollout, or gloating at the easy wins we are getting, however I am happy that my alliance won’t continue to be left every season by people 9-10k prestige , people who competed hard Every war and often won more than we lost and yet continued to drop in rating, if you look at my photos we have won all but one of our visible war history, but we started in t13 And still couldn’t make it out of silver, something was clearly broken

-sixate-

Prestige should not be factored in to this at all. If it's based on war rating alone this will balance itself out and alliances who had no business being in Plat anything will be put in their place in G3.

Gunslinger_23_1

This new matchmaking is not fair. My alliance is outmatched at every step. Not fun don't enjoy it. Please do something to make it at least close or interesting at least. My squad has mostly 4* champs and we r going against a squad with all 5* duped champs, how is this better than before???

ItsDamien

@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.

Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.

What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?

What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?

What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?

In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.

LeNoirFaineant

@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.

In that case, you are advocating segregation so that war is like EQ with Heroic difficulty, Master, Uncollected, etc. I don't think anyone actually wants that. You'd have groups that were at the top of their level winning 100% of their wars, knowing they could beat higher groups but they don't have access to them because they are in a lower weight class. The old system was broken. It's being fixed. It isn't unfair. Deal with it.

Rap

So we watch our ratings get trashed for a season then everything works itself out? All i can say about that is! MAYBE I'LL SEE YA NEXT SEASON! (But i doubt it!)

mum_m2

I'm sorry but this is the way it always should have been. There's a few things that will happen in this meta, if you are in an alliance that is not favored by leave your alliance and find a better home.

This is about true war rating.
Lets say you are a 10k prestige alliance but am only making it to Gold 1. you only play against alliances within your range of prestige, thus, beating up on each other, and never advancing.
Lets say you're in an 8k prestige alliance in Gold1. You only play against other 8k prestige alliances. If you were to play against that 10k alliance above, you would get wrecked. But under the previous system, you were only playing against alliances that were in your prestige. Not fair to the 10k alliances. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but the game tried to match prestige with war rating.

I've joined several alliances. Nearly a notorious alliance jumper. I've played with alliances who place in the top 750 in aq, yet can't get out of g3 with 1.5x the war alliance rating who were just as skilled as another alliance in p4. This should never happen.

Speeds80

The constant whinging that this is only to benefit the top alliances is nonsense, bottom line prestige was being punished, is my silver 1 alliance at the top of the game? We will end up back in gold 1/2 with little item use where we would have been the last ten seasons if the system hadn’t been changed, just like we were in the 9 seasons before that. Apart from one month about 8 seasons ago that dropped us to tier 11/12 into the silo of similar alliances (a split which was caused by the matchmaking change.)
tier 11-12 where we have steadily been dropping rankings with a <50% win rate

Rap

That is a crock "true war rating". You don't find the true war rating by pitting a map full of 2000 plus hp 4 stars against a map full of rank 4 5 stars! How exactly is that going to truely represent my alliances capabilities? Or establish any sort of true messure of our "true war rating"???
So for the next 29 days we are just supposed to accept that we are probably beaten before we even start?

GroundedWisdom

@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.

What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?

What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?

What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?

In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.

Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone.
Double standard, really.
Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.

Speeds80

That is a crock "true war rating". You don't find the true war rating by pitting a map full of 2000 plus hp 4 stars against a map full of rank 4 5 stars! How exactly is that going to truely represent my alliances capabilities?

The capabilities of a war team are dependent on its army, if your soldiers suck but you have skill, you are going to lose to the opponent with equal skills and much stronger soldiers, that’s the ‘TRUTH’ and this is a reality check

Patchie93

That is a crock "true war rating". You don't find the true war rating by pitting a map full of 2000 plus hp 4 stars against a map full of rank 4 5 stars! How exactly is that going to truely represent my alliances capabilities? Or establish any sort of true messure of our "true war rating"???
So for the next 29 days we are just supposed to accept that we are probably beaten before we even start?

Because eventually the war ratings will level out and the big alliances will be where they are and your 4* alliance will be where it belongs. Prolly silver 1 instead of plat 3

Timone147

This is how it should be. You play against the tier for the same rewards based on closeness of war rating. You are subject to playing ANY alliance of similar war rating and tier as that determines what your rewards are set against. Unless they made brackets based off alliances PI this is the only way to do this fairly without given an unfair advantage to weaker less developed players.

It will even back out over this season and people will settle into the rewards tiers that reflect their roster + skill not a reward tier that only reflect their ability to beat up on similar ranked alliances. This give you a more calibrated reward to you let current roster. Also To be the best you need to play the best or at least risk playing the best.

You want to play in upper tiers you need to beat the upper tier alliances. This includes their better rosters and champs. They have put in the time and effort to clear content and be there and shouldn’t be sidetracked on rewards more fitting to there position in the game by people getting easy matchups against weaker alliances with newer less developed rosters.

I’m sorry but this is the truth. Put the time and energy(or for some the money) I to the game to get your roster to that point or have the skill to overcome rostered stronger alliances.

Speeds80

Your inflated results may have inflated your opinion of your actual capabilities, those are and should be roster dependent

ItsDamien

That is a crock "true war rating". You don't find the true war rating by pitting a map full of 2000 plus hp 4 stars against a map full of rank 4 5 stars! How exactly is that going to truely represent my alliances capabilities? Or establish any sort of true messure of our "true war rating"???

You put a bunch of Cavemen against modern military, who should win?

The old system matched Modern Military with Modern Military, and one of them would get knocked down fo far, that some of those Cavemen started over taking them in ranking. Those cavemen were still only fighting cavemen and yet they climbed higher and higher, never having to face the modern military.

How is that right or fair that the bottom of the bucket climbs all the way up while the dragging down the ones who shouldn't have been punished as hard as they were for investing more time, and money, into each account and each war?

DNA3000

So we watch our ratings get trashed for a season then everything works itself out? All i can say about that is! MAYBE I'LL SEE YA NEXT SEASON! (But i doubt it!)

Taking a season off is unlikely to be of any real benefit, except for not getting one season of rewards. If your alliance was stronger than your relative rating before the change, all you've done is lost rewards. If your alliance was weaker than your relative rating, then all those alliances of similar rating that were stronger than you will still be waiting for you when you decide to return.

If you think the new match system is going to cost you losses and rating points, it will do that the moment you step into a rated war. There's nothing special about this season that is different from the following season in that regard. Whether your next war is today, or next season, or next year, it'll be the same. Unless you wait so long that ratings inflation actually puts you into a lower tier, with a lower multiplier and lower season points. Which could take anywhere from months to years.

CaptainGame

@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.

What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?

What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?

What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?

In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.

Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone.
Double standard, really.
Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.

Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.

Rap

Well it is obvious this is about some gold and platinum tier alliances whining about having been bumped down in ratings by alliances they felt were inferior...And i got news for you! There are plenty of "no skill needed to win" champs in this game it isn't and never will be about pure skill! KABAM has made sure of that! And no matter how much better our skills might be isn't going to be revealed by a war where our opponant is walking through low 4 stars with ranked 5 stars...they would have to suck pretty hard! We could beat them in every "META" and lose because they drop our boss and we can't take theirs.

xNig

That is a crock "true war rating". You don't find the true war rating by pitting a map full of 2000 plus hp 4 stars against a map full of rank 4 5 stars! How exactly is that going to truely represent my alliances capabilities? Or establish any sort of true messure of our "true war rating"???
So for the next 29 days we are just supposed to accept that we are probably beaten before we even start?

Yes. Getting trashed against full map of rank 4 5*s with your 4*s does show your true alliance capabilities. Losing enough will bring you to your true war rating.

Patchie93

Well it is obvious this is about some gold and platinum tier alliances whining about having been bumped down in ratings by alliances they felt were inferior...And i got news for you! There are plenty of "no skill needed to win" champs in this game it isn't and never will be about pure skill! KABAM has made sure of that! And no matter how much better our skills might be isn't going to be revealed by a war where our opponant is walking through low 4 stars with ranked 5 stars...they would have to suck pretty hard! We could beat them in every "META" and lose because they drop our boss and we can't take theirs.

So your complaint is that you have more skill but can't out fight a different alliance?

Rap

What losing is gonna do is make all the starting players in my allaince quit. And the same for many others. So if this was an attempt to kill war so only the top tiers will play it's gonna work! We are already enlisted for the next war but if it is another matchup like this one we are done for the season.

xNig

Well it is obvious this is about some gold and platinum tier alliances whining about having been bumped down in ratings by alliances they felt were inferior...And i got news for you! There are plenty of "no skill needed to win" champs in this game it isn't and never will be about pure skill! KABAM has made sure of that! And no matter how much better our skills might be isn't going to be revealed by a war where our opponant is walking through low 4 stars with ranked 5 stars...they would have to suck pretty hard! We could beat them in every "META" and lose because they drop our boss and we can't take theirs.

Then you have the inability to take their boss, reflecting your true capabilities.

Sometimes the delusions and entitlement really get to me..

It’s simple.

Same or similar war rating = fair matchup, regardless of ANY OTHER FACTOR.

If you get trashed, then you’re not as good and deserve to lose some war rating, next war will be easier.

If you win, then you’re better and you’ll gain some war rating, next war will be harder.

This was how matchmaking was like before S2/3 (even before Seasons were introduced), and is the only true fair war of matching alliances, until shell alliances and tanking spoilt it.

Tanking has been solved now by locking war ratings. Once the system balances, Kabam will need to do something about shell alliances.

GroundedWisdom

@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.

What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?

What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?

What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?

In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.

Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone.
Double standard, really.
Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.
Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.

No matter how you try to spin it, placing Alliances in Matches they have no possible way of winning is wrong. Doesn't matter how justified you think it is. It's just a Season of sadistically watching people fail.

CoatHang3r

This reaction to the AW band aid rip is quite the spectacle.

So for the next 29 days we are just supposed to accept that we are probably beaten before we even start?

looking at how alliances are being matched closely in war rating while gaining or losing large amounts of war rating as a result of those matches. I would think the disparities should mostly resolve themselves fairly quickly.

It should be sooner than 29 days before relief is found.

Rap

Well yes our rating should be lower than theirs! And it is kinda hard for new players with incomplete mastery builds and nothing over max r4 4 stars to drop a r5 5 star doom! Anybody suprised about that??? I am not arguing that. My question is why can't the match making engine figure it out without making people not want to even play?

hungryhungrybbq

Serious question. Has Grounded presented a better way of correcting the war ratings that doesn't involve changing the existing game mode into a entirely different game mode?

AW was always a single stream competition...since it was created. For years. It was then flawed for a few months. Now it's being returned to how it was. How it always was. Be grateful for the advantage you had for a time. Continue to ignore all the bad things that happened to mid/high level alliances if you wish. And pretend that you don't understand all the unfairness that happened to us for months. That's your right, but either play the game mode as it has always been intended to play or stop playing the game mode. And wait for a new one. And most of all... please stop making insulting comments such as "bigger alliances just want to take advantage of smaller
ones..", etc. It's inflammatory, offensive and not true. We take zero joy in beating smaller alliances while the ratings are corrected. Frankly, I'm half tempted to instruct my alliance to tank them just so you guys will stop this nonsense. Unfortunately, that would derail the whole point of this reset. We need to actually try so we can find our true position in the ranks. Otherwise, trust me.. I would. I couldn't care less about winning a few wars. I've been playing for 4 years. This is just a small sample of my experience playing this game. All we want to do is play war against similar opponents in our own tier. Our true tier. Once the war ratings are corrected, that's exactly what we will all be doing. Thanks!