Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

1568101162

Comments

  • Speeds80Speeds80 Member Posts: 2,017 ★★★★
    A system that ended up placing 30m alliances in tiers that saw them squabbling over 3 * shards while 3* alliances could manipulate the system and win 6* shards and t5b resources was just as sadistic from my side of the fence, still have to agree with you the rollout was terrible At the start of a season, and surely they could have created a match making system within 30% of prestige for a while to avoid these crazy matchups. The issue was the last system was actually falling apart at the seams, 3* alliance tier 4 wars, need I say more
  • DL864DL864 Member Posts: 1,089 ★★★
    It's based on war rating instead of prestige ibwill take a little bit to work out.
  • Lvernon15Lvernon15 Member Posts: 11,598 ★★★★★
    It’s going to take a few wars to get rid of the giant power mismatches but this is a good overall change imo
  • RapRap Member Posts: 3,231 ★★★★
    What the??? We are on our second war. The last one we got "participation". So for you jerks up top to "find your true war rating" a bunch of new alliances and players have to accept being trounced over and over for a season???
  • RapRap Member Posts: 3,231 ★★★★
    edited July 2020
    What is normal effort for a new alliance? Have you checked lately? The ghost alliances in the thousands??? I'm trying to pull in and keep new players playing and this is not gonna help and neither are all of your well puncutated arguments!
    We have knives at a gun fight! And i believe the issue could be resolved by matching alliances after placement. And based on placement...this isn't gonna give a true measure of "war rating" it is just going to significantly reduce the number of alliances participating and the number of players who stick around to play the game at all.
  • 2_Wheeler2_Wheeler Member Posts: 102
    We got Kabamed



  • 2_Wheeler2_Wheeler Member Posts: 102

    this is fair. 1 point war rating difference

    Unless you happen to be 2 tiers lower than your opponent.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Then just work on content with the champs you no longer need being tied up in war
  • Speeds80Speeds80 Member Posts: 2,017 ★★★★
    I’ve been trying to keep people in my 30m alliance who keep dropping out after crappy season placings and rewards after Lot of effort so if anything I feel your pain man. I actually think if it had happened pre season alliances like mine would have taken the opportunity to start in a higher tier, and kept winning and alliances that were worried about what was going to happen/ normally don’t participate could have done zero item wars for loyalty shards and it would have helped the levelling a little, in saying that we won most of our wars off season anyway so we are already much higher than when we finished, but imo the halving rating plan could have happened at the end of last season, would have just accelerated the process a little without so much season impact, thing is DNA trumps me (is that term still acceptable lol) in terms of any mathematic and probability processing so I would defer to him on this one, don’t drop the season, just do zero item and participation against the tough opponents so that you do drop, But still get free loyalty and shards. soon you will start seeing some even matches and when you do, fight properly in them
  • EDZ1960EDZ1960 Member Posts: 2
    We are thinking of focusing on aq aw is so mismatched why can't we fight alliances that are closer to are rating that would be the fair and more enjoyable thing to do !!
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Granted, what I proposed has a secondary problem in inflating points of the people you match. This season as a whole is going to be a complete mess regardless of what anyone does though honestly. You'll probably see far less effect in the very top in say T1 and more than likely T2. Outside of that, it's going to be a mess I think
  • RapRap Member Posts: 3,231 ★★★★
    edited July 2020
    Nobody in my alliance is a level 60 summoner but me! And everyone of our opponents is a level 60 summoner??? Again, i fail to see how this is supposed to determine anyones "true war rating." So an alliance with level 60 summoners with ranked awakened 5 stars against level 45 summoners with unawakened r4 four stars proves what????
    And 45 is one of the higher level summoners, i have them in the 30's...what are you disagreeing with idiot? I know the levels of my team and our opponent!
  • 2_Wheeler2_Wheeler Member Posts: 102
    You know I built a simple spreadsheet that balanced our team by averaging champ ratings
  • 2_Wheeler2_Wheeler Member Posts: 102
    The fix is easy, give the higher ranked tiers something to differentiate them from others I.e. G-512 wouldn’t be matched against a B-512 with G being gold and B being bronze
  • AleorAleor Member Posts: 3,098 ★★★★★
    Rap said:

    Nobody in my alliance is a level 60 summoner but me! And everyone of our opponents is a level 60 summoner??? Again, i fail to see how this is supposed to determine anyones "true war rating." So an alliance with level 60 summoners with ranked awakened 5 stars against level 45 summoners with unawakened r4 four stars proves what????
    And 45 is one of the higher level summoners, i have them in the 30's...what are you disagreeing with idiot? I know the levels of my team and our opponent!

    You will lose until you face equally strong enemy. Equally not in terms of prestige, but in skill, firepower and organisation - it takes a lot of will power to sort out diversity. I actually have a 45lvl baby account besides my main, and it's already close to first 6*. So I wouldn't base als comparison on players levels - there are a lot of lvl 60 players without any 6* or not very skilled ones.
    Kabam could count first couple of weeks of current season with some lower coefficients probably, so that that rating reset didn't influence season ratings, but work long enough seasons it doesn't really matter
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,560 ★★★★★
    Aleor said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @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.
    The things you need to not lose at least are very simple actually.
    1 - diversity maxed
    2 - explore every map without deaths
    That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
    You're kidding me with that right? Just explore the Map and they'll win. They can't win. The difference in what they're using alone, differences in CR, Node increases, Nodes, etc. They can't win these Wars. Let's not be glib.
  • AleorAleor Member Posts: 3,098 ★★★★★

    Aleor said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @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.
    The things you need to not lose at least are very simple actually.
    1 - diversity maxed
    2 - explore every map without deaths
    That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
    The rating cut wasn't meant to make matches more fair nor did it. It was made to make the transition period between alliances with artificially high ratings getting to a base point shorter
    I was thinking about how it's better to half ratings rather then resetting every alliance rating to 0, with wich top alliance of prev season could've probably have some new alliance of beginners.
    Yes, surely half ratings should make the transition faster
This discussion has been closed.