**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
An alliance's "true rating" is the rating we should assign to all alliances such that if we did, then for all alliances of rating X, all of them would win about 50% of the fights against all other alliances of rating X. We can never know this number, because it would take too many wars to do this experiment. And alliances change composition all the time. So this idealized magical rating value can never be precisely set by the game. But it exists in theory, and the rating system attempts to converge towards it all the time, by altering alliance ratings as they win or lose. And it is critical that all alliances theoretically match against all other alliances of similar rating, because your rating is supposed to be a measure of your strength against *all other* alliances of similar rating. It is not a measure of your ability to beat all other alliances that look exactly like you.
And why do we need to know this? Because there's only one set of rewards, one set of tiers, one set of point multipliers. When we give two different alliances a 2500 rating, they are getting the same point multiplier. They are very likely to end up in similar season brackets due to that similarity in point multiplier. If they essentially come from two completely different disconnected subsets of the alliances that have never crossed fought each other, there's no way to know if they actually are the same strength and actually deserve those same multipliers, points, and rewards. If two different alliances have the same war rating, but that war rating is meaningless because it is incomparable, that makes the entire exercise of assigning ratings and tiers, and ultimately points and brackets, completely meaningless.
Alliances with 4/40s as defenders shouldn’t really be competing for 6* and t5c level resources from the get go, the broken system has given them an inflated idea of what they deserve from war as it left us veterans who don’t compete with our wallets and play a mid level game churning in the silo, let me say I have explored act 6, I have beaten lol, I have 5 5/65 ranked specialty defenders and 4.5 years in the game organising mid to high level players in an alliance, we had absolutely felt left out to dry by the previous matchmaking system and I saw many burnout and leave the game from the silo grind of silver war rewards.
We are sorry it happened like this but the end result is going to be much fairer than the previous highly exploitable system
(Faces 5 star alliance rated below them) “This isn’t fair! I’m gonna quit!”
We can't know who will win and who will lose except by letting them fight. And the winners and the losers decide who was the stronger and who was the weaker at that time, and their ratings evolve to reflect that. There's no other way to know whether an alliance should move up or down on any particular week, and which alliances should have higher ratings and which should have lower rating.
And unfortunately, there was no way I could see to do this outside of season as well. The problem is the adjustments only happen when everyone actually fights. You can't force people to fight outside of seasons. Or rather, you can, but that's actually worse. Forcing everyone to go through four weeks of wars to let the ratings settle down before actually going into the next season would be no different from just taking the rewards away from *this* season and still forcing people to fight. Exactly the same thing would be happening, except everyone would lose the season rewards. That isn't really better. Your choice was potentially "incorrect" rewards, or no rewards, but still fighting for real as if there *were* rewards. Because if everyone just pretends to fight and doesn't actually put in normal effort, then the entire exercise would do nothing but make the ratings even weirder, and then the following season would be just as bad.
The problem goes away after enough wars are fought with everyone putting out the same effort as normal for a season. How do you do that, without giving season rewards?
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.
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!
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 first few wars will suck, after that it will balance out
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
Yes, surely half ratings should make the transition faster