Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.

The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Aleor said:

Worknprogress said:

Aleor said:

GroundedWisdom said:

CaptainGame said:

GroundedWisdom said:

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant 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

Cutting them in half did nothing to stop the situation we have, which is the whole basis for this Thread. Now we have people facing these needlessly overpowered Matches, and others are just throwing it in their faces. Great solution. Treat people like #### and tell them they have no basis to complain.

CaptainGame · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.

Yeah that’s not how rankings work. You keep fighting better teams to move up. Not equal teams. The chiefs didn’t get to play the browns for a Super Bowl. They had to go through San Francisco.

Speaking of... did the browns ever say this isn’t fair in those seasons where they didn’t win more than a game or two. Or none? Or did they go and try to build their roster and come back better next season? They’d look terrible if they were on the news every week saying how unfair the games are because they are playing hard teams.

Thicco_Mode · July 2020

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!

it proves that you dont belong at that war rating. if you continue losing, it means you don't belong there. you'll drop until you face people of your level and capability

-sixate- · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.

But by this method, weak alliances were in tier 5 and higher by getting easy matchups. No way they should have ever been there. War rating is the only way AW matches should be made. It will put people in their proper place. Sorry Kabam had a horrible match making system to make small alliances get better rewards than they deserved, but it's about to become fair.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

At the very least, this shouldn't have been implemented this way. People are working for their Season, and that's true for the first Alliance up to Master 1. It should have been implemented in a way that didn't ruin the Season for everyone but the highest. If you have to undervalue one section of the Player Base to make the other happy, you end up with a situation that's no better.

TyEdge · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Aleor said:

Worknprogress said:

Aleor said:

GroundedWisdom said:

CaptainGame said:

GroundedWisdom said:

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant 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
Cutting them in half did nothing to stop the situation we have, which is the whole basis for this Thread. Now we have people facing these needlessly overpowered Matches, and others are just throwing it in their faces. Great solution. Treat people like #### and tell them they have no basis to complain.

Your entire existence on these forums is telling people they have no basis to complain.

Worknprogress · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Aleor said:

Worknprogress said:

Aleor said:

GroundedWisdom said:

CaptainGame said:

GroundedWisdom said:

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant 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
Cutting them in half did nothing to stop the situation we have, which is the whole basis for this Thread. Now we have people facing these needlessly overpowered Matches, and others are just throwing it in their faces. Great solution. Treat people like #### and tell them they have no basis to complain.

It was never supposed to stop it. It was supposed to shorten the time.

I legitimately don't even know why you keep talking about this bc you still somehow haven't got a clue what you're talking about

ItsDamien · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.

Equal in whose eyes? Equality isn't equal, it dragged people down to raise others up who wouldn't have been able to beat the teams that were dragged down, that's an inherently flawed system.

Imagine Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt won 11 gold medals, but lost one race, but the system said "Well little Timmy here has won all 12 gold medals in his school sports day events, so he's definitely ranked higher than Mr Usain Bolt. So here Timmy, you get 20 million bucks. Mr Usain, you get nothing, but have a gold star for trying". That system is just bad, they're not in the same league. Timmy is no way better than Usain, and in a head to head they would get destroyed. Now with the fix that's been applied, we can see Timmy and Usain race, and proper rankings will occur.

Thicco_Mode · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Aleor said:

GroundedWisdom said:

CaptainGame said:

GroundedWisdom said:

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant 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.

if they can't win them, they don't deserve to be at the war rating they are at. that's the entire point of the MMR system or whatever you want to call it. yes, for a few wars many alliances will have impossible matches, and many will have insanely easy matches. in the long run, it'll fix itself and everyone will be where they deserve. just because the old system benefited you doesn't mean you have to knock this new system which makes more sense than the other

TyEdge · July 2020

So I’ve spent months thinking my borderline top-500 AQ alliance just sucked at war. I’ve seen also these posts of G1 war alliances that aren’t cracking 200m in AQ despite running map5, and now I’m figuring out that it’s because we were thrown up against all the other 25-30m rating alliances while we were trying to keep it casual? Well that stinks. Of course, it also stinks that I placed a defense full of 5/65s when our opponents have two 5/65s on the whole map, and only 4 players above 200k rating. I guess this season will be lucrative for us.

Thicco_Mode · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
At the very least, this shouldn't have been implemented this way. People are working for their Season, and that's true for the first Alliance up to Master 1. It should have been implemented in a way that didn't ruin the Season for everyone but the highest. If you have to undervalue one section of the Player Base to make the other happy, you end up with a situation that's no better.

even if one season was ruined, its better than keeping the old system, which I think we can all agree on. I respectfully ask you what you would have done if you were kabam so that smaller allies would not be boomed as war ratings were corrected. you may have said it but I didn't catch it.
@GroundedWisdom

Zodiac_Signs · July 2020

Having read through all the for and against, I can only say I do see both sides of the coin. Removing rewards, GW actually has a point. Stripping down to basics, wars are fought between two evenly matched teams. It takes the same effort to secure a victory. So, I can see where he is coming from. He isn't against the objective but the implementation.

That doesn't mean the use of war rating is wrong though. It is a long term gain and when the storm has settled, it will benefit everyone. At least we can genuinely say we are at where we belong.

Give it this season. Play it competitively or play it leisurely. Just give it some time

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.
Equal in whose eyes? Equality isn't equal, it dragged people down to raise others up who wouldn't have been able to beat the teams that were dragged down, that's an inherently flawed system.

Imagine Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt won 11 gold medals, but lost one race, but the system said "Well little Timmy here has won all 12 gold medals in his school sports day events, so he's definitely ranked higher than Mr Usain Bolt. So here Timmy, you get 20 million bucks. Mr Usain, you get nothing, but have a gold star for trying". That system is just bad, they're not in the same league. Timmy is no way better than Usain, and in a head to head they would get destroyed. Now with the fix that's been applied, we can see Timmy and Usain race, and proper rankings will occur.

Equal as in equal. The Matches everyone was being placed in were within range of what they were working with. If people can't win their own fair Matches, they have no room to complain about skill. Forget about the Rewards. If the Matches were fair and they weren't winning, then they can't blame it on not being able to win agaisnt Allies that wouldn't be capable in an unfair Match. It's called being a sore loser.

Aleor · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.
Equal in whose eyes? Equality isn't equal, it dragged people down to raise others up who wouldn't have been able to beat the teams that were dragged down, that's an inherently flawed system.

Imagine Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt won 11 gold medals, but lost one race, but the system said "Well little Timmy here has won all 12 gold medals in his school sports day events, so he's definitely ranked higher than Mr Usain Bolt. So here Timmy, you get 20 million bucks. Mr Usain, you get nothing, but have a gold star for trying". That system is just bad, they're not in the same league. Timmy is no way better than Usain, and in a head to head they would get destroyed. Now with the fix that's been applied, we can see Timmy and Usain race, and proper rankings will occur.
Equal as in equal. The Matches everyone was being placed in were within range of what they were working with. If people can't win their own fair Matches, they have no room to complain about skill. Forget about the Rewards. If the Matches were fair and they weren't winning, then they can't blame it on not being able to win agaisnt Allies that wouldn't be capable in an unfair Match. It's called being a sore loser.

So that Timmy guy should get more rewards, because he's first in his class, and they guy who came second after Usain should realise he's a sore loser, do I get it right?

QuikPik · July 2020

@DNA3000 it was me that tried to pretend to be you with prestige based match making analysis. Apparently not everyone believes in science and numbers.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/1290631#Comment_1290631

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Let's not forget what triggered all of this. A certain Alliance who shall remain unnamed, were winning all of their Wars (by questionable practices "allegedly"), and threatened to take out a lower Alliance with a patsy Ally because they thought it was their right to do so. Then they switched it mid-Season last Season, but rather than make it a more fair transition, here we are with the same problem and a heads up. It's exactly like I said. No one can benefit from War but the top because they think they own the Board. Simple as that.

-sixate- · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

ItsDamien said:

GroundedWisdom said:

-sixate- said:
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
The system Matched people equally. Everyone earned their Rating by winning their own Matches. Not taking out weak Allies.
Equal in whose eyes? Equality isn't equal, it dragged people down to raise others up who wouldn't have been able to beat the teams that were dragged down, that's an inherently flawed system.

Imagine Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt won 11 gold medals, but lost one race, but the system said "Well little Timmy here has won all 12 gold medals in his school sports day events, so he's definitely ranked higher than Mr Usain Bolt. So here Timmy, you get 20 million bucks. Mr Usain, you get nothing, but have a gold star for trying". That system is just bad, they're not in the same league. Timmy is no way better than Usain, and in a head to head they would get destroyed. Now with the fix that's been applied, we can see Timmy and Usain race, and proper rankings will occur.
Equal as in equal. The Matches everyone was being placed in were within range of what they were working with. If people can't win their own fair Matches, they have no room to complain about skill. Forget about the Rewards. If the Matches were fair and they weren't winning, then they can't blame it on not being able to win agaisnt Allies that wouldn't be capable in an unfair Match. It's called being a sore loser.

What you fail to realize is war rating puts you in a tier. That tier has a point multiplier. The higher your tier the more points you score. The way it was a 12m alliance could keep beating up on alliances with a similar overall prestige and gain a war rating equal to a 40m+ alliance with 10k prestige. And could potentially place higher overall in the final war standings. All this while never having to face 40m alliance with 10k prestige. No way that should ever happen. That is not fair. That is no equal. This way will equal itself out.

Aleor · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:
Let's not forget what triggered all of this. A certain Alliance who shall remain unnamed, were winning all of their Wars (by questionable practices "allegedly"), and threatened to take out a lower Alliance with a patsy Ally because they thought it was their right to do so. Then they switched it mid-Season last Season, but rather than make it a more fair transition, here we are with the same problem and a heads up. It's exactly like I said. No one can benefit from War but the top because they think they own the Board. Simple as that.

No idea what you're talking about. Kabam finally changed bad matchmaking to an ok one. Good thing to do actually.

QuikPik · July 2020

This hardly impacts the top alliances at all. This affects all the other higher prestige alliances that are not at the top of their game at alliance war. The top alliances with the best rosters and spend the most in boosts and potions always stayed the top period.

Agent_X_zzz · July 2020

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/208267/matchmaking-discussion-merged-threads#latest <---- Post here in merged threads

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Comments