Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Manoj259

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

All wars are fair.

Every single alliance has a chance to win every other single alliance, depending how they play.

If a 5k prestige alliance can go for max diversity and 0 deaths against Ken0b, they deserve the win.

So rather than choosing whichever argument suits you best for a counterpoint, then flipping around and picking the flip side of it for another counterpoint, just stick to one.

No. Any Alliance cannot win against any other in the current state. It's just flippant to think so.

GroundedWisdom

Let's be honest. People know they can't win. That's what they wanted to see.

xNig

All wars are fair.

Every single alliance has a chance to win every other single alliance, depending how they play.

If a 5k prestige alliance can go for max diversity and 0 deaths against Ken0b, they deserve the win.

So rather than choosing whichever argument suits you best for a counterpoint, then flipping around and picking the flip side of it for another counterpoint, just stick to one.

No. Any Alliance cannot win against any other in the current state. It's just flippant to think so.

Then what happened to “skill”?

QuikPik

Ummm....yeah my test 3100 prestige alliance just beat a 6500 prestige alliance. Skill can still be a factor regardless of matchup. It's harder but not impossible as you state.

GroundedWisdom

All wars are fair.

Every single alliance has a chance to win every other single alliance, depending how they play.

If a 5k prestige alliance can go for max diversity and 0 deaths against Ken0b, they deserve the win.

So rather than choosing whichever argument suits you best for a counterpoint, then flipping around and picking the flip side of it for another counterpoint, just stick to one.

No. Any Alliance cannot win against any other in the current state. It's just flippant to think so.
Then what happened to “skill”?

"Skill" only applies in a system that allows a Win when skill is applied. These Matches do not allow the overpowered side to win. It's not possible, and I'm pretty sure people know that. They just don't care.

TheKiryu

Lol Certain Someone here made lol for about 40 minutes reading through.

Anyways. I dont think there will ever be a system that pleases everyone, especially no matter what changes are made there will be people who benefit from status qou more than others.

That beeing said season 19 will be a crapshoot for many. After that quality of matchmaking will improve in my opinion and will work better than the current system to represent more accurate power level of each alliance.

Problem will be that looking in mirror and realising you might not be the hot stud that you thought yourself to be, well it will be hard to swallow for many.

Either way. Im glad these changes occurred, as i think this will be a move most will appreciate looking back at it a year from now.

If not then atleast it was fun to watch stupidity beeing elevated for everyone to see.

GroundedWisdom

Let's be honest. People know they can't win. That's what they wanted to see.
Correct. People know they can’t win. And here you are crying about it and insulting everybody who worked hard to get where they are while you were getting the rewards they should have been for the past 10 seasons.

Those people didn't work hard? Hmm...must have fell into the Ranks they got then. Oh wait....they earned them.

Thicco_Mode

Let's be honest. People know they can't win. That's what they wanted to see.
Correct. People know they can’t win. And here you are crying about it and insulting everybody who worked hard to get where they are while you were getting the rewards they should have been for the past 10 seasons.

yup. as soon as he/she no longer benefits, it's suddenly about making sure the little guys are ok and claiming that theyre fine. theyll be fine. half a season of losses won't make them lose rewards, and they'll get what they deserve

GroundedWisdom

Ummm....yeah my test 3100 prestige alliance just beat a 6500 prestige alliance. Skill can still be a factor regardless of matchup. It's harder but not impossible as you state.

Right....someone more advanced along makes an Alt and can be a statement to what's possible for others.

ItsDamien

Ummm....yeah my test 3100 prestige alliance just beat a 6500 prestige alliance. Skill can still be a factor regardless of matchup. It's harder but not impossible as you state.
Right....someone more advanced along makes an Alt and can be a statement to what's possible for others.

That's the literal definition of a skill gap. You wanted skill, then complain that some people don't have enough skill to beat other people.

You're an actual contradiction to everything you say.

Mr_Platypus

Its. Not. Permanent.

It. Will. Even. Out. Eventually.

Stop acting like these guys will never match with another alliance at their skill level ever again.

Jim0172

In a few weeks everyone will be fighting fair fights and ending up in the correct tier.
If you are getting overpowered now it will be a short term issue that is worth the long term fix.

Mr_Platypus

Really don’t see the problem. We beat our opponents today and sure they were 8mil rating below us, but it’s not my fault they died 12 times to a gladiator hulk on a standard +100% regen effectiveness node...

pseudosane

Really don’t see the problem. We beat our opponents today and sure they were 8mil rating below us, but it’s not my fault they died 12 times to a gladiator hulk on a standard +100% regen effectiveness node...

The node on the Glad hulk was "you need +1k prestige to solo this node"

Thicco_Mode

Really don’t see the problem. We beat our opponents today and sure they were 8mil rating below us, but it’s not my fault they died 12 times to a gladiator hulk on a standard +100% regen effectiveness node...

exactly. the system is working, and again, losing half of your season isn't the end of the world. if they can't beat allies in their tier, they flat out don't belong there. frankly, I don't get why the old system was on place for so long

QuietusDK

11 million alliance should probably be in bronze somewhere so just be thankful you got extra rewards last season(s).
That's interesting. So you propose that bronze should be the holding pattern until what level? Until your alliance is 50% Abyss players?

Please, i would like to hear how a gradual ascent through ranks, starting at low silver, should be a mistake in matchmaking. We have faced alliances on paper well stronger than us before, and prevailed. Here, it's simply the magnitude of power difference I'm seeing as broken. But according to you, our previous 5 seasons were undeserved, because we can't fight an alliance 3 times our PI? Really...
By beating alliances that are higher ranked than you. If you can’t do that then you can’t grow. Everyone alliance started from 0 and if that means you need to drop 6-7 wars before you land in your RIGHTFUL tier then so be it. Be happy you landed where did the last few seasons because of a flawed matchmaking system tbey finally fixed

You still have not explained how the matchmaking was flawed, considering we consistently faced - and beat - alliances at similar and higher war rating and prestige than us.

Chief difference being, they were not G2 as our latest enemy was (where we finished low/mid G3) , nor were the alliances we faced 3 times our size in player prestige. So I fail to see how having faced alliances far more similar to our own in both war rating and prestige was somehow 'unfair'.

And that's kind of the entire point I'm trying to get across. If I sent a screenshot of our alliance plus our enemy, and had blanked out the war rating but left everything else (last season placement, prestige), would that have seemed like a matchup you'd say "yup, that looks fair and could go both ways"?

If you do, I dunno man, then I guess we see numbers entirely differently.

xNig

Really don’t see the problem. We beat our opponents today and sure they were 8mil rating below us, but it’s not my fault they died 12 times to a gladiator hulk on a standard +100% regen effectiveness node...
exactly. the system is working, and again, losing half of your season isn't the end of the world. if they can't beat allies in their tier, they flat out don't belong there. frankly, I don't get why the old system was on place for so long

Cause there were alliances gaming the system by tanking during the off season.

xNig

11 million alliance should probably be in bronze somewhere so just be thankful you got extra rewards last season(s).
That's interesting. So you propose that bronze should be the holding pattern until what level? Until your alliance is 50% Abyss players?

Please, i would like to hear how a gradual ascent through ranks, starting at low silver, should be a mistake in matchmaking. We have faced alliances on paper well stronger than us before, and prevailed. Here, it's simply the magnitude of power difference I'm seeing as broken. But according to you, our previous 5 seasons were undeserved, because we can't fight an alliance 3 times our PI? Really...
By beating alliances that are higher ranked than you. If you can’t do that then you can’t grow. Everyone alliance started from 0 and if that means you need to drop 6-7 wars before you land in your RIGHTFUL tier then so be it. Be happy you landed where did the last few seasons because of a flawed matchmaking system tbey finally fixed
You still have not explained how the matchmaking was flawed, considering we consistently faced - and beat - alliances at similar and higher war rating and prestige than us.

Chief difference being, they were not G2 as our latest enemy was (where we finished low/mid G3) , nor were the alliances we faced 3 times our size in player prestige. So I fail to see how having faced alliances far more similar to our own in both war rating and prestige was somehow 'unfair'.

And that's kind of the entire point I'm trying to get across. If I sent a screenshot of our alliance plus our enemy, and had blanked out the war rating but left everything else (last season placement, prestige), would that have seemed like a matchup you'd say "yup, that looks fair and could go both ways"?

If you do, I dunno man, then I guess we see numbers entirely differently.

What was unfair was the tier multiplier you were getting.

Don’t worry you’ll be back to having those fair matches soon, although at a lower tier multiplier.

A war is deemed fair SOLELY by war rating only, nothing else should matter. That’s the all-encompassing measure that is used to gauge an alliance’s AW capabilities.

DNA3000

@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

Yes, your thread brought up the issue most recently (in terms of analysis). There was another player who did a completely different analysis I want to say two years ago, whom I have forgotten the precise details of. Although I did disagree with a small piece of the way you presented the argument, I believe your overall conclusion, that the rating/prestige match making was distorting war rating and season bracket results, was/is fundamentally sound.

This seems to be a very strange fundamental difference of opinion in what the point to a competition is. Some people think the point is to "test" alliances against equally composed ones, and not to actually expose them to the range of competition that exists. So much of the discussion is revolving around tangent issues of skill, cost, rewards, etc, when the issue is far more fundamental than that.

If someone believes, fundamentally, that no alliance should ever face another alliance of significantly different alliance rating or prestige, then they must fundamentally believe that all tournaments are unfair. An elimination tournament to decide the overall rankings of the alliances, where winners face winners and losers face losers is simply wrong. Even if you *start* with everyone facing materially identical strength alliances, *eventually* you have to face alliances of higher composition if you continue to win. You can only avoid facing higher rating alliances if you lose.

Here's the thought experiment that decides the issue for me. You have four alliances, two have 30 million rating called them A and B, and two have 15 million rating call them C and D. You want to decide who's #1, who's #2, and so on. You decide to be nice about it and have A face B and C face D. A wins and C wins. Now, what happens next: who does A face in round 2.

Either you believe A should face C next, or you believe A should face B again. If you believe A should face C next, you believe that's the fair match up even though they have wildly different ratings, and even if you believe A has a significant advantage, so in some sense that is not "a fair fight" it is in a larger sense the fair requirement overall. Winners must face winners to decide who's the best.

If you believe no 30 million alliance should never face a 15 million alliance because that's "not fair" then you believe A should fight B again and C should face D again. And if they both win again, then A and C tie for first place with two wins.

For anyone who actually believes the latter is "more fair" I don't think anyone can convince you otherwise, but you need to understand that the other 99% of Earthlings find this position to be not just untenable, but so completely ridiculous that they probably struggle to find a rational basis to argue against it.

Mr_Platypus

11 million alliance should probably be in bronze somewhere so just be thankful you got extra rewards last season(s).
That's interesting. So you propose that bronze should be the holding pattern until what level? Until your alliance is 50% Abyss players?

Please, i would like to hear how a gradual ascent through ranks, starting at low silver, should be a mistake in matchmaking. We have faced alliances on paper well stronger than us before, and prevailed. Here, it's simply the magnitude of power difference I'm seeing as broken. But according to you, our previous 5 seasons were undeserved, because we can't fight an alliance 3 times our PI? Really...
By beating alliances that are higher ranked than you. If you can’t do that then you can’t grow. Everyone alliance started from 0 and if that means you need to drop 6-7 wars before you land in your RIGHTFUL tier then so be it. Be happy you landed where did the last few seasons because of a flawed matchmaking system tbey finally fixed
You still have not explained how the matchmaking was flawed, considering we consistently faced - and beat - alliances at similar and higher war rating and prestige than us.

Chief difference being, they were not G2 as our latest enemy was (where we finished low/mid G3) , nor were the alliances we faced 3 times our size in player prestige. So I fail to see how having faced alliances far more similar to our own in both war rating and prestige was somehow 'unfair'.

And that's kind of the entire point I'm trying to get across. If I sent a screenshot of our alliance plus our enemy, and had blanked out the war rating but left everything else (last season placement, prestige), would that have seemed like a matchup you'd say "yup, that looks fair and could go both ways"?

If you do, I dunno man, then I guess we see numbers entirely differently.

Because it’s a competition. You don’t see Coventry getting the same prize money as Liverpool even though they won their respective leagues. You see Liverpool earning far, far more because they compete on a bigger stage against far better teams.
Coventry would need to reach the premier league, and play Liverpool and against other premier league teams to compete for that prize money.
Not just have it handed to them because they were the best of the 3rd division teams.

The old matchmaking system was basically saying that Liverpool and Coventry deserve identical prizes because they both came first in their league, but the level of competition is vastly different, Coventry would likely struggle to get a win in the premier league so clearly they don’t deserve the same prize as Liverpool.

Stagedear85

We just Destroy this alliance so bad i mean im good with winning and staying in plat 3 but no one can answer how is the match up fair to the other alliance that had no fight in hell their best champ was a 5 star rank 4 mojo as boss on defense and their average prestige was 8920 while my alliance has all 6*rank2 and 5/65 max sigs on defense, like honestly how can people sit and say because our war rating is close that it was a fair match up for them, they literally just gave up after dying 55 times to our 1 death, I'M on the winning side and i just felt bad that this alliance wasn't even a competition and if i were a member of the alliance we face i wouldn't even want to do another war this season, i hope all my wars are like this thou lol easy plat 3 tier 3 rewards...

Thicco_Mode

Really don’t see the problem. We beat our opponents today and sure they were 8mil rating below us, but it’s not my fault they died 12 times to a gladiator hulk on a standard +100% regen effectiveness node...
exactly. the system is working, and again, losing half of your season isn't the end of the world. if they can't beat allies in their tier, they flat out don't belong there. frankly, I don't get why the old system was on place for so long
Cause there were alliances gaming the system by tanking during the off season.

oh duh lol. I'm dumb. something just clicked in my head bc I never understood what that really meant. thanks 👍

Timone147

Again I understand why people are upset and understand the “we are doing well against similar alliances” argument.

The problem with that argument is you aren’t just in a pool of similar alliances when it comes to season rewards. You are in a pool of every alliance big and small. And if you are a small one you shouldn’t just bypass the bigger ones taking their spot to those larger rewards above your level because you get matched against smaller less experienced alliances. The rewards are intended to go top to bottom to the best overall alliances top to bottom(roster and skill).

You need to be able to matched and be evaluated against every alliance. In matching this way you are not actually getting true rewards to your achievement as you are being ranked against everyone in the game for rewards while you are only playing people of your level and getting rewards not calibrated to your place in game.

I do feel bad for some because this will be painful for many alliances and yes when the dust settles you will be in lower tiers with lower daily AW rewards and lower season AW rewards than you were getting. But sorry the reality check this is where you really belong from a rewards standpoint based on your both you skill AND progression level in game. This is because you were higher in tiers than really you should have been and getting season rewards not intended for people of your Progression level unless you are extremely skilled to overcome large roster gaps as an alliance.

If you can overcome roster deficits verses those in the higher tiers great. If not grind more, challenge yourself more, clear more content, and put the time in many have to get to a place in the game where your roster can compete.

LeNoirFaineant

Seriously. Page after page of people telling others this is fair because the War Rating is even. How about you stop rubbing it in and acknowledge why people are upset?
Literally everyone in this thread understands that these wars are unwinnable for many of the alliances. That's a result of swapping the systems. the war ratings are even, but they shouldn't be. The old system allowed alliances to face wweaker opponents and increase their war rating while not being forced to actually beat the alliances in that tier. The new system is correcting the ratings so they are fair.
I just want to say personally that I love these changes. I was in a 42 million alliance and stuck in gold 2 because I would get matched up with opponents who have the same rating as me yet 20 million alliances got plat 4 and plat 3 rewards. It was laughable.
You were in Gold 2 because you couldn't beat Allies with the same Rating as you, so now you're glad Allies are being outmatched?
If they're stuck in gold2, obviously they won half and lost half of their wars. You would think that this would mean that the system is perfect and nothing needs to be changed, because The Talents were at the "ideal" war rating for them that matched their skill. But the thing is that it didnt't work like that. Other alliances that would have almost certainly lost to them never had to face them and abused the broken system so they never actually had any hard matchups. Im confused why you can't understand why people were stuck because of the old system, and I've yet to see you give an alternative that would actually result in all alliances having fair matchups in the transition phase while also allowing all alliances to be in their correct tier
If they're stuck in Gold 2, that's the result of not winning enough Wars to get out of it. That's how the system works. You advance by winning. Which means they were in their correct Tier.

You know this isn't true. It feels like you are arguing dishonestly or you wouldn't be able to say this after all the discussion that has taken place. If they were matching other groups in gold 2 with similar war ratings regardless of prestige, your statement would be true. But you know that this wasn't the case. The reason low alliances are now getting mismatched is precisely because groups were not in their correct tier.

DNA3000

11 million alliance should probably be in bronze somewhere so just be thankful you got extra rewards last season(s).
That's interesting. So you propose that bronze should be the holding pattern until what level? Until your alliance is 50% Abyss players?

Please, i would like to hear how a gradual ascent through ranks, starting at low silver, should be a mistake in matchmaking. We have faced alliances on paper well stronger than us before, and prevailed. Here, it's simply the magnitude of power difference I'm seeing as broken. But according to you, our previous 5 seasons were undeserved, because we can't fight an alliance 3 times our PI? Really...
By beating alliances that are higher ranked than you. If you can’t do that then you can’t grow. Everyone alliance started from 0 and if that means you need to drop 6-7 wars before you land in your RIGHTFUL tier then so be it. Be happy you landed where did the last few seasons because of a flawed matchmaking system tbey finally fixed
You still have not explained how the matchmaking was flawed, considering we consistently faced - and beat - alliances at similar and higher war rating and prestige than us.

People are hung up on the idea that if they faced alliances of similar war rating the system must be fair. But that's only true if rating is calculated correctly. If I set all ratings to zero, then everyone would be matching against alliances of similar rating. But that's meaningless, because I just made rating meaningless.

The match system's job isn't to look for fair fights for you. The match system's job is to use fights to figure out who's better than whom. In other words, the number one priority of the match system is to ensure that if we sort all alliances by war rating, that approximates the order we'd get if we sorted the alliances by their competitive strength.

In other words, war rating should mean something. Two alliances with the same rating should be roughly equal in strength. That's the job of the match making system: to serve the competition.

How do you determine that all the alliances with the same rating actually are about equal in strength? By matching them against each other. But this only works if in general every alliance of a particular war rating has some chance of facing any other. If all the 6k prestige alliances only face each other, and all the 9k prestige alliances only face each other, there's no way to know if all the 2500 war rating alliances actually are about equal in strength. In fact, you can be pretty sure they aren't.

If you are a 6k 2500 war rating alliance, the "fairest" fight might be with another 6k 2500 war rating alliance. But if the game *enforces* that requirement and no alliance *ever* faces any other alliance of dissimilar prestige, then we can no longer say that all 2500 war rating alliances are in fact of equal strength, and we can no longer say that the sorted order of alliances sorted by war rating approximates the strength order of the alliances, and then the idea that the competition itself is giving the highest rewards to the strongest alliances overall also breaks down.

But that's the point to the competition: to allow the strongest alliances to earn the highest rewards. In trying to satisfy the local requirement of each individual war being "as fair as possible" you break the global requirement to make the entire idea of war seasons as fair as possible, where fairness is defined to be the alliances that demonstrate higher war competitive strength get the higher rewards. And it is the global requirement that is the most important, or the idea that war seasons are a competition breaks.

This is an important enough idea that I think it is worth emphasizing. The job of the match system during war seasons is not to find the "fairest match" for each individual alliance. The job of the match system is to allow us to figure out how the strongest alliance is, who the second strongest is, and so on. If at the end of the season we have no idea who the stronger alliances are, because two alliances of the same rating could have wildly different strength because they faced totally different competition, then the match system is a complete failure. It had one job, and it failed in that one job.

Demonzfyre

This is bad joke...really..of course the Whales won... Not enjoying the game with these new features

ASGRD isn't even trying. I was in an alliance that beat them last season with a similar rating to yours. They are actively trying to lose.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Insaneocrab

I feel like this should settle this discussion. This alliance finished plat 4 last season. We’ve been stuck in gold 1 for many seasons. Their war rating was higher than ours. They couldn’t even complete the map. It took 10 deaths for them to get through one defender. By the time it was over they had 122 deaths and hadn’t even 100% the map. I think it’s funny that people on this chat are saying this allys like this deserve to be higher, etc. Now that they are playing head to head based on war rating (which why wouldn’t you use war rating as a matching metric since it is created by alliance war win/loss?) They couldn’t hang. We should be thrilled that the contest has addressed this unfair imbalance.

CaptainGame

I feel like this should settle this discussion. This alliance finished plat 4 last season. We’ve been stuck in gold 1 for many seasons. Their war rating was higher than ours. They couldn’t even complete the map. It took 10 deaths for them to get through one defender. By the time it was over they had 122 deaths and hadn’t even 100% the map. I think it’s funny that people on this chat are saying this allys like this deserve to be higher, etc. Now that they are playing head to head based on war rating (which why wouldn’t you use war rating as a matching metric since it is created by alliance war win/loss?) They couldn’t hang. We should be thrilled that the contest has addressed this unfair imbalance.

I feel ya man. My team has been stuck in gold 1 too and we literally just played through the same scenario with a team that was plat4 last season and couldn’t complete any of the maps against us.