Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Manoj259

Comments

Adios50

Oh there's no way I would stop following the war and start focusing on AQ

Manup456

You see this was the last AW and I felt bad because we over powered them but the war rating which is what AW is supposed to based off was close but this new AW the war rating is about 380+ difference. What is the gap they are basing this off 10-500 or what?

unknown

This content has been removed.

CaptainGame

@Arsoz I never at any point complained that it was to hard what I asked is what numbers was the match up based off. If they are basing it off war rating that’s a big difference why I asked.

They basically took a system where it matched teams up by strength and changed it to matching them by their standings. It never made sense why they started ever trying to do a rank system to determine the strongest by not matching teams against those next to them in the standings to play for their spot. Now we are at a spot where they are trying to fix that and by doing so a lot of small teams made their way into plat and gold tiers. But now rather than only fighting teams the same size as them, they have to face teams stronger than them. Which there are probably enough of to load up tiers all the way to silver. We don’t really know until the dust settles on this. It doesn’t feel fair to a smaller team because they didn’t really do anything wrong. It’s just a system that should have been simple but was put in wrong. A lot of trolls like GW come in here to spread lies and make up fake stories. You just have to downvote and ignore them. And wait out the storm and things will get back to normal. And there will be incentive to grow and get better which is the point of competition. You won’t find yourself ranked under a small team who can’t beat you anymore. But you also won’t be ranked over somebody who can easily beat you. But that’s how standings work. Don’t get discouraged during this rough time. Things will get better.

CaptainGame

Y
The whole reason we're here is because people worried about what others have.
No we're here bc people were betting byes all the way through the tiers while never facing anyone in their own tier. Please try to keep up dear
No. They weren't getting byes. They were fighting Alliances with strengths in the same range as their own.
No one cares if they were the same "strength" if they had to span 6 tiers to find the match
They didn't just jump ahead. They earned their Tier based on their own Wars. You win, you go up. You lose, you go down. Same as anyone else. The fact that people keep holding on to this archaic view of how the system used to be and should be, but doesn't apply to Seasons, is ridonkeylous to me.
This is easy. No they didn’t.
What do you mean they didnt?

I was responding to GW saying something about the lower alliances earning their higher tiers.

Mr_Platypus

You see this was the last AW and I felt bad because we over powered them but the war rating which is what AW is supposed to based off was close but this new AW the war rating is about 380+ difference. What is the gap they are basing this off 10-500 or what?

How many BGs you running?

GAMEOVERJames

I guess you’re asking for an opponent with similar war rating as well as similar alliance rating....

But the real situation is, you are in Gold 2 category!!! Your alliance should be very fortunate / skillful. Otherwise your category is incredibly high, by considering the low alliance rating!

So I think this team matching is pretty common and understandable. An alliance with 10+ million alliance rating in Gold 2 category is the majority. I anticipate that the system failed to find an alliance with similar alliance rating for you, so they picked the closest one, which was still far higher than your alliance~

DNA3000

The whole reason we're here is because people worried about what others have.
No we're here bc people were betting byes all the way through the tiers while never facing anyone in their own tier. Please try to keep up dear
No. They weren't getting byes. They were fighting Alliances with strengths in the same range as their own.
No one cares if they were the same "strength" if they had to span 6 tiers to find the match
They didn't just jump ahead. They earned their Tier based on their own Wars. You win, you go up. You lose, you go down. Same as anyone else. The fact that people keep holding on to this archaic view of how the system used to be and should be, but doesn't apply to Seasons, is ridonkeylous to me.

They did not earn their tier properly. They only fought a subset of the competition. It was not "same as everyone else." if the game was bugged and only matched my alliance against the same opponent over and over again, I could still say that I earned by war tier by winning, and the match was always fair because it was always against an alliance of the same "strength" so if we go undefeated we earned our season points. Except that's false.

You cannot only compete against a subset of the competition but claim to place higher than alliances you never face, and your competition never faces. There must exist a shared pool of competition that links all the competitors together. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the undefeated pee wee football team gets placed as a wild card in the NFL playoffs. They did face comparable competition and they did earn their wins, but the simple fact is none of those wins are comparable to NFL wins, because there's no shared competition.

It is interesting to me how many people are still attempting to claim that the system is "obviously" unfair. I posed a hypothetical that I haven't seen anyone attempting to justify segregrated match making respond to. I'll repeat it here:

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.

.
I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."

Manup456

@Mr_Platypus We running 2 BGs but that has nothing to do with AW based off war rating and not knowing what the difference in war rating is going to be between alliance. Can it be a 20 difference or 500? If this is the case it makes no sense and will never balance out. I’m all for the change but we should know what the difference in war rating is supposed be at least a ballpark number.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Beamerboy

Pretty sure this is what intended . Your alliance is probably going to be facing alot of people with higher ratings till your in a place where you should be

GroundedWisdom

The whole reason we're here is because people worried about what others have.
No we're here bc people were betting byes all the way through the tiers while never facing anyone in their own tier. Please try to keep up dear
No. They weren't getting byes. They were fighting Alliances with strengths in the same range as their own.
No one cares if they were the same "strength" if they had to span 6 tiers to find the match
They didn't just jump ahead. They earned their Tier based on their own Wars. You win, you go up. You lose, you go down. Same as anyone else. The fact that people keep holding on to this archaic view of how the system used to be and should be, but doesn't apply to Seasons, is ridonkeylous to me.
They did not earn their tier properly. They only fought a subset of the competition. It was not "same as everyone else." if the game was bugged and only matched my alliance against the same opponent over and over again, I could still say that I earned by war tier by winning, and the match was always fair because it was always against an alliance of the same "strength" so if we go undefeated we earned our season points. Except that's false.

You cannot only compete against a subset of the competition but claim to place higher than alliances you never face, and your competition never faces. There must exist a shared pool of competition that links all the competitors together. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the undefeated pee wee football team gets placed as a wild card in the NFL playoffs. They did face comparable competition and they did earn their wins, but the simple fact is none of those wins are comparable to NFL wins, because there's no shared competition.

It is interesting to me how many people are still attempting to claim that the system is "obviously" unfair. I posed a hypothetical that I haven't seen anyone attempting to justify segregrated match making respond to. I'll repeat it here:
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.
.
I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."

Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.

Greekhit

I can’t believe this thread is still going on, because some spoiled kids fail to understand that AW rating ONLY matchmaking is the most efficient way of determining, who is and deserves better rewards or not. Stupidity and greed from 10 seasons of spoiled rewards at its finest.

Speeds80

So much regurgitation in this thread, tiers were being ignored, That’s why the system was broken, @Manup456 that matchup is bizarre, I wouldn’t have thought there aren’t a ton of closer war rating matchups than that, except maybe because no other plat 2 groups that are only running 2 bg At the moment? It’s really strange

Seraphion

Just when I thought AW was starting to make sense this happens. What numbers was this matchup based off?

Are you running only 2 BGs?

Speeds80

@Seraphion he already said 2 bgs, so yeah 2bgs always were the outliers in this system, just wouldn’t have thought there were no closer 2bgs to the 1683 war rating alliance

Mr_Platypus

@Mr_Platypus We running 2 BGs but that has nothing to do with AW based off war rating and not knowing what the difference in war rating is going to be between alliance. Can it be a 20 difference or 500? If this is the case it makes no sense and will never balance out. I’m all for the change but we should know what the difference in war rating is supposed be at least a ballpark number.

Ahh 2BGs has always had dodgy matchmaking because the pool is much smaller, never as bad as that but possible unfortunately

Menkent

Yeah, that means before the halving RelaX would have had 3366 war rating. That's a monster rating for plat 3 I'd think. But the other ally was close to 2600 which is huge for gold2. There likely just aren't that many alliances running two groups during the season with ratings that high.

MichaelW92

Why do you guys keep arguing with the same person? After 41 pages of these very repetitive arguments it’s pretty clear he’s not going to accept this change. Some people find it hard to let the gravy train go.

GroundedWisdom

Why do you guys keep arguing with the same person? After 41 pages of these very repetitive arguments it’s pretty clear he’s not going to accept this change. Some people find it hard to let the gravy train go.

Gravy train. That's funny. I can assure you, my Alliance wasn't getting any gravy from the old system.
The change is not the issue. Had it been introduced in a way that wasn't affecting peoples' Seasons, there would be little to dispute. The issue is placing people in Matches they have no way of winning seriously affects their Season, and the Season is a measurement of how people perform from start to finish. Making their performance moot is not a fair measurement.

DNA3000

Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.

If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.

We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did.
The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction. Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE? Is it the data that Quik presented, or is it because other people think they don't belong there? Both cases have been judged by using the metric Prestige as a determining factor. Which is comically ironic to me. People don't want Prestige to be used in Matchmaking, and they don't agree to limiting the Points based on Prestige Brackets, but they want final results that reflect greatest to least Prestige.
The whole opposition just deemed itself the judge of who earned what and who didn't, who worked harder, who belongs where, who deserves what, and the basis of their proof is the very thing they're countering.
Perhaps I overestimated the logic capabilities.

LeNoirFaineant

The whole reason we're here is because people worried about what others have.
No we're here bc people were betting byes all the way through the tiers while never facing anyone in their own tier. Please try to keep up dear
No. They weren't getting byes. They were fighting Alliances with strengths in the same range as their own.
No one cares if they were the same "strength" if they had to span 6 tiers to find the match
They didn't just jump ahead. They earned their Tier based on their own Wars. You win, you go up. You lose, you go down. Same as anyone else. The fact that people keep holding on to this archaic view of how the system used to be and should be, but doesn't apply to Seasons, is ridonkeylous to me.
They did not earn their tier properly. They only fought a subset of the competition. It was not "same as everyone else." if the game was bugged and only matched my alliance against the same opponent over and over again, I could still say that I earned by war tier by winning, and the match was always fair because it was always against an alliance of the same "strength" so if we go undefeated we earned our season points. Except that's false.

You cannot only compete against a subset of the competition but claim to place higher than alliances you never face, and your competition never faces. There must exist a shared pool of competition that links all the competitors together. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the undefeated pee wee football team gets placed as a wild card in the NFL playoffs. They did face comparable competition and they did earn their wins, but the simple fact is none of those wins are comparable to NFL wins, because there's no shared competition.

It is interesting to me how many people are still attempting to claim that the system is "obviously" unfair. I posed a hypothetical that I haven't seen anyone attempting to justify segregrated match making respond to. I'll repeat it here:
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.
.
I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.

Way to restate your many times disproved point and not interact with his argument at all. You may as well have said "I disagree because I disagree" which probably isn't far from the truth.

Speeds80

You say we want prestige rewarded, that’s nonsense, we want it ignored

Addyos

Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
Perhaps I overestimated the logic capabilities.

We’ve overestimated yours unfortunately, seeing how many others have said the same message repeatedly, yet you refuse to budge.

LeNoirFaineant

Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did.
The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction.

So you're saying the Peewee football team should go to the NFL playoffs and it's not disputable? They didn't earn their place in Platinum if they didn't face alliances in Platinum. What is indisputable is that the previous system put them there. Saying that it's indisputable that they earned it is nonsense. What happened to you quitting this thread btw?

GroundedWisdom

Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did.
The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction.
So you're saying the Peewee football team should go to the NFL playoffs and it's not disputable? They didn't earn their place in Platinum if they didn't face alliances in Platinum. What is indisputable is that the previous system put them there. Saying that it's indisputable that they earned it is nonsense. What happened to you quitting this thread btw?

I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt.
They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets.
This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.

Greekhit

I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt.
They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets.
This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.

“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.

Mr_Platypus

Don’t know what’s wrong with the sports analogies considering they all work perfectly fine...