Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Comments

With only 1 set of rewards there will never be complete fairness..I see both sides of this arguement.. As a higher rated alliance or higher prestige I understand not want ing to see a 5 or 10mill alliance getting the same for better rewards of a say 30 mill alliance but by no means does that mean your better than that 5 or 10 mill alliance..it just means you have been around longer and have bigger accts..the only higher alliances that say this is completely fair are the ones that couldnt beat alliances with similar prestige..The only fair solution would be to make brackets for rewards based off prestige and war ratings within those brackets where rewards are raised by the bracket you are in..you should be able to enlist in a higher than your prestige bracket if you want to go for better rewards but you cant drop brackets

Dopa

ok I am going to be the bad guy here.An alliance under 20 mil and 9k prestige should not be able to finish plat 4. There are sooooo many alliances that are far larger with higher prestige that will steam roll either of those alliances that were struggling to hold onto gold 1 under old match making

Does that mean your better or just bigger? I understand the thinking of them not deserving it , but do you if you cant beat similar size and prestige alliances to yours?

Aburaees

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

Dopa

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways

Markjv81

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways

In what metric are they better?

Pulyaman

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.

xNig

@LeNoirFaineant @xNig can we please drop the unproductive discussion and focus on the suggestions he and I provided to make matched more fair? I agree resetting to 0 is not correct.Any other ideas?
There’s no suggestion I can suggest that will sit well with you since we cannot agree on the definition of “fair”.

What’s your definition of it?
That is a big assumption that I will not agree. I agree that fair is a relative term. I think we can agree that the prestige system gave fair matches and not fair rewards. What we need to do is move towards a system that has both. War rating in the long term will ensure that provided everyone will play fair or forced to play fair. I think people see only high tiers alliances using shells, but we know it is not true. Even plat and gold alliances do that which makes war rating easily manipulated. What do you think can be done to prevent this?
This new system will give fair matches and fair rewards. There’s nothing to be done tbh. I’ve also explained (if my post got approved) why a short span of losses will triumph a prolonged duration of losing for allies with inflated war ratings.

On the topic of shells, quite some time back, I gave the suggestion to tag each individual’s war rating to the moving average of the past 12 wars they have participated in, with the alliance’s war rating being the average of everyone’s rating. This allows a more realistic representation of an alliance’s warring capabilities, even if there are personnel changes within an alliance (eg swapping to shells or having stronger/weaker players join the alliance).
Eh I’d disagree with this because there have been times I’ve taken a break and gone to bronze allies and then when I want to come back I wouldn’t be able to due to the bronze ally lowering my war rating

It goes both ways.

When you go from your current tier to the bronze alliance, the bronze alliance’s war capabilities increase because you bring your roster, experience and skills to them. This will be directly reflected in the increase in alliance’s war rating. (Side note, this is also the argument used for lower prestige alliances bypassing the old system by having strong guys join and hold key defender spots, and them taking out bosses to give these lower prestige alliances wins.)

When you rejoin the original alliance after playing 1-2 seasons in the bronze level, you’ll need to get reacclimatized with the higher tier nodes and defenders, this will also reflect in the slight decrease of the original alliance’s war capabilities and rating.

So by having this individual war rating per person, the factors of “taking a break” can also be accounted for.

Sensei_Maat

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways

but when the aim of the game is roster development and roster growth, then bigger = better.
more high ranked champs = better account.
alliance full of better accounts = better alliance.
only when compating alliances of similar rosters does ability play a part as who is better.

skill = better player,
but size of account = better account.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Markjv81

@GroundedWisdom

I’m directing this question to you and you only.

You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.

So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?

That is a VERY subjective term.

To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?

The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?

The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
There shouldn't be a regulatory measure. I don't play war so lower alliances who want to be in a similar tier as me can be subject to a 'pity system'. What your asking for has the same flaws as the previous matchmaking. It won't solve anything.

While this may sound bad to you, there never has to be a 'chance to win'. If my ally hasn't won a war in tier 9 (We haven't), if we somehow go on a win streak and land in t7, we should not be given a chance to win.

We landed in t7, so we compete with other allys in t7, no matter what the chance is to lose. You may be thinking, "What's the fun in that? That's not a fair matchup!" The answer to that is it isn't and it shouldn't be.

At some point in the season, every ally will lose at some point (Unless you are from KenOB). How badly that loss it doesn't matter, but that's what comes with competing.

Alliances that are getting trampled now definitely don't need a pity system. Them getting tramples shows that they placed higher than they can handle. That's not their fault, it's the system's.

Kabam fixed the issue by fixing the system. That was the right choice.
Everyone loses a war at some point. But there is a difference between a chance to win and knowing you have no chance of winning. Even with all the skill in the world, you cannot win with 4 stars against rank 2 and rank 3 6 stars in war, before you time out. You can win one or 2 fights, not all of them. That was the point he was making. Please don't say then they did not deserve to be in that place, we have gone through pages of that argument. How bad you lose matters in seasons. There was already an example in the previous posts, earlier system had a sections of players fighting each other, but the problem was they were fighting for a common reward. As it is, there is no other option other than to let it play out. The season is ruined for many alliances.
Only ruined if you think the previous match making was better, which it wasn’t.
How does that work? Previous matchmaking was better for some and not for others. Seasons are still ruined for some alliances regardless of what anyone thinks. I mean, I assume you think you got unfair matched because of previous system, but you don't think getting unwinnable matches ruined this season for some alliances?

And the new match making is better for some and not for others, so based on the theory that this season is ruined for some alliances then that means that all seasons have been ruined for somebody and since the old system was in place for some 10 seasons then it’s about time that changed and those alliances who had 10 ruined season now have fair seasons and vice versa.

Dopa

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways
but when the aim of the game is roster development and roster growth, then bigger = better.
more high ranked champs = better account.
alliance full of better accounts = better alliance.
only when compating alliances of similar rosters does ability play a part as who is better.

skill = better player,
but size of account = better account.

Better acct yes I agree but being bigger doesnt = better in all senses..skill is very possibly better on an alliance 10mill that stomps similar size alliances as opposed to a 30mill ally that gets stomped by similar size alliances..if you are a bigger more experienced ally shouldnt you be able to beat up on similar alliances?

xNig

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.

And we will get there after this transition period.

xNig

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways

I can assure you that around 70-80% of the time, a bigger account almost guarantees a more skilled player, simply because the larger account has more experience.

Pulyaman

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.
And we will get there after this transition period.

Yes, hopefully.

Dopa

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways
but when the aim of the game is roster development and roster growth, then bigger = better.
more high ranked champs = better account.
alliance full of better accounts = better alliance.
only when compating alliances of similar rosters does ability play a part as who is better.

skill = better player,
but size of account = better account.
Better acct yes I agree but being bigger doesnt = better in all senses..skill is very possibly better on an alliance 10mill that stomps similar size alliances as opposed to a 30mill ally that gets stomped by similar size alliances..if you are a bigger more experienced ally shouldnt you be able to beat up on similar alliances?

I'm not arguing the rewards aspect either..I agree a 30 mill alliance shouldn't get the same rewards as a 5mill alliance but dont say because your bigger your "better" your larger with longer gameplay..I'm sure there are 30 mill alliances with little to no communication,organization, and skill...they are just "bigger"

unknown

This content has been removed.

xNig

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways
but when the aim of the game is roster development and roster growth, then bigger = better.
more high ranked champs = better account.
alliance full of better accounts = better alliance.
only when compating alliances of similar rosters does ability play a part as who is better.

skill = better player,
but size of account = better account.
Better acct yes I agree but being bigger doesnt = better in all senses..skill is very possibly better on an alliance 10mill that stomps similar size alliances as opposed to a 30mill ally that gets stomped by similar size alliances..if you are a bigger more experienced ally shouldnt you be able to beat up on similar alliances?
I'm not arguing the rewards aspect either..I agree a 30 mill alliance shouldn't get the same rewards as a 5mill alliance but dont say because your bigger your "better" your larger with longer gameplay..I'm sure there are 30 mill alliances with little to no communication,organization, and skill...they are just "bigger"

Not really. Matter of fact is, there’s no replacement for experience.

Dopa

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways
In what metric are they better?

Very possibly in fight skill, communication, organizational..not arguing the rewards aspect but larger does not necessarily equal better as an alliance..yes ofc larger accts are better than smaller..but the ones who say they are better than smaller alliances typically are the ones that cant beat similar prestige alliances as their own.not all but a lot

Pulyaman

@GroundedWisdom

I’m directing this question to you and you only.

You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.

So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?

That is a VERY subjective term.

To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?

The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?

The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
There shouldn't be a regulatory measure. I don't play war so lower alliances who want to be in a similar tier as me can be subject to a 'pity system'. What your asking for has the same flaws as the previous matchmaking. It won't solve anything.

While this may sound bad to you, there never has to be a 'chance to win'. If my ally hasn't won a war in tier 9 (We haven't), if we somehow go on a win streak and land in t7, we should not be given a chance to win.

We landed in t7, so we compete with other allys in t7, no matter what the chance is to lose. You may be thinking, "What's the fun in that? That's not a fair matchup!" The answer to that is it isn't and it shouldn't be.

At some point in the season, every ally will lose at some point (Unless you are from KenOB). How badly that loss it doesn't matter, but that's what comes with competing.

Alliances that are getting trampled now definitely don't need a pity system. Them getting tramples shows that they placed higher than they can handle. That's not their fault, it's the system's.

Kabam fixed the issue by fixing the system. That was the right choice.
Everyone loses a war at some point. But there is a difference between a chance to win and knowing you have no chance of winning. Even with all the skill in the world, you cannot win with 4 stars against rank 2 and rank 3 6 stars in war, before you time out. You can win one or 2 fights, not all of them. That was the point he was making. Please don't say then they did not deserve to be in that place, we have gone through pages of that argument. How bad you lose matters in seasons. There was already an example in the previous posts, earlier system had a sections of players fighting each other, but the problem was they were fighting for a common reward. As it is, there is no other option other than to let it play out. The season is ruined for many alliances.
Only ruined if you think the previous match making was better, which it wasn’t.
How does that work? Previous matchmaking was better for some and not for others. Seasons are still ruined for some alliances regardless of what anyone thinks. I mean, I assume you think you got unfair matched because of previous system, but you don't think getting unwinnable matches ruined this season for some alliances?
And the new match making is better for some and not for others, so based on the theory that this season is ruined for some alliances then that means that all seasons have been ruined for somebody and since the old system was in place for some 10 seasons then it’s about time that changed and those alliances who had 10 ruined season now have fair seasons and vice versa.

I feel like you are deliberately being obtuse. You got less rewards does not mean your season is ruined. The fact you get death matches means your season is ruined. Did you get matched with ridiculously high prestige or alliance rating alliance earlier, where you knew as soon as you saw the defense that you had no chance of winning? No? Then you were not ruined. You still got rewards for playing evenly matched alliances just as they did.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Dopa

Everyone wants to argue the "better" point but no responses to the point of if you are a good bigger alliance shouldnt you be able to beat up on similar size alliances and get the rewards you feel you deserve..

Aburaees

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.

But this is what I’m talking about. Different paradigms.

Telling us what war “should” do is a subjective value judgement. If Kabam had its own analogue of the Geneva Convention we’d have an objective standard by which to assess fairness.

Personally I think alliances that have invested in their rosters have earned their hegemony. But I also think it’s fair to allow David the opportunity to take on Goliath - because sometimes David can win.

If we strictly control the maximum size difference between competing alliances we limit David to only fighting David, and Goliath to only fighting Goliath.

Markjv81

I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways
In what metric are they better?
Very possibly in fight skill, communication, organizational..not arguing the rewards aspect but larger does not necessarily equal better as an alliance..yes ofc larger accts are better than smaller..but the ones who say they are better than smaller alliances typically are the ones that cant beat similar prestige alliances as their own.not all but a lot

If that’s the case then why such outrage at 10 mill alliances getting matched against 30 mil alliances? If they are more skilful and organised then they should be able to beat them.

Dopa

They could stop all this by bracketing rewards based off prestige and shrinking the amount of plat, gold, s alliances in each bracket..based rewards off the brackets where you can enlist in a higher bracket for better rewards if you want..most of the large alliances complaining would still not make plat or whatever level they feel they deserve for being a large not very good alliance

Pulyaman

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.
But this is what I’m talking about. Different paradigms.

Telling us what war “should” do is a subjective value judgement. If Kabam had its own analogue of the Geneva Convention we’d have an objective standard by which to assess fairness.

Personally I think alliances that have invested in their rosters have earned their hegemony. But I also think it’s fair to allow David the opportunity to take on Goliath - because sometimes David can win.

If we strictly control the maximum size difference between competing alliances we limit David to only fighting David, and Goliath to only fighting Goliath.

Only when Goliath falls asleep and forget to clear the boss in all 3 bg. Lets be real. If you are telling me that an alliance which places max 4 stars will defeat a alliance that places max 5 stars, it will not happen. If you are placing max 5 stars, it means you have even better attackers that will shred the opponents defense.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Markjv81

They could stop all this by bracketing rewards based off prestige and shrinking the amount of plat, gold, s alliances in each bracket..based rewards off the brackets where you can enlist in a higher bracket for better rewards if you want..most of the large alliances complaining would still not make plat or whatever level they feel they deserve for being a large not very good alliance

What would be the point of designing a completely new system that will just get us to the exact same place the current one will eventually get us too?

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DanielYork

This thread has become a loop.

And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

But two things come to my mind:

1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field

That’s all

War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.

It’s about you not being good enough to defeat your opponent and complaining about it. If you can’t beat the alliances competing for high level rewards you aren’t good enough. If you are skilled you would survive, you would win, the difference in rating wouldn’t matter. You aren’t, you don’t belong, so get stronger and compete or be ok with the level of rewards your skill/roster/masteries deserves.

War matches will provide balanced matches, once the junk alliances with inflated ratings return to their rightful places. The alliances we have been facing that are half our size and have been getting better rewards that they don’t deserve for facing inferior competition for 10 seasons need to stop complaining.