“Fixed alliance war matchmaking”

You act like kabam would actually listen to matchmaking suggestions 🤣

It actually does. When the higher skilled players beat you their war rating goes up and they are no longer able to match against you anymore. That will give you a chance to move up if you are capable as well.

Greekhit

I’ve stopped reading at the point you said: “why not get rid of war rating at all”.
Hilarious. Just hilarious 👏👏👏

Kabam should’ve lowered our rating instead of lowering our rank, because now it’s gonna drop us down even more, and we are never gonna come up for the next few years

dont be so overdramatic, it should clear itself up after a few more fights, if not when they halve the war ratings next season.

GroundedWisdom

Oh yes. Ignore what people are dealing with now because it'll all be okay in the morning.

Lowering your rating would lower your rank anyways.
Also, the matchmaking for the past 10 seasons has been going off of either your alliance prestige or alliance rating, war rating has played a very tiny part in matchmaking for almost a year, so if you’ve been unable to climb the ranks it’s because you just weren’t good compared to other alliances at your alliance rating/prestige level.

Under the new system, which now matches on war rating primarily, the more you lose, the easier your opponents become in terms of skill and roster. Under the old, flawed system, losing didn’t lead to easier matches.
If anything, for many it led to more stressful matches as Wars came down to 1-2 deaths.

ItsDamien

TEN SEASONS. People were ignored by poor matchmaking for TEN seasons. One season of smaller alliances getting shafted to correct TEN seasons of more alliances getting shafted is fine.

Your argument, is again, wrong and moot.

We are gonna be all the way down in stone by the time things go “back to normal”
Even tho we were always bronze 1. We have never been able to come up because our war rating is abnormally high, which is why they need to lower war rating instead of rank. If you were our position your opinion would be completely different.

For someone who claims it is not an issue for you personally you sure are taking this all very personally. you claimed it is not the loss, it is not the rewards, now after my analogy it is not even the massive disparity in skill, because that is apparently ok too in some situation. So please tell me what the issue is with the adjustment?

Buttehrs

Lol normally I'd say no, but this time they did because the old matchmaking was bologna. And now it's based on what it should be all along. War rating. You fight in wars. It's the only thing that should matter.

CaptainGame

Well you are certainly ignoring the past 10 seasons. What’s a few weeks?

Want bronze 1 rewards, beat bronze 1 teams, it’s that simple.
Tbh, I’m trying to figure out how you had a 1600 war rating but could only reach bronze 1, and I think it’s one or multiple of;
You run 1-2 BGs
You don’t/can’t kill war bosses
Your alliance is very unorganised

GroundedWisdom

The issue is it's not just an adjustment. It's sacrificing the efforts of some Players so others can benefit. That's not just a simple adjustment. It's not even a solution to the issue. It's making it advantageous for some to rob the ability to win from others. This whole business about people suffering in the Rankings doesn't make it okay to set up Matches that ensure people will fail. At all.

Except we’ve been going up against alliances that are over double our prestige for so long, literally unable to win. And It’s been like that for at least 7 seasons. If it was mostly prestige, our alliance would be way further into the ranks, but there has been so many... way more than I can count, alliance wars where we are put against guys that are double the prestige of our alliance.

DNA3000

Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.

So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.

This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.

IKON

It's the growing pains of switching to a new system. Give it a season or two, and it'll shake it correctly.

Speeds80

I don’t think you understand war rating, every loss it drops, while gw was trying to mock what we are saying it’s actually true, it will be alright in a few mornings, don’t waste items and let your losses drop you like they are supposed to. you are experiencing problems from your inflated war rating, you got that rating by winning more wars than would have been possible under a fair system. The reason we don’t have much pity is because we know from experience that once you find your correct level, a 50:50 war win rate is actually a solution, not a problem, those who were protected from fair competition and able to win 90% of their wars by never facing stronger alliances was what broke the system, it will all be sorted soon when you end up in the spot where you can win around 50% of wars, at the correct tier and multiplier and rewards that were designed for your progression in the game

What are you even talking about???
We aren’t going up against bronze 1 teams, we are going up against gold alliances, and it makes it way too unfair on us.

So this is a completely new argument from you, and honestly it does not hold water. In fact when I presented another situation where the system will ensure people will fail in the other thread, with the alliance that went to p3 and lost skilled players you acted like that was perfectly OK. No offence but you seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth.

This system does not rob the ability to win from people, it rewards you if you win against equally matched people and punishes you if you cannot, but to get to that there is an adjustment period. This case does not even to be an example of the adjustment period, just that a gold alliance got bad and dropped down. It happens.

GroundedWisdom

No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.

So would it affect my war rank? Would I still be in bronze if I lose?

But how did you get to 1600 war rating while only landing bronze 1? Winning 50% of your 12 wars with 3BGs should be a guaranteed silver 1 atleast.

They both have a war rating of 814.

Markjv81

You say excuses we say reasons.

Ahh yes a 10/10 response, a truly wonderful counter-point that will convince me that prestige matchmaking is better than war rating.
Sorry guys, GW is right, can’t argue with the point he made here.

In case you are unaware, all war ratings were halved, so they were both at 1600 last season.

unknown

This content has been removed.

I was not, my apologizes, I thought that was happening next season. I just came back this week.