Do you think that this AW season matchmaking makes any sense at all?

1โ€ฆ45679

Comments

  • AleorAleor Member Posts: 3,157 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    Yes
    Lormif said:

    seems to indicate the system is working, why were they silver last season, was it because they are not very good but have a high pi? Their prestige is also fairly low for their Pi seeming to indicate someone may be buying lots of crystals and not ranking up their champs.
    I'd assume it's a retired alliance with 10-20 strong accounts and others are more of new players
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments
    Lormif said:

    BS, people have stated they understand that it is a rough transition, but it is a more fair system. This system is ultimately the fairest you can have that anyone can think of.
    A rough transition is a nice way of saying they don't care that it's unfair to others. I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments

    I thought you voted no comment. Please donโ€™t derail another thread. Even miike is tired of it.
    I'm not the only one participating in the conversation, and my tone is fairly civil.
  • LilMaddogHTLilMaddogHT Member Posts: 1,216 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    Yes
    Short term perspective... it doesn't look good or make a lot of sense but in the long term it should even out and get Alliances match'd up with equal skill/effort put towards AW.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments
    naikavon said:

    I hear ya but regarding the transition part, there really exists no system that would have allowed for that. While you may be able to accommodate a skill transition in a timely manner, creating a system that allowed for a gradual accommodation for the roster demands some of these players now face and would have faced would require years in some cases. That's just not realistic. Because it's not just an increase in skill, but an increase in roster demand and nothing but time (or money or some variation of both) can accommodate that.

    I've seen many ideas based on good intentions offered. Despite being good intentions they haven't necessarily been good ideas. Someone suggested reset war rating for all to 0. That does nothing to avoid mismatches and each individual alliance can do that themselves by forming a new alliance. Others have suggested that this should be done in the off season despite many alliances having no motivation to even participate during the off season. Your suggestion of slowly introducing it isn't feasible either because of what I mention above. It becomes more apparent that kabam may have actually made the best course correction available by slashing everyone's previous war rating. Reasonable minds can say it should have been more or less I suppose but that'd quibbling.

    In my mind anything that prolongs the current setup is just cruel so examining ideas to lessen the blow or ease into it seem off base to me. I've thought about this long and hard, and the best idea I could come up with would be to increase the loss of war rating and tie it to the amount of points ( or lack there of) an alliance scored in a match. But see even that has flaws. Drop too fast and and an alliance will retain a higher tier multiplier against potentially much lower tier multiplier alliances. I've seen it when alliances are close to each other in tier multipliers, it's a coin flip on the multiplier used but what happens if they are widely spaced? I've not seen that so I don't know. It potentially could create other unfair advantages so once again we come back to there just aren't good solutions.

    I'm not sure I agree about Roster demands. War Rewards are won, not a given. From my perspective, they can't be counted on. I have to say I disagree that there were no other ways to deal with this. I just think this was the fastest. I also don't really agree that it was necessary. We've seen the results of moving too fast before, and we see it now.
  • This content has been removed.
  • ClashyKnightClashyKnight Member Posts: 59 โ˜…
    edited July 2020
    No
    The only alliances we've been matched up with so far legit havent placed any defenders.
  • Corby11Corby11 Member Posts: 189 โ˜…โ˜…

    The War Rating was far from a gauge of strength when the system was changed. In fact, that was one of the supporting arguments to switching it back. Which means as of right now, it's not a reflection of what Alliances are capable of based on Wins and Losses. Going back to the old system doesn't make it an accurate reflection of that overnight. It will take time and unfortunately, people are being affected by that gap. What I'm speaking to is the response that War Rating is the only thing that matters and if they're equal, then the Match is fair. That's not a current reality. That will only be when the system has realigned itself.
    I don't really want to get too deep into it on another Thread, but as it stands now, it is not a measure of strength. Not even with a few Wars already fought. It will take time. What I keep pointing out is things are out of whack and for people on the losing end, it's an unfair process to go through because their Wars are well beyond their capabilities. People may be able to argue they think it has to be this way, and they may be able to argue the system will settle in time, but the argument that the Matches are fair because the War Rating is even is not correct. Not at this moment in time. In fact, we all knew this was going to happen. Saying it is now, is just trite.
    The thing is war rating is the only thing that matters, your war rating is what determines the map tier you play in and your final reward bracket at the end of each season, the fact is the system that has just been replaced was ignoring war rating in favour of PI why? PI had no bearing on your final standing yet it was the most important factor in matchmaking the result been skewed rewards. The top teams in the lower pI brackets benefited greatly by been able to rise the ranks without having to face people much higher, regardless of how you try dress it up thatโ€™s an unfair advantage. Our last war was against a 9.7k prestige alliance we are 10.3 they had more people with r3 6* in their alliance than we do yet their match difficulty was capped. All of their defenders were r5 5* and 6* heroโ€™s same with their attackers.

    I agree these huge gaps at the moment are no fun for the alliance on the receiving end but I can assure you that for a lot of higher alliances the last 7 or 8 seasons have been no fun either. Maybe there could have been a better way to reset everything but I think if you had automatically started alliances lower, say based on their PI rating rather than war raiting to try ensure a more even fight many would have felt just as annoyed by having to start the season 3 or 4 tiers down.

    I have to agree with what seems to be the vast majority on these threads that if war rating Is the only thing that determines your final ranking then ultimately war raiting is the only measure that should be used to arrange matchmaking.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    edited July 2020
    No Comments
    Well, as long as people are facing Matches they have no chance of winning (900k vs. 19 Mil, i.e.), I cannot call the system fair. Those are extremes I cannot ignore. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
  • TitoBandito187TitoBandito187 Member Posts: 2,072 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    That's the way it is 99.99999999% of the time.

    You're still missing the point that it was just as unfair to other allies before the change because no matter how good some bigger allies were, they could not move up based on the matching rules. Smaller shell allies could just undercut them to Gold and platinum, but now that doesn't work and in general, those who can't handle their own against other allies in the same bracket are being relegated to their appropriate bracket.

    Some allies were negatively impacted before and some allies are negatively impacted now. However, with the change, Overall, this system is going to be more fair in the long run. It just needs a bit of time to even the mess from the previous rating system and that's the imbalance smaller PI alliances are feeling as the bandaid is being ripped off in one quick motion. It will soon pass though.
  • Dr_Z01dbergDr_Z01dberg Member Posts: 512 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    Yes

    @GroundedWisdom you keep going on about size difference.. 6M points more than us correct?




    Well... they're still easily beaten..



    Matchmaking is fair. If you cannot compete at a level, you do not deserve to be there. Your size should not matter.

    We beat New Enterals a few weeks back, they're twice our size. Admittedly they likely were not trying, but thats the point, you get in, what you put out.

    ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments
    Not at all. I've seen Alliances starting out, 1 Mil vs. 20 Mil. Shouldn't happen, but nothing is stopping it. I've seen a Bronze 3 Ally come up against a Gold 3 much larger. I've seen the example I just gave, nothing at all to do withthe few Alliances that were Ranking higher. More and more consequences for honest Players that are not fair. So it has nothing to do with Rewards. The whole system has been changed. The Season is a write-off for anyone who isn't large enough not to lose, and that makes it an unfair Season because no one else is being measured fairly. That's my stance.
    -sixate- said:

    Wjich means that baby alliance had a higher war rating/tier/multiplier and finished higher in the season leaderboards. Yet that was fair? Twist it any way you want. At the end of the day you are wrong.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments
    naikavon said:

    When I refer to roster demands I mean they need a 5* to handle 6* rank 3 defense depending on tier not a 3*. There is no quick fix for that.
    That was actually one of the things I pointed out about the extremes. They cannot possibly compete and win with some of these Matches. It is what it is I suppose, but I'm just not willing to call it fair now because it will be fair in the future.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments
    Lormif said:

    That would have been unfair to people as well, as people who are stone tier could be fighting people who are master tier until the dust settled again. Also the season should not be ruined for anyone. In terms of rewards they should get close to what they truly deserve or better.
    I know, that is why I said or some measure of prestige or alliance rating. People will find a way to manipulate everything in the game, but with the war rating reset to some 10% of prestige rating, it could have avoided these huge mis-matches. I mean we have people in bronze crying here.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,237 โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…โ˜…
    No Comments
    Good job. I don't consider that an unfiar matchup.
  • This content has been removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.