Alliance War Matchmaking

13»

Comments

  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 913 ★★★
    The problem in it's entirety, is that these newer alliances don't actually know how alliance war had always worked and was always intended to work since the game modes creation. With each consecutive win, the wars are supposed to get harder each time. You were never supposed to be able to win perpetually and have the difficulty never increase. This only happened while the system was broken. Kabam has now fixed it/reverted it back to how it was for years before this prestige matching ever happened.

    You can't expect to receive no increase in difficulty as you progress in rating. It simply doesn't work that way. Hopefully they will eventually understand that this is how war works.
  • HI_guysHI_guys Posts: 1,394 ★★★★
    xNig said:

    I love how quick others are to tell people to get over it and get good. If it was their Ally, they'd be here posting everyday.

    I see. Is that why you’re here? 😂
    How dare you insinuate that he is here for personal gain
  • ABOMB said:

    I love how quick others are to tell people to get over it and get good. If it was their Ally, they'd be here posting everyday.


    Why don't some of you try playing act 6 with 3 stars then let me know how it feels..because its no different then whats happening to us smaller alliances being matched with such high powered teams.
    You know I would try this, but there is that pesky star requirement in the way. Darn.

  • b3atub3atu Posts: 14
    Yeah, this matchmaking system is totally unfair!!! just like the stupid nba schedule and playoff system... why do my timberwolves have to play the lakers, clippers etc all the time... thats totally not fair... how they supposed to ever win the title!?!? they only should match up with the suns
  • ABOMBABOMB Posts: 264

    ABOMB said:

    I love how quick others are to tell people to get over it and get good. If it was their Ally, they'd be here posting everyday.


    Why don't some of you try playing act 6 with 3 stars then let me know how it feels..because its no different then whats happening to us smaller alliances being matched with such high powered teams.
    You know I would try this, but there is that pesky star requirement in the way. Darn.

    Then play 5.4 with 3 stars, same difference..or better yet 2 and 1 stars because according to a lot of you its about skill so have at it and let me know how it goes..
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 298 ★★★
    ABOMB said:

    ABOMB said:

    I love how quick others are to tell people to get over it and get good. If it was their Ally, they'd be here posting everyday.


    Why don't some of you try playing act 6 with 3 stars then let me know how it feels..because its no different then whats happening to us smaller alliances being matched with such high powered teams.
    You know I would try this, but there is that pesky star requirement in the way. Darn.

    Then play 5.4 with 3 stars, same difference..or better yet 2 and 1 stars because according to a lot of you its about skill so have at it and let me know how it goes..
    You have to progress to 5.4. You can’t just beat 1.1 20 times and jump the other chapters. Other teams are stronger and better skilled than you. We have had these spam discussions closed already because they devolve into name calling, straw man arguments like you just made, and making up definitions of “fairness”. Everybody has explained this over and over for countless pages. The rules are set the way they always should have been. If you’re losing a lot then I’d ignore war for a few seasons.
  • MauledMauled Posts: 1,797 ★★★★

    ABOMB said:

    Thanks for the comments everybody..
    And to be clear it's not about getting Gold or higher (which would be cool if we earned it..but in good time, we have a ways to go yet)
    Its just not fun competing against allys with such higher prestige. A good challenge is what makes it fun but not when its skewed so badly. War rating may be the best way to go but maybe they could atleast implement something to keep the two teams competing to a reasonable prestige difference of one another.

    Believe me. I agree. There should be reasonable limits for variations in fire power. Unfortunately, people have argued ad nauseum that it doesn't matter. Apparently a fair fight is a foreign concept.
    Creating a fair fight is the defining concept of these changes.
  • ABOMBABOMB Posts: 264

    ABOMB said:

    ABOMB said:

    I love how quick others are to tell people to get over it and get good. If it was their Ally, they'd be here posting everyday.


    Why don't some of you try playing act 6 with 3 stars then let me know how it feels..because its no different then whats happening to us smaller alliances being matched with such high powered teams.
    You know I would try this, but there is that pesky star requirement in the way. Darn.

    Then play 5.4 with 3 stars, same difference..or better yet 2 and 1 stars because according to a lot of you its about skill so have at it and let me know how it goes..
    You have to progress to 5.4. You can’t just beat 1.1 20 times and jump the other chapters. Other teams are stronger and better skilled than you. We have had these spam discussions closed already because they devolve into name calling, straw man arguments like you just made, and making up definitions of “fairness”. Everybody has explained this over and over for countless pages. The rules are set the way they always should have been. If you’re losing a lot then I’d ignore war for a few seasons.
    You won't get name calling from me man.
    I can see the point of going by war rating but that still doesn't make it right for all us lower rated alliances to practically be punished for several seasons until this thing equals out. And it also wasn't right for some of you that got screwed out of better ranks when it went by prestige. There must be a middle ground but I don't have the answer.
  • HI_guysHI_guys Posts: 1,394 ★★★★

    ABOMB said:

    Thanks for the comments everybody..
    And to be clear it's not about getting Gold or higher (which would be cool if we earned it..but in good time, we have a ways to go yet)
    Its just not fun competing against allys with such higher prestige. A good challenge is what makes it fun but not when its skewed so badly. War rating may be the best way to go but maybe they could atleast implement something to keep the two teams competing to a reasonable prestige difference of one another.

    Believe me. I agree. There should be reasonable limits for variations in fire power. Unfortunately, people have argued ad nauseum that it doesn't matter. Apparently a fair fight is a foreign concept.
    EXACTLY. THANK YOU. Ad nauseum is the perfect way to describe the scenario. I love how self aware you are
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,312 ★★★★★
    Mauled said:

    ABOMB said:

    Thanks for the comments everybody..
    And to be clear it's not about getting Gold or higher (which would be cool if we earned it..but in good time, we have a ways to go yet)
    Its just not fun competing against allys with such higher prestige. A good challenge is what makes it fun but not when its skewed so badly. War rating may be the best way to go but maybe they could atleast implement something to keep the two teams competing to a reasonable prestige difference of one another.

    Believe me. I agree. There should be reasonable limits for variations in fire power. Unfortunately, people have argued ad nauseum that it doesn't matter. Apparently a fair fight is a foreign concept.
    Creating a fair fight is the defining concept of these changes.
    Fairness had very little to do with the Matches being changed immediately. It was Rewards. People looked at the Alliances getting Rewards that were lower in Rating and Roster and made the assessment that it was unfair. The incredible irony that seems to escape people is that judgment was made using the Rating and Prestige that was seen, and in the same argument said that neither matter nor should they. Which means the argument was a pick-and-choose one. It actually had very little to do with fairness, and much more to do with taking advantage. They looked at those Alliances and knew if they came up against them, they would lose. The only thing this change did was give them a legitimate way to do it, rather than the Tanking and other ways of manipulating the system that used to take place. Coincidentally, those ways were the reason there was a need for Prestige to begin with. It had nothing to do with fairness on the part of the Players. Fairness isn't a one-sided street. It was greed for Rewards. Same motivation that's pushed through and made Seasons a miserable experience for everyone not on the top end.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,192 ★★★★★

    I agree with you op my alliance is about to get cheated out of bronze 3 because we matched a alliance with more 5 stars than us

    oh no, more 5*s than you.........
  • AGYAATAGYAAT Posts: 41
    Actually both matchmaking system are trash in someway, it was not good if any weak alliance can access higher tire aw rewards BUT it's also not good/fair in any means if any alliance gets a matchmaking where opponent has 7-10 million alliance rating difference🤷🏻‍♂️,

    I believe strong alliance and theirs member are quiet happy to destroy weak alliance in these so called fair matchmaking system to sustain theirs high aw tire rewards without much efforts, don't wanna listen your theory to prove that current matchmaking system is best, share some screenshots of your last 3-4 matchmakings to deny that strong alliance (high alliance rating) always gets benefits in every matchmaking, maybe previous system gives some unfair advantage for some weak/unworthy alliance but current one gives same advantages to strong alliance by giving them too easy matchmaking

    If you are skilled and strong enough for better aw rewards then join big alliance (strong alliance rating) for example if you want gold 1 rewards then you will find it very easy if you Join any 28 million+ alliance and if you want these rewards from 20-23 million alliance you will definitely suffer a lot because most of the time your opponent will be much stronger and yeah you can beat them with skills and lots of resources but if you go join 28 million+ alliance then it will save your many resources
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,997 Guardian
    AGYAAT said:

    I believe strong alliance and theirs member are quiet happy to destroy weak alliance in these so called fair matchmaking system to sustain theirs high aw tire rewards without much efforts

    Small problem with your theory. If a strong alliance is crushing a weak one, it isn't getting high tier rewards. Strong alliances can only face weak alliances if the strong one is underperforming and not getting top tier rewards, or the weak one is either overperforming and actually beating the strong ones, or completely in the wrong tier.

    You're imagining a scenario where the Dallas Cowboys try to get to the Superbowl by beating up grade school kids. But in this fantasy scenario, the Dallas Cowboys only face grade school kids in the first place if someone decides they don't belong in the NFL and kick them out. There's no amount of wins over such competition that gets them into the playoffs. And strong alliances can only even face weak ones in alliance war if they aren't in the highest tiers in the first place. If they do, its a bug in the match making algorithm.

    Strong alliances can slum it and face weaker competition, but only by sacrificing rewards by losing a lot to get there in the first place. They cannot both get easier matches and higher rewards. That's simply an imaginary scenario.
  • AGYAATAGYAAT Posts: 41
    -sixate- said:

    The problem with prestige matchmaking is 6k prestige alliances can gain a multiplier similar to an alliance with 11k prestige and never face anything above 6k alliance. Is that fair that a 6k prestige alliance can score more points than a 10k prestige alliance that they would get smashed by? It is not.

    I'm currently facing a 7k prestige alliance who finished higher than my 10k+ alliance last season. It is now fair that they have to prove they are better than my alliance.

    What's the problem if 6k prestige alliance beats more opponent in similar matchmaking (6k vs 6k) and your alliance can't beat that amounts of opponent in similar matchmaking (10k vs 10k)

    Even if it's not fair still you can't create a matchmaking system where 6k alliance will face a 9k or 10k, I think it would be better if the set a limit like 6k prestige alliance can't get gold1/platinum4 but then can access up to gold 2 bracket rewards based on aw season points because for gold1 each alliance should have 9k prestige (eligibility criteria)
  • ABOMBABOMB Posts: 264
    Thought this thread was closed up??

    Season 4 of this and were (our ally) still on a roller coaster ride of mismatches from 3K higher to 3K lower prestige opponents.lol
    Win, loss, win, loss, win, loss, etc..
    Doesn't seem to be any reasoning to the war point system either. Sometimes we win and go up by 120 and sometimes only like 75. Same with losses. Not sure how they figure those parameters out.

    Doesn't make sense to me either that were ranked about 230 in Silver 1 facing an opponent in Gold 3 ranked in top 1000. Wouldnt it make more sense for us to be battling a higher silver 1 team than us? Idk

    Its Kabams world and we all just play in it.
  • AGYAATAGYAAT Posts: 41
    DNA3000 said:

    AGYAAT said:

    I believe strong alliance and theirs member are quiet happy to destroy weak alliance in these so called fair matchmaking system to sustain theirs high aw tire rewards without much efforts

    Small problem with your theory. If a strong alliance is crushing a weak one, it isn't getting high tier rewards. Strong alliances can only face weak alliances if the strong one is underperforming and not getting top tier rewards, or the weak one is either overperforming and actually beating the strong ones, or completely in the wrong tier.

    You're imagining a scenario where the Dallas Cowboys try to get to the Superbowl by beating up grade school kids. But in this fantasy scenario, the Dallas Cowboys only face grade school kids in the first place if someone decides they don't belong in the NFL and kick them out. There's no amount of wins over such competition that gets them into the playoffs. And strong alliances can only even face weak ones in alliance war if they aren't in the highest tiers in the first place. If they do, its a bug in the match making algorithm.

    Strong alliances can slum it and face weaker competition, but only by sacrificing rewards by losing a lot to get there in the first place. They cannot both get easier matches and higher rewards. That's simply an imaginary scenario.
    Do you know gold 2 & plat4 alliance can have same war ratings? I have seen that I'm currently in gold2 alliance and my friend is in plat4 some 2-3 war before we both has almost similar alliance rating now do you think if we had almost similar aw rating then we could also face each other in this matchmaking system, if you think yes then I don't wanna argue on what is really/imaginary/fair/unfair because my alliance rating
    DNA3000 said:

    AGYAAT said:

    I believe strong alliance and theirs member are quiet happy to destroy weak alliance in these so called fair matchmaking system to sustain theirs high aw tire rewards without much efforts

    Small problem with your theory. If a strong alliance is crushing a weak one, it isn't getting high tier rewards. Strong alliances can only face weak alliances if the strong one is underperforming and not getting top tier rewards, or the weak one is either overperforming and actually beating the strong ones, or completely in the wrong tier.

    You're imagining a scenario where the Dallas Cowboys try to get to the Superbowl by beating up grade school kids. But in this fantasy scenario, the Dallas Cowboys only face grade school kids in the first place if someone decides they don't belong in the NFL and kick them out. There's no amount of wins over such competition that gets them into the playoffs. And strong alliances can only even face weak ones in alliance war if they aren't in the highest tiers in the first place. If they do, its a bug in the match making algorithm.

    Strong alliances can slum it and face weaker competition, but only by sacrificing rewards by losing a lot to get there in the first place. They cannot both get easier matches and higher rewards. That's simply an imaginary scenario.
    So it's mean strong alliance doesn't need to put any effort for low tire rewards like 30 million alliance (that's my opponent) doesn't want to push for plat4 (but they potential for it) so they can secure gold 1 relatively easy by facing 20-23 million alliance (that's me) in name of fair matchmaking system? And that 22 million alliance need to suffer a lot by spending many unnecessary items in entire aw season for just gold 1 bracket because they are keep facing back to back 30-37 million alliance?
    I can share all my all last matchmaking via screenshot but I don't think I need to because everyone knows that if he's in similar situations like me
  • xNigxNig Posts: 5,224 ★★★★★
    edited October 23
    AGYAAT said:

    DNA3000 said:

    AGYAAT said:

    I believe strong alliance and theirs member are quiet happy to destroy weak alliance in these so called fair matchmaking system to sustain theirs high aw tire rewards without much efforts

    Small problem with your theory. If a strong alliance is crushing a weak one, it isn't getting high tier rewards. Strong alliances can only face weak alliances if the strong one is underperforming and not getting top tier rewards, or the weak one is either overperforming and actually beating the strong ones, or completely in the wrong tier.

    You're imagining a scenario where the Dallas Cowboys try to get to the Superbowl by beating up grade school kids. But in this fantasy scenario, the Dallas Cowboys only face grade school kids in the first place if someone decides they don't belong in the NFL and kick them out. There's no amount of wins over such competition that gets them into the playoffs. And strong alliances can only even face weak ones in alliance war if they aren't in the highest tiers in the first place. If they do, its a bug in the match making algorithm.

    Strong alliances can slum it and face weaker competition, but only by sacrificing rewards by losing a lot to get there in the first place. They cannot both get easier matches and higher rewards. That's simply an imaginary scenario.
    Do you know gold 2 & plat4 alliance can have same war ratings? I have seen that I'm currently in gold2 alliance and my friend is in plat4 some 2-3 war before we both has almost similar alliance rating now do you think if we had almost similar aw rating then we could also face each other in this matchmaking system, if you think yes then I don't wanna argue on what is really/imaginary/fair/unfair because my alliance rating
    DNA3000 said:

    AGYAAT said:

    I believe strong alliance and theirs member are quiet happy to destroy weak alliance in these so called fair matchmaking system to sustain theirs high aw tire rewards without much efforts

    Small problem with your theory. If a strong alliance is crushing a weak one, it isn't getting high tier rewards. Strong alliances can only face weak alliances if the strong one is underperforming and not getting top tier rewards, or the weak one is either overperforming and actually beating the strong ones, or completely in the wrong tier.

    You're imagining a scenario where the Dallas Cowboys try to get to the Superbowl by beating up grade school kids. But in this fantasy scenario, the Dallas Cowboys only face grade school kids in the first place if someone decides they don't belong in the NFL and kick them out. There's no amount of wins over such competition that gets them into the playoffs. And strong alliances can only even face weak ones in alliance war if they aren't in the highest tiers in the first place. If they do, its a bug in the match making algorithm.

    Strong alliances can slum it and face weaker competition, but only by sacrificing rewards by losing a lot to get there in the first place. They cannot both get easier matches and higher rewards. That's simply an imaginary scenario.
    So it's mean strong alliance doesn't need to put any effort for low tire rewards like 30 million alliance (that's my opponent) doesn't want to push for plat4 (but they potential for it) so they can secure gold 1 relatively easy by facing 20-23 million alliance (that's me) in name of fair matchmaking system? And that 22 million alliance need to suffer a lot by spending many unnecessary items in entire aw season for just gold 1 bracket because they are keep facing back to back 30-37 million alliance?
    I can share all my all last matchmaking via screenshot but I don't think I need to because everyone knows that if he's in similar situations like me
    You don’t seem to understand that war capabilities (aka ratings) are the addition of Roster and Skill and Willingness to spend items.

    If your opponent is happy to receive Gold 1 rewards because they are less skilled and/or less willing to spend items, then that’s their prerogative.

    If your 22m alliance wants to get Gold 1 rewards and your roster isn’t up to par, you can make it up with Skill and Items. If you’re can’t or don’t want to, then guess what, you shouldn’t be getting Gold 1 Rewards.

    Not to mention, Plat4/Gold1 isn’t a tier. It’s how you perform throughout the Season.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,997 Guardian
    AGYAAT said:

    Do you know gold 2 & plat4 alliance can have same war ratings?

    Yeah, because your bracket is based on points scored, but war ratings is based on wins and losses. You know what cannot be true? Two alliances can't have the same ratings while one always wins and the other always loses. Winners rise in rating. Losers fall. An alliance taking advantage of "weaker" alliances to rack up easy wins, like you described, can't have the same rating consistently as those weaker alliances you think they are beating up on, because winning propels them above those alliances. They can only keep matching against so-called weaker alliances if they keep losing enough to have a low enough rating to face them.

    Also, you seem to be conflating war rating and alliance rating. I'm not sure if that's a typo, or if that is a point of confusion. Of course two alliances in different war brackets can have the same alliance rating, because alliance rating doesn't correlate directly to season points. But it is much less likely for two alliances in G2 and P4 to have the same war rating, because to have the same war rating and thus the same season multiplier but still be separated by at least 22% of points (which is the approximate difference between the top of G2 and the bottom of P4) would require the P4 alliance to be barely winning when they win, and all but not showing up at all when they lose. I'm not even sure if this is mathematically reasonable to happen unless the P4 alliance was on the decline and the G2 alliance was on the way up and they were only at the same war rating momentarily as they passed each other going in opposite directions. Which is what is supposed to happen frankly in that scenario.
  • walkerdogwalkerdog Posts: 503 ★★★
    Its really awesome to be able to get G1 doing itemless wars. The prizes aren't worth spending items on so we went itemless. Its a much better experience.

    If u can't beat my ally when we aren't using much/any heals/revives, you have no business getting g1 rewards. Enjoy the journey to getting good, dont be stymied by the fact that you aren't there yet.
  • AGYAATAGYAAT Posts: 41
    walkerdog said:

    Its really awesome to be able to get G1 doing itemless wars. The prizes aren't worth spending items on so we went itemless. Its a much better experience.

    If u can't beat my ally when we aren't using much/any heals/revives, you have no business getting g1 rewards. Enjoy the journey to getting good, dont be stymied by the fact that you aren't there yet.

    That's the problem my prestige is around 10.2k and I'm one of the key member in my 22 million alliance because of good skills & strong roster for some trick aw node combinations and that's cost me much items more items for just gold1 and I assume If I join any 30 million alliance (there are so many alliance that doesn't push themselves for high tire aw bracket but they have potential for it since new aw map & other updates for aw and focus more in aq) then I can save my many resources because then I will not face death match in aw (7-10 alliance rating difference) and it's quite a high chance that we will face week alliance to sustain gold 1 bracket without/less items
    I have seen this because some of my friends are in strong alliance (30-35 million) for effortless gold 1 bracket and better aq rewards
  • xNigxNig Posts: 5,224 ★★★★★
    AGYAAT said:

    walkerdog said:

    Its really awesome to be able to get G1 doing itemless wars. The prizes aren't worth spending items on so we went itemless. Its a much better experience.

    If u can't beat my ally when we aren't using much/any heals/revives, you have no business getting g1 rewards. Enjoy the journey to getting good, dont be stymied by the fact that you aren't there yet.

    That's the problem my prestige is around 10.2k and I'm one of the key member in my 22 million alliance because of good skills & strong roster for some trick aw node combinations and that's cost me much items more items for just gold1 and I assume If I join any 30 million alliance (there are so many alliance that doesn't push themselves for high tire aw bracket but they have potential for it since new aw map & other updates for aw and focus more in aq) then I can save my many resources because then I will not face death match in aw (7-10 alliance rating difference) and it's quite a high chance that we will face week alliance to sustain gold 1 bracket without/less items
    I have seen this because some of my friends are in strong alliance (30-35 million) for effortless gold 1 bracket and better aq rewards
    No one is stopping you from switching alliances....
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,192 ★★★★★
    AGYAAT said:

    walkerdog said:

    Its really awesome to be able to get G1 doing itemless wars. The prizes aren't worth spending items on so we went itemless. Its a much better experience.

    If u can't beat my ally when we aren't using much/any heals/revives, you have no business getting g1 rewards. Enjoy the journey to getting good, dont be stymied by the fact that you aren't there yet.

    That's the problem my prestige is around 10.2k and I'm one of the key member in my 22 million alliance because of good skills & strong roster for some trick aw node combinations and that's cost me much items more items for just gold1 and I assume If I join any 30 million alliance (there are so many alliance that doesn't push themselves for high tire aw bracket but they have potential for it since new aw map & other updates for aw and focus more in aq) then I can save my many resources because then I will not face death match in aw (7-10 alliance rating difference) and it's quite a high chance that we will face week alliance to sustain gold 1 bracket without/less items
    I have seen this because some of my friends are in strong alliance (30-35 million) for effortless gold 1 bracket and better aq rewards
    a 7-10m alliance difference for a 22m alliance is no where near a deathmatch, you can only use 8 champs each of that score, not your entire roster.
Sign In or Register to comment.