Unfair war match

2»

Comments

  • Mobile_P0tat0Mobile_P0tat0 Posts: 385 ★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    Aamir123 said:

    This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance.

    I know it has been a while since I followed war seasons very closely, but how is it that the second strongest alliance in war has a 2388 rating and placed Platinum 4 last season? The strongest alliances in war are the ones that win, not the ones with the biggest rosters.

    Let me put it another way. Your alliance placed P3 last season, and you're trying to get to P2 this season. P2 is rank 50 to 100, so to get there you would have to climb to the top 100 alliances in season points overall. But your current alliance rating of 44 million means you're nowhere near one of the top 100 alliances by rating (#100 has a rating of 55 million). There's only two ways to get there. Face top 100 alliances, or face alliances completely outside the top 100 and still jump into the top 100.

    You think facing a higher rated alliance is unfair, even though you have the same war rating. Fine, if that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, if you think that's unfair then the game should not allow you to face those alliances, not even to climb up in rewards. So P2 would permanently be out of the question. Your alliance would not be allowed to even attempt to climb to that level of rewards.

    How about the alternative? You keep facing top 300 alliance and yet jump to top 100, and all of those alliances you never faced are just out of luck. They had to face each other, and you were allowed to leap over them having never had to face any of them, ever. Sounds great, for you. Except the same thing will happen to you. A one million rating alliance could face nothing but other one million rating alliances, win every war, and by virtue of never losing they could end up being a tier 1 alliance with master rewards, outperforming your alliance by a mile while never having to face you or any other alliance remotely strong. How would that feel?

    The current system forces you to face whatever alliance is in your way, regardless of alliance rating. All that matters is they win and lose as often as you do, as measured by war rating. If you want the game to avoid those kinds of match ups for you, it has to avoid them for everyone else, and your alliance is exactly the kind of alliance the current system protects. In the previous iteration of match making, where alliances did not face alliances of dissimilar alliance rating, you'd probably be placing lower. You're currently overperforming: placing higher in war seasons than your alliance rating rank. In the old system, you wouldn't face these kinds of match ups, but alliance much lower than yours would also be ranking higher by avoiding those kinds of match ups, and the net result is more alliances would likely jump past you through easier matching than you would.
    It would be like if I was the coach for an under 12 football team and managed to beat New England patriots in the league and win top prize because we beat all the other under 12 football teams.

    We never got matched with patriots because they were so much better than us.

    See how unfair that is?
    If you are coaching an under 12 football team, then you shouldn't be competing with teams trying to get to the superbowl. They are currently competing for the same rewards and obviously the whale alliance either couldn't keep up or didn't want to put forth the effort to be in the higher tier bracket.
  • AzKicker316AzKicker316 Posts: 1,918 ★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    Aamir123 said:

    This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance.

    I know it has been a while since I followed war seasons very closely, but how is it that the second strongest alliance in war has a 2388 rating and placed Platinum 4 last season? The strongest alliances in war are the ones that win, not the ones with the biggest rosters.

    Let me put it another way. Your alliance placed P3 last season, and you're trying to get to P2 this season. P2 is rank 50 to 100, so to get there you would have to climb to the top 100 alliances in season points overall. But your current alliance rating of 44 million means you're nowhere near one of the top 100 alliances by rating (#100 has a rating of 55 million). There's only two ways to get there. Face top 100 alliances, or face alliances completely outside the top 100 and still jump into the top 100.

    You think facing a higher rated alliance is unfair, even though you have the same war rating. Fine, if that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, if you think that's unfair then the game should not allow you to face those alliances, not even to climb up in rewards. So P2 would permanently be out of the question. Your alliance would not be allowed to even attempt to climb to that level of rewards.

    How about the alternative? You keep facing top 300 alliance and yet jump to top 100, and all of those alliances you never faced are just out of luck. They had to face each other, and you were allowed to leap over them having never had to face any of them, ever. Sounds great, for you. Except the same thing will happen to you. A one million rating alliance could face nothing but other one million rating alliances, win every war, and by virtue of never losing they could end up being a tier 1 alliance with master rewards, outperforming your alliance by a mile while never having to face you or any other alliance remotely strong. How would that feel?

    The current system forces you to face whatever alliance is in your way, regardless of alliance rating. All that matters is they win and lose as often as you do, as measured by war rating. If you want the game to avoid those kinds of match ups for you, it has to avoid them for everyone else, and your alliance is exactly the kind of alliance the current system protects. In the previous iteration of match making, where alliances did not face alliances of dissimilar alliance rating, you'd probably be placing lower. You're currently overperforming: placing higher in war seasons than your alliance rating rank. In the old system, you wouldn't face these kinds of match ups, but alliance much lower than yours would also be ranking higher by avoiding those kinds of match ups, and the net result is more alliances would likely jump past you through easier matching than you would.
    It would be like if I was the coach for an under 12 football team and managed to beat New England patriots in the league and win top prize because we beat all the other under 12 football teams.

    We never got matched with patriots because they were so much better than us.

    See how unfair that is?
    If you are coaching an under 12 football team, then you shouldn't be competing with teams trying to get to the superbowl. They are currently competing for the same rewards and obviously the whale alliance either couldn't keep up or didn't want to put forth the effort to be in the higher tier bracket.

    Comparing an under 12 team to the pros is not even close to an accurate comparison. A true comparison is an under 12 recreational team going against an under 12 high organized team. They both meet the criteria to play each other, but there can be a huge difference in skill and even player size.

    Matchmaking is truly based on war rating. The more you win, the higher the rating and therefore harder competition. Win some, lose some, that's the nature of the game. Just because you're on the cusp of p2, doesn't mean you deserve to stay and shouldn't face tough competition during the season. Deal with it and learn for next season, if you choose to make p2 your war goal.

    Every week or so there's always someone whining about matchmaking, even though ratings are close.
  • GmonkeyGmonkey Posts: 1,650 ★★★★
    To be the man you gotta beat the man.
    Wooooooooo
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,905 ★★★★★
    edited April 6
    Oh I can say yes that is probably not a fair matchup but they'll soon be in p1. Thats the luck of the draw sometimes. we'll probably have to face them next because I'm in p3 right now as well lol.
  • Dr_Z01dbergDr_Z01dberg Posts: 478 ★★★
    Aamir123 said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    War ratings are similar, looks fair to me

    Ratings are similar but alliances are far different from each other. Their maps are filled with all insane r3 champs and even champs like weapon x are there at r3’s and most people can’t handle him easily even in quests.
    This is the way war works bro, if they are in T2 then they are probably doing itemless war.

    It’s frustrating when you get a tougher batch but if your aiming for P2 then you need to be able to beat the majority of alliances in the game.

    I also think if you don’t have people who are confident against an r3 weapon x then you probably don’t deserve P2
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 12,400 Guardian

    Sometimes the war matchmaking really does suck

    I think that an the overall rating of each Alliance should be taken into consideration not just the war rating and here's why

    Sometimes matchmaking has been bad in our favor against a very weak opponent where we clear all three maps & they barely have any Defenders placed so we scored a ton of points and sometimes that happens more than one war in a row

    And the next thing you know we move up to a more difficult map and our total rating is around 13 million and our last war opponent that we lost to was over 35 million so nearly triple what we are and I believe all but maybe two of their members were over 1 million rating individually meanwhile we have one member who is over a million and a small handful that are even over 500,000, which generally translates to less maxed out five-star Defenders or rank three six-star Defenders

    We had similar War ratings because they are beating alliances like ours and maybe they had some easy matchups as well but by the way, we had artificial higher War rating numbers based on matchmaking that put us against weak if not almost completely dead alliances where there might only be a couple of active members

    We hold our own we did just win an alliance War against an opponent who was over 20 million and again we are only about 13 million and they even had some fairly strong Defenders but they obviously lacked the skill on attack because we cleared all 3 maps and they only took out two of our bosses which was kind of surprising so it's not impossible to beat an alliance in war that is overall stronger than you had to head but the war rating is a skewed number oftentimes that should not be the only means for matchmaking

    War rating doesn't always match the true strength of the alliance, but the fundamental difference between war rating and alliance rating is war rating gets better over time, alliance rating is just always wrong.

    If your war rating is higher than your actual strength, you'll face stronger alliances than you are most of the time. You'll lose more often than you win, and your war rating will drop until on average you're winning about as often as you are losing. Your war rating will represent your true strength, because that's the very definition of "correct" - everyone at the same rating has about even odds of beating anyone else at that same rating.

    The odds of your alliance rating just coincidentally matching your actual war strength is almost zero. But nothing acts to correct it. If you are weaker than your alliance rating, you'll tend to remain so. If you are stronger than your alliance rating, you'll tend to remain so, because alliance rating is dominated by roster *width* and not roster *strength*.

    Consider: at the moment according to the leaderboards my rank is 2041 in total base hero rating. That's amazing, but also mostly irrelevant except for fun, because all that means is I've been around forever and rank up all my 3* champs. My prestige on the other hand is relatively low: I'm 93,127 in "strongest team" which is more or less prestige, because I don't rank for prestige. Neither number comes remotely close to my actual war strength. This generalizes to whole alliances.
  • A7madD1wA7madD1w Posts: 101

    Oh I can say yes that is probably not a fair matchup but they'll soon be in p1. Thats the luck of the draw sometimes. we'll probably have to face them next because I'm in p3 right now as well lol.

    they won't be P1, load is a bunch of whales who dont care about war and absolutely suck at the game. asgrd 2.0
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,521 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    Aamir123 said:

    This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance.

    I know it has been a while since I followed war seasons very closely, but how is it that the second strongest alliance in war has a 2388 rating and placed Platinum 4 last season? The strongest alliances in war are the ones that win, not the ones with the biggest rosters.

    Let me put it another way. Your alliance placed P3 last season, and you're trying to get to P2 this season. P2 is rank 50 to 100, so to get there you would have to climb to the top 100 alliances in season points overall. But your current alliance rating of 44 million means you're nowhere near one of the top 100 alliances by rating (#100 has a rating of 55 million). There's only two ways to get there. Face top 100 alliances, or face alliances completely outside the top 100 and still jump into the top 100.

    You think facing a higher rated alliance is unfair, even though you have the same war rating. Fine, if that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, if you think that's unfair then the game should not allow you to face those alliances, not even to climb up in rewards. So P2 would permanently be out of the question. Your alliance would not be allowed to even attempt to climb to that level of rewards.

    How about the alternative? You keep facing top 300 alliance and yet jump to top 100, and all of those alliances you never faced are just out of luck. They had to face each other, and you were allowed to leap over them having never had to face any of them, ever. Sounds great, for you. Except the same thing will happen to you. A one million rating alliance could face nothing but other one million rating alliances, win every war, and by virtue of never losing they could end up being a tier 1 alliance with master rewards, outperforming your alliance by a mile while never having to face you or any other alliance remotely strong. How would that feel?

    The current system forces you to face whatever alliance is in your way, regardless of alliance rating. All that matters is they win and lose as often as you do, as measured by war rating. If you want the game to avoid those kinds of match ups for you, it has to avoid them for everyone else, and your alliance is exactly the kind of alliance the current system protects. In the previous iteration of match making, where alliances did not face alliances of dissimilar alliance rating, you'd probably be placing lower. You're currently overperforming: placing higher in war seasons than your alliance rating rank. In the old system, you wouldn't face these kinds of match ups, but alliance much lower than yours would also be ranking higher by avoiding those kinds of match ups, and the net result is more alliances would likely jump past you through easier matching than you would.
    It would be like if I was the coach for an under 12 football team and managed to beat New England patriots in the league and win top prize because we beat all the other under 12 football teams.

    We never got matched with patriots because they were so much better than us.

    See how unfair that is?
    If you are coaching an under 12 football team, then you shouldn't be competing with teams trying to get to the superbowl. They are currently competing for the same rewards and obviously the whale alliance either couldn't keep up or didn't want to put forth the effort to be in the higher tier bracket.
    Ok let’s go with your idea, they shouldn’t match each other.
    Well in that case then, there should be absolutely no way the under 12s team can earn rewards even remotely similar to a league team.

    So bringing this back to alliance war.
    If you’re wanting matchmaking in which you match based on alliance rating or prestige, then the rewards must also scale based on your alliance rating or prestige. See the problem yet?

    Using the matchup OP is whining about, they will theoretically land in similar places, Plat 3 or Plat 2, but whereas currently there’s not a huge difference in rewards, no difference if they land in the same bracket, if rewards scaled based on alliance rating, there’d be a huge difference because OPs alliance is half the size of his opponents.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,521 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    Aamir123 said:

    This war was our chance to aim platinum 2 this season, but this mismatch lead us in an extreme situation. We are 44mn alliance with 10862 alliance prestige and we are matched with the world’s top second alliance this war which is 84mn+ alliance.

    I know it has been a while since I followed war seasons very closely, but how is it that the second strongest alliance in war has a 2388 rating and placed Platinum 4 last season? The strongest alliances in war are the ones that win, not the ones with the biggest rosters.

    Let me put it another way. Your alliance placed P3 last season, and you're trying to get to P2 this season. P2 is rank 50 to 100, so to get there you would have to climb to the top 100 alliances in season points overall. But your current alliance rating of 44 million means you're nowhere near one of the top 100 alliances by rating (#100 has a rating of 55 million). There's only two ways to get there. Face top 100 alliances, or face alliances completely outside the top 100 and still jump into the top 100.

    You think facing a higher rated alliance is unfair, even though you have the same war rating. Fine, if that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, if you think that's unfair then the game should not allow you to face those alliances, not even to climb up in rewards. So P2 would permanently be out of the question. Your alliance would not be allowed to even attempt to climb to that level of rewards.

    How about the alternative? You keep facing top 300 alliance and yet jump to top 100, and all of those alliances you never faced are just out of luck. They had to face each other, and you were allowed to leap over them having never had to face any of them, ever. Sounds great, for you. Except the same thing will happen to you. A one million rating alliance could face nothing but other one million rating alliances, win every war, and by virtue of never losing they could end up being a tier 1 alliance with master rewards, outperforming your alliance by a mile while never having to face you or any other alliance remotely strong. How would that feel?

    The current system forces you to face whatever alliance is in your way, regardless of alliance rating. All that matters is they win and lose as often as you do, as measured by war rating. If you want the game to avoid those kinds of match ups for you, it has to avoid them for everyone else, and your alliance is exactly the kind of alliance the current system protects. In the previous iteration of match making, where alliances did not face alliances of dissimilar alliance rating, you'd probably be placing lower. You're currently overperforming: placing higher in war seasons than your alliance rating rank. In the old system, you wouldn't face these kinds of match ups, but alliance much lower than yours would also be ranking higher by avoiding those kinds of match ups, and the net result is more alliances would likely jump past you through easier matching than you would.
    It would be like if I was the coach for an under 12 football team and managed to beat New England patriots in the league and win top prize because we beat all the other under 12 football teams.

    We never got matched with patriots because they were so much better than us.

    See how unfair that is?
    If you are coaching an under 12 football team, then you shouldn't be competing with teams trying to get to the superbowl. They are currently competing for the same rewards and obviously the whale alliance either couldn't keep up or didn't want to put forth the effort to be in the higher tier bracket.
    Ok let’s go with your idea, they shouldn’t match each other.
    Well in that case then, there should be absolutely no way the under 12s team can earn rewards even remotely similar to a league team.

    So bringing this back to alliance war.
    If you’re wanting matchmaking in which you match based on alliance rating or prestige, then the rewards must also scale based on your alliance rating or prestige. See the problem yet?

    Using the matchup OP is unhappy about about, they will theoretically land in similar places, Plat 3 or Plat 2, but whereas currently there’s not a huge difference in rewards, no difference if they land in the same bracket, if rewards scaled based on alliance rating, there’d be a huge difference because OPs alliance is half the size of his opponents
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 12,400 Guardian

    Using the matchup OP is whining about, they will theoretically land in similar places, Plat 3 or Plat 2, but whereas currently there’s not a huge difference in rewards, no difference if they land in the same bracket, if rewards scaled based on alliance rating, there’d be a huge difference because OPs alliance is half the size of his opponents.

    Actually, even if we don't scale rewards, the odds are pretty good the OP's alliance would be in P4, rather than P3 with a shot at P2. P2 includes the top 100 alliances in season points. Their alliance rating places them closer to 600th place. There's only a couple ways to include alliance rating into match making, and all of them either do ridiculous exploitive things or tend to pull alliances closer to their alliance rating rank, with fewer opportunities to overperform.

    The OP's alliance appears to be one that overperforms, approaching the top 100 in season rank but with an alliance rating that ranks the alliance closer to 600h place. That can only happen in match systems where alliances are allowed to match against alliances that are stronger than they are on paper but that they beat. Eliminate that possibility, and it is far more likely they drop to P4 than rise to P2. Or you get the crazy exploits that accompanied the previous match system where wildly low rating alliances were leapfrogging past multiple tiers of competition without having to face any of them.
  • Mobile_P0tat0Mobile_P0tat0 Posts: 385 ★★★
    What was the final result of this war?
  • PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 1,932 ★★★★★

    Sometimes the war matchmaking really does suck

    I think that an the overall rating of each Alliance should be taken into consideration not just the war rating and here's why

    Sometimes matchmaking has been bad in our favor against a very weak opponent where we clear all three maps & they barely have any Defenders placed so we scored a ton of points and sometimes that happens more than one war in a row

    And the next thing you know we move up to a more difficult map and our total rating is around 13 million and our last war opponent that we lost to was over 35 million so nearly triple what we are and I believe all but maybe two of their members were over 1 million rating individually meanwhile we have one member who is over a million and a small handful that are even over 500,000, which generally translates to less maxed out five-star Defenders or rank three six-star Defenders

    We had similar War ratings because they are beating alliances like ours and maybe they had some easy matchups as well but by the way, we had artificial higher War rating numbers based on matchmaking that put us against weak if not almost completely dead alliances where there might only be a couple of active members

    We hold our own we did just win an alliance War against an opponent who was over 20 million and again we are only about 13 million and they even had some fairly strong Defenders but they obviously lacked the skill on attack because we cleared all 3 maps and they only took out two of our bosses which was kind of surprising so it's not impossible to beat an alliance in war that is overall stronger than you had to head but the war rating is a skewed number oftentimes that should not be the only means for matchmaking

    You said that you beat 2 or 3 alliances who barely placed defenders, and you guys beat them. Either they were shell alliances with high war rating due to last season or they were a high tier alliance who gave up on war. Either way, you beat them and your war rating increased. Just because you beat them, does not mean you were the better alliance, since the other side did not even put up a fight. So, your war rating is increased, but it is an artificial one. So , it is inevitable that you met an alliance that took war seriously with the same war rating but a much higher alliance rating. You can beat them of course, but it will take considerable more effort. This is what is happening all over alliance war

    It is impossible to design a system when there are some who have started and take war seriously and those who have completed all content with big rosters who play war just to do something in the game. We also have shell alliances and people who intentionally lose so that they are not in tier 5. There are alliances who don't use any items and simply boss rush. With all these different strategies, war rating will not accurately define a alliances war capabilities. But, it is still the best metric to use, a whole lot better than alliance rating or alliance prestige.
Sign In or Register to comment.