Can we get fairer AW Match Ups pls?

BulmktBulmkt Member Posts: 1,692 ★★★★
edited May 2021 in Suggestions and Requests
So we’re currently battling away at G3 and our current match up looks like this

Our opponent


And this us


Our opponent has a 31m alliance rating vs our 13m rating.

The average player rating of our current opponent is 1m vs us @ 438k

The match up system is flawed. Being matched against an opponent 3 time bigger than us is just unfair.

So Kabam can you pls amend your algorithm to take into account Alliance Ratings and try and have alliances at similar ratings fight each other rather than the current which sees lopsided clashes?
Post edited by Kabam Zibiit on
«1

Comments

  • BulmktBulmkt Member Posts: 1,692 ★★★★
    SpideyFunko said:

    You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.

    The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.

    Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Member Posts: 3,157 ★★★★★
    If you’re gold 3, you may not run 3 groups. You don’t know that they’re putting members in war that are above or below that prestige and rating. That’s why war rating is a thing.
  • BulmktBulmkt Member Posts: 1,692 ★★★★
    ItsDamien said:

    Bulmkt said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.

    The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.

    Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
    Sure, but you're both in the same division. You're not fighting a heavyweight, you're fighting another lightweight.
    No we’re not. Look at their prestige, alliance and player ratings. They are all significantly higher meaning they have higher ranked champs at their disposal
  • BulmktBulmkt Member Posts: 1,692 ★★★★
    Mr_Platypus said:

    Bulmkt said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.

    The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.

    Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
    Well if you don’t want to fight them then don’t be trying to fight for the same rewards as them.
    What a stupid response.
  • BulmktBulmkt Member Posts: 1,692 ★★★★
    Our opponent over their 10 defenders was able to deploy R5 5*, R1, R2 & R3 6* defenders
    We’re able to deploy half of what they have been able to do.

    Their attackers at min were all R5 5* but most had 2 R2 6* attackers
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Member Posts: 22,687 ★★★★★
    Bulmkt said:

    Our opponent over their 10 defenders was able to deploy R5 5*, R1, R2 & R3 6* defenders
    We’re able to deploy half of what they have been able to do.

    Their attackers at min were all R5 5* but most had 2 R2 6* attackers

    So? Have you not fought in Act 6? Have you not beat winter solider in RoL with 500k health? If you've done anything in either of those pieces of content, you shouldn't have any issue fighting those defenders. It sounds like you are doing a 1 BG war correct? This match is fair.
  • Agent_X_zzzAgent_X_zzz Member Posts: 4,498 ★★★★★
    Looks fair to me
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Member Posts: 2,243 ★★★★★
    edited May 2021
    As someone who's been playing war since the original iteration, I can tell you that matching was always based solely on war rating. However, what you're asking for, Kabam actually tried once. For several seasons, the matching was changed awhile back. It had way too many side effects and ended ruining the system. Is the super condensed version. There were massive debates in this forum, for months. In the end Kabam agreed that war rating was the only fair way to match.

    This is just to let you know the history of war in this game and that what you're asking for has already been tried, failed and reverted back. So Kabam will probably never change it again. As for WHY these types of matches occur... It's one of two reasons, either your opponent formed a new alliance which starts them at zero rating and they are working back up to where they should be, or they do not try hard at all in war. Either is possible. Just have to get through this one and move on.

    Good luck in The Contest!
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,834 ★★★★★
    Lvernon15 said:

    Bulmkt said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.

    The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.

    Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
    That’s not what you currently have, you have a lightweight boxer against a heavyweight with no boxing experience
    That shouldn't happen. That was the OP's point. Here we are months later and people are still arguing that unfair is fair because they're playing for the same Rewards. Which is wrong. You can put a 280 lb. man up against a 160 lb. man for the same prize money, but that doesn't make the fight fair.
  • Crys23Crys23 Member Posts: 868 ★★★★
    Still baffles me some people dont get how war works. A 13mil ally shouldnt have that high war rating. Means you beat up on weaker alliances. At some point you run into a "big bad wolf" to knock you in your place.
    If you always match 10-15 mil alliances and always win, you get to tier1, master rewards. That was old system and it was the worst. 20mil alliances, members who havent even completed act5, getting master rewards.
  • Mobile_P0tat0Mobile_P0tat0 Member Posts: 966 ★★★★
    If they are in silver 2 with that rating, they are either a new alliance trying to climb tiers or a bunch of beached whales that can't keep up in higher tier war. If you organize yourselves, boost up, and play smart you can get the W.
  • AGYAATAGYAAT Member Posts: 210 ★
    edited May 2021
    Because of this unfair matchmaking system I quit the aw since last 2-3 aw season... We were platinum 3 before this changes then we got struck in gold 1.. we tried so hard but it was not possible to win against twice & thrice stronger alliance..

    But before quitting aw i managed to get back platinum 4 tag (back to back in 2 season)... Do you want to know how?

    We added 2-3 quake user in each BG.. so we could save kills in 3 hardest paths and they can also use quake for almost each mini boss (if they aren't quake immune).

    this way we overcome kabam's mistake (aw match making) with another kabam's mistake (QUAKE)..
    now most of the Platinum 4,3,2 alliance use this strategy to beat much stronger alliance..
    This is why I quit the aw because of unfair matchmaking and the dominance of quake in aw

    That person well said "You can put a 280 lb. man up against a 160 lb. man for the same prize money, but that doesn't make the fight fair"

    and the disagree on his post shows how dum people we have in the community 😡
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • TitoBandito187TitoBandito187 Member Posts: 2,072 ★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lvernon15 said:

    Bulmkt said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.

    The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.

    Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
    That’s not what you currently have, you have a lightweight boxer against a heavyweight with no boxing experience
    That shouldn't happen. That was the OP's point. Here we are months later and people are still arguing that unfair is fair because they're playing for the same Rewards. Which is wrong. You can put a 280 lb. man up against a 160 lb. man for the same prize money, but that doesn't make the fight fair.
    Your right, it's not fair, but not why you think.

    UFC 1 - 10. Skinny Gracie's held their own just fine. You got small, talented allies like Floyd Mayweather Jr, and big, fat, sloppy allies like Mama June and Mayweather is gonna take that fight no problem.

    Lots of small allies have 10 whales or just stacked rosters but minimal people in the ally to keep their rating low. They run 1 bg going up against a full ally with 10 random players (no stress war) who's champs can't match the smaller ally and the big ally gets beat.

    It goes both ways. War rating is the only constant.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    Bulmkt said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    Bulmkt said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.

    The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.

    Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
    Well if you don’t want to fight them then don’t be trying to fight for the same rewards as them.
    What a stupid response.
    I agree. Your response was stupid. There’s some nice silver 3/2 rewards if you don’t want to fight the big scary gold 3 alliance
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,834 ★★★★★
    Crys23 said:

    Still baffles me some people dont get how war works. A 13mil ally shouldnt have that high war rating. Means you beat up on weaker alliances. At some point you run into a "big bad wolf" to knock you in your place.
    If you always match 10-15 mil alliances and always win, you get to tier1, master rewards. That was old system and it was the worst. 20mil alliances, members who havent even completed act5, getting master rewards.

    No one is saying bring back the old system. There should at least be limits on the variation between Alliances. You can't have that argument both ways. 13 Mil in Silver 2 is not out of place. Seems to me that the argument is that lower Alliances shouldn't get higher Rewards, but Alliances don't mind higher Alliances taking advantage of lower ones. Which is it? Either there's a "should" or there isn't. For that matter, the Rewards aren't the argument. It's the Matches and how weighted they are. Rewards arent a justification for a system that allows people to be overmatched to the point that their chances are so low.
    "Who cares about fairness? Rewards are fair."
    That mentality is what has ruined War for everyone who isn't at the top.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • AburaeesAburaees Member Posts: 514 ★★★
    This is not boxing or MMA, it’s MCOC. People mainly get rewarded for developing their rosters, not being the pound for pound best or the undisputed champion of 4* heroes

    It makes sense for larger alliances to dominate the more rewarding tiers. And it makes sense that smaller alliances to end up in less rewarding tiers. But the game also allows alliances to punch above their weight thanks to skill, commitment and organisation. And it allows large alliances to sink when they’re not focused.

    All’s fair in love and war. Imagine if the Romans were only allowed to fight armies with a similar hero rating…we wouldn’t have our lovely roads and sewers.
Sign In or Register to comment.