Can we get fairer AW Match Ups pls?

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?

Comments

SpideyFunko

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

Bulmkt

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

ItsDamien

Sure, but you're both in the same division. You're not fighting a heavyweight, you're fighting another lightweight.

SpideyFunko

You were both in silver 2 last season. If they’re here, they’re either starting again and moving up or they aren’t that good and you can win.

Mr_Platypus

Well if you don’t want to fight them then don’t be trying to fight for the same rewards as them.

TyEdge

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Lvernon15

Identical war rating, seems fair to me

Lvernon15

That’s not what you currently have, you have a lightweight boxer against a heavyweight with no boxing experience

Uvogin

they were in silver 2 last season, same as you. No reason why you should move into higher bracket if you can't beat someone in your own bracket

Bulmkt

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

Bulmkt

What a stupid response.

Bulmkt

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

TheBoogyMan

The matchups for war are based on the war rating, and not the alliance prestige and rating.

Since both the alliances have the same rating, they matched up with your alliance. Having highe rating indicates that your alliance is strong and has been winning wars in a streak. The other alliance being stronger in one sense, have lower war rating. Meaning, they are either not that active in war, or are not good at wars. They might only be doing for the season rewards.

Lvernon15

And also that they probably have less skill or put less effort in

Seraphion

When we were a 20 million alliance I loved to face 60 million alliances. They always place with suicides and they are not so good/ don't take it too seriously often in resulting wins for us.

Even if you feel that this is unfair listen to everyone. Take a step back and think objectively.

Demonzfyre

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_zzz

Looks fair to me

unknown

This content has been removed.

hungryhungrybbq

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!

GroundedWisdom

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.

Crys23

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_P0tat0

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.

AGYAAT

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 😡

unknown

This content has been removed.

TitoBandito187

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_Platypus

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

GroundedWisdom

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Aburaees

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.