WAR MATCHMAKING BROKEN
SupremeWarlord
Member Posts: 293 ★
It boggles the mind that after so many years of this game being out War matchmaking is still broken. My alliance has 10 members with base hero ratings around 100k, for a total base hero rating of around 1 million. We are casual players. The alliance we are currently facing in War is 16 million with several players over 1 million, and all maxed out 5 star champions on defense.
How is it possible that we constantly get matched up against alliances that are 16 TIMES STRONGER!!! Please explain how your matchmaking system works and how you think this is fair. Why do I spend so much time placing and moving defenders if it doesn't even matter because my opponents are going to one-shot every defender, while I try to face a 15k maxed out KORG, because matchmaking is trash?!
You (KABAM) never have fixed the core issues affecting this game. It's no wonder your player base is shrinking, longtime players are quitting, and you guys are constantly sending out surveys asking "do you think you will be playing MCOC a month from now?" Take away the MARVEL name and the characters and at its core this game is trash. Broken. IDK why I play. I really don't.
Cue the trolls:
How is it possible that we constantly get matched up against alliances that are 16 TIMES STRONGER!!! Please explain how your matchmaking system works and how you think this is fair. Why do I spend so much time placing and moving defenders if it doesn't even matter because my opponents are going to one-shot every defender, while I try to face a 15k maxed out KORG, because matchmaking is trash?!
You (KABAM) never have fixed the core issues affecting this game. It's no wonder your player base is shrinking, longtime players are quitting, and you guys are constantly sending out surveys asking "do you think you will be playing MCOC a month from now?" Take away the MARVEL name and the characters and at its core this game is trash. Broken. IDK why I play. I really don't.
Cue the trolls:
Post edited by Kabam Zanzibar on
3
Comments
You 2 trolls who commented can sit here and pretend nothing is wrong, that's fine.
So it goes by your war rating, not the strength of your team. Okay. So that's like putting a peewee baseball team against an MLB team because they have similar records in their leagues. It's stupid AF. No logic whatsoever, I don't care how you try to justify it. I guess it's simply the best Kabam can do with matchmaking, which is not very good. It is broken. It's broken by design.
1. Matching looks at alliances with similar to exact war ratings within their current standing (Gold 1 to Gold 1).
2. If Matching cannot find a match within your current standing, it expands to either above or below your standing to the closes alliance to your war rating.
3. Matching takes into consideration of- War Rating and quantity of BG's being played. You cannot get matched with an alliance running 3 BG's if you are only running 1.
4. Matching also flips a coin for map difficulty when that difficulty is split between the 2 matched alliances. You may end up with Tier 2 nodes and map even if you're Tier 3 if you matched with an opponent that's in Tier 2.
5. Matching doesn't care about how big or little your alliance is nor does it care about your opponents' alliance size.
AW is a competition and sometimes you'll face harder opponents. If you are playing relaxed wars anyway, none of this should really matter as it's likely that your opponent ( From your description) is also not taking AW seriously. They may be 16mil but if they're only running 1 BG, you're not facing 30 vs 10. It's 10 vs 10. This is a primary factor in why alliance size doesn't matter, especially in a situation like yours.
Matchmaking isn't broken and is doing exactly what it's set up to do. Look for matches that have similar war ratings and BG participation. If you want it to go off of alliance size, you'll never be able to move up nor face proper competition. You also run the risk of not finding matches. There's too many variables with alliance PI because that number can be greatly inflated due to roster progression.
For example, I have a PI of 3.1 million with a prestige of 15.5. I am Paragon with 7 R4's. My current alliance leader has a PI of 3.3 million and a prestige of 14.5 and they have 3 R4's. His PI is greater than mine because they have more ranked of champs than me as I have very few max 2-4*'s. All of that plays into player PI. So that 16 million may not be that big of a deal vs your 1 million.
So if you can continue to beat teams that are actually similar strength level, and your War Rating continues to climb, should it just be able to climb forever if you are only facing similar Prestige/Strength/PI types of teams ?
Eventually that would get to the opposite of something you mentioned earlier.
A Little League team would be able to take home the World Series trophy because they would never have to face an actual MLB professional team.
Other options (instead of not having you face stronger teams as your WR advances), would be for Kabam to basically say “your WR is getting too high relative to your Strength/Prestige/PI of champs, so while you might win this war, we just won’t give you any corresponding increase to your WR”.
They would place LIMITS to what a WR can be, based on how strong of team you actually are.
That's something they don’t want to do, and people would be similarly outraged if they did implement that.
We decide by playing the game and seeing who wins. If a bunch of twelve year olds consistent beat a bunch of forty year olds, they are the better team. It doesn't matter if the older team has collectively four times the experience. Two players with the same rating are considered equally strong no matter what their alliance or player ratings are. What matters is how often they win and how often they lose.
Where in the world does this happen? In Chess. In Chess, an eleven year old can face a forty year old grandmaster who has sixteen times more tournament playing experience on paper, if their ELO ratings are similar. Because you can't just look at a player and judge how strong they are. You can only judge how strong a chess player is by seeing who they beat, and who beats them.
There are edge cases, here and elsewhere. An alliance could have a low rating but have recruited stronger players. An alliance could have been formed yesterday and have no rating. But the best way to find out what their rating should be is to have them compete, and let wins and losses settle it out.
It wasn't always this way. It used to be that matches worked more the way you're implying it should work. It was a disaster. It works the way it does now precisely because people *thought* your way would be better, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (namely, no one else dares do this). It caused all sorts of problems with competitors getting easy paths to top bracket rewards without having to face any of the top bracket competitors, because they were "too strong" for them. In lieu of protecting alliances from competitors they "shouldn't" face the match system instead let them leapfrog past stronger competitors and get better rewards, because the non-paper stronger alliances had to face each other, while the on-paper weaker ones did not.
The bottom line is the reason why this is not going to be "fixed" is because it isn't considered broken. The current system *is* the fix for the previous one, that accounted for the things you think should be accounted for and ignored the things you seem to be ignoring, and was a disaster. Because this is not theoretical, the game actually did this and saw the results it is never going back to that. The people who claim it would be better have to account for the fact we already tried it, and it wasn't better.
We don't have to prove it is worse, we can just point to history. No matter how many people complain about it and *claim* it would be better the other way, they can't argue with history.
That was far more unfair because the number 1 alliance should be capable of beating numbers 2-10, which they weren’t.
Last year, possibly the year before by now, there was essentially two war seasons running parallel to each other when matchmaking took size and prestige into account. You had relatively small alliances ~10k prestige, competing in masters only playing similar alliances, while the likes of KenoB played each other. This came to a head when a small alliance won the season and didn’t actually play any other masters alliances all season so war rating became the only metric that counted.
If you look at the leaderboard there’s a lot of enormous whale alliances in P1/masters and there’s also a lot of relatively small or at least, ‘normal’ sized alliances competing at the same level now which is fair.
Lower down the table this results in matchups that feel horribly one sided but ultimately it’s fair. That’s how Brentford are in the prem this season and beat Utd 4-0. Ronaldo’s pay alone is more than Brentford’s entire wage bill.