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.
Your alliance is an extreme outlier. There are exceedingly few alliances with only 10 members with accounts that small who take war even semi-seriously. It is nearly impossible to find a even matchup for those size alliances, much less for a whole season. If you match a larger alliance, congratulations. You must have won a few wars. Luckily, it is very easy to quickly progress your account. You can get to 1 million rating in a few short months of grinding. Then if you want even matchmaking you can join a full alliance and run 3 bgs where the pool is much larger and statistically more likely to offer close matchs. Good luck on your journey.
You asked where else weaker teams play stronger teams. I present to you, the current Major League Baseball playoff bracket.
The Phillies are the 6th seed. By your logic, they shouldn't have had to play the Cardinals, and they certainly shouldn't have beaten them, but they did. Their reward, much like Alliance War, was to play the Braves, an even stronger team by rating. Again, they shouldn't have been expected to win, but they did. Now they're playing the Padres, who are, ironically, the next worst seed in the playoffs, and so shouldn't have been able to win. As we speak, the National League Championship series is being played by the two worst teams to make the playoffs.
The point is, AW is like any other competitive sport. Everyone starts even. When you win, your rating increases, and you play others who's rating also increased. When you lose, your rating decreases, and you play others who's rating is on par with yours.
You likely won a war or two at the beginning of the season, which increased your rating, so now you're facing competition that has been winning/losing at a similar rate to you. You're currently on a losing streak because of that, so your rating will continue to decrease, and eventually you'll be matched with someone you'll beat, starting the cycle over again.
Now on an unrelated note, I shouldn't be shocked by anything on the internet, but in your original post starting this thread, you ended by saying something to the effect of "let the trolls come out". You were LITERALLY calling anyone who replied disagreeing with you a troll, before they even posted a reply.
There's something about a pot calling a kettle black that comes to mind.
Here's another. 2018 a 16 seed beat a 1 seed in the NCAA men's basketball tournament. This was the first time in history since the field expanded to 64 where an 18 seed beat a 1 seed. By OP's logic, these types of matchups should never happen.
In reality, all playoffs are done this way. AW is just a 12 game playoff and you try and get as high of scores as possible to move up.
If you want to talk about war matchmaking broken, it was very broken a couple years ago when for some silly reason kabam did matchmaking like the way you are asking (by alliance rating).
This caused weak and noobish alliances to get better rewards than alliances 10 times stronger. It was a complete disaster and to think that is how it should be is just naive.
I'm sure everybody disagreeing with me are on the opposite side of the situation, in 16 mill Allis getting matched up against 1 mill Allis. Yeah, I'm sure you think matchmaking works great. For every alliance getting screwed there's another one making out like bandits and thinking everything works great, LMAO.
It has happened to my alliance both ways. We all play by the same rules. Does that mean you should have to like it? Nope. But it definitely does not mean matchmaking is "broken".
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:
War Seasons should be in SET BRACKETS of 13 teams each, based on previous seasons.
Top-13 (based on WR or standings, ?) from previous season, all play each other exactly 1 time, and all wars in Bracket have SAME Points Multiplier. Next-13 (so 14-26), all play each other once. And all wars in this bracket have little lower Multiplier that above bracket. etc, with little lower multiplier again. etc
At end of each season, 3 teams at TOP of each bracket, and another 3 teams at BOTTOM of each bracket, will move UP/DOWN for the next season.
New alliances starting out don’t get inserted into pre-set brackets in current season. They wait until next season before being part of a 13-team Bracket. And there should at least be a way to initially insert them into some level of Bracket based on roster, rather than always starting out at WR=0 in very bottommost bracket. **this last part could be something done even now with the current system.
When everyone competes for the same pool of prizes you have to compete with everyone else.
This is a critically important point. When people argue against the current match making system, they often ask "where else are weaker competitors matched against much stronger one?" Asking that question as if it should be obvious that in the real world, of course no one wants this.
Except, in the real world, everyone wants this. The problem is not allowing weaker competitors from competing against the stronger ones, the problem is blocking weaker competitors from competing against the stronger ones, via things like qualifiers. Everyone wants to go up against the best, because thats where the biggest prizes are . Sure, you're probably going to lose, but what competitor in their right mind would turn down a chance to go up against the best?
In the real world, little league teams are not allowed to compete against MLB teams for the World Series title, not because it would be unfair to the little league team, but rather because it would be unfair to the MLB teams. The little league team should have zero chance at winning the World Series, because they have no right to compete for it. Giving them even a one in a million chance to win is unfair to every other MLB team that faced real MLB competition and now won't get their shot at it.
If alliances want to prevent matching against alliances with higher prestige or higher player rating, then they also cannot compete for the same rewards. We theoretically allow any alliance to compete for all the rewards, so they have to face all the alliances to get them. The moment anyone says it is not fair for us to face them, they have to forfeit any chance to get any rewards they could get as well.
No matter how good you are. No matter how much you win. No matter how much you spend, no matter how much you practice. Never, ever, will you ever get a shot at Master rewards, or Platinum rewards, or maybe even Gold rewards. Never. And there's nothing you can do about it. You just don't have enough two star champs ranked up, or you just aren't willing to invest enough into prestige. Your rating is small, so you're small, so you get no chance. Never.
That's what a system that matches alliances based on player rating and limited rewards to rating brackets would be telling alliances.
I just want to be in a matchup where I actually have a chance, that's all. I know, "get good", right? Tell me something arrogant that a paragon would say.
You realize getting gud is the perfect answer here right? If you want to prove your better or have a chance at a fair fight, then indeed...get good.
The thing you don’t want to understand is everyone can have a lot of champions. But at the end of the day, what makes your alliance good is your performance.
@SupremeWarlord You wanted real world example of a gap like this
For this season of the English Premier League, let's compare the team with the highest payroll (Manchester United FC) and the team with the lowest payroll (Brentford FC)
Manchester United FC: 227,018,000 Brentford FC: 15,776,000
Manchester United FCs Payroll is 14.4 Times higher than Brentford FCs. They are in the same league because they are both considered one of the top 20 Football Clubs in England. At this time, Manchester United is only 5th (not 1st) in the Table while Brentford sits 9th (not 20th). So although Brentford hasn't quite proven that they can completely overcome that gap, they are more than showing that they belong where they are and should be facing tougher opponents.
Now I used the Man United-Brentford comparison specifically because there was more parity when it comes to success. But there are other examples in Football where teams absolutely are facing another team with more than 16 times their payroll.
Ligue 1 - Paris Saint-Germain: 152,340,000/FC Lorient: 7,408,440 = 20.5 Bundesliga - Bayern Munich: 180,720,000/DSC Arminia Bielefeld 8,057,500 = 22.4 Serie A - Juventus FC: 102,307,000/Spezia Calcio: 4235,000 = 24.2 La Liga - FC Barcelona: 190,160,000/Elche CF: 5,074,160 = 37.5
I think no matter how you change it, there will always be an issue. Like if a 1 mil ally keeps winning, is it fair for them to be one of the top alliances without having ever faced one of the top alliances. Its like in baseball team going to an AAA league to play their games because they dont have as many good hitters. And then at the end of the season, because they wrecked all other AAA teams, should their record count in MLB.... i mean really the only way to tweak it based on ally strength otherwise would be having leagues. Like light weight, and heavy weight. But in my option to be considered one of the best, you should have to beat one of the best
There s no issue and it doesn't benefit anyone in a special way other than those that player better, scheme better, have built stronger, or want to win. Nothing needs to change because most changes mess up many of those good things I just mentioned. In competition you sometimes earn a placement where you are overmatched adn sometimes you lose. Suck it up.
I think there could be a problem with the matchmaking algorithm. And it can be fixed easily. War rating is used to match alliances for war. That is correct and fair. BUT... why can't the secondary matching criteria be alliance total PI. That way if within for example war rating 1500, if there are 100 alliances and out of these there are 50 alliances below 10 million alliance PI and 50 above 10 mi, the matching can happen accordingly and will still be fair. This is hypothetical and also depends on the condition that there is an alliance that exists around that PI , if none are found at that war rating then you will get the "unfair" Matchup you talked about. It's possible this secondary matching criteria is already in effect. If not it can help.
I've said this for quite some time now. I agree that War Rating should be the primary factor, but I also believe there needs to be some kind of safety net to prevent extreme variations in size. Difficult to devise something that doesn't result in the Prestige issue, but the idea that performance is the only thing that counts only works up to a certain point. More specifically, for Alliances starting out. There are some Matches they don't really have a chance against. That makes it less about performance, and more about being overpowered. While some disagree with that concept, I suppose I'll take it to the grave. XD
I've said this for quite some time now. I agree that War Rating should be the primary factor, but I also believe there needs to be some kind of safety net to prevent extreme variations in size. Difficult to devise something that doesn't result in the Prestige issue, but the idea that performance is the only thing that counts only works up to a certain point. More specifically, for Alliances starting out. There are some Matches they don't really have a chance against. That makes it less about performance, and more about being overpowered. While some disagree with that concept, I suppose I'll take it to the grave. XD
I was in an alliance with 10 players way back and when we saw what other alliances were doing we stacked ours with alt accounts. We were rocking Tier 3 AW. Still couldn't get great season rewards thou as its hard in 1 BG.
A measurement other than war rating sorta only really works in 3 bgs wars. The current system is the most fair.
I've said this for quite some time now. I agree that War Rating should be the primary factor, but I also believe there needs to be some kind of safety net to prevent extreme variations in size. Difficult to devise something that doesn't result in the Prestige issue, but the idea that performance is the only thing that counts only works up to a certain point. More specifically, for Alliances starting out. There are some Matches they don't really have a chance against. That makes it less about performance, and more about being overpowered. While some disagree with that concept, I suppose I'll take it to the grave. XD
I was in an alliance with 10 players way back and when we saw what other alliances were doing we stacked ours with alt accounts. We were rocking Tier 3 AW. Still couldn't get great season rewards thou as its hard in 1 BG.
A measurement other than war rating sorta only really works in 3 bgs wars. The current system is the most fair.
I've seen one Mil Alliances paired with 30+. There is a need for some kind of loose failsafe. That's just my opinion.
Ability is all about tools/potential/resources at your disposal. In this game, the tools are the champs on a developed roster. In sports, it’d be high upside players with particular areas they excel.
Execution is your ability to put those tools to use. In MCOC, it’s clearing content with champs (whatever that content may be). In sports, it’d be whatever gets you wins. Elite war alliances have both. As you go down the rankings, you find various lesser combinations of these traits.
College football fans can tell you that recruiting matters a LOT. But just because you have great recruits doesn’t mean you’ll win big. You might be Georgia/Ohio State, or you might be Texas A&M finishing 5th of 7 in the SEC West.
The thing about Texas A&M though, is that they’ll kick the **** out of Prairie View. I’m sorry your alliance is Prairie View.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
in those situations it means that their previous matches were too low and they need to drop
This is the part I never understood about this posts.. Lets assume the matchmaking process works perfectly as u want.. matching alliances with similar ratings... Your 160k Alliance vs a 170k alliance.. You manage to win... Then what?.. u should climb into the season rewards of other alliances that had to fight in the millions of ratings?... Cause that doesnt sound right at all...
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
Losing itself is inevitable. In every tournament, one competitor wins. Everyone else loses. So in a tournament with sixty four competitors, sixty three of them are guaranteed to lose. We just don't know which sixty three.
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
Losing itself is inevitable. In every tournament, one competitor wins. Everyone else loses. So in a tournament with sixty four competitors, sixty three of them are guaranteed to lose. We just don't know which sixty three.
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.
I understand that. I would prefer a system that ensures you start out with reasonable Matches that become increasingly difficult as you progress, as opposed to the possible extremity in Matching, but I suppose that's a bit eutopian.
Comments
You asked where else weaker teams play stronger teams. I present to you, the current Major League Baseball playoff bracket.
The Phillies are the 6th seed. By your logic, they shouldn't have had to play the Cardinals, and they certainly shouldn't have beaten them, but they did. Their reward, much like Alliance War, was to play the Braves, an even stronger team by rating. Again, they shouldn't have been expected to win, but they did. Now they're playing the Padres, who are, ironically, the next worst seed in the playoffs, and so shouldn't have been able to win. As we speak, the National League Championship series is being played by the two worst teams to make the playoffs.
The point is, AW is like any other competitive sport. Everyone starts even. When you win, your rating increases, and you play others who's rating also increased. When you lose, your rating decreases, and you play others who's rating is on par with yours.
You likely won a war or two at the beginning of the season, which increased your rating, so now you're facing competition that has been winning/losing at a similar rate to you. You're currently on a losing streak because of that, so your rating will continue to decrease, and eventually you'll be matched with someone you'll beat, starting the cycle over again.
Now on an unrelated note, I shouldn't be shocked by anything on the internet, but in your original post starting this thread, you ended by saying something to the effect of "let the trolls come out". You were LITERALLY calling anyone who replied disagreeing with you a troll, before they even posted a reply.
There's something about a pot calling a kettle black that comes to mind.
Here's another. 2018 a 16 seed beat a 1 seed in the NCAA men's basketball tournament. This was the first time in history since the field expanded to 64 where an 18 seed beat a 1 seed. By OP's logic, these types of matchups should never happen.
In reality, all playoffs are done this way. AW is just a 12 game playoff and you try and get as high of scores as possible to move up.
This caused weak and noobish alliances to get better rewards than alliances 10 times stronger. It was a complete disaster and to think that is how it should be is just naive.
War Seasons should be in SET BRACKETS of 13 teams each, based on previous seasons.
Top-13 (based on WR or standings, ?) from previous season, all play each other exactly 1 time, and all wars in Bracket have SAME Points Multiplier.
Next-13 (so 14-26), all play each other once. And all wars in this bracket have little lower Multiplier that above bracket.
etc, with little lower multiplier again.
etc
At end of each season, 3 teams at TOP of each bracket, and another 3 teams at BOTTOM of each bracket, will move UP/DOWN for the next season.
New alliances starting out don’t get inserted into pre-set brackets in current season. They wait until next season before being part of a 13-team Bracket. And there should at least be a way to initially insert them into some level of Bracket based on roster, rather than always starting out at WR=0 in very bottommost bracket.
**this last part could be something done even now with the current system.
Except, in the real world, everyone wants this. The problem is not allowing weaker competitors from competing against the stronger ones, the problem is blocking weaker competitors from competing against the stronger ones, via things like qualifiers. Everyone wants to go up against the best, because thats where the biggest prizes are . Sure, you're probably going to lose, but what competitor in their right mind would turn down a chance to go up against the best?
In the real world, little league teams are not allowed to compete against MLB teams for the World Series title, not because it would be unfair to the little league team, but rather because it would be unfair to the MLB teams. The little league team should have zero chance at winning the World Series, because they have no right to compete for it. Giving them even a one in a million chance to win is unfair to every other MLB team that faced real MLB competition and now won't get their shot at it.
If alliances want to prevent matching against alliances with higher prestige or higher player rating, then they also cannot compete for the same rewards. We theoretically allow any alliance to compete for all the rewards, so they have to face all the alliances to get them. The moment anyone says it is not fair for us to face them, they have to forfeit any chance to get any rewards they could get as well.
No matter how good you are. No matter how much you win. No matter how much you spend, no matter how much you practice. Never, ever, will you ever get a shot at Master rewards, or Platinum rewards, or maybe even Gold rewards. Never. And there's nothing you can do about it. You just don't have enough two star champs ranked up, or you just aren't willing to invest enough into prestige. Your rating is small, so you're small, so you get no chance. Never.
That's what a system that matches alliances based on player rating and limited rewards to rating brackets would be telling alliances.
For this season of the English Premier League, let's compare the team with the highest payroll (Manchester United FC) and the team with the lowest payroll (Brentford FC)
Manchester United FC: 227,018,000
Brentford FC: 15,776,000
Manchester United FCs Payroll is 14.4 Times higher than Brentford FCs. They are in the same league because they are both considered one of the top 20 Football Clubs in England. At this time, Manchester United is only 5th (not 1st) in the Table while Brentford sits 9th (not 20th). So although Brentford hasn't quite proven that they can completely overcome that gap, they are more than showing that they belong where they are and should be facing tougher opponents.
Now I used the Man United-Brentford comparison specifically because there was more parity when it comes to success. But there are other examples in Football where teams absolutely are facing another team with more than 16 times their payroll.
Ligue 1 - Paris Saint-Germain: 152,340,000/FC Lorient: 7,408,440 = 20.5
Bundesliga - Bayern Munich: 180,720,000/DSC Arminia Bielefeld 8,057,500 = 22.4
Serie A - Juventus FC: 102,307,000/Spezia Calcio: 4235,000 = 24.2
La Liga - FC Barcelona: 190,160,000/Elche CF: 5,074,160 = 37.5
War rating is used to match alliances for war. That is correct and fair. BUT... why can't the secondary matching criteria be alliance total PI.
That way if within for example war rating 1500, if there are 100 alliances and out of these there are 50 alliances below 10 million alliance PI and 50 above 10 mi, the matching can happen accordingly and will still be fair. This is hypothetical and also depends on the condition that there is an alliance that exists around that PI , if none are found at that war rating then you will get the "unfair" Matchup you talked about. It's possible this secondary matching criteria is already in effect. If not it can help.
What is your war rating currently?
What tier are you in? (Silver ect)
A measurement other than war rating sorta only really works in 3 bgs wars. The current system is the most fair.
Ability is all about tools/potential/resources at your disposal. In this game, the tools are the champs on a developed roster. In sports, it’d be high upside players with particular areas they excel.
Execution is your ability to put those tools to use. In MCOC, it’s clearing content with champs (whatever that content may be). In sports, it’d be whatever gets you wins. Elite war alliances have both. As you go down the rankings, you find various lesser combinations of these traits.
College football fans can tell you that recruiting matters a LOT. But just because you have great recruits doesn’t mean you’ll win big. You might be Georgia/Ohio State, or you might be Texas A&M finishing 5th of 7 in the SEC West.
The thing about Texas A&M though, is that they’ll kick the **** out of Prairie View. I’m sorry your alliance is Prairie View.
Lets assume the matchmaking process works perfectly as u want.. matching alliances with similar ratings...
Your 160k Alliance vs a 170k alliance..
You manage to win... Then what?.. u should climb into the season rewards of other alliances that had to fight in the millions of ratings?... Cause that doesnt sound right at all...
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.