War Group mismatch

One of my former alliance members and a friend of mine started an alliance a little while ago and were doing well for a newbie alliance.

Until this happend.

How the he'll does an alliance that's only 600k+ with an average member of 21k, get matched against a 6 mill plus alliance with an average member of 300k+.

This an other instances have shown us that the match making system that kabam has is completely broken and riddicouls, and needs an complete overhaul.

What's the worst alliance mismatch you've had, maybe we can get them all together and show kabam how broken their system is though I doubt it'll do much or anything yet except show them what many of us know

Comments

Deadbyrd9

If a new alliance with veteran players develops them you can get matched with them if you have the same war rsting

Deadbyrd9

Rating

DesT_ToxiC

It's most likely an upcoming alliance that has stacked members. I was once in an upcoming alliance and we steam rolled the bottom tiers. The rating difference was a few million points.

LocoMotives

War rating 353 vs 358....rating is the primary tool used to match, so just bad luck.

spumington

I've been on the other side of this recently. We're an 8 million alliance. My alliance dissolved after 12.0, and some of our guys joined a new alliance with some other really experienced guys. We had a war rating of 0 with an alliance rating of 8 million. It was a huge pain in the ass to work out way up to tier 2/3, which is where we belong. But that's the system that Kabam has created. Your matchups are based entirely on your war rating. It's one of the reasons I hate AW.

Sorry that happened to your friend, but their opponents are probably just as annoyed to be wasting their time.

Darkstar4387

I know it's by rating, but my point is that these types of matchups shouldn't happen and there should be other factors that go into it rather than that so this these matchup shouldn't happen

Having to face an alliance that's 10x bigger than yours who's average member is almost 15x bigger than yours is riddicouls.

They need to revamp the match making system, it should factor the alliance rating, the total member rating and spit out one that's close to yours instead of just going by the war rating by itself.

I see people all the time talking about how they get matched against alliances who are way bigger than them and that they have no hope of winning.

Amonthir

They would have to add in Prestige as a factor if they were to add in anything else. Rating is highly inaccurate, as some people level every champ ever, and some sell anyone they don't have an immediate use for.

LocoMotives

If they based it off of those characteristics, the alliance in question would be fighting an ally closer to 1k (maybe?) in war rating. A win vs that ally would increase their rating by around 400+ pts and decrease the other ally by the same. Is it ok in your mind for the ally that loses to them in this scenario is kicked down a few war tiers because of one tough matchup? The whole system is based off war rating. They would need to design a new system, not just add another level.

Darkstar4387

Their system has always been flawed, you can have alliances with the same war rating and have yourself completely out matched like my friends or other people who keep making threads about them.

Kabam's logic in this in is flawed , let's say the same thing happens to you if your a leader and you get matched up with an alliance who's 10-20x + higher and have no hope of winning it.

Yeah they would have to, and not really if it takes everything into account it would put them against an even, almost even stronger or weaker alliance where there's a better chance to win and be competitive.

By having it just war rating based all kinds of things could happen, you can get matched up against way stronger alliances or way weaker ones.

There's always people saying they need to do something about the war matches, and besides they are constantly changing things I wouldn't be surprised if they changed war to

spumington

One possible solution is to change the number of war rating points you get based on the margin of victory. Right now, you get about 60 points for a win or lose about 60 points when you lose. If an 8m alliance starts with a war rating of zero, it takes forever to increase your war rating to 1700 or so when you can only gain 60 points at a time. If they changed the scoring system, I think it would help to reduce this. Let's say an 8m alliance with a war rating of 0 goes up against a beginner alliance with a war rating of 0. The 8m alliance will get 100% exploration in all 3 bgs (let's say they score 130,000 points for the sake of this example), and the beginner alliance probably won't score many points at all (let's say zero). That's a difference of 130,000 points. That should increase your war rating significantly. On the other hand, if you beat a similarly matched alliance with a score of 130,000 to 125,000, that's only a victory margin of 5,000 points. Then the increase in war rating would only be a couple of points.

Does that make sense? Seems like it would do a lot to fix this problem in the future.

Kabam Miike

spumington wrote: »

One possible solution is to change the number of war rating points you get based on the margin of victory. Right now, you get about 60 points for a win or lose about 60 points when you lose. If an 8m alliance starts with a war rating of zero, it takes forever to increase your war rating to 1700 or so when you can only gain 60 points at a time. If they changed the scoring system, I think it would help to reduce this. Let's say an 8m alliance with a war rating of 0 goes up against a beginner alliance with a war rating of 0. The 8m alliance will get 100% exploration in all 3 bgs (let's say they score 130,000 points for the sake of this example), and the beginner alliance probably won't score many points at all (let's say zero). That's a difference of 130,000 points. That should increase your war rating significantly. On the other hand, if you beat a similarly matched alliance with a score of 130,000 to 125,000, that's only a victory margin of 5,000 points. Then the increase in war rating would only be a couple of points.

Does that make sense? Seems like it would do a lot to fix this problem in the future.

Thanks for the well thought our suggestion! I'm going to make sure the team sees this.

spumington

Kabam Miike wrote: »

spumington wrote: »

One possible solution is to change the number of war rating points you get based on the margin of victory. Right now, you get about 60 points for a win or lose about 60 points when you lose. If an 8m alliance starts with a war rating of zero, it takes forever to increase your war rating to 1700 or so when you can only gain 60 points at a time. If they changed the scoring system, I think it would help to reduce this. Let's say an 8m alliance with a war rating of 0 goes up against a beginner alliance with a war rating of 0. The 8m alliance will get 100% exploration in all 3 bgs (let's say they score 130,000 points for the sake of this example), and the beginner alliance probably won't score many points at all (let's say zero). That's a difference of 130,000 points. That should increase your war rating significantly. On the other hand, if you beat a similarly matched alliance with a score of 130,000 to 125,000, that's only a victory margin of 5,000 points. Then the increase in war rating would only be a couple of points.

Does that make sense? Seems like it would do a lot to fix this problem in the future.

Thanks for the well thought our suggestion! I'm going to make sure the team sees this.

It could be a terrible idea too. After your war rating evens out to where you should be, you're constantly going to get matchups that are very similar to you. As it is, you beat other alliances on 2-3 win streaks when you're climbing, then you get blown up by stronger alliances in 2-3 loss streaks when you're falling. Over the long term, it's about a 50% win rate. AW is already monotonous because of this, and the shards you get are basically just based on participation. My suggestion could make it even more tedius. It's worth discussing, I suppose. No way to know how it would work out until you look at it.

spumington

Woolverine314 wrote: »

A thread worked!

You're welcome.

GroundedWisdom

I still say the idea of Seasons would be a good way to introduce new Rewards and alleviate some of tbe bad matches. As in Diablo 3. Every Season, the War Rating is wiped. It would begin with a Placement Phase. Each Ally would build War Rating based on similar Ally Ratings. Towards the end of the Season, War Rating would be the predominant factor in Matchmaking. Each Season would allow for each Ally to advance more. It could allow Titles, Special War Events, and would basically alleviate some of the extreme differences in Matchmaking we've had since the Tiers changed. It's an idea.
As I see it, the system matches based on 3 factors. Alliance Rating, Average Player Rating, and War Rating. It all depends on the closest Match that is searching at that time. The default seems to be War Rating. If the Ally/Average Rating is not close at the time we Match, it defaults to War Rating. That's my understanding, anyway.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Andy

SmokinSurfer wrote: »

The whole tier system is poor unfortunately. It is true war is just a roller coaster, win streak then lose streak. Annihilate tiers please. Some brainstorming definitely does need to be done here.

I agree. Im in tier 1. It is just tedius. War rating doesnt work anymore. Needs to be redone. You win 3 then lose 3 then win 3 then lose 3. Its quite boring and annoying. A little waste of time when you are on the start of the lose streak. You know you have at least 2 more losses coming...

Take away tiers and initiate something new i say

Zerophunk

Dude war is based on prestige not ally size

GroundedWisdom

To the best of my knowledge, Prestige has little part in it.

Deadbyrd9

Love the suggestion @spumington