We matched with the AW rating, everything else is beyond our reach , I don’t know what calculation system does to find a match but this is not a match , they all have 4/55 5* champs , and they can easily beat our defense and we have to struggle.... even if we manage to explore 100% , we can’t win , diversity and attack bonus will beat us ....
I completely disagree with saying that this isn't a match. Your war rating is very close to each other. You should be fighting each other.
Thanks for the confirmation, we actually did and we lost ... lol 😂
AW rating should be the deciding factor. Alliance total rating does not necissirely reflect the alliance strength. You would be more upset if you faced a 6m alliance who sells all their 1,2&3 * and have a war rating of 2000+
If you are in tier 3 you should get matched with tier 3 opponents. Complaining you 7m alliance is matched with a 10m alliance is bs. My alliance 8-9 mill rating yo yo' tier 6 to 9 facing 8 to 11m alliances why should you sit in a higher tier facing lesser alliances than we face? All this whinging usually comes from those in a higher tier than they should be.
Please read the post, read it properly.... if tier matter in match making, then why these 10+ million alliances are in tier 7 , the fact for us to reached this higher AW rating is ... we have been matched with higher AW rating alliances in past and we have won all those war and adding 100 points to our rating , cause we won against an higher AW rating opponent. Now if we achieved the rating by defeating higher AW rating alliances, does it our fault , how we are suppose to know what tier we should be in ... when we are moving as per the AW system. We haven’t done anything outside this system, just following up the ladder....choose your words wisely in public forums ....
I did read it properly. You are whinging about face higher rated alliances in tier three. Tier 3 is too high for your alliance. All I can say is welcome to realty.
If you are in tier 3 you should get matched with tier 3 opponents. Complaining you 7m alliance is matched with a 10m alliance is bs. My alliance 8-9 mill rating yo yo' tier 6 to 9 facing 8 to 11m alliances why should you sit in a higher tier facing lesser alliances than we face? All this whinging usually comes from those in a higher tier than they should be.
Please read the post, read it properly.... if tier matter in match making, then why these 10+ million alliances are in tier 7 , the fact for us to reached this higher AW rating is ... we have been matched with higher AW rating alliances in past and we have won all those war and adding 100 points to our rating , cause we won against an higher AW rating opponent. Now if we achieved the rating by defeating higher AW rating alliances, does it our fault , how we are suppose to know what tier we should be in ... when we are moving as per the AW system. We haven’t done anything outside this system, just following up the ladder....choose your words wisely in public forums ....
I did read it properly. You are whinging about face higher rated alliances in tier three. Tier 3 is too high for your alliance. All I can say is welcome to realty.
Whining... this is something that you have learned recently and wanted to use it badly..... discussing a subject related to AW rating system, if you think that is whining... then yes I am whining, if tier 3 fights will have 10+ million alliances then what will tier 1,2 will have, where are those 2000+ rating alliances will go .... we have achieved the rating and tier by winning and losing wars ... nothing wrong in it but , a tier 12 alliance with rating 946 will have a match up with 12+ million alliance. I don’t see your point of being in wrong tier and by saying this tier 3 is too high for my alliance.... I will accept this fact if you can prove .... what tier we should have as per our AW rating.
If you are in tier 3 you should get matched with tier 3 opponents. Complaining you 7m alliance is matched with a 10m alliance is bs. My alliance 8-9 mill rating yo yo' tier 6 to 9 facing 8 to 11m alliances why should you sit in a higher tier facing lesser alliances than we face? All this whinging usually comes from those in a higher tier than they should be.
Please read the post, read it properly.... if tier matter in match making, then why these 10+ million alliances are in tier 7 , the fact for us to reached this higher AW rating is ... we have been matched with higher AW rating alliances in past and we have won all those war and adding 100 points to our rating , cause we won against an higher AW rating opponent. Now if we achieved the rating by defeating higher AW rating alliances, does it our fault , how we are suppose to know what tier we should be in ... when we are moving as per the AW system. We haven’t done anything outside this system, just following up the ladder....choose your words wisely in public forums ....
I did read it properly. You are whinging about face higher rated alliances in tier three. Tier 3 is too high for your alliance. All I can say is welcome to realty.
Whining... this is something that you have learned recently and wanted to use it badly..... discussing a subject related to AW rating system, if you think that is whining... then yes I am whining, if tier 3 fights will have 10+ million alliances then what will tier 1,2 will have, where are those 2000+ rating alliances will go .... we have achieved the rating and tier by winning and losing wars ... nothing wrong in it but , a tier 12 alliance with rating 946 will have a match up with 12+ million alliance. I don’t see your point of being in wrong tier and by saying this tier 3 is too high for my alliance.... I will accept this fact if you can prove .... what tier we should have as per our AW rating.
You are complaining about how unfair it is that you are facing 10 million rated alliances in tier 3. We face similar or higher rated alliances in tiers 6 through 9. You have no grounds for complaint.
Further tier 3 is elite, there will be a lot of alliances rated much higher than 10 m. If the 'new' matching system has allowed you to get that high you should be thankful, not complaining.
If you are in tier 3 you should get matched with tier 3 opponents. Complaining you 7m alliance is matched with a 10m alliance is bs. My alliance 8-9 mill rating yo yo' tier 6 to 9 facing 8 to 11m alliances why should you sit in a higher tier facing lesser alliances than we face? All this whinging usually comes from those in a higher tier than they should be.
Please read the post, read it properly.... if tier matter in match making, then why these 10+ million alliances are in tier 7 , the fact for us to reached this higher AW rating is ... we have been matched with higher AW rating alliances in past and we have won all those war and adding 100 points to our rating , cause we won against an higher AW rating opponent. Now if we achieved the rating by defeating higher AW rating alliances, does it our fault , how we are suppose to know what tier we should be in ... when we are moving as per the AW system. We haven’t done anything outside this system, just following up the ladder....choose your words wisely in public forums ....
I did read it properly. You are whinging about face higher rated alliances in tier three. Tier 3 is too high for your alliance. All I can say is welcome to realty.
Whining... this is something that you have learned recently and wanted to use it badly..... discussing a subject related to AW rating system, if you think that is whining... then yes I am whining, if tier 3 fights will have 10+ million alliances then what will tier 1,2 will have, where are those 2000+ rating alliances will go .... we have achieved the rating and tier by winning and losing wars ... nothing wrong in it but , a tier 12 alliance with rating 946 will have a match up with 12+ million alliance. I don’t see your point of being in wrong tier and by saying this tier 3 is too high for my alliance.... I will accept this fact if you can prove .... what tier we should have as per our AW rating.
The reason why people keep describing your complaints as whining is because you keep saying you earned your rating, but you don't think anyone else has. If you face an alliance with a 1400 war rating, that is the rating they earned from wins and losses. Their alliance rating has nothing to do with the war rating they earned, and has no bearing on whether the match is fair or not.
If you don't want people to tell you what war rating you "should" have based on your alliance rating, you have to stop claiming that alliances with higher alliance rating are "unfair" match ups. You're suggesting that their alliance rating means they should not be matched against you, in effect saying you should be the judge of what tier they should be in based on their alliance rating. If you don't want people to judge where you should be based on your alliance rating, you have to stop judging your competition in exactly the same way.
I'm currently in a 10 million alliance who has a 1000 war rating (Tier 11). We frequently get matched against alliances that are 5 million or 6 million. We still lose about 1/2 the time to them....why? Because no one in my alliance really cares about war. Yes, we have a lot of players (myself included) who have multiple R4 5* champions...but you almost never see us bring those into war....because we care about AQ and we crush AQ Map 5x5 expert all week long...war is secondary...heck most of the time we don't even fill 2 war groups. The war rating I feel is an accurate portrayal of our ability in war and we are matched accordingly. Yes, if we got serious about war we could probably crush a 5 million alliance...but so far, we have not done that....we just don't care about war enough...that may change with the new rewards though.
I'm currently in a 10 million alliance who has a 1000 war rating (Tier 11). We frequently get matched against alliances that are 5 million or 6 million. We still lose about 1/2 the time to them....why? Because no one in my alliance really cares about war. Yes, we have a lot of players (myself included) who have multiple R4 5* champions...but you almost never see us bring those into war....because we care about AQ and we crush AQ Map 5x5 expert all week long...war is secondary...heck most of the time we don't even fill 2 war groups. The war rating I feel is an accurate portrayal of our ability in war and we are matched accordingly. Yes, if we got serious about war we could probably crush a 5 million alliance...but so far, we have not done that....we just don't care about war enough...that may change with the new rewards though.
It is also possible for an alliance that doesn't want to work hard at war but still wants easy rewards to explicitly work hard at one war and win, then match up again and deliberately lose that war, keeping a 50/50 record and basically staying in an easy tier. They get rewards for winning and losing, they don't have to work very hard when they fight seriously at all, and 50% of the alliances that face them get easy wins and the other 50% get smashed. That is still entirely fair, even though their war rating doesn't technically match their *ability* to win wars. War rating doesn't measure the ability to win. It measures the likelihood of winning.
Those who are following this thread and read the comments, I wanted to clear one thing, this post was to discuss the AW rating system, when I posted the rating and the match up ... I was in the impression that we are matched up with the alliance who are stronger then us but has same AW rating, people in the forum start commenting on this point that my alliance should not be in that tier, I have done the same thing if I see this side of the coin.
Other side is people are getting matched with stronger alliances in every tier, irrespect of tier 3 or tier 12 , the 10+ million alliances are in each tier , so a 5 million alliance are getting matched with 10 million alliance in tier 12 , because their rating matched... then this system is only considering the AW ratings and I was pointing out to the other aspects of the system that can be considered, but people start shouting on longer match time and I didn’t get to know what is the cause of the longer match time.
Does anyone thought about that why in every tier they got matched with an strong alliance. Do we have enough data on these match ups so that we can find or understand the issue or cause.
Mate we’ve told you the cause, you aren’t listening, if you win you’re Rating goes up, if you lose it goes down, it’s so simple, you can’t expect to keep winning when you are on a roll, because as your war rating goes up the matchups get harder. I explained my 10m alliance is in your tier, we win half our matches here... so we belong here, if we were winning more we would go up a tier... there isn’t anything wrong with the system, because in the long run you end up where you belong
Mate we’ve told you the cause, you aren’t listening, if you win you’re Rating goes up, if you lose it goes down, it’s so simple, you can’t expect to keep winning when you are on a roll, because as your war rating goes up the matchups get harder. I explained my 10m alliance is in your tier, we win half our matches here... so we belong here, if we were winning more we would go up a tier... there isn’t anything wrong with the system, because in the long run you end up where you belong
1. Cause for the long wait time for match up - that’s what I was asking
2. 10 million alliance are in each tier ... doesn’t prove the point of being you in the tier you belongs.
3. Win or lose doesn’t add anything in the discussion so I was not talking about winning wanted to know how we are getting matched up ... which is only based on the AW rating.
4. Right or wrong only be proven when we have enough data to analyze so making an statement nothing is wrong with the system won’t add anything.
5. People in low tier with high rating will be matched with strong alliances, we have an example in this thread.
My only point is if you can add any informational comment please add. Just by saying will not help. Thanks
3. Win or lose doesn’t add anything in the discussion so I was not talking about winning wanted to know how we are getting matched up ... which is only based on the AW rating.
4. Right or wrong only be proven when we have enough data to analyze so making an statement nothing is wrong with the system won’t add anything.
Honestly, I don't know if this is a language barrier thing or it is simply a mindset thing, but I will try one last time. We know alliances are matched up by war rating (this has changed over time, but this is the current system and it has been the system for most of the time in the past). War rating is set based on wins and losses. We know all of this with certainty because we can see the system in action. We can see that matches are with alliances with similar war rating. And we can literally see with every single war how the game adjusts our war rating up or down based on wins and losses.
War rating in effect measures our ability to win. Two alliances with similar war rating are considered to have similar strength, because they have similar ability to win. So they are matched against each other. If there are discrepancies, the system automatically adjusts those discrepancies out: an alliance that is stronger than all other alliances of similar war rating and wins all the time keeps getting their war rating increased, until they have a much higher war rating and are being matched against stronger alliances. This keeps occurring until they start to lose, and then the system converges on a war rating that roughly causes the alliance to win and lose about half the time.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge that war rating is the true measure of strength in alliance war, and alliance rating is not. You seem focused on the notion that war rating is somehow "wrong" because it doesn't match your expectations for alliance rating and keep wondering why. No one can answer that question, because your assumption that alliance rating is a better measure of alliance war strength than war rating is simply false. And this isn't just some weird Kabam invention: there are lots of places where competitions are based on a rating system. In all of them, a similar system for creating and then auto-adjusting ratings based on win/loss record are used. Probably the most widespread of those is the ELO system for chess competitions, where chess players are given a rating based on their ability to beat players of similar or higher rating. Chess players are not handicapped based on age or experience or anything else. They are only judged based on their ability to win. All other "advantages" are completely ignored for competitive purposes.
@DNA3000 , I respect ur views and also ur knowledge, I am just discussing and if I agree on everything then no point of making or asking questions in the forum. Some points I will agree but for some I will not cause I don’t have sufficient evidence that point out the system working and I don’t wanna go on any assumptions.
@DNA3000 , I respect ur views and also ur knowledge, I am just discussing and if I agree on everything then no point of making or asking questions in the forum. Some points I will agree but for some I will not cause I don’t have sufficient evidence that point out the system working and I don’t wanna go on any assumptions.
I specifically quoted you above because it appears you do not understand what anyone is saying. For example, you immediately dismissed someone discussing how win/loss record affects rating by saying "Win or lose doesn’t add anything in the discussion so I was not talking about winning wanted to know how we are getting matched up" but your win/loss record is how you ultimately get matched up - through war rating. If you cannot get past the mental block you appear to have there, no one can help you.
I also don't know, and I suspect no one else knows, what "evidence" you are asking for. We can see how wins and losses (and ties) affect our rating. This is obvious to the point of being non-debatable. We can see how we are matched: currently by war rating. Your own posts consistently show that this is how your alliance is being matched also. I literally have no idea what sort of data you are asking for, or what would satisfy you.
@DNA3000 , I respect ur views and also ur knowledge, I am just discussing and if I agree on everything then no point of making or asking questions in the forum. Some points I will agree but for some I will not cause I don’t have sufficient evidence that point out the system working and I don’t wanna go on any assumptions.
@Xthea9
I’m actually at loss what more is there to articulate (short of common sense instead of empirical evidence) on this issue. You may disagree with other folks views on the matter that you raised but that doesn’t mean the opinions provided are erroneous or as good as it gets. Like @DNA3000 pointed out, it could simply be a mind-set issue.
What you’re trying to propogate is that a war is only fair if your opponent is like-for-like, (war rating AND alliance rating wise) as yours. Any other perimeter is therefore deemed ‘unfair’. Well, for one I’d like to see if you can actually start the ball rolling by compiling a list of past 30 war results you deemed ‘unfair’ in your favor. And proceed to what is deemed unfair against you. Logic and common sense will dictate your possible win-lost ratio will be around the region of 40%-60%, 50%-50%, or at worse case 30%-70%. You should take a hard look at yourself if it’s 20%-80% because clearly your opponent is doing something right that your alliance is not.
@DNA3000 , I respect ur views and also ur knowledge, I am just discussing and if I agree on everything then no point of making or asking questions in the forum. Some points I will agree but for some I will not cause I don’t have sufficient evidence that point out the system working and I don’t wanna go on any assumptions.
@Xthea9
I’m actually at loss what more is there to articulate (short of common sense instead of empirical evidence) on this issue. You may disagree with other folks views on the matter that you raised but that doesn’t mean the opinions provided are erroneous or as good as it gets. Like @DNA3000 pointed out, it could simply be a mind-set issue.
What you’re trying to propogate is that a war is only fair if your opponent is like-for-like, (war rating AND alliance rating wise) as yours. Any other perimeter is therefore deemed ‘unfair’. Well, for one I’d like to see if you can actually start the ball rolling by compiling a list of past 30 war results you deemed ‘unfair’ in your favor. And proceed to what is deemed unfair against you. Logic and common sense will dictate your possible win-lost ratio will be around the region of 40%-60%, 50%-50%, or at worse case 30%-70%. You should take a hard look at yourself if it’s 20%-80% because clearly your opponent is doing something right that your alliance is not.
Why me ... why are you pointing out to me , there are people who are saying that they have been matched with stronger alliances, why I have become the whining person, when I am the one who wants to know more and asking for those alliances who are actually strong and are matched with weak alliances, why they are not saying anything on this .... read the post , if not then I will post a pic for you.
Why me ... why are you pointing out to me , there are people who are saying that they have been matched with stronger alliances, why I have become the whining person, when I am the one who wants to know more and asking for those alliances who are actually strong and are matched with weak alliances, why they are not saying anything on this .... read the post , if not then I will post a pic for you.
If you *literally* are asking why high alliance rating alliances aren't coming onto the forums to complain about being matched against much lower rated alliances, the answer is: most don't consider it noteworthy, and on the very rare cases when they do point it out someone knowledgeable explains how the match making system works and that satisfies them.
I keep trying to explain this to you, but you don't seem to be willing or able to accept it. A very high alliance rating alliance that gets matched against a low rated alliance won't generally consider that noteworthy. And that is because when they get matched against low rated alliances, they tend to win only half the time. If they are only winning half the time against those alliances, why would they consider it worth coming onto the forums to complain about?
You believe something to be true that is not true. You believe there are high rating alliances hovering around at very low war rating consistently smashing up low rated alliances and winning all of the time. That is not happening. If a high alliance rating alliance has a very low war rating, then either a) they are a brand new alliance and will quickly increase their war rating until they leave the low tiers or b) they aren't very good performers in alliance war and are only winning about half the time. In neither of those cases will anyone from those alliances come onto the forums to complain about the situation, or even mention it as if it was something interesting.
To me only AW rating should not be the only criteria for finding a match, there are so many factors that can be considered while finding a match.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating. ( some will say prestige, but I am not sure how this works) so I we go by the basics.
2. Alliance base region - location is also important ( time zone will also plays a role)
3. AW rating - this will be last and least option to consider a match.
Suppose if match making only considered the alliance rating, and you are getting matched with equally strong alliances, win or lose just add few points in your rating which only tells that how your alliance is doing, it will not project your real strength. And to monitor growth you have to consider your strength.
Currently you have seen my alliance isn’t strong but my rating are high which doesn’t project my alliance strength.
So how this AW match making system is correct and I am wrong. ( now don’t say long wait time , that’s ridiculous, did kabam said officially that it’s takes long wait time ) if we have evidence of this( @DNA3000 I was referring to this evidence ) to prove matching with alliance rating takes longer time ( please don’t say we have seen this in past , we know war was taking time to matched but reason was unknown) . I don’t have anything to say but to accept the fact that the AW system will is broken and it’s not correct.
We already explained to you, they trialled it where they used prestige (top 5 champs) as well. it was a failure, because sometimes it took hours to find a matchup and this meant sometimes alliances would lose out on one war a week, also it meant if you lost it didn’t get any easier, like I said we dropped 4 tiers this way because we kept losing wars by a few points and that didn’t lead to easier matchups, this way is better because you end up where you belong
To me only AW rating should not be the only criteria for finding a match, there are so many factors that can be considered while finding a match.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating. ( some will say prestige, but I am not sure how this works) so I we go by the basics.
Our alliance has a current alliance rating of about 10 million. If I ordered everyone to dump all their 2* and 3* champions, it would probably drop to about 6 or 7 million. This would have no impact on our ability to win alliance wars. Alliance rating is a horrible measure of alliance war strength, and using it would encourage alliances to do things Kabam would not want to incentivize: dumping champions to reduce your alliance rating and find weaker alliances to fight. That is poison to a game that otherwise tries to attract players that like to spend time and money to collect things. This is first and foremost a collecting game.
Prestige is a better measure, but not that much better. Prestige focuses on the top five champions of each player in rating. So it doesn't count all those lower champions. But it does not factor in skill, or the differences in champions.
The overriding principle of the rating system is this principle. If two alliances were to fight a series of wars over and over again, and each alliance were to win about half the wars, then those two alliances are equal in strength. It doesn't matter what their alliance rating is, what their prestige is, what kinds of champions they have. If they beat each other half the time, they are equal in strength, period.
In your system, or any system like your system, alliances would be matched against a number that is calculated from players' rosters. If two alliances had the same score, whatever you pick for the score, and they fight, one alliance is likely to be better at running wars than the other. They would win more often. The system, however, would keep matching them against each other over and over, because their number score was the same.
Systems that factor win/loss record, and *only* win/loss record, are universally considered to be more fair in these situations, because they satisfy this condition. If the system is run for a long enough period of time, the system matches alliances that have a roughly 50% chance of beating each other.
So how this AW match making system is correct and I am wrong. ( now don’t say long wait time , that’s ridiculous, did kabam said officially that it’s takes long wait time ) if we have evidence of this( @DNA3000 I was referring to this evidence ) to prove matching with alliance rating takes longer time ( please don’t say we have seen this in past , we know war was taking time to matched but reason was unknown) . I don’t have anything to say but to accept the fact that the AW system will is broken and it’s not correct.
You propose making a system that factors in three factors: alliance rating, time zone, and war rating. But you don't specify how that is supposed to work, and the details matter because of the problem you seem to be dismissing. I think you believe the reason was unknown because you don't understand the details of matching. Let's go through it step by step.
I start match making for my alliance. At that moment, the game servers try to find a match for me. It cannot match me against alliances that aren't currently looking for a war. It must match me *only* against other alliances looking for war. So obviously, if literally no one else is looking for war at that moment, the match can't be made. The game must wait until someone else comes along.
My alliance currently has a 1279 war rating and a 10 million something something rating. Someone else starts match making. His alliance has a 2000 war rating and a 15 million alliance rating. Obviously, the game can't match us against him. So the game has to continue to wait. Waiting means the game can't find a match, and some alliances are just way too far apart to match.
Okay, now another alliance starts looking for a match. They have a 1300 war rating and a 7 million alliance rating. Now, you say that is an unfair match. Okay, so the game won't make that match. You say it should look at alliance rating first. So now an alliance comes along with a 10 million alliance rating and a 2000 war rating. You're saying *this* is a good match?
That seems to be what you are saying, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you actually want a match where the alliance rating *and* the war rating are the same. Well, now we have a problem. There are lots of 1300 war rating alliances out there, and a lot of 10 million alliance rating alliances out there. But what if there aren't very many alliances with simultaneous 1300 war rating and 10 million alliance rating? What if we are the only one looking at that moment in time, or even that *day*? Then what? Then by your rules, we cannot be matched against anyone. Match making starts taking a very long time, because we have to wait for just the right alliance to come along.
Not long ago, Kabam changed match making to require something like that: simultaneous match for war rating and prestige. How do we know? Because the alliances that were seeing very long match times looked into it, and discovered that when a match finally came along it was with alliances that had similar rating and prestige. That would be a weird coincidence unless the game was enforcing it. So while we cannot say with *certainty* what happened because Kabam never said, we do have enough data to know with *reasonable* certainty what happened.
So trying to match based on alliance rating alone leads to matches that are crazy unfair by most people's definition. And trying to match based on alliance rating and war rating simultaneously seems to lead to match making taking too long - Kabam already ran that experiment. So whether you want to match on those two criteria separately or together, both lead to a system that has problems most players don't want.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating.
I was thinking about this statement on the drive home when I believe I had an epiphany. But I would like you to confirm it for me. Please consider this thought experiment.
Suppose just for simplicity of discussion that there were only two alliances in MCOC that had an 8 million rating. They aren't the only two alliances, just the only two with about that rating. And lets further assume that that rating accurately represents the fact that the players of both alliances have similar rosters. In fact, lets just go ahead and assume everyone's roster is identical. I'm going to call these alliances Alpha and Beta.
When they match for war, in your system they would get matched against each other. I presume you would consider that a fair match, because they both have identical ratings and even identical rosters. They have identical "strength." But lets say that when they fight AW, Alpha always wins. Alpha's players are just that much better, and Alpha consistently beats Beta.
Now, I would like you to confirm two things for me. First, I want you to confirm that you believe this match up is fair: they both have the same rosters, so they must have identical strength as you would describe them.
Second, I want you to confirm that in your opinion, Alpha is winning every war "fairly" and regardless of how many times Alpha wins, you would continue to match them against each other if they continued to have identical ratings and identical rosters. Even if Alpha wins fifty wars in a row, the match up is still fair, and still a match between two alliances of equal "strength." You would never decide that Beta, an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 7 million alliances even though they keep losing, and you wouldn't decide that Alpha, also an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 9 or 10 million rating alliances. They should continue to fight 8 million alliances, and it just so happens that means each other.
Does this accurately represent your idea of "equal strength" and "fair match up?" If not, in what specific ways would you do it differently.
@DNA3000 yes , that’s how it should work, even if you say people will sell the champs to reduce the alliance rating, this has very limited down side, you are not the only one will do this , possibly who have enough in there plate will do this kind of thing .... but not everyone. But the real measure is, after few wars you will be facing those opponents who are strong enough to challenge you.... I don’t see any harm in this ... one limited down side which kabam can easily prevent this by adding this factor under observation like they do for cheats. And ban or put penalties on alliances who deliberately do this. If 4-5 people are selling there champs out of 30 will not make much of a difference.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating.
I was thinking about this statement on the drive home when I believe I had an epiphany. But I would like you to confirm it for me. Please consider this thought experiment.
Suppose just for simplicity of discussion that there were only two alliances in MCOC that had an 8 million rating. They aren't the only two alliances, just the only two with about that rating. And lets further assume that that rating accurately represents the fact that the players of both alliances have similar rosters. In fact, lets just go ahead and assume everyone's roster is identical. I'm going to call these alliances Alpha and Beta.
When they match for war, in your system they would get matched against each other. I presume you would consider that a fair match, because they both have identical ratings and even identical rosters. They have identical "strength." But lets say that when they fight AW, Alpha always wins. Alpha's players are just that much better, and Alpha consistently beats Beta.
Now, I would like you to confirm two things for me. First, I want you to confirm that you believe this match up is fair: they both have the same rosters, so they must have identical strength as you would describe them.
Second, I want you to confirm that in your opinion, Alpha is winning every war "fairly" and regardless of how many times Alpha wins, you would continue to match them against each other if they continued to have identical ratings and identical rosters. Even if Alpha wins fifty wars in a row, the match up is still fair, and still a match between two alliancespoint of equal "strength." You would never decide that Beta, an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 7 million alliances even though they keep losing, and you wouldn't decide that Alpha, also an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 9 or 10 million rating alliances. They should continue to fight 8 million alliances, and it just so happens that means each other.
Does this accurately represent your idea of "equal strength" and "fair match up?" If not, in what specific ways would you do it differently.
Hypothetically, first point can be considered as it can happen you matched with an identical opponent, mostly the chances are at the level were people have 5/65 champs in the roster... not talking about AW rating cause that doesn’t matter to me and it’s inconsistent.
Second point - No this is not a correct situation and can’t be considered as fair fight example.
It’s simple this way , you win your war with your skills and strength, not with your rating.
Comments
Thanks for the confirmation, we actually did and we lost ... lol 😂
What AW rating you have ... did you achieved this rating starting from zero.
Ok ... and AW tier
I did read it properly. You are whinging about face higher rated alliances in tier three. Tier 3 is too high for your alliance. All I can say is welcome to realty.
Whining... this is something that you have learned recently and wanted to use it badly..... discussing a subject related to AW rating system, if you think that is whining... then yes I am whining, if tier 3 fights will have 10+ million alliances then what will tier 1,2 will have, where are those 2000+ rating alliances will go .... we have achieved the rating and tier by winning and losing wars ... nothing wrong in it but , a tier 12 alliance with rating 946 will have a match up with 12+ million alliance. I don’t see your point of being in wrong tier and by saying this tier 3 is too high for my alliance.... I will accept this fact if you can prove .... what tier we should have as per our AW rating.
You are complaining about how unfair it is that you are facing 10 million rated alliances in tier 3. We face similar or higher rated alliances in tiers 6 through 9. You have no grounds for complaint.
The reason why people keep describing your complaints as whining is because you keep saying you earned your rating, but you don't think anyone else has. If you face an alliance with a 1400 war rating, that is the rating they earned from wins and losses. Their alliance rating has nothing to do with the war rating they earned, and has no bearing on whether the match is fair or not.
If you don't want people to tell you what war rating you "should" have based on your alliance rating, you have to stop claiming that alliances with higher alliance rating are "unfair" match ups. You're suggesting that their alliance rating means they should not be matched against you, in effect saying you should be the judge of what tier they should be in based on their alliance rating. If you don't want people to judge where you should be based on your alliance rating, you have to stop judging your competition in exactly the same way.
It is also possible for an alliance that doesn't want to work hard at war but still wants easy rewards to explicitly work hard at one war and win, then match up again and deliberately lose that war, keeping a 50/50 record and basically staying in an easy tier. They get rewards for winning and losing, they don't have to work very hard when they fight seriously at all, and 50% of the alliances that face them get easy wins and the other 50% get smashed. That is still entirely fair, even though their war rating doesn't technically match their *ability* to win wars. War rating doesn't measure the ability to win. It measures the likelihood of winning.
Other side is people are getting matched with stronger alliances in every tier, irrespect of tier 3 or tier 12 , the 10+ million alliances are in each tier , so a 5 million alliance are getting matched with 10 million alliance in tier 12 , because their rating matched... then this system is only considering the AW ratings and I was pointing out to the other aspects of the system that can be considered, but people start shouting on longer match time and I didn’t get to know what is the cause of the longer match time.
Does anyone thought about that why in every tier they got matched with an strong alliance. Do we have enough data on these match ups so that we can find or understand the issue or cause.
1. Cause for the long wait time for match up - that’s what I was asking
2. 10 million alliance are in each tier ... doesn’t prove the point of being you in the tier you belongs.
3. Win or lose doesn’t add anything in the discussion so I was not talking about winning wanted to know how we are getting matched up ... which is only based on the AW rating.
4. Right or wrong only be proven when we have enough data to analyze so making an statement nothing is wrong with the system won’t add anything.
5. People in low tier with high rating will be matched with strong alliances, we have an example in this thread.
My only point is if you can add any informational comment please add. Just by saying will not help. Thanks
Honestly, I don't know if this is a language barrier thing or it is simply a mindset thing, but I will try one last time. We know alliances are matched up by war rating (this has changed over time, but this is the current system and it has been the system for most of the time in the past). War rating is set based on wins and losses. We know all of this with certainty because we can see the system in action. We can see that matches are with alliances with similar war rating. And we can literally see with every single war how the game adjusts our war rating up or down based on wins and losses.
War rating in effect measures our ability to win. Two alliances with similar war rating are considered to have similar strength, because they have similar ability to win. So they are matched against each other. If there are discrepancies, the system automatically adjusts those discrepancies out: an alliance that is stronger than all other alliances of similar war rating and wins all the time keeps getting their war rating increased, until they have a much higher war rating and are being matched against stronger alliances. This keeps occurring until they start to lose, and then the system converges on a war rating that roughly causes the alliance to win and lose about half the time.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge that war rating is the true measure of strength in alliance war, and alliance rating is not. You seem focused on the notion that war rating is somehow "wrong" because it doesn't match your expectations for alliance rating and keep wondering why. No one can answer that question, because your assumption that alliance rating is a better measure of alliance war strength than war rating is simply false. And this isn't just some weird Kabam invention: there are lots of places where competitions are based on a rating system. In all of them, a similar system for creating and then auto-adjusting ratings based on win/loss record are used. Probably the most widespread of those is the ELO system for chess competitions, where chess players are given a rating based on their ability to beat players of similar or higher rating. Chess players are not handicapped based on age or experience or anything else. They are only judged based on their ability to win. All other "advantages" are completely ignored for competitive purposes.
I specifically quoted you above because it appears you do not understand what anyone is saying. For example, you immediately dismissed someone discussing how win/loss record affects rating by saying "Win or lose doesn’t add anything in the discussion so I was not talking about winning wanted to know how we are getting matched up" but your win/loss record is how you ultimately get matched up - through war rating. If you cannot get past the mental block you appear to have there, no one can help you.
I also don't know, and I suspect no one else knows, what "evidence" you are asking for. We can see how wins and losses (and ties) affect our rating. This is obvious to the point of being non-debatable. We can see how we are matched: currently by war rating. Your own posts consistently show that this is how your alliance is being matched also. I literally have no idea what sort of data you are asking for, or what would satisfy you.
@Xthea9
I’m actually at loss what more is there to articulate (short of common sense instead of empirical evidence) on this issue. You may disagree with other folks views on the matter that you raised but that doesn’t mean the opinions provided are erroneous or as good as it gets. Like @DNA3000 pointed out, it could simply be a mind-set issue.
What you’re trying to propogate is that a war is only fair if your opponent is like-for-like, (war rating AND alliance rating wise) as yours. Any other perimeter is therefore deemed ‘unfair’. Well, for one I’d like to see if you can actually start the ball rolling by compiling a list of past 30 war results you deemed ‘unfair’ in your favor. And proceed to what is deemed unfair against you. Logic and common sense will dictate your possible win-lost ratio will be around the region of 40%-60%, 50%-50%, or at worse case 30%-70%. You should take a hard look at yourself if it’s 20%-80% because clearly your opponent is doing something right that your alliance is not.
Why me ... why are you pointing out to me , there are people who are saying that they have been matched with stronger alliances, why I have become the whining person, when I am the one who wants to know more and asking for those alliances who are actually strong and are matched with weak alliances, why they are not saying anything on this .... read the post , if not then I will post a pic for you.
If you *literally* are asking why high alliance rating alliances aren't coming onto the forums to complain about being matched against much lower rated alliances, the answer is: most don't consider it noteworthy, and on the very rare cases when they do point it out someone knowledgeable explains how the match making system works and that satisfies them.
I keep trying to explain this to you, but you don't seem to be willing or able to accept it. A very high alliance rating alliance that gets matched against a low rated alliance won't generally consider that noteworthy. And that is because when they get matched against low rated alliances, they tend to win only half the time. If they are only winning half the time against those alliances, why would they consider it worth coming onto the forums to complain about?
You believe something to be true that is not true. You believe there are high rating alliances hovering around at very low war rating consistently smashing up low rated alliances and winning all of the time. That is not happening. If a high alliance rating alliance has a very low war rating, then either a) they are a brand new alliance and will quickly increase their war rating until they leave the low tiers or b) they aren't very good performers in alliance war and are only winning about half the time. In neither of those cases will anyone from those alliances come onto the forums to complain about the situation, or even mention it as if it was something interesting.
1. For me strength of the alliance is more important - I measured the alliance strength by his alliance rating. ( some will say prestige, but I am not sure how this works) so I we go by the basics.
2. Alliance base region - location is also important ( time zone will also plays a role)
3. AW rating - this will be last and least option to consider a match.
Suppose if match making only considered the alliance rating, and you are getting matched with equally strong alliances, win or lose just add few points in your rating which only tells that how your alliance is doing, it will not project your real strength. And to monitor growth you have to consider your strength.
Currently you have seen my alliance isn’t strong but my rating are high which doesn’t project my alliance strength.
So how this AW match making system is correct and I am wrong. ( now don’t say long wait time , that’s ridiculous, did kabam said officially that it’s takes long wait time ) if we have evidence of this( @DNA3000 I was referring to this evidence ) to prove matching with alliance rating takes longer time ( please don’t say we have seen this in past , we know war was taking time to matched but reason was unknown) . I don’t have anything to say but to accept the fact that the AW system will is broken and it’s not correct.
Our alliance has a current alliance rating of about 10 million. If I ordered everyone to dump all their 2* and 3* champions, it would probably drop to about 6 or 7 million. This would have no impact on our ability to win alliance wars. Alliance rating is a horrible measure of alliance war strength, and using it would encourage alliances to do things Kabam would not want to incentivize: dumping champions to reduce your alliance rating and find weaker alliances to fight. That is poison to a game that otherwise tries to attract players that like to spend time and money to collect things. This is first and foremost a collecting game.
Prestige is a better measure, but not that much better. Prestige focuses on the top five champions of each player in rating. So it doesn't count all those lower champions. But it does not factor in skill, or the differences in champions.
The overriding principle of the rating system is this principle. If two alliances were to fight a series of wars over and over again, and each alliance were to win about half the wars, then those two alliances are equal in strength. It doesn't matter what their alliance rating is, what their prestige is, what kinds of champions they have. If they beat each other half the time, they are equal in strength, period.
In your system, or any system like your system, alliances would be matched against a number that is calculated from players' rosters. If two alliances had the same score, whatever you pick for the score, and they fight, one alliance is likely to be better at running wars than the other. They would win more often. The system, however, would keep matching them against each other over and over, because their number score was the same.
Systems that factor win/loss record, and *only* win/loss record, are universally considered to be more fair in these situations, because they satisfy this condition. If the system is run for a long enough period of time, the system matches alliances that have a roughly 50% chance of beating each other.
You propose making a system that factors in three factors: alliance rating, time zone, and war rating. But you don't specify how that is supposed to work, and the details matter because of the problem you seem to be dismissing. I think you believe the reason was unknown because you don't understand the details of matching. Let's go through it step by step.
I start match making for my alliance. At that moment, the game servers try to find a match for me. It cannot match me against alliances that aren't currently looking for a war. It must match me *only* against other alliances looking for war. So obviously, if literally no one else is looking for war at that moment, the match can't be made. The game must wait until someone else comes along.
My alliance currently has a 1279 war rating and a 10 million something something rating. Someone else starts match making. His alliance has a 2000 war rating and a 15 million alliance rating. Obviously, the game can't match us against him. So the game has to continue to wait. Waiting means the game can't find a match, and some alliances are just way too far apart to match.
Okay, now another alliance starts looking for a match. They have a 1300 war rating and a 7 million alliance rating. Now, you say that is an unfair match. Okay, so the game won't make that match. You say it should look at alliance rating first. So now an alliance comes along with a 10 million alliance rating and a 2000 war rating. You're saying *this* is a good match?
That seems to be what you are saying, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you actually want a match where the alliance rating *and* the war rating are the same. Well, now we have a problem. There are lots of 1300 war rating alliances out there, and a lot of 10 million alliance rating alliances out there. But what if there aren't very many alliances with simultaneous 1300 war rating and 10 million alliance rating? What if we are the only one looking at that moment in time, or even that *day*? Then what? Then by your rules, we cannot be matched against anyone. Match making starts taking a very long time, because we have to wait for just the right alliance to come along.
Not long ago, Kabam changed match making to require something like that: simultaneous match for war rating and prestige. How do we know? Because the alliances that were seeing very long match times looked into it, and discovered that when a match finally came along it was with alliances that had similar rating and prestige. That would be a weird coincidence unless the game was enforcing it. So while we cannot say with *certainty* what happened because Kabam never said, we do have enough data to know with *reasonable* certainty what happened.
So trying to match based on alliance rating alone leads to matches that are crazy unfair by most people's definition. And trying to match based on alliance rating and war rating simultaneously seems to lead to match making taking too long - Kabam already ran that experiment. So whether you want to match on those two criteria separately or together, both lead to a system that has problems most players don't want.
I was thinking about this statement on the drive home when I believe I had an epiphany. But I would like you to confirm it for me. Please consider this thought experiment.
Suppose just for simplicity of discussion that there were only two alliances in MCOC that had an 8 million rating. They aren't the only two alliances, just the only two with about that rating. And lets further assume that that rating accurately represents the fact that the players of both alliances have similar rosters. In fact, lets just go ahead and assume everyone's roster is identical. I'm going to call these alliances Alpha and Beta.
When they match for war, in your system they would get matched against each other. I presume you would consider that a fair match, because they both have identical ratings and even identical rosters. They have identical "strength." But lets say that when they fight AW, Alpha always wins. Alpha's players are just that much better, and Alpha consistently beats Beta.
Now, I would like you to confirm two things for me. First, I want you to confirm that you believe this match up is fair: they both have the same rosters, so they must have identical strength as you would describe them.
Second, I want you to confirm that in your opinion, Alpha is winning every war "fairly" and regardless of how many times Alpha wins, you would continue to match them against each other if they continued to have identical ratings and identical rosters. Even if Alpha wins fifty wars in a row, the match up is still fair, and still a match between two alliances of equal "strength." You would never decide that Beta, an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 7 million alliances even though they keep losing, and you wouldn't decide that Alpha, also an 8 million alliance, should start fighting 9 or 10 million rating alliances. They should continue to fight 8 million alliances, and it just so happens that means each other.
Does this accurately represent your idea of "equal strength" and "fair match up?" If not, in what specific ways would you do it differently.
Hypothetically, first point can be considered as it can happen you matched with an identical opponent, mostly the chances are at the level were people have 5/65 champs in the roster... not talking about AW rating cause that doesn’t matter to me and it’s inconsistent.
Second point - No this is not a correct situation and can’t be considered as fair fight example.
It’s simple this way , you win your war with your skills and strength, not with your rating.