There was a guy in our alliance, 150k, he only had 25 champs, he had 3 r4 5*s and the rest were all at least r5 4*. he had sold all the rest... 30 like that would make an alliance 4.5m. There is no point to breaking the game because you get the odd matchup with a stronger team, in the long run this system evens out, you are saying the system is broken but it is not, all your suggestions are complicated and would lead to exploits and wars that you might never be able to win as you might get stuck with the same few matchups over and over again, (and the other alliances at your level might be more skillful and spend more)
As I said before they trialled prestige, it was terrible... a failure and had more people complaining than this system so they have reverted to it) , timezone an alliance in make s no difference, there is more than enough time to compete the map, it doesn’t really matter how fast you do it. At this point I’m leaving this conversation, I don’t find to be worTh repeating myself for, you have taken offence at a system that is actually working well, there will be the odd anomaly, but this system is so simple that it is quite safe from exploits. The 12m alliance facing a 2.5m alliance has just started their alliance and will soon be much higher and this is just them on their way up,
My point is match alliance based on AW rating and alliance rating, consider both things cause both are important and play a significant role in matching. A balance in between both will be a fair match up.
Back when Wars first came out I was in a 2 mil alliance in Tier 1, why? Because it used our alliance rating when finding matches, 90% of Wars we had no defence to beat because our opponents didn’t place one, now is it fair that we scrubs with our 4 3*s were earning the same rewards as the strongest alliances that were also tier 1, with no chance of being matched against them because the ratings were so far apart? No it wasn’t.
If you’re at a high war rating and being matched against stronger alliances it means you’re playing above your rating, so rather than complaining about it, think of it in a positive manner, accept that losses happen.
My friend that’s what I am talking about, we achieved this rating from zero , so if what you are saying is true then the calculation behind this AW rating is wrong .... so how come we can say the AW matching is fair.... I don’t know if you get my point but the discussion is only based on this not that we lost and now we are crying out loud.
Matching based on war rating is the fairest way for reasons I’ve stated above.
Man, trying to read this thread gave me a headache. I was going to post about how the first version of wars was exactly the one xthea hails as a perfect system, but ultimately failed miserably but then I realised it was pointless. If 4 pages of people explaining this to you dosen't convince you, nothing will.
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
The matchmaking system is the most “fair” now, as it has ever been.
Back when i still played. Our ally was #2 in war, and sometimes after searching for 3 hours. We would get placed with a tier 6 ally. Talk about unfair.
Legion, with everyone having 3 r4 5*’s would get matched against an ally that had a full 4* defense.
Xthea. You came here to look for sympathy, what you got was a dose of truth, your ally either did well, or got lucky and went higher than you should have. Now the war system is bringing you back to where you should be.
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
The matchmaking system is the most “fair” now, as it has ever been.
Back when i still played. Our ally was #2 in war, and sometimes after searching for 3 hours. We would get placed with a tier 6 ally. Talk about unfair.
Legion, with everyone having 3 r4 5*’s would get matched against an ally that had a full 4* defense.
Xthea. You came here to look for sympathy, what you got was a dose of truth, your ally either did well, or got lucky and went higher than you should have. Now the war system is bringing you back to where you should be.
Lol ... seriously what is your point, does AW rating tells you how strong alliance is yours. I am only talking about current system, does any of us having a accurate AW ratings .
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
Simple way to understand is , currently AW ratings are not accurate my friend, that’s why we are having this miss match. If the AW rating point score was accurate, I will not be in the higher ratings and I will be matched with an equally strong opponent in AW , my be few points up or down.
Understand the point , we all know the conclusion, that’s not required.
Not sure why people are getting offended, I shared my views the way I look ,this AW rating system isn’t the good parameter to take for match ups, AW rating is inconsistent and will not tell you how strong is your alliance, people assume that higher AW rating means stronger alliances, but currently it’s not true. We have examples of this like my alliance.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
Simple way to understand is , currently AW ratings are not accurate my friend, that’s why we are having this miss match. If the AW rating point score was accurate, I will not be in the higher ratings and I will be matched with an equally strong opponent in AW , my be few points up or down.
Understand the point , we all know the conclusion, that’s not required.
So you say current war rating is inaccurate?
I agree. Your ally’s war is too high. And the system is working. Sadly i have no cheese to offer you along with your whine.
If you think AW Rating is inconsistent/inaccurate, despite being a much simpler stat that is less prone to manipulation, why would Alliance Rating, a much more variable stat that is subject to a many ways to modify or manipulate it, be any better?
But really... you are the only one who thinks AWR is inaccurate. Everyone else seems to recognize it as a fairer standard, and easy to determine.
We had this song and dance. When war was first introduced there were 100k ally in tier 1 cause of the same system that op says is better then the current.
Comments
As I said before they trialled prestige, it was terrible... a failure and had more people complaining than this system so they have reverted to it) , timezone an alliance in make s no difference, there is more than enough time to compete the map, it doesn’t really matter how fast you do it. At this point I’m leaving this conversation, I don’t find to be worTh repeating myself for, you have taken offence at a system that is actually working well, there will be the odd anomaly, but this system is so simple that it is quite safe from exploits. The 12m alliance facing a 2.5m alliance has just started their alliance and will soon be much higher and this is just them on their way up,
Matching based on war rating is the fairest way for reasons I’ve stated above.
But if like everyone says I should go with the AW rating system ,then kabam should change this AW point score system. We need some flat rating not floating. Suppose win will give you only 25 points and lose will take 20 points ... , winning will be the important factor for any scoring points and this way it will not impact drastically to AW ratings. May be this is not an correct example but just for understanding what if we have flat scoring.
Back when i still played. Our ally was #2 in war, and sometimes after searching for 3 hours. We would get placed with a tier 6 ally. Talk about unfair.
Legion, with everyone having 3 r4 5*’s would get matched against an ally that had a full 4* defense.
Xthea. You came here to look for sympathy, what you got was a dose of truth, your ally either did well, or got lucky and went higher than you should have. Now the war system is bringing you back to where you should be.
War rating isn’t a good parameter?!? It literally only takes into account how well you have done in war and places you against an ally that has done about as well as you. And flat rate scoring is a terrible idea
So if you match mmx and win, you want the same point adjustment as if you matched a tier 11 alliance and won?
Lol ... seriously what is your point, does AW rating tells you how strong alliance is yours. I am only talking about current system, does any of us having a accurate AW ratings .
Simple way to understand is , currently AW ratings are not accurate my friend, that’s why we are having this miss match. If the AW rating point score was accurate, I will not be in the higher ratings and I will be matched with an equally strong opponent in AW , my be few points up or down.
Understand the point , we all know the conclusion, that’s not required.
So you say current war rating is inaccurate?
I agree. Your ally’s war is too high. And the system is working. Sadly i have no cheese to offer you along with your whine.
At least then i could draw a funny a funny face on it.
But really... you are the only one who thinks AWR is inaccurate. Everyone else seems to recognize it as a fairer standard, and easy to determine.
Sorry. Yours truly is a mismatch. Maybe, just maybe, OP will see this and realize that their matchup is just
Then precisely what would you do differently in that situation.