Alliance War "fair matchmaking"

Ever since ive created my ally, weve been having a great run growing up fast and doing amazing. However, ive yet to come across what can be considered as a "fair" matchmaking in AW. Its not evem close to fair. Every AW we are put against way stronger allies, thus being completely obliterated. I can say weve won more than weve lost, but that was because the enemy was rather unorganised, not weaker or similar to power. Every ally has at least 1.5M+ rating than us. No matter how skilled u are, if the defenders are stronger, u are bound to make a mistake and if they have even stronger attackers they can easily tear through our defense getting above 90% exploration.

How I think it should be handled?
Well, firstly try to focus matchmaking to 4 things.
1. Prestige (as alliance rating is rather useless because people can sell champs)
2. Members (amount)
3. War rating
4. Past war performance (ex. If an ally is constantly winning, match them up to a 'higher prestige' alliance that has lost more)

My ally is currently about 5.1M in war rating and our enemy in our current enemy 6.4M, theyve easily killed due to their stronger rooster and well done to them.
The point is, that we need a solution to this as its sucking out the fun of AW in general!
I can make an album to show our AW history if needed to prove my point.
Cheers!

Comments

Deadbyrd9

Only war rating should really be used. If a new alliance is formed with a war rating of 0 should they be matched up with a higher tier alliance? No. It would be impossible for them to ever climb the tiers to get good rewards. The war tiers determine rewards so why should anything but rating determine your match? If you have the most skilled alliance with a low prestige than you can easily make the top tiers of aw without ever facing off against a top team. That doesn’t seem right. Yes the war rating thing isn’t ideal but there’s not really a better solution out there imo.

FingerPicknGood

My hope is that the AW rating and overall season rankings generally sync up, then this won't be much of an issue. In some sense this is kind of the point of seasons, to incentivize teams to seek their best AW matchup. My guess is that after the first season the matchups will start to seem more fair, since good players will be less likely to join up a lower tier ally.

We did see, early on, alliances in Platinum 3 getting matched up with Gold 1 teams. We'd be matched up with an ally who was rated +2-3M more then us. But I haven't noticed these kinds of extremes recently.

GroundedWisdom

The War Rating is the usual determining factor. Every once in a while you'll have a Match that the War Rating is off, but that's not common. We've had a few where the Ally Rating was 2 and 3 times larger than ours. They're still beatable for us. Our current one was a slaughterhouse though. Lag is insane starting out.

unknown

This content has been removed.

beyonder8421

Matchmaking will never be fair if players keep cheating.

VandalSavage

https://postimg.org/image/7nci4h27v/

unknown

This content has been removed.

Ortem420

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Only war rating should really be used. If a new alliance is formed with a war rating of 0 should they be matched up with a higher tier alliance? No. It would be impossible for them to ever climb the tiers to get good rewards. The war tiers determine rewards so why should anything but rating determine your match? If you have the most skilled alliance with a low prestige than you can easily make the top tiers of aw without ever facing off against a top team. That doesn’t seem right. Yes the war rating thing isn’t ideal but there’s not really a better solution out there imo.

Actually their is. It’s obvious to everyone that Kabam “Knows All & Sees All” so I doubt it would be difficult for them to see exactly how many champs each Alliance member has and what Star base and rank base.

Since we already have an Alliance Rating determined by the Rating of each member. And since we can all see how many PVP matches each person has won and how many were with 6*-1* characters. So couldn’t they add a similar formula that sums up how many characters each alliance has altogether and of what * base and the total Rating of each star base? Instead of coming out with new content every month (which we absolutely love). Maybe focus a bit more on matchmaking.

AW Rating is great and all. But at times it’s a faulty system if you don’t have a more diverse way of matching Alliances up with one another. Like the OP said, you could be very skilled and probably better than most. But with one mistake and it’s lights out. And trust me, with all the lag issues going around in the game, all the bugs and glitches as well. Making a mistake is more common and it’s not even the players fault most of the time. All it takes is a match against Mordo and he throws his SP2 and suddenly, laaaaagggggggg, that all you can do is hold your finger down on the screen in hopes that it actually read the command and you do block it. But in the more than once situation where he is on an SP2 unnlockable node and once he throws it, you once again experience LLLAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG that you vigorously swipe and swipe and swipe and swipe and....... (you get the point) in hopes that you were able to evade his attack just to find out you didn’t because of the lag and because of the same lag aren’t able to recover in time because even tho your thumb is on the screen, the games glitch didn’t read the command and Mordos unleashes a 5 hit combo with fury activated and your dead.
(I know I kinda went off topic but trying to kill 2 birds with one comment)
So if your not going to fix one problem. Fix another but FIX it. Don’t say “we’re looking into it” when you probably discuss it for a few minutes until somebody mentions something about the new content and the problem gets ignored and forgotten once again.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mr_Platypus

Xhuliii wrote: »

kushstar88 wrote: »

they need to consider the total ally rating as well as war rating. whats the point of my ally whos 4 mil facing an 8 mil ally but with the same war rating? who do you think is gonna win?

If they consider war rating, there are people sho sold champs and have a total of 100k rating but have the rooster of what could be a 400k+ account. They already calculate prestige for AQ, and prestige is based off top champs, why not use same calculation for AW so they can match allies that have same prestige?
Weve fought against a 3.4M ally and they complete 100% of all our 3 bgs, i took a look and 70% of their members had their champs sold.

That affects the total alliance rating.

War rating is only affected by winning and losing, not by prestige, not by how many champs have been sold, just your performance in war.

Voluntaris

Xhuliii wrote: »

kushstar88 wrote: »

they need to consider the total ally rating as well as war rating. whats the point of my ally whos 4 mil facing an 8 mil ally but with the same war rating? who do you think is gonna win?

If they consider war rating, there are people sho sold champs and have a total of 100k rating but have the rooster of what could be a 400k+ account. They already calculate prestige for AQ, and prestige is based off top champs, why not use same calculation for AW so they can match allies that have same prestige?
Weve fought against a 3.4M ally and they complete 100% of all our 3 bgs, i took a look and 70% of their members had their champs sold.

... using prestige for war matchmaking results in extremely long matchmaking times (as kabam did quietly try it a couple months ago), so much so that some alliances miss out on a 3rd war, even if they start matchmaking as soon as possible.

As a result, best to do war matchmaking just off of War Rating. See prior threads on the same topic with @DNA3000 explaining it much more thoroughly.

Wayntos

Agree the matchmaking is a little skewed you can take on a team that are all uncollected they only have like 10 champs each but they are all over 6k+ then take on a team that has the same prestige but they have 50 champs averaging 3k it just.... But this is the first season and they are probably working on a better way to make fair matches... its all good and remember its a game!!!

I still like to see a 3* war only that way it would be even, it would make them usefully , give people a reason to keep them and you would actually have to use skill and rely on knowledge you have of the champions instead brute force..... just saying because everyone doesn't have 6* blade !!

Deadbyrd9

Alliances that are similar in prestige could be vastly different in skill level. So prestige shouldn’t be the main factor. Some summoners want to be inless competitive wars but won’t be able to do so if they have the prestige of top tier players.

@Ortem420 I said nothing about how many champs a summoner has in my post. Why should that be a factor anyway? The amount of champs and * level of champs has absolutely nothing to do with skill level. You get matched based on the amount of wars you have won and lost because that determines your alliances war rating. I don’t see any logical reason why the # and * level of champs should factor into matchmaking. You also didn’t give an explanation of what that would do either matchmaking.

Deadbyrd9

@Wayntos I only have a 4* blade. I don’t use blade in aw and I can solo path 6 in tier 2 alliance wars. It’s very easy to clear a path with no deaths without blade. Blade is just a good counter to a lot of champs and has a regen. In most top aws the alliances place full diversity so blade isn’t as useful since the mystic villain champs don’t run rampmant. Blade isn’t the end all be all of champs. He just really helps less skilled players by turning off nodes and abilities so you don’t have to play around them quite so much

Wayntos

@Deadbyrd9 I was kind of being sarcastic about Blade (I do have a 4* blade) since he's the flavor of the month. it's just some of the matches we get destroyed by two people that are uncollected with a stacked roster. That's why I suggested 3* war where everyone should be equal and it would be more about knowledge of the champions and skill. Just even playing field is all i'm asking for, yes in the long run I know I'll be up there soon enough until then grind on.

Deadbyrd9

3* wars would be fun but I’m not wasting resources on those champs

GroundedWisdom

It's better the way it is now. War Rating is based on how you perform in War. You gain Wins, you go up. You gain Losses, you go down. All Prestige is good for is AQ Rewards.

DarkestDestroyer

Does the matchmaking go on the Tier your in? Or still war rating?

If it’s war rating that should be scrapped and it should be done by Tier.

What you reckon @Kabam Miike @Kabam Wolf @Kabam Vydious ?

If it is currently done by Tier, just confirm it so I know (sorry for tagging) but I feel this change is also needed if it isn’t done by Tier.

Especially when the top alliances all manipulate the current system so they don’t fight each other, that isn’t fair on any level. The top should fight the top at some point right?

Deadbyrd9

Why should it be by tier? Doesn’t it make more sense to move up a tier if you beat someone in the tier above you? If you are the top alliance in your tier then you would only play alliances with lower war rating.

Also, do you live under a rock? There are plenty of aw videos on YouTube of the master alliances facing off against master alliances in this war season. I haven’t seen anyone complain about getting matched with a master alliance without being in at least platinum 1

DarkestDestroyer

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Why should it be by tier? Doesn’t it make more sense to move up a tier if you beat someone in the tier above you? If you are the top alliance in your tier then you would only play alliances with lower war rating.

Also, do you live under a rock? There are plenty of aw videos on YouTube of the master alliances facing off against master alliances in this war season. I haven’t seen anyone complain about getting matched with a master alliance without being in at least platinum 1

Live under a rock? Because I don’t watch YouTube videos 😂 come off it son, I have a life that’s all and don’t have time to watch YouTube videos, but if that’s true it’s only a new thing since seasons begun and you know that too.

And it should be done by Tier because you are in a Tier with others, like a football league, then at the end some get promoted and some get relegated, you don’t just get Wigan Vs United everyweek, they play teams in the same league “Tier”

If your the top alliance in your Tier, then you would be playing other alliances in your Tier, the way the rating works you can get a superior alliance vs a poor one.

I understand what you mean about moving up by beating an alliance in a Tier above, I just think it would be more fair playing in your own Tier, and then still moving up or down etc.

Knightarthus

To simplify it let’s say we are matching individual players not alliances.

If we are matching prestige, say you have 5 R4 5*, and you are matched with someone who has 11 R4 5* ( to use 3 in aq 3 in aw and 5 defenders). You are outmatched even if you had the same prestige.

If you want to use total rating, that person will sell all his 3&4* and crush your again.

Best measure is performance which is war rating.

Deadbyrd9

@DarkestDestroyer you don’t get Wigan vs untied but teams do get promoted or relegated to play the teams in other tiers based on their performance. If this was a system where you were in 1 set tier the whole war season your reference would be valid but because no alliance is in a set tier the whole season the soccer reference doesn’t fit. If you don’t watch YouTube and don’t see all sources of information it’s very easy to miss that almost all master alliances get matched with each other