**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
Well I could also find arguments for the contrary because you wouldn't want to see a 500k Ally go up against a 10 Mil.
We already came to that conclusion quite a while ago. But as to average rating, of course you're going to see many examples of matches that appear to match based on average player rating. For alliances with 30 members, similar alliance rating is equivalent to similar average player rating, because those two numbers are related by a constant: one number is 1/30th of the other. It is only when the two alliances have different numbers of members that you would ever see anything different. That's when "consistently similar" would become "not always."
I am the one here presenting the evidence.
And alliance rating or player rating should never be considered. It is not fair in lower tiers there is always allies of varying strengths looking cus the pools are so large. So in this case a 8mil ally woll never be matched with a 2mil.
Whilst this gives each ally “fair and even” chance of wining each and every war.
It also creates false standings.
And allows many 2-3mil allies to sit higher and get better rewards then 8-10 mil allies as they will never fight.
My data shown here is from around a dozen matchups.
My observations have taken place for longer.
I am not saying you are wrong. It seems you mostly agree.
But it is not a fair system
We're not full, and I've noticed it similar against Allies with more Players. I'm almost certain it's a factor. I could be wrong, as with anything. Just what I've noticed.
Doing this enables them to have the same win ratio therfore war rating and therefore same tier and therefore same rewards and therefore same season ranking as 10 mil allies
Well, the main deciding factor seems to be War Rating and that's about as fair as it gets. It's based on performance. Which means Allies will Match with varying Ratings. However, there needs to be a buffer as well to prevent completely unfair Matches from occurring because that turns into an equally-unfair ambush for those Allies.
If someone sells their champs and has only 20 champs at 4/55 their rating will be 200k. An alliance full of peeps like this will be 6million.
Now an allinace full of 200k players whose top champs are only 4/40 will be also 6million....
Is that a fair match up????
No...
The first example would easily be able to compete with 20mil ratig allies. But instead will win most of its wars cus it will constantly be beating up other 6mil but weaker allies
Post the match ups so we can examine that data. I haven't seen that myself, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. But at this point it is important we have the actual data for reference, because there are a lot of individual overlapping anecdotes that contradict each other.
Cant you see my evidence....
My 3 mil ally has never fought anyone stronger than 4.5.....
My 8 mill never fought weaker than a 6mil....
Both have around a 50/50 win ratio.
My 3 mil ally a bit better but only cus we never face very strong opposition..
My 3 mil ally currently has a higher war rating than my 8mil....
I can assure you my 8mil is actually better at wars and a stronger alliance.
These two should foght each other...
If @Maat1985 is correct, then the problem was introduced when Kabam began matching based on both war rating and alliance rating simultaneously, and adding alliance rating to the match making system (which it originally didn't do) created a problem where war rating no longer accurately represents the actual strength of an alliance because their wins and losses are skewed by only facing a certain type of alliance - one with an identical alliance rating.
If that is the case, the proper solution is to cease using alliance rating as a match making criteria, and only match based on alliance rating, picking randomly from all available alliances with the same war rating. This would add extra "churn" to the system, forcing lower alliance rating alliances to defend their war ratings against alliances with every possible alliance rating.
I'm not 100% convinced this is happening yet across the entire game, but @Maat1985 's observations do suggest it is happening at least to some degree. I wouldn't consider it definitive, but I would consider it strongly worth examining by Kabam if nothing else. They could determine what's going on faster and with absolute certainly given they have access to all match up data.
8mill beat up on only 8mil.....
12 mil beat up on only 12 mil....
If only war rating is considered....
After a period of time things will seperate and the weak allies will all fall toward the bottom
And the strong ones will all rise toward the top....
3mil allies will mostly foght 3mil allies still (mostly) but after a few wins they will begin to fight stronger allies. And will therefore sit in an appropriate tier...
Weak allies foghting weak allies for low rewards....
Average allies foghting average allies for acerage rewards.
Strong allies foghting strong allies for good rewards.
Currently you have a bad mix strong, weak and acerage allies all foghting for average rewards. As noone can move up or down die to bad matchmaking system
I can assure you at tier 11-8 there is not much movement.... bith my 8 mil and my 3mil ally are around the same tiers. Currently 8mil is in tier 12.... 3 mil is in tier 10..
if my 3 mil continues fighting 3 mil this will not chamge 50/50 win ratio.
If my 8 mil continues fighting 8 mil this will not change 50/50 win ratio.
Realistically my 8 mil ally should be hogher. If my 8 mil fought my 3 mil who wins???
But we Will never be matched up against each other under the current system.
And because of this war rating and tiers do not reflect alliance strength and performance.
If someone at the top is complaining about unfair strength matchups maybe they are fighting in a tier that is above their strength level....
As i am in both allies i can say for a fact 1gt will never beat tcr if we fought. However 1gt is getting better rewards atm as current matchups do not allow propper seperation.
They allow weak allies to float in a sea of weak allies.
Average strengtg allies in a sea of average strength allies.
If this is the system they wanna use then there needs to be a tiered divisional style reward system so the top 2mil ally does not share thensame rewards as the top 10mil ally
The point is in the lower tiers we cannot move up. We have a 50/50 win ratio against other 8mil allies.
Whilst there are 3 mil allies sitting higher in a sea of other 3 mil allies. Cus they climbed here before alliance rating was added in.
And will not fall as there is enough competiion of similar ratings to create a bubble for them to fight in tier 9....
Take out alliance rating and they will drop to a lower tier more appropriate of their strengtg
There is more contention for positions....
Aa 10 mil ally here may fight a 20mil ally cus there is only 2 other 10 mil allies who are already foghting each other.
But the lower you go the easier it gets to fight same ratig over and over.....
U have bubbles of alliance ratings forming at different tier levels.
Of course. Cus u are in a higher tier already.
I have been providing evodence to support everything i am saying
Like???