Sort out matchmaking before season 2

No word Kabam? This can’t seem like it’s working as intended to you surely? Any plans to fix this befor the season?

shadow_lurker22

Probably not

Was likely fair for the other alliance if they had been in match making for an extended period of time. Guessing you're 3000+ if seeing this behaivor in mming, if so its perfectly acceptable for the .05% to match against the .05% regardless of war rating.

* .01% v .01%

NevvB

If we are in t2 with a x7 multiplier, fighting a 3300+ rating alli with a x8 multiplier, we should both be getting the x8 multiplier.

If we are fighting the t1 allis, the scores should show for it.

Also matchmaking needs to be fixed. If we search for 2-3 hours and not match, there is a problem. If we even miss one war in the season because matchmaking doesnt work, we pretty much drop a tier in plat.

There is a differnt problem in lower tiers

Where alliances are only being matched up against similar alliance rating aswell as war rating meaning that 3mil allies can and do sit higher than 8mil allies with less effort in wars.
See all my evidence here
http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/60672/analysis-of-aw-season-1-tier-vs-bracket#latest

@Kabam Miike can we get something said about this. It needs to be fixed. At the lower end here it is exploitable.

Kpatrix

I have another request related to war, this has happened to us twice now and apparently our oppenets as well.

When you click to place your regular defense, if one of the champs is being used in a quest they won't show up. To fix this problem, either allow players to add any missing defenders before attack phase or provide a dialogue box verififying you wish to place fewer than than max defenders allowed.

My 3 mil ally is disorganised as hell and we are winning wars and currently in tier 10 and going up. We are winning wars with only one bg clear against other 3 mill allies

May 8 mil ally put soo much effort into recruiting and trying to grow. We are losing wars and currently
In tier 10. We lose wars with 95% exploration and 3bg clears.

I cant understand how my weak and disorgansed alliance is getting better rewards.
Put in more effort and push harder to getmless rewards... seems fair to me...
If this keeps up i will either quit or join my strong account to my weak ally to take advantage of this exploitable flaw.

This kindof sums up what i am saying.
This alliance is tier 9....
Whilst we at 8mil are struggling to move from tier 11... we can clear 3x bgs amd get 90%+ exploration against an 11 mil ally.
Could this alliance do that??? I dont think so...
So how is it fiar they sit higher and get more rewards.. but would certainly be capable of less??
They may be good for a 3.5 mil ally but that does not make them better than an 8mill ally....

Demonzfyre

Kpatrix wrote: »

I have another request related to war, this has happened to us twice now and apparently our oppenets as well.

When you click to place your regular defense, if one of the champs is being used in a quest they won't show up. To fix this problem, either allow players to add any missing defenders before attack phase or provide a dialogue box verififying you wish to place fewer than than max defenders allowed.

You have 24 hrs to place. Finish the quest, place champs, go back into quests. You can use them while in placement. You are responsible for keeping track of your defenders. Kabam doesnt know who you want to use.

@Kabam Miike this needs to be looked into and fixed...
It means that. Newer weaker players can get potentially more rewards then stronger more experienced players... quite easily too... seems a little backward...

Also itncould be exploited.
If everyone in my ally sold all our 2 and 3 star and lur bad 4* champs we could seriously lower our alliance rating.. whilst not impacting on our strength at all. This would give us matchups agains much lower strength allies allowing us to climb higher and get better rewards much much easier.
But we dont wanna sell our champs. Nor should we have to....
I should place my strong account in my weak ally.... and get better rewards... which is stupid....
You should be able to get rewarded better for growth. Yet i feel my 8 mil ally is being punished and restricted for growing whilst my 3 mil ally is on cruis control getting good rewards.....
Look at the effort difference in the wars.

Demonzfyre

Maat1985 wrote: »

You straight up lost a war? Whats the problem?

First up 1gt could win with alot less
Second
If this was in season 1gt now gets 196000 points and moves up to a higher multiplier
Whilst tcr gets 135k and drops down to a lower multiplier.
Obviously if tcr fought any of these two or similar allies we tcr would comfortably win.
So how can matchmaking be designed in a way that allows allies like 1gt to sit alongside and even higher than tcr???
Makes no sense at all.....
This needs to stop getting ignored and it needs to be adressed...

Demonzfyre wrote: »

Maat1985 wrote: »

You straight up lost a war? Whats the problem?

The point is that consostently 3mil allies are only matched with 2-5 mil allies. Where as 8 mil allies are mached with 7-11 mil allies. Allowing a 3 mil ally to obtain a same and highe war rating and season score.
Which makes no sense what soever as a 3 mil ally is not as strong as a 8mil ally and that should be reflected in war rating. And season leaderboard.
These are both my allies..
This is consistent...
It makes no sense that a weaker ally can reach higher rank and stay there. This is only possible as kabams matchmaking considers alliance rating

How is it fair a 3 mil ally can reach tier 9 and get that level of rewards because it only faces other similar rated allies???
The war tiers and war rating is supposed to be designed so stronger allies sit higher and weaker allies sit lower.... there is no way a 3 mil ally is stronger than an 8 mil ally

So we have a sporting contest
20 teams.....
However in this contest it is not fair as normal where everyone plays everyone....
1-5 only play each other
6-10 only play each other
11-15 only play each other
16-20 only play other

Team 1 is rated 5 times stronger than team 20.

Team #1 suffers 2 losses throughout the season
Tema #20 however is undefeated.

This places team #20 at the top of he leaderboard at the end of season.

This does not indicate #20 is strongner than team #1 this indicates only team 20 had easier matchups then team 1.
As soon as team 20 played team 1 they would ve smashed. How is it fair they can finish above team 1 and get better rewards?

If this was a fair competition team 20 would play teams 1-5 and would suffer some losses due to not being strong enough.

Demonzfyre

Maat1985 wrote: »

So we have a sporting contest
20 teams.....
However in this contest it is not fair as normal where everyone plays everyone....
1-5 only play each other
6-10 only play each other
11-15 only play each other
16-20 only play other

Team 1 is rated 5 times stronger than team 20.

Team #1 suffers 2 losses throughout the season
Tema #20 however is undefeated.

This places team #20 at the top of he leaderboard at the end of season.

This does not indicate #20 is strongner than team #1 this indicates only team 20 had easier matchups then team 1.
As soon as team 20 played team 1 they would ve smashed. How is it fair they can finish above team 1 and get better rewards?

If this was a fair competition team 20 would play teams 1-5 and would suffer some losses due to not being strong enough.

This is called playoffs...... Upsets and underdogs win all the time. Ally rating isnt the only factor. War rating matters as well. Win more wars get a higher rating, get tougher opponents. We are tier 4 and face 14-18 mil alliances all the time and we are 13.5mil. Its not a perfect system but it works.

Well we just did another search. Took 4 seconds to match us +126/-6. They have a war rating 600 more than us. Kabam, can we get this fixed? This equals doom during seasons for us. How can this be fair?

No acknowledgement that there is a problem here Kabam? Happy to just leave it as is? What sort of system is this?

NevvB

Born wrote: »

No acknowledgement that there is a problem here Kabam? Happy to just leave it as is? What sort of system is this?

Doubt they care. This does benefit the top tier allis.

What i think is happening is that you are waiting to get into match making, (for whatever reason) when you enter late the higher rated teams have been waiting for a match for hours and you are picked to go up against them to ensure they get matched for the day. You need to get into match making asap instead of waiting mang.

CoatHang3r wrote: »

What i think is happening is that you are waiting to get into match making, (for whatever reason) when you enter late the higher rated teams have been waiting for a match for hours and you are picked to go up against them to ensure they get matched for the day. You need to get into match making asap instead of waiting mang.

I wish this was the case. We match early or late and we get the same result. I spoke to the guys who we matched against to find out a bit more info. They were only searching for a very short time. A few minutes only.

While it can happen early or late it will be more likely to happen late as the available pool is smaller. .01% v .01% there is a very narrow range of opponents you'll face l, I for one would do everything i could to not match up against the top of that .01%. But hey keep searching late...

Yea what they do is take turns. When one matches, the next will start searching, and then the next one, and so on and so forth. This is a system that has been used for forever. And for them it’s good, good luck to them. But I just feel that we should be searching for a little longer that 4 seconds before it is reaching out and matching so unfairly. Why not wait 30 minutes for other close allys to join before it goes and matches this way. Just doesn’t seem fair, that’s all.

With war seasons i do not think allies can afford to delay match making, no real idea though but they risk throwing the season if they are near the end of the list.

More to the topic, mming does what it needs to do to ensure everyone has the potential to match 3 times a week. Should match making change to prevent the top 10-50 from matching with the top 10? Seems like that would be awefully narrow and lead to 5 allies constantly fightiing the same five allies.

There are also allies who are capable of having a high rating like the ones they face but have in the past tanked their war rating. That’s inflated the top beyond what they should be rated.... .01% v .01%

DNA3000

Born wrote: »

Well we just did another search. Took 4 seconds to match us +126/-6. They have a war rating 600 more than us. Kabam, can we get this fixed? This equals doom during seasons for us. How can this be fair?

How high is your alliance war rating? During the previous season, there was evidence that suggested to me that when the game looks for a 'near match" it defines a near match not by how many absolute points your war ratings differ, but rather how many rank places your war ratings place you.

In other words, if your war rating is 1000, your war rating rank might be something like 10,000 out of all alliances, say. A close match isn't all alliances close to 1000 rating, it is actually all alliances close to 10,000 in rank. For low war ratings, those two things are basically the same thing: all alliances near you in rank have the same war rating. But for very high ranked alliances that might not be true. If you have a war rating of 2500 and the game looks for the 100 alliances close to your rank, that could easily be alliances several hundred war rating points higher than you in some c cases.

I think what happened was that initially the game looked for alliances within a certain number of war rating points. But that created a problem where if there was no such alliance looking for match at the same time you simply couldn't get matched at all for long periods of time. To address that Kabam changed it from requiring close war rating to requiring close war ranking, to be able to find matches quicker. And apparently they also changed things so that the game tries to find a match that is close in war rating rank and also total alliance rating, which is causing other issues.

One fundamental problem Kabam hasn't directly addressed yet is that some war rating values contain many alliances while other war rating ranges are much more sparse, which makes fair matching intrinsically difficult given the rating implementation.

DNA3000 wrote: »

Born wrote: »

Well we just did another search. Took 4 seconds to match us +126/-6. They have a war rating 600 more than us. Kabam, can we get this fixed? This equals doom during seasons for us. How can this be fair?

How high is your alliance war rating? During the previous season, there was evidence that suggested to me that when the game looks for a 'near match" it defines a near match not by how many absolute points your war ratings differ, but rather how many rank places your war ratings place you.

In other words, if your war rating is 1000, your war rating rank might be something like 10,000 out of all alliances, say. A close match isn't all alliances close to 1000 rating, it is actually all alliances close to 10,000 in rank. For low war ratings, those two things are basically the same thing: all alliances near you in rank have the same war rating. But for very high ranked alliances that might not be true. If you have a war rating of 2500 and the game looks for the 100 alliances close to your rank, that could easily be alliances several hundred war rating points higher than you in some c cases.

I think what happened was that initially the game looked for alliances within a certain number of war rating points. But that created a problem where if there was no such alliance looking for match at the same time you simply couldn't get matched at all for long periods of time. To address that Kabam changed it from requiring close war rating to requiring close war ranking, to be able to find matches quicker. And apparently they also changed things so that the game tries to find a match that is close in war rating rank and also total alliance rating, which is causing other issues.

One fundamental problem Kabam hasn't directly addressed yet is that some war rating values contain many alliances while other war rating ranges are much more sparse, which makes fair matching intrinsically difficult given the rating implementation.

Yea I guess that’s quite possible and more than likely the case.

I guess the best thing to do would be to drop our war rating as low as possible to where the pool is larger. That may allow us to find more even matchups. Cause a tier 2 win gives more points than a tier 1 loss. Seems when we get into the start of tier 1, we face only the top of tier 1. And even though we are both tier 1, the strength differences are huge.

Guys who havnt already have a read of this thread....
Lets make sure kabam cant keep ignoring this issue...
http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/60672/analysis-of-aw-season-1-tier-vs-bracket/p6

Get flagged as spam for linking to a relevant topic??? Well done... lmao