Unfair AW Match-up

vdevakkovdevakko Member Posts: 9
in General Discussion
Greetings. Yesterday We matched with an alliance that is 3 times stronger than us (4,5 vs 12M)
Of course we lost.
But the thing is, We've opened a ticket about this unfair match-up, and all we got were auto-replies, indicating the system they built is "fair"
Is this fair? Really?
Our war rating : 1282
Opponent : 1293
Kabam, a simple question. Why auto replies? Are you really that busy?
«13

Comments

  • TryakshaTryaksha Member Posts: 210 ★
    Rather than war rating shouldnt it be alliance rating? because even our alliance which is close to 5 mil was pitched against a 10 plus mil alliance... Mostly 5* places across the board almost all were duped. Wouldnt it be reasonable to build an algorithm which takes into consideration the war rating as well as the alliance rating..
  • Yelin547Yelin547 Member Posts: 238 ★
    Alliance rating was how it started so many started selling champs. And another issue was that alliances who shouldn't be tier 1 were tier one even though they were far weaker. A 3m alliance shouldn't be tier 1 because they beat their equals while a 10m alliance is t3 or lower because they are fighting much larger people all the time. War rating works, however some alliances abuse the system and always will
  • vdevakkovdevakko Member Posts: 9
    Limitless216 wrote: »
    I think prestige factoring into the match-ups would make sense but they'll probably never do that. It is what it is for now.

    This is actually a very good idea
  • AppleisgodAppleisgod Member Posts: 1,420 ★★★★
    vdevakko wrote: »
    Limitless216 wrote: »
    I think prestige factoring into the match-ups would make sense but they'll probably never do that. It is what it is for now.

    This is actually a very good idea

    No thank you
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Member Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    Limitless216 wrote: »
    I think prestige factoring into the match-ups would make sense but they'll probably never do that. It is what it is for now.
    How do 5 champions determine your effectiveness in war? They could be purely prestige champions and be absolute **** for war so you would wind up with regular battles beyond your capabilites. A system that accounts for how effective you have been in war over time is the fairest option.
  • vdevakkovdevakko Member Posts: 9
    Not necessarily 5 champions. Could be more. But it definitely determines how strong you are.
    Together with war rating this could be a very nice evaluation.
  • AddyosAddyos Member Posts: 1,093 ★★★★
    Bet you wouldn't be complaining if you got matched up with a 2.5 million rated alliance. You can't win every war. Use this as practice and move on.
  • vdevakkovdevakko Member Posts: 9
    The funny thing is, we never did :)
    Almost all of our opponents were stronger than us. We won, we lost, but more important thing is: we had fun. Last minute boss kills, waiting to see who won because we really couldn't tell..
    See, that's fun.
    Matching with a 2.5M opponent is not. And I believe they would have every right to complain.
  • CYNDRDBODYCYNDRDBODY Member Posts: 252
    The only reason you got this match up was most likely a new alliance was started and are working up the ranks. You were just matched badly cause the time they started their match making for war the same time you did. Trust me you wont see them again. Bad match ups happen to us all through all ranks eventually. Good practice for aq thats all.
  • Limitless216Limitless216 Member Posts: 62 ★
    edited June 2017
    @CoatHang3r @Appleisgod Not sure why prestige being an added measure to determining match-ups would be a problem for you guys but thanks for your feedback on a brilliant idea.

    Most of us would love going against alliances in our aw tiers with similar war ratings and prestige.
  • Nerfed2DefNerfed2Def Member Posts: 292 ★★
    Alliances switch. One group will change alliances into teir 3 while the left alliance loses on purpose bringing the rank down. Once said alliance moves back into teir one and keeps losing they go back to the original alliance now in teir 3 and repeat. That's why your getting unfair matches sometimes.
  • winterthurwinterthur Member Posts: 8,229 ★★★★★
    Would introducing cap on battlegroup in addition to a combined war and alliance rating help with balancing match up better?

    Alliance starts with only one battle group until reaching higher tiers and then a second battlegroup is unlocked and so on.

    Can't figure out the motivation of different alliances so ... welcome to hear opinions. Thanks.
  • rwhackrwhack Member Posts: 1,076 ★★★
    Alliance swapping is common now...there will be matchups like this since it's based on AW rating.
  • vdevakkovdevakko Member Posts: 9
    @Nerfed2Def @rwhack thank you for the comments. Didn't quite understand the main idea though. Gonna make some search about this.
  • rwhackrwhack Member Posts: 1,076 ★★★
    You can keep an alliance and a shell with 10 in it. When your rating gets too high you jump to the shell which is lower rated and switch back when it gets too high.
  • NoobeeusNoobeeus Member Posts: 332 ★★
    The only way to stop this is to include AW participation in the blackout period for moving alliances ONLY if more than 9 members have joined the alliance in the previous 72 hours.
  • ZappZapp Member Posts: 69
    Yea well today we have an opponent that heals up every champt to full before going into a fight, aka. Pay2Win. Nothing you can do about that, just learn to live with it.
  • ChrisA19978ChrisA19978 Member Posts: 55 ★
    I don't think war rating us a bad thing. Like one person said if you were rated by the alliance rating you would have 3 million alliances in Tier 1 because they would get cake fights all the time. The only way you could somehow add the alliance rating is if you did some type of percentage as well. So let's say a Tier 1 3 million alliance who won got 30% of the Tier 1 rewards due to them being smaller where a 10 million Alliance gets 100% of Tier 1 rewards.

    But then you would hear the 3 million alliance complain because there not getting the same Tier 1 rewards as the 10 million alliance. No matter what people will complain. Let's say the reason why you got matched up with them was because they were 2 power house alliances and half the group left due to 12.0 Nerf or all the other problems the game had. They decided to start new so now for the next 20 matches will be easy to them till they het to their proper Tier.

    The fact is no matter what they do to AW there will be someone who complains about something. Everyone would like to win every fight. If you wanted you could of bought the win as well. Seen that as well where an alliance half the rating of the other alliance wins. They took all 3 bosses where the other only took 2 but had something like 200 kills . So they bought the win I for one don't want to pay for a game that has all kinds of issues and so I would be more than happy to take a loss and save my units for something more rewarding than some shards

    AQ in my mind is more important than AW because you need the items to rank up these champs that the AW gives you shards for just build your team. It really just depend where you are in the game because people just starting getting a roster is important so it's more about the shards to them.
  • VandalSavageVandalSavage Member Posts: 267 ★★
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Completely fair match making given match making is based on war rating. Better luck next war.

    And they probably hear this over and over again so an auto reply is prefectly fine.


    For clarification, auto-replies are created by the system itself and not by an actual person. When we email our helpdesk at work, the system automatically gives us a reply that a ticket was opened on our behalf. So we can email our helpdesk at 2AM in the morning when nobody is at work and still get a response. It's the default message bought with the system, nobody changed it since there was no need (and none of us read it anyway).

    "Auto-reply" used by forum members is not in reference to an automatic response. It is meant as an insult to support and it is in reference to the fact that they don't like the answer that they got.

    Finally, it is pretty obvious that the war rating is a performance measure of how well two alliances did in alliance wars. So alliances are matched up based on their actual performance in the game, which clearly certain people do not like based on the complaints (see original post) and alliance hopping (see responses to original post).



  • ThawnimThawnim Member Posts: 1,461 ★★★★
    The fact is you get a bad match-up sometimes. The system is only set to match teams based on war rating. It stinks if you draw a new alliance that has no business being in whatever tier you are in, but do your best and hope for a better match-up next time. While I am sure they could implement measures to fix match-up issues like described above, I think it would tax the system and probably lead to even longer wait times to find opponents.
  • ShrimkinsShrimkins Member Posts: 1,479 ★★★★
    Basing it solely on WR is the only true fair way to do it. When AW was first released, it was more based on alliance rating and other ****. Like others mentioned, you had 1mil alliances wind up in tier 1 even though they never fought an alliance over 2mil.

    As far as the auto-response goes, it's ignorant people like the OP who send in thousands of complaints a day about their war matchup that feed the necessity for auto-response.
  • ThawnimThawnim Member Posts: 1,461 ★★★★
    Shrimkins wrote: »
    Basing it solely on WR is the only true fair way to do it. When AW was first released, it was more based on alliance rating and other ****. Like others mentioned, you had 1mil alliances wind up in tier 1 even though they never fought an alliance over 2mil.

    As far as the auto-response goes, it's ignorant people like the OP who send in thousands of complaints a day about their war matchup that feed the necessity for auto-response.

    It also led to people selling off their champs to try and game the system. In the end what is really more fair from a match-up perspective?
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Member Posts: 8,678 ★★★★★
    It should be war rating and prestige. For alliances that have plenty of t4cc war is more important than AQ and it's worth an AQ lockout if you can swap alliances and win every war.
  • vdevakkovdevakko Member Posts: 9

    Shrimkins wrote: »
    Basing it solely on WR is the only true fair way to do it. When AW was first released, it was more based on alliance rating and other ****. Like others mentioned, you had 1mil alliances wind up in tier 1 even though they never fought an alliance over 2mil.

    As far as the auto-response goes, it's ignorant people like the OP who send in thousands of complaints a day about their war matchup that feed the necessity for auto-response.

    Based on your reply I'm guessing you're a Kabam insider. How many thousands of complaints a day is there now :)
    People do complain for a simple reason: Un-fair-match-up.Period. This does not make one ignorant, at all. In fact, this is a solid evidence of match making system still needs improvement.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • NoobeeusNoobeeus Member Posts: 332 ★★
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    basing exclusively on war rating is not a fair way, and it is easily proven with an easy example:

    first, i go to school, talk to 30 kids that have never touched a phone before, much less played the game, convince them to play and make an alliance.

    second, i talk to the 30 best players in the whole game. players with endgame accounts and thousands of war victories, convince them to leave their alliances and have them form a new alliance.

    in both cases, i convinced 30 people to make a new alliance. a brand new alliance with no war history, therefore both have the same rating. both alliances start at 0 wins, 0 losses. same rating.

    both alliances happen to look for a war at the same time. now tell me, can you really say it is fair for these two alliances to get matched against the other, exclusively because they have the same war rating?

    Yes, it is.

    Match making wont always get it right but every alliance will get to a point where they no longer win every war.

    If they choose to stay at that spot and win 50% of their wars and get better rewards OR start from scratch and win 20 wars with junk rewards then who are you to say the 'system' is wrong?

    The system is what it is, some alliances game the system.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.