War Matchmaking [Edited for Clarity]

This content has been removed.

FluxFox

Fun times

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

TheRevolutiLeni

Alliances dropping their rating during off season is a contributing factor and that’s why off season is so short, right?

War rating determines which tier your alliance is in but it doesn’t completely determine your season standings. In fact at the moment it doesn’t matter a lot.
Why not make it so that a full exploration loss in x tier is worth more season points than a full exploration victory in the tier immediately below.
This will encourage alliances to try to stay in the highest tiers as much as possible rather than dropping their rating because dropping their rating will risk losing the best season rewards.
It won’t effect the lower season reward ranking, like gold 1 and below very much but it could have a drastic impact on the platinum 2 and above positions.

Markjv81

INTEGRAL wrote: »

Markjv81 wrote: »

How are they legit master if lost 3 wars? Or legit only when facing non master alliances?

Are you a joke?

Is your post integral to this thread?

Now that's a joke!

Drooped2 wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

This is just a split second thought but wouldn't just going by your opponents multiplier solve most if this with very little consequence?

Ie tier 1 allainces facing a t3 the
T1 allaince gets the multi plier of the t3
And the t3 wouod get the t1 multiplier .

It punishes the t1 and compensates the t3 all at once.

Again 2 second thought so it may be flawed feel free to point out the abusable aspect maybe we can work thru it

You're assuming that all of these mismatches are caused by the higher alliance manipulating match making to draw the lower alliance. But that's not the case. Given the way match making currently works, these types of mismatches are actually impossible to avoid. In fact, if the issue was purely due to match making manipulation, the matches would actually be closer than this. Manipulation can allow two 3000+ alliances from avoiding each other, but it cannot arbitrarily seek out and find alliances 700 points lower. For that to happen, other things must be simultaneously in play, and those are the result of match making happening at different times, rating differentials linear all the way to the top, and match making attempting to find good alliance rating matches on top of war rating matches and failing to find an optimal match in such a way as it then settles for horrible matches.

The multiplier swap would penalize alliances that matched lower through no fault of their own.

Valid like I said it was quick thought..
Hrmm injust feel like there's a simple answer here

The only "simple" answer that's been mentioned in the past that addresses this issue is forced synchronized match making. In other words, every alliance opts in or out on Wednesday, and on Thursday morning the system finds the closest available matches among all active alliances and everyone starts fighting on Thursday. Repeat for the rest of the week. It means you no longer get to choose when to start matching, and thus over what 24 hour period you attack in. But it has the ability, if you code it correctly, to guarantee close matches across all of the alliances that want to participate in alliance war, with one weird exception that no one who mentions this suggestion points out: if an odd number of alliances want to fight, obviously someone can't be matched. You can address that by giving the absolute lowest alliance active that week an automatic win. It isn't a big deal down in the participation and stone brackets.

V1PER1987

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

This is just a split second thought but wouldn't just going by your opponents multiplier solve most if this with very little consequence?

Ie tier 1 allainces facing a t3 the
T1 allaince gets the multi plier of the t3
And the t3 wouod get the t1 multiplier .

It punishes the t1 and compensates the t3 all at once.

Again 2 second thought so it may be flawed feel free to point out the abusable aspect maybe we can work thru it

You're assuming that all of these mismatches are caused by the higher alliance manipulating match making to draw the lower alliance. But that's not the case. Given the way match making currently works, these types of mismatches are actually impossible to avoid. In fact, if the issue was purely due to match making manipulation, the matches would actually be closer than this. Manipulation can allow two 3000+ alliances from avoiding each other, but it cannot arbitrarily seek out and find alliances 700 points lower. For that to happen, other things must be simultaneously in play, and those are the result of match making happening at different times, rating differentials linear all the way to the top, and match making attempting to find good alliance rating matches on top of war rating matches and failing to find an optimal match in such a way as it then settles for horrible matches.

The multiplier swap would penalize alliances that matched lower through no fault of their own.

Valid like I said it was quick thought..
Hrmm injust feel like there's a simple answer here

The only "simple" answer that's been mentioned in the past that addresses this issue is forced synchronized match making. In other words, every alliance opts in or out on Wednesday, and on Thursday morning the system finds the closest available matches among all active alliances and everyone starts fighting on Thursday. Repeat for the rest of the week. It means you no longer get to choose when to start matching, and thus over what 24 hour period you attack in. But it has the ability, if you code it correctly, to guarantee close matches across all of the alliances that want to participate in alliance war, with one weird exception that no one who mentions this suggestion points out: if an odd number of alliances want to fight, obviously someone can't be matched. You can address that by giving the absolute lowest alliance active that week an automatic win. It isn't a big deal down in the participation and stone brackets.

Yeah this seems like a good idea. If the #1 alliance opts in, then it would find the next highest alliance to match with it. If #2 and #3 happen to opt out and #4 opts in, then it would be #1 vs #4. Alliances would have no real choice but to opt in or lose too many points to knock them out of contention.

The only problem is you still have alliances that would still tank in the off-season because a series of victories would still be more beneficial. That should be addressed too.

DTMelodicMetal

Maybe the gifting event was so profitable Kabam is trying to lose $ by not fixing this issue for the first 12 months of AW Seasons

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

This is just a split second thought but wouldn't just going by your opponents multiplier solve most if this with very little consequence?

Ie tier 1 allainces facing a t3 the
T1 allaince gets the multi plier of the t3
And the t3 wouod get the t1 multiplier .

It punishes the t1 and compensates the t3 all at once.

Again 2 second thought so it may be flawed feel free to point out the abusable aspect maybe we can work thru it

You're assuming that all of these mismatches are caused by the higher alliance manipulating match making to draw the lower alliance. But that's not the case. Given the way match making currently works, these types of mismatches are actually impossible to avoid. In fact, if the issue was purely due to match making manipulation, the matches would actually be closer than this. Manipulation can allow two 3000+ alliances from avoiding each other, but it cannot arbitrarily seek out and find alliances 700 points lower. For that to happen, other things must be simultaneously in play, and those are the result of match making happening at different times, rating differentials linear all the way to the top, and match making attempting to find good alliance rating matches on top of war rating matches and failing to find an optimal match in such a way as it then settles for horrible matches.

The multiplier swap would penalize alliances that matched lower through no fault of their own.

Valid like I said it was quick thought..
Hrmm injust feel like there's a simple answer here

The only "simple" answer that's been mentioned in the past that addresses this issue is forced synchronized match making. In other words, every alliance opts in or out on Wednesday, and on Thursday morning the system finds the closest available matches among all active alliances and everyone starts fighting on Thursday. Repeat for the rest of the week. It means you no longer get to choose when to start matching, and thus over what 24 hour period you attack in. But it has the ability, if you code it correctly, to guarantee close matches across all of the alliances that want to participate in alliance war, with one weird exception that no one who mentions this suggestion points out: if an odd number of alliances want to fight, obviously someone can't be matched. You can address that by giving the absolute lowest alliance active that week an automatic win. It isn't a big deal down in the participation and stone brackets.

i agree entirely with this.
we have seen they have tweaked matchmaking for no gain over the years.
originally it was war rating only forcing 14mil v 2mil, meaning weak allies get crushed.
then they changed it so it was war rating and ally rating, closest war rating and ally rating but this meant that allies were manipulating their rating and weak little allies who couldnt clear a bg were climbing higher than stronger allies.
now they have changed it again and god knows wat it does.

point is they have changed and tweaked it god knows how many times and everytime they fix one problem they create another.

if they synchronise matchmaking then you will be forced to fight an ally within only a few ranks of yourself. which would in therory make matches fair.
in the case of odd alliances an automatic win to the lowest ally would be fine. at that level it is common to face an empty bg anyway.

the only problem i see is potentially wars getting stale at the top as 1 and 2 constantly vs each other and there is not much movement.
whilst to an extent the top should always face the top it would be boring and stale if war was always v the same opponent.
so i think you would have to make something along the lines of you cant face the same opponent within the same 3 war cycle.
that way #1 will always face top 5 allies but not always #2.

as far as timing is, whilst it is great to have the flexibility to set your own time we all make it work with AQ so why not with AW.
the biggest problem i see however is the amount of linked fights. multi timezone allies would be very hard.
particuarly when you have US timezone waking bout 8hrs before end of aq and AU timezone going to sleep at that time and no always waking before it finishes.
so maybe war could be adjusted so lets say placement phase only lasts for 18hrs and war attack takes 30hrs?
or they could adjust how some of the nodes link to relieve some stress for multi timezone alliances.

WATCHED

Please adjust lower tier WAR player placement, no way should tier 15-12 have 6* or r4 5*s, place a player placement cap of r2 5*s max to keep the playing field even. These so called retired players who rarely play war sit in lower tier wars and get super easy wins. Please consider also.

MaatMan wrote: »

the only problem i see is potentially wars getting stale at the top as 1 and 2 constantly vs each other and there is not much movement.
whilst to an extent the top should always face the top it would be boring and stale if war was always v the same opponent.
so i think you would have to make something along the lines of you cant face the same opponent within the same 3 war cycle.
that way #1 will always face top 5 allies but not always #2.

You don't want to literally match 1v2, 3v4, etc, for the reason you mention. But what you can do is something more sophisticated where the algorithm finds "candidates" for every alliance and then chooses randomly from those candidates. The algorithm is a bit complicated, but it is possible to make sure that you pick reasonably close alliances without accidentally "using up" all the alliances in a range and then get stuck having to match #20 with #204 because everyone in the middle got matched against each other.

There's a potentially better possibility. We use rating to "seed" the matchmaking, so on day one the computer looks for close matches. But on day two, the computer matches winners against winners and losers against losers. Within the group of all winners the computer looks for the closest possible match, but it does not match a winner against a loser, so #1 cannot fight #2 again - because one of them had to win and the other had to lose (I'm ignoring ties for now: there are ways to deal with them).

On day three you have three possibilities: 2/0, 1/1, and 0/2 records. You match only alliances with the same record, so again all the 2 and 0 alliances will match against each other, all the 1 and 1 alliances with match against each other, and all the 0 and 2 alliances will match against each other. Keep going until you reach day 12.

In this way, every alliance is more likely to face different alliances, and more likely to face even competition. Also, this doesn't directly address the issue of dumping rating in the off season, but with some additional modifications it can help address that problem (alone, it cannot fully address that).

I have an idea instead of getting the multiplier by whoever is higher tier maybe teams both get the lowest. Would really deter these shenanigans.

WATCHED wrote: »

Please adjust lower tier WAR player placement, no way should tier 15-12 have 6* or r4 5*s, place a player placement cap of r2 5*s max to keep the playing field even. These so called retired players who rarely play war sit in lower tier wars and get super easy wins. Please consider also.

nothing you can do about that.
a person should be able to play the game how they want with wat they got.
if a strong player is happy being in a low ranked ally getting low ranked war rewards then so be it.
but there is nothing wrong with this at all.
it sucks to be in that situation but there really is not much that you can do about it.

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

This is just a split second thought but wouldn't just going by your opponents multiplier solve most if this with very little consequence?

Ie tier 1 allainces facing a t3 the
T1 allaince gets the multi plier of the t3
And the t3 wouod get the t1 multiplier .

It punishes the t1 and compensates the t3 all at once.

Again 2 second thought so it may be flawed feel free to point out the abusable aspect maybe we can work thru it

You're assuming that all of these mismatches are caused by the higher alliance manipulating match making to draw the lower alliance. But that's not the case. Given the way match making currently works, these types of mismatches are actually impossible to avoid. In fact, if the issue was purely due to match making manipulation, the matches would actually be closer than this. Manipulation can allow two 3000+ alliances from avoiding each other, but it cannot arbitrarily seek out and find alliances 700 points lower. For that to happen, other things must be simultaneously in play, and those are the result of match making happening at different times, rating differentials linear all the way to the top, and match making attempting to find good alliance rating matches on top of war rating matches and failing to find an optimal match in such a way as it then settles for horrible matches.

The multiplier swap would penalize alliances that matched lower through no fault of their own.

Actually they do manipulate they notify in a chatroom when they matched then the next ally starts a search. Lets just say been there done that seen it with my own eyes. They should get rid of seasons and just give portion of rewards for wins.

Zuko_ILC wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

This is just a split second thought but wouldn't just going by your opponents multiplier solve most if this with very little consequence?

Ie tier 1 allainces facing a t3 the
T1 allaince gets the multi plier of the t3
And the t3 wouod get the t1 multiplier .

It punishes the t1 and compensates the t3 all at once.

Again 2 second thought so it may be flawed feel free to point out the abusable aspect maybe we can work thru it

You're assuming that all of these mismatches are caused by the higher alliance manipulating match making to draw the lower alliance. But that's not the case. Given the way match making currently works, these types of mismatches are actually impossible to avoid. In fact, if the issue was purely due to match making manipulation, the matches would actually be closer than this. Manipulation can allow two 3000+ alliances from avoiding each other, but it cannot arbitrarily seek out and find alliances 700 points lower. For that to happen, other things must be simultaneously in play, and those are the result of match making happening at different times, rating differentials linear all the way to the top, and match making attempting to find good alliance rating matches on top of war rating matches and failing to find an optimal match in such a way as it then settles for horrible matches.

The multiplier swap would penalize alliances that matched lower through no fault of their own.

Actually they do manipulate they notify in a chatroom when they matched then the next ally starts a search. Lets just say been there done that seen it with my own eyes. They should get rid of seasons and just give portion of rewards for wins.

I did not say that alliances do not manipulate, nor do I have any idea why you think I did.

mum_m2

@all of kabam

I'm totally at the side of having these bad match ups.

Just take your loss it's ok. You win some lose some but take it as an opportunity to learn from the best.

Last season I got matched up against ASR when they were twice the size of my alliance. It's okay to take your hits. Taking your hits is much better than not getting a chance to. Which brings me to my main point here.

I just hope that kabam doesn't narrow the search algorithm to the point where alliances cannot find wars. If they intend to only give alliances a good and fair war, then there's gonna be the alliances that miss wars. The high skilled high war rating prestige/rated alliances are going to suffer as they do in today's system.

Rather than make it more narrow I want them to make it more broader. Make alliances have to fight these types of wars.

But rather than have a system like that...

... just do away with war rating and prestige to an extent. A brand new 30 million alliance should not have to start from scratch. Just place them where they need to be. It'll do away with all of these Shell alliances also. You score points based on the difficulty of map you search for. An elite alliance will choose an elite level of difficulty to go up against with an insane level.of nodes much like you see in the trials today. Compare it to the way you choose alliance quests.

mum_m2 wrote: »

@all of kabam

I'm totally at the side of having these bad match ups.

Just take your loss it's ok. You win some lose some but take it as an opportunity to learn from the best.

Last season I got matched up against ASR when they were twice the size of my alliance. It's okay to take your hits. Taking your hits is much better than not getting a chance to. Which brings me to my main point here.

I just hope that kabam doesn't narrow the search algorithm to the point where alliances cannot find wars. If they intend to only give alliances a good and fair war, then there's gonna be the alliances that miss wars. The high skilled high war rating prestige/rated alliances are going to suffer as they do in today's system.

Rather than make it more narrow I want them to make it more broader. Make alliances have to fight these types of wars.

But rather than have a system like that...

... just do away with war rating and prestige to an extent. A brand new 30 million alliance should not have to start from scratch. Just place them where they need to be. It'll do away with all of these Shell alliances also. You score points based on the difficulty of map you search for. An elite alliance will choose an elite level of difficulty to go up against with an insane level.of nodes much like you see in the trials today. Compare it to the way you choose alliance quests.

The problem is most lower tiers can't clear the map or won't so the Masters team gets extra points by having attackers remain making it harder to outscore them because they got a creampie match up. Hardly good for competitive gameplay.

hiddenblizzard

It happens with us too @Kabam Miike we are are currently silver 2 alliance and we have been matched to a gold 2/gold 1 Alliance how are we supposed to defeat them?

Slayer9748 wrote: »

It happens with us too @Kabam Miike we are are currently silver 2 alliance and we have been matched to a gold 2/gold 1 Alliance how are we supposed to defeat them?

season ranking has nothing to do with strength of an ally at all.
do not use that as any metric to determine an alliances strength.

an alliance with a 30mil 3000 war rating could easily be a silver alliance if it chose to by fighting only like 1 or 2 wars.
the season ranking bracket only correlates to how many wars you win or lose and is affected by your tier.

the strength of an alliance is purely based on skill of opponents, strngth of opponents.
which mostly alliance rating and war rating does.

however alliance rating doesnt always as some allies sell lower champs to lower overall rating.
war rating doesnt as the matchmaking algrotithim has been changed that some stronger alliances sit lower than they should and some weaker ones sit higher than they should.

nothing is perfect and there will always be problems / expolits.

anyway my point is do not use season ranking as a metric of alliances strength.
it is more a metric of an alliances motivation and push in wars.

check war rating and alliance rating for an idea of strength.

MrTicTac19992008

Good solution would be that, and I have said this before on a previous thread last year would be where ever you finish this season, you start next season in that bracket. There would be promotion and relegation. Eventually every alliance would settle into the most suitable bracket.

You know you would be guaranteed rewards at the end. After a few seasons you would start to get matched with alliances around your strength. When you get promoted you may struggle, like wise when you get relegated you may find it easy but nothing will ever be perfect.

This content has been removed.

mum_m2

@Zuko_ILC

Missed it. And maybe I should have clarified more about how this works. But basically there's still a range as to who you go up against. Initially, I'm not saying a 3000 war rated alliance should go up against an alliance that's not suitable to go up against them. that 3000 alliance may have a walk through type of match up, but as of now, it's more closely based on tiers. So you can't jump more than 1 tier up or down in match making. I'm saying expand that search to 2 tiers at a point where that alliance cannot find a match up.

@573739
brackets like that won't work. From someone in a 16 million rated alliance recently, we easily defeated alliances rated 22 million, were plat 2/3. Most of us were just a big batch of skilled players who focused on bringing in the right guys.

But you said, similar strength, and the system currently is already designed to pair alliances up based on similar strength. The op posted an image of an alliance in tier 3 vs an alliance in tier 2. that's not uncommon to see at all. and is exactly the type of match-up you should see as you move up. you gotta find ways to win those types of wars before moving up. Unless you're MMXIV, you're never playing opponents who aren't at your level.

but still, they should do away with War Rating, and base it solely on prestige. you choose the map you want to play against, the higher the map the more points you score just like AQ, only you're head to head with another alliance. The maps you can choose are dependent on your alliance prestige so your low rated alliances cannot play AW Map 7

DNA3000 wrote: »

Zuko_ILC wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

This is just a split second thought but wouldn't just going by your opponents multiplier solve most if this with very little consequence?

Ie tier 1 allainces facing a t3 the
T1 allaince gets the multi plier of the t3
And the t3 wouod get the t1 multiplier .

It punishes the t1 and compensates the t3 all at once.

Again 2 second thought so it may be flawed feel free to point out the abusable aspect maybe we can work thru it

You're assuming that all of these mismatches are caused by the higher alliance manipulating match making to draw the lower alliance. But that's not the case. Given the way match making currently works, these types of mismatches are actually impossible to avoid. In fact, if the issue was purely due to match making manipulation, the matches would actually be closer than this. Manipulation can allow two 3000+ alliances from avoiding each other, but it cannot arbitrarily seek out and find alliances 700 points lower. For that to happen, other things must be simultaneously in play, and those are the result of match making happening at different times, rating differentials linear all the way to the top, and match making attempting to find good alliance rating matches on top of war rating matches and failing to find an optimal match in such a way as it then settles for horrible matches.

The multiplier swap would penalize alliances that matched lower through no fault of their own.

Actually they do manipulate they notify in a chatroom when they matched then the next ally starts a search. Lets just say been there done that seen it with my own eyes. They should get rid of seasons and just give portion of rewards for wins.

I did not say that alliances do not manipulate, nor do I have any idea why you think I did.

I think it was more of an accidental response with quote that was presaved as draft when I was posting. Wasn't calling you out.

ContestOfNoobs

573739 wrote: »

Drooped2 wrote: »

573739 wrote: »

Wild idea base the bracket rewards solely off Alliance total power rating. If an alliance sells of 2-4 star champs to make it easier just punish em for it by giving em less rewards. Forces high end alliances against each other.

So you can just buy your way to the top tier with fgmc?

If someone spends enough to be at the top tier in AW they clearly are going to beat you. Unless they reeeeeealy suck and keep buying pots/revives.

My point is if you’re Alliance is 10 mil (like mine) we “should” be fighting alliances of similar strength. If we run into an alliance that sells off their lower champs so be it. However there should be brackets based off alliance strength
1-4 mil
5-9 mil
10-15 mil (most endgame alliances fall)
16-20 mil (endgame and spenders)
21+ (pretty much finished everything and big spenders)

the thing is people retire and or get burnedout.
i can easily join a 1-4m allaince and they will have a REALLY time vs my r5 5* defenders, but the rewards wont be there

total allaince rating doesnt matter

1.i have faced MMXIV as a Tier 1 and a Tier 2 allaince. they have highest rating with 40m

theres can only put 150 defenders on a map, and most high tier allainces run.

So in time an allaince will be able to put all r4/5 5* defenders with 6*.
Most master/p1 allainces have this.

150-148 diversity, anything lower just means u are relying on getting kills. very low chance to run into 5 korgs, 5 imiws in 1 bg in higher tiers.

i know guys that are 250k with war teams as strong as me wih my 750k.
imagine a whole ally filled with them v a whole ally filled with me.
you have 7.5mil v 22.5mil.
on paper that is a severe mismatch.
in reality the defences and attack look exactly the same.