**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.
Something is wrong with Matchmaking
xNig
Posts: 7,243 ★★★★★
It seems as though the current new matchmaking system takes into account the alliance prestige as well when matching alliances.
What this resulted in, for this Season, is that the leaderboards are weirdly skewed to have weaker alliances ranking in Plat and higher, which was never the case since Seasons were introduced. A simple search and looking at alliance ratings vs where they rank would easily show that. (I’m seeing 6.5m alliances ranking at the top of Plat 3. And they didn’t sell champs cause their top champs are unduped 4/55s.)
What this resulted in, for this Season, is that the leaderboards are weirdly skewed to have weaker alliances ranking in Plat and higher, which was never the case since Seasons were introduced. A simple search and looking at alliance ratings vs where they rank would easily show that. (I’m seeing 6.5m alliances ranking at the top of Plat 3. And they didn’t sell champs cause their top champs are unduped 4/55s.)
1
Comments
all the matches we have had have been the closes we have ever seen so really great matches.
This is what everyone wanted.
Fair matches.
This is the unintended side effect of that.
which everyone who was somewhat knowledgable on the subject said would happen if matches were 100% even.
low allies would climb to the top as they would never actually fight the really tough opponents
I have noticed some odd stuff. We won a war, 100% every bg, and moved up 9 spots in the plat 3 leaderboard. I’ve never seen a win change the ranking so little.
But anyway @Maat1985 that’s absolutely not a byproduct of fair matchmaking. The alliance he’s talking about was silver 3 last season, now they’re #13 in plat 3. Their leader’s top champ is a 2/35 5*. Only 10 of their members are uncollected.
Shenanigans are afoot!
I was just talking about the situation in general.
but if they are only fighting other alliances with similar prestige regardless of war rating they will climb.
so maybe it is. they are likely only fighting other allies the same strength and therefore winning.
but I do get exactly what you are saying. seems like a sheel alliance taking avantage of the newly adjusted matchmaking.
I know my ally has had 100% fair matches all season and we are 7-0 atm. we are a 17mil ally just climbed into t4 and sitting gold1 450.
Lots of weaker alliances will climb up to the higher ranks facing equally weak alliances.
I have 2 alliances. my main at 17mil, and it seems to not just use alliance rating but maybe Prestige and WR cus we have had the fairest and most even matches we have ever seen. we had one where we were 17m v 11m but the defences and attackers were all same strength, we narrowly won by 30 points.
i have a brand new ally, less than 1 mil.
our first war was 0 WR v 1300 WR, but we had only 4 people and they had only 7 low ranking accounts. we got the win.
our second war was same same WR and they were 2mil v our 900k but we had 5 actives they had 8 actives,
this is only our 3rd war there and our WR is only 137 our opponents is 220. we are 1 mil while they are 2 mil. but we have 5 members while they have 7.
so it seems to be using a variety of factors but coming up with very even results.
which yes means that allies will only ever fight similar allies and small weak allies can climb and take up spots in top
whilst big strong allies struggle agains big strong opponents.
imagine being a 20mil allies fighting hard all season to get gold1 #1 ranking
and then finding out there is a little 4 mil ally in plat 3.
how is that fair?
they took ur spot and we all know who would win if they fought.
but see this is the problem with uneducated people complaining for "fair" matches
they don't understand the impact it has.
I am talking about the people that complain of unfair matches cus their 10 mil ally fights a 20 mil ally kind of thing.
and expect that a 10mil ally should only ever fight other 10 mil allies.
that creates a handicapped situation.
if I have a 2mil ally that only ever fights other 2 mil allies and therefore wins every war it fights does it deserve to be #1 ally in MCOC????
cus that's wat can happen if allies only ever fight other allies with same alliance rating.
that's wat I am talking about.
we have already seen WR is not the only factor this season.
as said my brand new ally with 0 WR first war fought a 1300WR ally. and we won cus it was a fair match based on #of players and ratings of players.
for an ally to be the best they need to be the best.
not just be the best in a pool of similar others.
To answer your question, it's not likely that a 2 Mil Ally will make its way to the number one spot. However, I also don't believe that the results have to reflect the Rating of the Ally. It's all about performance. If they fight within a fair system and earn their way up through the Tiers, fighting with the same Nodes and Multipliers as everyone else, the Rating of the Ally shouldn't matter. You can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shouldn't be a factor, and still say the Brackets should reflect Rating.
It's based on performance. You win, you earn Rating. You lose, you lose it. Eventually, a system like that yields fair results, assuming everyone is fighting fairly and not engaging in any kind of wrong behavior, notwithstanding. What including another Matchmaking mechanic does is ensure that the Matches you are receiving are within reasonable limits, so no one can manipulate that by Tanking, or Shells, or any other issue like that. At the very least, it minimizes the possibility.
When you have BOTH as factors, what you end up with is a more fair system. Now, we're talking about one Ally that made its way up. There aren't likely to be too many that do, but if they do, and they fight their way up the rungs, they've earned it. They wouldn't take the number one spot regardless because they would inevitably come up against the top Gauntlet. LOL.
So, to summarize, if the Ally earned the Top Spot fairly, I wouldn't care if they were 2 Mil. That's just not going to happen though. However, if they are in fact employing Prestige in addition to War Rating, I think it's a great idea. That's why I suggested it to begin with.
we are not in a handicapped situation.
a 2 mill ally could never win a war against 10mil and 20 mil allies.
if you have 2mil ally #1 and a 20mil ally number 2 how is that fair?
in what world is that fair?
yes they may have just won every war they have fought but only cus they are fighting weaker competition.
to be number 1 you should be able to beat every single ally in the contest.
that would certainly not be the case. if a 2mil ally climbed to the top.
all they have proven is they can beat all other 2 mil allies.
tell me why would a 2mill ally never reach number one spot if it only fought other allies 0-5 mil in rating????
I do believe we need a mixture of many factors to create a fair matchup but at the end of the day the top needs to be the top.
we cant have a handicapped system.
the system was flawed before,
they made some changes and it still may be flawed in some other ways.
it is up to us to give feedback and hope that eventually we can get a system that works fairly in all aspects.
and as I said 0 WR matching 1300 due to matching being based on other factors.
if a 2mil ally can beat 30mil allies then it deserves to be the top
however for an ally to be in even to top 100 allies they should be able to compete directly with all those around them.
not just other low rated allies.
a 2mil ally has no place at the top end of a competition with 20-30mil oopnents. they would not be able to actually stand a chance against any so they should be able to sit along side them.
you want the rewards of being the best you need to beat the best.
however it is a competition against every other alliance in the game.
an alliance does not deserve to rank up the top unless it is reasonable to consider they could beat or atleast compete with the top of the pack.
my alliance is sitting in gold 1. we run 3bgs. we have won every war so far this season scoring over 195k in every war. by the metric that only our performance in the season matters we should be ahead of every alliance that has had a loss so far.
its not quite that simple. it is a competition to win all wars however we are competing against every other alliance.
we are all one competition fighting for one prize on one leaderboard.
its not like boxing where there is different divisions.
the best featherweight gets a belt.
the best heavy eight gets a belt.
here it is different. there is no divisions.
there is only one belt
the featherweight does not deserve the belt because he can beat every other featherweight.
the featherweight does not deserve the belt if he cant beat the heavyweight
that's why season multiplier and brackets and tiers exist.
otherwise my alliance having scored over 195k in all 7 wars so far should be very close to number 1.
we have 100% cleared each and every war so far this season.
we are ranked where we are cus we are t5.
if it was about our performances and our strength and our opponents strength didn't matter why are we not damn near number 1???
it is going nowhere.
you clearly see this in a way which I feel is stupid.
and you clearly see it differently to me.
it doesn't matter I think you are wrong and it doesn't matter you don't agree with me.
at the end of the day you will always see it your way regardless of what I say and I can assure you that you are not goin to change my view.
so instead of this going around and around and around and around and around and around in circles I am going to stop.
my final word on this topic is this.
war seasons and leaderboards is akin to any sport hense why we have tiers so allies fight along side like strength allies.
those tiers based on war rating eventually have no effect and hold no values if alliances are also fighting each other based purely on strength.
there needs to be the correct balance to ensure even matches and strong allies at the top whilst weaker allies at the bottom.
what we had before was not the balance.
what we have now is not the balance.
there is still a lot of work to be done to make war seasons and wars as a whole the true competition that they should be.
I'M Out!.
Ciao!
In regards to the inclusion of PI, that was a topic when new system started 2 weeks before season 8, after the week long break. I ran a spreadsheet and you could see where matches were previously using AW rating almost exclusively and then it changed.
However, I Hellenes to look at it today and the next few fights after my sheet were against much lower pi squads but similar rating. It seemed relevant but then it isn’t anymore.
The red fights were old way (couldn’t use two of the pis cause the squad swapped) the green were the new ones. You can see how tight AW ratio used to be and pi didn’t seem to matter then it tightened up greatly.
I didn’t take a screen shot of today’s work but next 3 fights were similar to those in red, AW centric not PI
What we have with behaviors like Tanking is just the opposite of strengths fighting alongside strengths. It's Allies dumbing down their strength to take advantage of weaker ones for Season Points. This would be a solution.
If you're trying to make the point that an Ally shouldn't be near another because they're "bigger than them", then that entirely depends on a number of factors. If they fought their way to that Bracket fairly, they belong there. If they sold most of their lower Champs and are of similar Prestige, that means they're similar in strength.
War Seasons are about how you perform within the Season. Not who is the bestest of the bestest forever and ever. All that matters is how many Points you put up. from the beginning to the end, and the best is determined by that.