**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.

Kabam...AW match making frustrations boiling over

AndrewkoleAndrewkole Posts: 219 ★
in General Discussion
Hey Kabam,

Matchmaking simply has to change.

We finished in Plat 2 last season and felt we got fair matches all season. Due to the long break, tankers got even more of advantage. We were sitting pretty in the 20s of Plat 2.... then we have 3 matches against the following:

#1 in Plat 1
#4 in Plat 1
#24 in Plat 1

Not one Plat #2 alliance? We were ranked #46 in Plat 2 last match and still got a team in Plat 1.

Our alliance attack bonus is averaging 14-15 points better than last season! It’s a massive jump.... and we are currently in Plat 3. We even came with 180 points of the current 1st team in Plat 1.

Please just lock rating when season ends. It is that simple. Just looking for a fair fight.

«134567…15

Comments

  • JadedJaded Posts: 5,476 ★★★★★
    edited May 2019
    Demonzfyre said:

    Locking the ratings during season isn't the answer. Alliances use the off season to grow. If their rating is locked, they can't grow. So how do you fix that?

    It’s still fair considering the alternative actions taken by alliances that are tanking in the offseason.

    We have matched three alliances this season that also finished last season in the same bracket as us(gold 1). Every other matchup has been against a season 8 plat 2/3 ally. We have had multiple wars where the opposition scored less then 5 deaths overall.

    While these matchups won’t change where we land in reward brackets. I can see how it’ll mess up alliances trying to move up.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Locking the ratings during season isn't the answer. Alliances use the off season to grow. If their rating is locked, they can't grow. So how do you fix that?

    That's the problem. They're not using it to grow, they're using it to manipulate the system into overpowered Matches for Seasons.
    However, some reports have been that Prestige is possibly also being used in combination with War Rating. Whether it is or not, I don't know. I support that approach, considering I made the suggestion. I would also support a system which eliminates Off-Season altogether. War would take place during the Season only, and be followed by a break in between.
    Prestige isn't a good system to me. Take my allaince for example. Day 1 8400 prestige we do map 3 and gold 1. Qere basically retired. Let our war rating decide who we face not what we did 8 months ago in aq
    Prestige in combination with War Rating is a solution because it can't be manipulated. People can't sell 5*s and 6*s. If both are used, it ensures there's less chance for manipulation. Let's be real here. Matchmaking has been played like a flute, all in the name of trying to get ahead in Seasons. Something drastic is needed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    edited May 2019
    Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    That depends on what you define as chill. Having a reasonable range to Match with is pretty much as it should be. If you're calling chill Wars just taking out weaker people because it's easier, then I'm going to have to say sorry about chill. Lol.
  • CobsCobs Posts: 103 ★
    Prestige is definitely being factored into matchmaking now and its an absolute train wreck. You have terrible alliances in masters soley because they have weak prestige giving them easier matches. You also then have AQ focused alliances who dont care about war leaving a ton of nodes up against top masters teams. Absolute joke, luckily so are the rewards now so no one cares anyway
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That depends on what you define as chill. Having a reasonable range to Match with is pretty much as it should be. If you're calling chill Wars just taking out weaker people because it's easier, then I'm going to have to say sorry about chill. Lol.

    When a 2k rating allaince is facing plat 3 2400 allainces all season cause that's what our prestige suits were getting punished for what we used to do.

    If we get equal matches to our war rating cool but mid/gold 1 against plat 2 and 3 allainces? Which we've had all season?

    Yea prestige is the wrong way to go
    When an Alliance that has the fire power to run Plat is taking Allies down much lower, just because they want to take a break, that's not a fair system. On the other end of that, you have Allies trying to get ahead as best they can. War Rating alone can easily be manipulated and the end result is Matches that are entirely too overpowered.
  • CobsCobs Posts: 103 ★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.

    Prestige has NOTHING to do with war, totally seperate game mode. There are tons of AQ focused alliances that dont care about war as much. This basically completely ruins war for those alli’s and at the same time creates huge waves for alliances who care about wars because of the points being left up by these alli’s.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    Cobs said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.

    Prestige has NOTHING to do with war, totally seperate game mode. There are tons of AQ focused alliances that dont care about war as much. This basically completely ruins war for those alli’s and at the same time creates huge waves for alliances who care about wars because of the points being left up by these alli’s.
    Oh, but it's related. The strength of the Ally determines what they can put up for Defense, and it also sets the limits to what the other side is capable of doing for Attack. An Ally might have skill, but they're only as strong as what they can work with. When you have Matches which are grossly manipulated to provide an unreasonable advantage, that's a problem.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    edited May 2019
    I disagree with what GW mentioned.

    War Rating should be the ONLY measure in matching alliances. However, this by itself also creates a problem where the top fights the top for the same points that the bottom fighting the bottom also acquires, within the same tier.

    Hence, the best and most logical solution is to make season score multiplier an aggregate of war ratings between the 2 matched alliances.

    In this way, matchmaking can be simplified by having all alliances enlisted ranked according to war ratings, then #1 matches #2, #3 matches #4, so on and so forth to ensure fair matches based on war capabilities.

    Tanking will allow alliances to gather more wins, BUT, this will be at a lower multiplier which will also put them at a disadvantage in terms of Season score ranking.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    edited May 2019
    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That depends on what you define as chill. Having a reasonable range to Match with is pretty much as it should be. If you're calling chill Wars just taking out weaker people because it's easier, then I'm going to have to say sorry about chill. Lol.

    When a 2k rating allaince is facing plat 3 2400 allainces all season cause that's what our prestige suits were getting punished for what we used to do.

    If we get equal matches to our war rating cool but mid/gold 1 against plat 2 and 3 allainces? Which we've had all season?

    Yea prestige is the wrong way to go
    When an Alliance that has the fire power to run Plat is taking Allies down much lower, just because they want to take a break, that's not a fair system. On the other end of that, you have Allies trying to get ahead as best they can. War Rating alone can easily be manipulated and the end result is Matches that are entirely too overpowered.
    Got it so because we can do something we should be forced? That's a terrible way to do things. And will just tell us hey you want a break delete the game.
    Way to run a business.
    War rating is fair it's a skill mechanic.
    Forced? No. No one is forcing you to do anything. What is not right is to hang out in lower Brackets just to peck off other Allies in the name of taking it easy. That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the competition of Seasons.
    War Rating is a fair mechanic. Not when you have people using it to manipulate the Matches after you add the Seasons Points and how they relate to that. The end result is you need something that intervenes to prevent that.
    No one is forcing you to do anything but if you're going to play War, it should be a fair fight. Taking a break doesn't warrant overpowering people.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    I disagree with what GW mentioned.

    War Rating should be the ONLY measure in matching alliances. However, this by itself also creates a problem where the top fights the top for the same points that the bottom fighting the bottom also acquires, within the same tier.

    Hence, the best and most logical solution is to make season score multiplier an aggregate of war ratings between the 2 matched alliances.

    In this way, matchmaking can be simplified by having all alliances enlisted ranked according to war ratings, then #1 matches #2, #3 matches #4, so on and so forth to ensure fair matches based on war capabilities.

    Tanking will allow alliances to gather more wins, BUT, this will be at a lower multiplier which will also put them at a disadvantage in terms of Season score ranking.

    Honestly, there is no happy medium. As long as the two are connected, people will try to find a way to manipulate it. It was either this, or separate the two completely. Both are fine with me. I've seen some manipulation that I had to bring up which should never happen. I have no qualms taking my stance.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    xNig said:

    I disagree with what GW mentioned.

    War Rating should be the ONLY measure in matching alliances. However, this by itself also creates a problem where the top fights the top for the same points that the bottom fighting the bottom also acquires, within the same tier.

    Hence, the best and most logical solution is to make season score multiplier an aggregate of war ratings between the 2 matched alliances.

    In this way, matchmaking can be simplified by having all alliances enlisted ranked according to war ratings, then #1 matches #2, #3 matches #4, so on and so forth to ensure fair matches based on war capabilities.

    Tanking will allow alliances to gather more wins, BUT, this will be at a lower multiplier which will also put them at a disadvantage in terms of Season score ranking.

    Honestly, there is no happy medium. As long as the two are connected, people will try to find a way to manipulate it. It was either this, or separate the two completely. Both are fine with me. I've seen some manipulation that I had to bring up which should never happen. I have no qualms taking my stance.
    No worries. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so we can agree to disagree. At the end of the day, it’s what’s best for the game moving forward.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Drooped2 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That depends on what you define as chill. Having a reasonable range to Match with is pretty much as it should be. If you're calling chill Wars just taking out weaker people because it's easier, then I'm going to have to say sorry about chill. Lol.

    When a 2k rating allaince is facing plat 3 2400 allainces all season cause that's what our prestige suits were getting punished for what we used to do.

    If we get equal matches to our war rating cool but mid/gold 1 against plat 2 and 3 allainces? Which we've had all season?

    Yea prestige is the wrong way to go
    When an Alliance that has the fire power to run Plat is taking Allies down much lower, just because they want to take a break, that's not a fair system. On the other end of that, you have Allies trying to get ahead as best they can. War Rating alone can easily be manipulated and the end result is Matches that are entirely too overpowered.
    Got it so because we can do something we should be forced? That's a terrible way to do things. And will just tell us hey you want a break delete the game.
    Way to run a business.
    War rating is fair it's a skill mechanic.
    Forced? No. No one is forcing you to do anything. What is not right is to hang out in lower Brackets just to peck off other Allies in the name of taking it easy. That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the competition of Seasons.
    War Rating is a fair mechanic. Not when you have people using it to manipulate the Matches after you add the Seasons Points and how they relate to that. The end result is you need something that intervenes to prevent that.
    No one is forcing you to do anything but if you're going to play War, it should be a fair fight. Taking a break doesn't warrant overpowering people.
    Agreed a fair fight so it shouldnt be against allies 3m higher rated and 400 higher war rating then us for a full season simply because we used to be a aq focused ally. Glad we agree.

    Prestige is based off of Top Champs, no? What would 3 Mil more have to do with it? If your Prestige is similar, you would have similar fire power. Alliance Rating is a total of all Champs. Chances are, you're not running most of them in War.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    edited May 2019
    Your Prestige matters. It matters because that's the strength you're putting up, and you can change War Rating by Wins or Losses, but the other Ally has to come up against your Ally with Champs that have a high enough Prestige to run higher. Honestly, this isn't getting through. Lol. First you said you were taking it easy and didn't want to be forced, now it's that you suck at War. If I had to venture a guess, it would be that you decided to hang low for easy Wins because you're tired of higher Wars, and now you're upset there are no easy Wins. So, I'm just going to reiterate. Taking a break doesn't make it acceptable to overpower people working their ***es off to get ahead. Some people shouldn't be that low with Champs that high. Point blank.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    I don't care how good a driver you are, when your Honda Civic comes up against a Mack Truck, it's not moving.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    Not all Matches are that far off. That's not a normal occurrence.
This discussion has been closed.