It's called prestige wars. There's a 7 million alliance somewhere in the middle of Gold 1 and a 3 million alliance toward the top of Gold 2. These alliances don't play anyone around their war rating but rather alliances closer to their prestige.
We finished in Gold 1 and are about 22m, the alliance that finished right below us is only 12m. All of our wars last season were against alliances above 20m and about our prestige level.
Back when AW started matchmaking was based off of the overall PI of the alliance. War rating had no impact except to determine where you ranked for rewards. I remember because I was only about 40k PI overall on my profile and was raking in Tier 1 rewards. This led to tons of complaints on the forums, which I felt were justified as I know I didn't play against any alliances that were anywhere near the top of the game at the time. In the end, matchmaking was adjusted and war rating was the primary factor to decide matchups. There were some very uneven matchups at first after the adjustment because of how wonky war rating was skewed, but things started to even out over time.
This seems very similar to that period of AW. NOT having war rating be the primary factor for matchmaking is incredibly flawed as it is not testing the true skill of your alliance against the highest ceiling of the game. You would think Kabam would understand this as they seem to want to limit how fast a player can progress in almost EVERY other area of the game.
You know what's embarassing?! The fact that alot of people like you are judging without knowing what the alliance did and how they did it. I'm one of the officers of the Master Rank 3 alliance (you can check in game if you want) and I'm honestly kinda sick of seeing people moking my alliance achievement. Remember that the matchmaking it's equal for everyone, every alliance got the same opportunity as us to get were we got. We won 12 out of 12 wars this season against similar war rated and prestige rated alliances and I'll argue that alot of them had a defence far superior than ours and we still managed to get on top of them. Mocking our players profile or our alliance in general is embarassing, we couldn't do anything to choose the opponents we had to face, we just did our job beating them all the 12 times we had to fight (and might I add that we didn't tank our war rating to **** on smaller alliances like all the big boys are used to do). Just another thing; I've seen talk of "perennial master alliances" that should be on our spot instead of us... well they arent' there because some of them got a point deduction penalty for doing something against the rules. Let that sink in.
Are you willing to list your last 10 -12 opponents @xTigerMaster ?
What you did as an alliance is impressive going 12-0. you and your alliance had nothing to do with selecting your opponents. I agree with this.
Honestly, I wouldn't take it as mocking the profile. I believe the general consensus is to finish top 3 in alliance war you should be able to beat anyone in the game. With these rosters, I don't find it as possible (consistently).
I think it would go a long way with the community to document your last 10 war opponents.
I don’t think you should have to be able to beat anyone in the game to be in masters, you just have to be able to out play the ones going for masters during they season. Most of the master alliances last season took this one off. And I think that’s why we are seeing a lower group of alliances in masters his season. You can’t beat them if they decided to play in gold one this season. His alliance saw a chance to move up ranks while others decided it wasn’t worth it. It’s like when new champs go low because the normal grinders take a break.
No you are seeing a different group in across all tiers because Kabam changed the algorithm to match making. Notice they never faced Kenob, End game, ISO, NY718, MMX. That's because those alliances prestige is much higher.
This problem is not only isolated to masters, it's prevalent across all tiers.
This has been super apparent this season for my alliance. We are only a gold 1 alliance but have been for the entire previous 8 seasons but fell to gold 2 for the first time because we keep getting matched up with other alliances solely based on alliance rating. Our war rating has been over 120 points apart multiple matchups this season and have even faced the same alliances more than once during this time. We are artificially high at 24M+ rating but most of that is based on a core group that has been around since the beginning. It definitely doesn't seem fair to have smaller newer alliances fly below us and past us without having to face us. They need to stick with a chess style based ranking where everyone can play everyone and it's mainly based on your war rating.
Rather than just complaining I would like to offer a suggestion: Create two leagues. One that is solely based on war rating that offers the best rewards. If your alliance is good enough even if it is lower rated alliance rating wise, you can challenge for the top spots. Or a second league that also takes alliance rating into consideration but may not have the same level of rewards available and is aimed at the lower rated alliance ratings.
The fact that alliances with 4* r5's on their profile are finishing higher than my alliance with mostly r5 5* in their profile is disheartening.
Back when AW started matchmaking was based off of the overall PI of the alliance. War rating had no impact except to determine where you ranked for rewards. I remember because I was only about 40k PI overall on my profile and was raking in Tier 1 rewards. This led to tons of complaints on the forums, which I felt were justified as I know I didn't play against any alliances that were anywhere near the top of the game at the time. In the end, matchmaking was adjusted and war rating was the primary factor to decide matchups. There were some very uneven matchups at first after the adjustment because of how wonky war rating was skewed, but things started to even out over time.
This seems very similar to that period of AW. NOT having war rating be the primary factor for matchmaking is incredibly flawed as it is not testing the true skill of your alliance against the highest ceiling of the game. You would think Kabam would understand this as they seem to want to limit how fast a player can progress in almost EVERY other area of the game.
That was well before people started manipulating War Rating by a number of ways, and it no longer reflected true skill.
Comments
We finished in Gold 1 and are about 22m, the alliance that finished right below us is only 12m. All of our wars last season were against alliances above 20m and about our prestige level.
Working as intended
This seems very similar to that period of AW. NOT having war rating be the primary factor for matchmaking is incredibly flawed as it is not testing the true skill of your alliance against the highest ceiling of the game. You would think Kabam would understand this as they seem to want to limit how fast a player can progress in almost EVERY other area of the game.
This problem is not only isolated to masters, it's prevalent across all tiers.
Rather than just complaining I would like to offer a suggestion:
Create two leagues. One that is solely based on war rating that offers the best rewards. If your alliance is good enough even if it is lower rated alliance rating wise, you can challenge for the top spots. Or a second league that also takes alliance rating into consideration but may not have the same level of rewards available and is aimed at the lower rated alliance ratings.
The fact that alliances with 4* r5's on their profile are finishing higher than my alliance with mostly r5 5* in their profile is disheartening.