Please come up with a solution with Aw matchmaking

I have nothing against the alliance we are facing for this war. It's not their fault for why got matched up for this war. How ever. The system on how this matches are set up, need to be change. War rating is completely irrelevant when it comes to alliance total rating. Please find a solution cause I'm sure my alliance isn't the only one that goes through this.

Comments

Kronos987654321

LocoMotives wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

LocoMotives wrote: »

you believe means you don't know, yet you would argue it's against ToS. Nobody ever got banned for ally swapping in AQ. You can argue it shouldn't be done or should be corrected with different rules, but it's not against ToS.

Alright then. Really not the point of the post though so let's stay on topic. This feels like an argument for the sake of arguing.

Sorry, slightly off topic but I see that argument a lot and it's not always valid

I know but it's just going to be a long rabbit hole. If they really followed their TOS they would've banned the account sharers long before the AQ manipulators. I'll try and find the post but it was before they moved the forums so unless it's archived somewhere I won't be able to find it. But it was definitely from a moderator

Qwerty

just do match making based on prestige.

Kronos987654321

Qwerty wrote: »

just do match making based on prestige.

As much as I hate prestige they don't seem to want to move away from it so why not?

LeNoirFaineant

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Why not use prestige? It's much harder to manipulate. Or allow war rating to jump quickly when the prestige and alliance rating are out of line with the war rating.

Rich_Ryder

My alliance regularly faces alliances with champs much tougher than ours. We win our share but for sure it gets to a point where our skill is not enough to win. Those losses just suck because you hate losing to guys who have way better champs and you have to question how they have such a low rating with champs 1-2k higher than yours

I understand the difficulties in setting up matches, but maybe some kind of combo algorithm? Or can't use top 10 champs in AW for 1-2 weeks after joining an alliance to prevent the shell stuff.

Qwerty

Dropfaith wrote: »

Prestige has risks too just because someone has 5 high champs doesn't mean they can find a war team..

Prestige for aq isn't even that great of a concept to me let's not make it worse

everybody will make due. presumably there aren't a group of 30 so unlucky that they have all really high prestige, but hardly any war champions.

also that scenario is better than having the alliances who should be in let's say the top 100 plowing through the lower tiers taking away rewards from people.

SlyCat42

Have to agree with Kabaam on the war rating. Having a lot of champs to have a higher alliance rating doesn't mean those are amazing champions for war or that the players using them are skilled.

It's not a perfect system, but if you were to bracket AW it would cause other problems as well as shrink the potential pool of alliances to be matched against (which can be a problem if you don't have enough players in every pool).

Mr_Platypus

SlyCat42 wrote: »

Have to agree with Kabaam on the war rating. Having a lot of champs to have a higher alliance rating doesn't mean those are amazing champions for war or that the players using them are skilled.

It's not a perfect system, but if you were to bracket AW it would cause other problems as well as shrink the potential pool of alliances to be matched against (which can be a problem if you don't have enough players in every pool).

Ngl, I got the majority of the shards for my first 5* back when AW first released and it was based on alliance rating. Back then I was a wee noob in an active 1 mil alliance, but 9 times out of 10 matchmaking put us against some poor sod who'd started matchmaking for 3 BGs with only 10 members, and this continued all the way upto and including tier 1, just raked in the shards war, after war.

The current system is frustrating when you get a mismatch or 4 in a row but it's a better system then it used to be.

Vdh2008

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Kronos987654321 wrote: »

Don't feel bad. An alliance that big with a 1700 war rating is trash lol. My 10.5 mil alliance has a rating of 2100

Terrible thing to say. Not every alliance wants to spend their way to victory every war. I'm perfectly happy losing more than we win, and we are over 9 mil rating in T3. I NEVER ask guys to pay their way through war. I guess that means we are "trash" too.

We don't spend our way to victory. What gave you that impression? I don't regret saying because someone who brags about beating down an alliance 3mil smaller than him deserves to hear it. Trash talking is one thing but that guy is a

My bad... I guess I just assume that with a war rating that high, you spend. I know a bunch of the T1-2 alliances are "win at any cost" players.

ralmada

Kabam should create an algorithm capable of a simple calculation of the average between prestige and the overall alliance rating, or something like that. With a maximum tolerance of points, for more or less.

TheMask

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/15619/aw-matchmaking-sucks/p1?new=1

Ill just post this here...u can see how war rating based causes alot of issue... There should be a better way

DL864

Sola2 is not a shell alliance. FYI. There are some very skilled players there. Just saying get your facts in Oder before you accuse an ally of being a shell

VandalSavage

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Why not use prestige? It's much harder to manipulate. Or allow war rating to jump quickly when the prestige and alliance rating are out of line with the war rating.

I see nothing wrong in using prestige or something similar such as using the combined rating of a player's top 11 heroes instead of only 5. (Five heroes for defense + 3 heroes for offense + 3 heroes for AQ usage = 11).

However, similar to what people did in arena when we were using the old scoring system (lower PI heroes scored more than higher PI heroes of the same star rating), people won't bother to upgrade heroes in order to avoid tougher competition. Those with an already powerful roster are stuck.

Those moving up won't bother to upgrade because it increases their chance of finding opponents they believe they can win. Using prestige then gives people an incentive to not upgrade. Not all will take that option but some will.

But let's be realistic, as long as the game give people options, people will find a way to manipulate the system to their advantage.

As the saying goes, if you give your employees choices, then you are doing it wrong.

If people want actual fairness (and not set up a system where the opponent is the one set up to lose), then they should do away with the idea of players being responsible for supplying the heroes for AW. The game itself can provide heroes. In a star wars game I play, the game supplies the heroes for select (but not all) events rather than use the heroes we have on our rosters.

We have the heroes on our roster, the game simply uses their own version of the hero (e.g. I have the 5-star Luke, the game gives me a 7-star to use). This forces us to use strategy or skill to win battles rather than overpower the event with our massive rosters on auto-fight.

When the game does not use your actual heroes, then this makes prestige and alliance rating meaningless. So if I have a 3-star 1/30 Magik, I then select Magik on defense. The game uses a 4-star 5/50 Magik for defense. In other words, all I can do is select the hero from my roster, but the game provides the actual star rating, rank, and level to use, depending on tier (war rating).

So what the players bring to the table are their mastery skills, choice of heroes, and their own particular set of skills. The game does the rest.

The rewards for AW then are used to beef up their roster for AQ and of course dominate the scoring in arena.

Milkthewhales

VandalSavage wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Why not use prestige? It's much harder to manipulate. Or allow war rating to jump quickly when the prestige and alliance rating are out of line with the war rating.

I see nothing wrong in using prestige or something similar such as using the combined rating of a player's top 11 heroes instead of only 5. (Five heroes for defense + 3 heroes for offense + 3 heroes for AQ usage = 11).

However, similar to what people did in arena when we were using the old scoring system (lower PI heroes scored more than higher PI heroes of the same star rating), people won't bother to upgrade heroes in order to avoid tougher competition. Those with an already powerful roster are stuck.

Those moving up won't bother to upgrade because it increases their chance of finding opponents they believe they can win. Using prestige then gives people an incentive to not upgrade. Not all will take that option but some will.

But let's be realistic, as long as the game give people options, people will find a way to manipulate the system to their advantage.

As the saying goes, if you give your employees choices, then you are doing it wrong.

If people want actual fairness (and not set up a system where the opponent is the one set up to lose), then they should do away with the idea of players being responsible for supplying the heroes for AW. The game itself can provide heroes. In a star wars game I play, the game supplies the heroes for select (but not all) events rather than use the heroes we have on our rosters.

We have the heroes on our roster, the game simply uses their own version of the hero (e.g. I have the 5-star Luke, the game gives me a 7-star Luke to use). This forces us to use strategy or skill to win battles rather than overpower the event with our massive rosters on auto-fight.

When the game does not use your actual heroes, then this makes prestige and alliance rating meaningless. So if I have a 3-star 1/30 Magik, I then select Magik on defense. The game uses a 4-star 5/50 Magik for defense. In other words, all I can do is select the hero from my roster, but the game provides the actual star rating, rank, and level to use, depending on tier (war rating).

So what the players bring to the table are their mastery skills, choice of heroes, and their own particular set of skills. The game does the rest.

The rewards for AW then are used to beef up their roster for AQ and of course dominate the scoring in arena.

This makes no sense people aren't going to not upgrade champs to artificially lower there prestige you need a high powered roster for plenty of other parts of the game I.e 5.2, lol, aq so it'd be dumb to keep yourself low. Aq alone prevents this as your going to wind up in a low alliance with crappy aq rewards.

Main issues with aw matchmaking are the shell alliances that people are starting to jump between. There's a whole bunch of separate issues then on top of this such as stale format, crappy rewards etc..

TheMask

There can be better way , now we are going on war... Hopefully it doesn't mismatch again

RagamugginGunner

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Drop war rating and use prestige. That's the only thing that people can't/won't manipulate. You already use if for AQ so it should be simple for AW.

LocoMotives

So with the idea of using prestige as a guideline, allies with the highest prestige would get the best rewards simply for having high prestige. So that would return us to previous AQ seasons where prestige was such a driving factor for everything.

Unless you think all allies should get the same rewards no matter their prestige, which would mean the rewards would have to be nearly worthless to top allies so they didn't advance low level players too quickly. Seems like there would still be imbalance.

rwhack

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Drop war rating and use prestige. That's the only thing that people can't/won't manipulate. You already use if for AQ so it should be simple for AW.

That doesn't work either....if you're a no spend alliance with high prestige in tier1 you'll lose all the time

The reason I have an issue with posts like yours is not much thought went into it.

If Kabam wants to end swapping make the rewards in higher tiers better for a win and for a loss. Swapping is a product of reward versus cost. The cost is too high and the reward too little

Anonymous

You're most likely going to spend anyway (not including everyone) if you want to progress at a quicker rate. Most top tier alliances have plenty of resources to rank whoever they choose so they may spend in wars to get more champs. Also there is a competitive nature to aw, I have a lot of fun in my alliance strategizing against the other alliance. To say that it's dumb to spend on war is the same as saying it's dumb to spend on anything else imo.

RagamugginGunner

rwhack wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Drop war rating and use prestige. That's the only thing that people can't/won't manipulate. You already use if for AQ so it should be simple for AW.

That doesn't work either....if you're a no spend alliance with high prestige in tier1 you'll lose all the time

The reason I have an issue with posts like yours is not much thought went into it.

If Kabam wants to end swapping make the rewards in higher tiers better for a win and for a loss. Swapping is a product of reward versus cost. The cost is too high and the reward too little

There is just so much wrong in your post.

You're basically saying that it's better for alliances to hop tiers every month or two than have to actually try to earn their wins. "I want to win all the wars but I don't want it to be hard or have to use units!!!"

unknown

This content has been removed.

andrade5184

i agree with the majority wars should be prestiged based that will be the only way to make it fair. the teams with better skills should always get the edge not get screwed both on offense and deffense due to the lack of r4 5* champs. if teams keep loosing at there current prestige level then base it off of war rating. it would make the wars much more balanced. but above all of this the rewards for higher tier wars should be much better cause those wars are very hard to beat without using tons of items.

andrade5184

nothing like using a bunch of items to end up with only 168 4* shards and 168 5* shards it is a pathetic amount for the investment made.

Solrac_2

Possible solution:

---Lower the number of AW tiers to 5 (similar to the AQ solution).

---then possibly make the AW rating depend partly on prestige. Maybe 70/30%.

However, I am very worried that the recent announced changes to AW will inevitably make AW more of a spendfest and the rewards are still not worth it at all. Please increase the rewards, both for wins and losses too.

Anonymous

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

rwhack wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Drop war rating and use prestige. That's the only thing that people can't/won't manipulate. You already use if for AQ so it should be simple for AW.

That doesn't work either....if you're a no spend alliance with high prestige in tier1 you'll lose all the time

The reason I have an issue with posts like yours is not much thought went into it.

If Kabam wants to end swapping make the rewards in higher tiers better for a win and for a loss. Swapping is a product of reward versus cost. The cost is too high and the reward too little

There is just so much wrong in your post.

You're basically saying that it's better for alliances to hop tiers every month or two than have to actually try to earn their wins. "I want to win all the wars but I don't want it to be hard or have to use units!!!"

Probably somebody who has never played in top 50 and has no idea how difficult top tier wars are.

No_More_Heroes

KALIZO wrote: »

I have nothing against the alliance we are facing for this war. It's not their fault for why got matched up for this war. How ever. The system on how this matches are set up, need to be change. War rating is completely irrelevant when it comes to alliance total rating. Please find a solution cause I'm sure my alliance isn't the only one that goes through this.

Booty juice...lol!

Ja55

andrade5184 wrote: »

i agree with the majority wars should be prestiged based that will be the only way to make it fair. the teams with better skills should always get the edge not get screwed both on offense and deffense due to the lack of r4 5* champs. if teams keep loosing at there current prestige level then base it off of war rating. it would make the wars much more balanced. but above all of this the rewards for higher tier wars should be much better cause those wars are very hard to beat without using tons of items.

Prestige barely changes if at all on a week to week basis. You would match the same alliances over and over.

Ebbtide

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

We're looking into all avenues based on discussions such as this one.

What about the issue of some top alliances intentionally waiting to begin matchmaking until other top alliances find opponents, successfully avoiding each other by alerting the others when they have found a fight, and thus breaking the matchmaking design by not fighting the opponents they really should be.

This prevents the opponents they face from getting a fair fight, making the rewards lopsided in favor of bigger teams who intentionally avoid other bigger teams.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ContestOfChampions/comments/6ox42g/the_speculation_is_true_the_top_alliances_under/

unknown

This content has been removed.

Run477

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Kabam Vydious wrote: »

Hey gang,

Swinging by to go a little more into detail on matchmaking. The reason we don't use Alliance Rating as means of matchmaking is that this number can be manipulatable and isn't an accurate measure of an Alliance's proficiency in Wars. It doesn't take into account an Alliance's ability to strategize or their skill.

Whereas with War Rating, this is performance based and allows for Alliances to either rise or fall in ranking with their win or loss. Overtime Alliances fall into places they are best suited, from there they can grow and strengthen themselves to rise further. This, in turn, will pair Alliances based on similar levels of skill from previous Wars as it accurately reflects their efforts as a team.

With all that said, we do appreciate hearing your feedback for this and have been taking it to the team for you all.

Why not use prestige? It's much harder to manipulate. Or allow war rating to jump quickly when the prestige and alliance rating are out of line with the war rating.

@Kabam Miike (sorry vidious doesn't show up)

There has to be a way to include prestige. Either that or blackout periods for changing alliances in war (maybe only blackout or joining an alliance at a tier lower than yours with increased blackout for each tier dropped--that could prevent dropping tiers but not punish people for going to better alliances or staying in same tier but needing a new alliance)