Hoops8 wrote: Midge wrote:
Quality Idea! I doubt you would find anyone who would object to this! We had a stretch of 20 wars recently where we were the underdog in 19/20 wars! All of which we were insta-matched. We still fared well but more even matches would be swell, and more fun for those non-lvl 10s in our squad.
Show me that 20 war stretch and I will rip it to shreds. What makes you the underdog? They had higher base scores? They had higher levels? They were much better war squads? You're sitting at 54-21 ... exactly how unfair is the matchmaking? Will it only be fair if you're 70-5?
Like I said we did well, but we are typically fighting an uphill battle, though recently matchmaking has been better.
I based the term "underdog" on base score of the war parties. I kept track. I am not sure of the dates but I can get that, though I kept track of the wars on my work computer, if you really need this info.
We are 65 - 30 not 54-21.
I am not complaining just stating the fact that we had a smaller base score of war members when compared to our imp counterparts in 19/20 wars during one stretch. Not demanding easy wars, or cupcakes. Read my post again all I want is fair matches, and would be willing to wait for a fair one rather than get matched against a cupcake of a monster??? Is this something you are against???
One of the two squads you claim is 54-21 and the other one is 65-30. EITHER WAY ... both are doing pretty damn well to be complaining. And ... as I said ... calling yourself "underdogs" based solely on base score is kind of ridiculous.
YES ... sometimes you are going to face teams that are probably out of your league ... the Browns have to go to New England and face the Patriots sometimes ... just how it goes. Hell, they are allowing the Jets to continue playing football.
Fair matches happen sometimes, easy matches happen sometimes and difficult matches happen sometimes. That SHOULD be how it is because it means squads are getting matched in a timely fashion. There is NO logical way for them to make it "fair" EVERY SINGLE TIME and keep a regular pool flowing when there are in excess of 15,000 active squads and players moving from squad to squad to squad on a regular basis.
I find it hard to take any complaint about matchmaking seriously from a guy in two squads that are doing better than 70% in wars. Seriously? You expect every single match to be fair? How many squads have you jumped into and hung out in. I assure you not enough. I have visited more than 500 (and that is not an exaggeration) of rebel squads and I assure you that there is NO WAY TO NUMERICALLY measure how good a squad is in WAR based on medals, base score or HQ level. You could MAYBE measure it with war results, which I do think Disney should incorporate somehow. BUT without using that, there is no way to measure it.
YOU ARE NOT AN UNDERDOG JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAM HAS HIGHER BASE SCORES. It is a ridiculous assertion. What if half of that squad speaks one language and the rest of them all speak three other ones? There are a ton of those out there. So, that very casual squad should be punished with only facing teams the same base score as them even though they will get totally wrecked every time?
Anyways ... all that aside ... Pirate, I got no beef with your love of numbers and wanting to dig in and see what is out there. I don't think there really is a way to get enough of a sample size to be relevant here, but it is cool to see some of those tables.