Unintended consequence of the AW rating freeze

I am a member of the alliance Lions Den (L.D.1) and after finishing season 10 gold 2 we lost several members. Some looked to move up, some "retired" some moved down, i think 1 or 2 were let go. So our alliance took a step back. A rather large one. Our war rating was over 2000, and by the time our insanely crazy losing streak was over our rating was more like 1500. I believe we lost 13 of 14 wars, it may have been worse than that. A big part of that was that we were stuck playing alliances in that 2000 rating range, and while we competed we basically had no chance. So yeah. An unintended consequence of the ratings freeze is that our alliance, and probably a few others, got screwed over. It cost us several war win bonuses. And therefore i believe we deserve REASONABLE compensation. Kabam made this decision because of dishonest alliances and we paid for it as a result. I'm not asking for much, but we deserve SOMETHING.

Comments

Jaded

If your alliance took a step back then it was inevitable that your war rating would drop as well. Regardless if it was during off season or during a season. It would have happened.

Mauled

I feel for you, it's not nice to be outmatched like that. I would say though that that is more down to your alliance falling apart than anything on Kabam's part. If anything you

Marri_2

If an NFL team loses 5 players, they can't ask the NFL for compensation because they lost matches on account of their team being weaker. Promotions and relegations happen at the end of the season, not between seasons. It's a very normal system.

Your team got weaker. You deserve the losses. I don't see the problem. Please stop being so entitled. The fact that with a full strong squad you were able to hold on to a 2000 war rating doesn't mean you have any rights to that war rating.

Frosty

I would like to see war rating tied ti the individual account instead of the alliance. It would stop shell alliances from being a thing completely and base the alliance off the strength of each member cumulatively.
Example take an alliance with a 3000 war rating for ease of the math.
3000 divided by 30 members = each member has rating of 100
If one of those members leaves and a new one comes in with possibly a lower rating of 90 points for themselves the alliance as a whole would now have 29 members at 100 and 1 at 90 giving a new rating of 2990
If an alliance wind or loses the point increase or decrease would be split amongst the whole alliance.
It could also track the best individuals in AW as they would have an individual war rating making alliances who focus on AW have an easier recruitment.
The only flaw is in less than 3 bg wars when one alliance may have top heavy members throwing the whole matchmaking off, but it can't be worse than it is now

DL864

If an NFL team loses 5 players, they can't ask the NFL for compensation because they lost matches on account of their team being weaker. Promotions and relegations happen at the end of the season, not between seasons. It's a very normal system.

Your team got weaker. You deserve the losses. I don't see the problem. Please stop being so entitled. The fact that with a full strong squad you were able to hold on to a 2000 war rating doesn't mean you have any rights to that war rating.

Well actually they do get compensation in the form of draft picks.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Marri_2

If an NFL team loses 5 players, they can't ask the NFL for compensation because they lost matches on account of their team being weaker. Promotions and relegations happen at the end of the season, not between seasons. It's a very normal system.

Your team got weaker. You deserve the losses. I don't see the problem. Please stop being so entitled. The fact that with a full strong squad you were able to hold on to a 2000 war rating doesn't mean you have any rights to that war rating.
Well actually they do get compensation in the form of draft picks.

That's not compensation in the results or rewards. A similar system would be draft picks for alliances that aren't full. This OP is looking for free shards and we all know it.

ElsaEternal

I would like to see war rating tied ti the individual account instead of the alliance. It would stop shell alliances from being a thing completely and base the alliance off the strength of each member cumulatively.
Example take an alliance with a 3000 war rating for ease of the math.
3000 divided by 30 members = each member has rating of 100
If one of those members leaves and a new one comes in with possibly a lower rating of 90 points for themselves the alliance as a whole would now have 29 members at 100 and 1 at 90 giving a new rating of 2990
If an alliance wind or loses the point increase or decrease would be split amongst the whole alliance.
It could also track the best individuals in AW as they would have an individual war rating making alliances who focus on AW have an easier recruitment.
The only flaw is in less than 3 bg wars when one alliance may have top heavy members throwing the whole matchmaking off, but it can't be worse than it is now

I like this. Like AW prestige type stats

DNA3000

I am a member of the alliance Lions Den (L.D.1) and after finishing season 10 gold 2 we lost several members. Some looked to move up, some "retired" some moved down, i think 1 or 2 were let go. So our alliance took a step back. A rather large one. Our war rating was over 2000, and by the time our insanely crazy losing streak was over our rating was more like 1500. I believe we lost 13 of 14 wars, it may have been worse than that. A big part of that was that we were stuck playing alliances in that 2000 rating range, and while we competed we basically had no chance. So yeah. An unintended consequence of the ratings freeze is that our alliance, and probably a few others, got screwed over. It cost us several war win bonuses. And therefore i believe we deserve REASONABLE compensation. Kabam made this decision because of dishonest alliances and we paid for it as a result. I'm not asking for much, but we deserve SOMETHING.

I'm trying to figure out what's going on in this story. If you were losing rating when you were losing, you were not in a ratings freeze situation. And if your rating wasn't frozen the same thing would have happened prior to the ratings freeze rules change, it would seem to me. So I'm not sure what problem demands compensation here. Am I overlooking an implicit part of this situation?

That's separate from the fact that if Kabam changes the rules to reduce the impact of cheating, players can't expect compensation because they would have done better before the rules change. You don't have a right to favorable rules.

TheMethod

I don't think anyone understands what i'm saying and is instead taking an opportunity to be ^$*(#&%%'s. We took a step back member wise immediately after last season. THEN instead of losing and naturally having our rating lower and level out, we were STUCK at a high rating even though we were going through turnover, and therefore faced nearly impossible odds until season 11 and our rating was finally able to drop again. We're balanced out now, and have replenished our alliance. Thanks everyone, for being a bunch of assholes.

TheMethod

If an NFL team loses 5 players, they can't ask the NFL for compensation because they lost matches on account of their team being weaker. Promotions and relegations happen at the end of the season, not between seasons. It's a very normal system.

Your team got weaker. You deserve the losses. I don't see the problem. Please stop being so entitled. The fact that with a full strong squad you were able to hold on to a 2000 war rating doesn't mean you have any rights to that war rating.
Well actually they do get compensation in the form of draft picks.
That's not compensation in the results or rewards. A similar system would be draft picks for alliances that aren't full. This OP is looking for free shards and we all know it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If any alliance lost several good members, but had their rating freeze, of course they would struggle to win wars against alliances that had a similar rating yet had not lost top players. we lost THIRTEEN OUT OF FOURTEEN wars, and maybe more than that. We aren't a bad alliance, we were just going against alliances that had also had their ratings frozen, yet didn't face the turnover that we did.

TheMethod

It would also be unfair, in the opposite way, if an alliance had their rating froze, then GAINED top members, yet were still going against alliances with ratings similar to theirs before improving.

TheMethod

I am a member of the alliance Lions Den (L.D.1) and after finishing season 10 gold 2 we lost several members. Some looked to move up, some "retired" some moved down, i think 1 or 2 were let go. So our alliance took a step back. A rather large one. Our war rating was over 2000, and by the time our insanely crazy losing streak was over our rating was more like 1500. I believe we lost 13 of 14 wars, it may have been worse than that. A big part of that was that we were stuck playing alliances in that 2000 rating range, and while we competed we basically had no chance. So yeah. An unintended consequence of the ratings freeze is that our alliance, and probably a few others, got screwed over. It cost us several war win bonuses. And therefore i believe we deserve REASONABLE compensation. Kabam made this decision because of dishonest alliances and we paid for it as a result. I'm not asking for much, but we deserve SOMETHING.
I'm trying to figure out what's going on in this story. If you were losing rating when you were losing, you were not in a ratings freeze situation. And if your rating wasn't frozen the same thing would have happened prior to the ratings freeze rules change, it would seem to me. So I'm not sure what problem demands compensation here. Am I overlooking an implicit part of this situation?

That's separate from the fact that if Kabam changes the rules to reduce the impact of cheating, players can't expect compensation because they would have done better before the rules change. You don't have a right to favorable rules.

That's the whole thing, we were stuck at about 2000, yet lost 6-8 top players, so while our alliance had dropped quality-wise to the 1500-1600 range, we were still fighting 2000 rated alliances for the entire offseason. Yes we still would've lost a couple/few at first, but our rating would've balanced out quickly instead of being screwed over for the entire offseason into the beginning of season 11.

TheMethod

To all those too stupid to comprehend the situation, i truly feel sorry for you.

Jaded

To all those too stupid to comprehend the situation, i truly feel sorry for you.

Nah mate. You don’t understand. Your rating would have dropped anyways. It doesn’t matter when it happen. You have your panties in a twist over something that HAD to happen. This is entitlement at its best. You don’t own the war rating. You don’t know if you would have won or lost the wars. Kabam can’t compensate your alliance for a bunch of “what if’s” or “should have been” situations.

Your ally is where it needs to be now. That’s all that matters. What has transpired here is exactly how the game goes.

Lormif

I am a member of the alliance Lions Den (L.D.1) and after finishing season 10 gold 2 we lost several members. Some looked to move up, some "retired" some moved down, i think 1 or 2 were let go. So our alliance took a step back. A rather large one. Our war rating was over 2000, and by the time our insanely crazy losing streak was over our rating was more like 1500. I believe we lost 13 of 14 wars, it may have been worse than that. A big part of that was that we were stuck playing alliances in that 2000 rating range, and while we competed we basically had no chance. So yeah. An unintended consequence of the ratings freeze is that our alliance, and probably a few others, got screwed over. It cost us several war win bonuses. And therefore i believe we deserve REASONABLE compensation. Kabam made this decision because of dishonest alliances and we paid for it as a result. I'm not asking for much, but we deserve SOMETHING.

Dude, you failed in your responsibility to recruit new members to keep you at your current rank that was your failure not kabams. You had a couple weeks, you could have called a grace period, but didnt, now you come here violating the forum rules and insulting people because they dont agree with you.... I would expect atleast a warning.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Addyos

I don't think anyone understands what i'm saying and is instead taking an opportunity to be ^$*(#&%%'s. We took a step back member wise immediately after last season. THEN instead of losing and naturally having our rating lower and level out, we were STUCK at a high rating even though we were going through turnover, and therefore faced nearly impossible odds until season 11 and our rating was finally able to drop again. We're balanced out now, and have replenished our alliance. Thanks everyone, for being a bunch of assholes.

Where's the Flag button when you need it.

OP though I empathize with your situation, wouldn't it have been more practical to forego taking part in wars during the off season? If you still decided to fight wars despite not being at full strength, then that's on you. Also as stated before, you probably weren't at full strength by the time war season started. That's not Kabam's fault, so you don't even have a case to any form of compensation for losing wars while rebuilding.

Demonzfyre

I don't think anyone understands what i'm saying and is instead taking an opportunity to be ^$*(#&%%'s. We took a step back member wise immediately after last season. THEN instead of losing and naturally having our rating lower and level out, we were STUCK at a high rating even though we were going through turnover, and therefore faced nearly impossible odds until season 11 and our rating was finally able to drop again. We're balanced out now, and have replenished our alliance. Thanks everyone, for being a bunch of assholes.

You want compensation for the off-season where wars don't count and you should have focused on recruiting and building your alliance back up. You could have not even played a war during the off-season if you wanted too while you waited flr season 11.

There is absolutely zero Kabam should compensate you for. You cant manage your alliance after losing people, it's not their fault, it's yours. Don't come complaining to the forums with flawed logic and then get called out for it and trying during it on us. Blame yourself.

Demonzfyre

I am a member of the alliance Lions Den (L.D.1) and after finishing season 10 gold 2 we lost several members. Some looked to move up, some "retired" some moved down, i think 1 or 2 were let go. So our alliance took a step back. A rather large one. Our war rating was over 2000, and by the time our insanely crazy losing streak was over our rating was more like 1500. I believe we lost 13 of 14 wars, it may have been worse than that. A big part of that was that we were stuck playing alliances in that 2000 rating range, and while we competed we basically had no chance. So yeah. An unintended consequence of the ratings freeze is that our alliance, and probably a few others, got screwed over. It cost us several war win bonuses. And therefore i believe we deserve REASONABLE compensation. Kabam made this decision because of dishonest alliances and we paid for it as a result. I'm not asking for much, but we deserve SOMETHING.
I'm trying to figure out what's going on in this story. If you were losing rating when you were losing, you were not in a ratings freeze situation. And if your rating wasn't frozen the same thing would have happened prior to the ratings freeze rules change, it would seem to me. So I'm not sure what problem demands compensation here. Am I overlooking an implicit part of this situation?

That's separate from the fact that if Kabam changes the rules to reduce the impact of cheating, players can't expect compensation because they would have done better before the rules change. You don't have a right to favorable rules.
That's the whole thing, we were stuck at about 2000, yet lost 6-8 top players, so while our alliance had dropped quality-wise to the 1500-1600 range, we were still fighting 2000 rated alliances for the entire offseason. Yes we still would've lost a couple/few at first, but our rating would've balanced out quickly instead of being screwed over for the entire offseason into the beginning of season 11.

This doesn't make any sense. If you are still doing 3 bg wars, you'll still lose because you are short people and can't clear.

Marri_2

If an NFL team loses 5 players, they can't ask the NFL for compensation because they lost matches on account of their team being weaker. Promotions and relegations happen at the end of the season, not between seasons. It's a very normal system.

Your team got weaker. You deserve the losses. I don't see the problem. Please stop being so entitled. The fact that with a full strong squad you were able to hold on to a 2000 war rating doesn't mean you have any rights to that war rating.
Well actually they do get compensation in the form of draft picks.
That's not compensation in the results or rewards. A similar system would be draft picks for alliances that aren't full. This OP is looking for free shards and we all know it.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If any alliance lost several good members, but had their rating freeze, of course they would struggle to win wars against alliances that had a similar rating yet had not lost top players. we lost THIRTEEN OUT OF FOURTEEN wars, and maybe more than that. We aren't a bad alliance, we were just going against alliances that had also had their ratings frozen, yet didn't face the turnover that we did.

So of those 13 losses, how many were off season? Because that's just an insignificant amount of shards, really. I understand that 13 losses in a row can be bad for morale, but your alliance could have managed that transition much better (see below).

I also understand you want to drop to an appropriate level during off-season and now instead it happened on-season, but those were the rules that were specified in the update so you have no right to complain. It's a run of bad luck, you don't deserve compensation for that. Many alliances have this issue from time to time.

Altogether, I don't see the problem. You start the next season where you finished the previous season. Seems fair to me. You could have either just not played off-season, knowing you'd lose em all anyway, and focus on solo content, for example, or you could have used off season to practice the map with your new members without consequences, or you could have placed 3* and just let the day go buy to collect free shards.

GinjabredMonsta

So you played during the off season of war when your alliance was going through a traditional period, and instead of using that off period to take a break, recruit, and organize, you still went into war expecting positive results? You took a gamble and it didn't pay off, you knew of the rating freeze before hand and still performed in war during the off season. You don't deserve compensation for your decisions on playing wat when still going through a transition. Almost everyone here has said the same thing and you are throwing a tantrum now and slinging insults at everyone. Live and learn from what happened.

Kabam Lyra

This discussion is not constructive and insulting players is not allowed on the forum.