I think cutting the points would bring zero because somebody has to be in t1 2 etc U cut the points and the same alliamces will be in the same leagues only with half points I dot understand that
That's exactly my point. Cutting the WRP in half for everyone doesn't do anything because everyone will still experience the same grossly overpowered Matches. Season 19 is just going to be sacrificed for people so the system can balance. It's going to be an unfair bloodbath.
it needs to happen. 10mil rating alliances do not deserve to be above 30mil alliances becuase in no world would the 10 mil aalliance ever win if they fought each other. the system that has allowed small allies to leapfrog larger allies because they never fight is an unfair handicapped system and has no place in a system where everyone is fighting for the same ppol of rewards.
so this needs to happen and should have happened a long time ago.
No. It does not "need" to happen. Those Alliances fight their own fair Matches and earn their own way to wherever they are. They Match, and fight, and put every bit of effort in they can. A month's worth of Wars to work towards the end goal. The fact that a fair fight is a foreign concept to some is ridiculous to me, but the truth is they didn't leapfrog anywhere. They earned it through the Points they earned in their own Matches. Now people are bitter that they can't peck them off. There are other solutions and it absolutely does not need to happen. Those people played the system fairly and earned what they earned based on their own performance. It does not need to happen. Those Alliances represent many people who put every effort they can into Seasons. Forcing them to do Wars that they absolutely cannot win as something that "has to happen" is totally disrespectful and caters to one demographic alone. The demographic that can't get past their Ego because Allies smaller than them are earning big Rewards. There would have been other options. Making them fight Wars they literally can't win and ruining their Season when they're working just as hard as anyone else is just flat-out cruel. Everything makes a difference during the Season. Every Alliance you do that to has 30 people putting in their best efforts and what you're talking about is Wars that no matter how hard they try, they can't win. I mean literally can't. Numerically can't. You're talking to the wrong person if you're trying to sell the idea that this kind of mistreatment is necessary. Yes, I use the word mistreatment without any kind of dramatics. The people working their butts off to earn Rewards in Season are being mistreated because people complained about who else was getting what. It's altogether unfair. If you don't care about the efforts that hundreds if not thousands of people put into a Season, that's your shortcoming. I do.
your logic makes no sense when talking about a system that award rewards based on a leaderboard. a system that allows alliance X to finish in 1000th place while alliance y finishes in 5000th place when inf the two alliances ever fought alliance X would have no chance and be destoyed by alliance Y is a total farce.
imagine a sports competition. where someone finishes in first place because they only played the bottom teams and won all matches while a team finishes last because they only played the top teams. HOW IS THAT FAIR? teams fighting for spots in a leaderboard need to have the ability to reasonably beat all those below them. an alliance should not be ranked 10th overall because they are the best 10 million rated alliance. because they only fought other 10million alliances, while a 30 million alliance finishes 100th becuase they did not do well against other 30 million alliances. if these two alliance ever fought we know who would win.
a system that segregates alliances into pools based on alliance ratings only works if each pool has their own set of rewards.
most people know this, even kabam know ths hense why they are changing the system.
once again you are very very out of touch with the community and you have a poor way of looking at the system.
TL:DR if a 2million alliance wins 10/2 season because it only fought other 2 million alliances, while a 40million alliance loses 3/7 season while fighting only other 40million alliances. the 2 million alliance does not deserve to finish higher on the leaderboard and get better rewards becuase they were fighting in different competitions.. different competitions cant have the same pool of rewards.
I'm not out of touch with anything. I presented ideas on how to accommodate that. There are other ways. Forcing people to ruin their Season by fighting Wars they are guaranteed to lose, just to balance the system, makes them nothing but collateral damage. That's more inappropriate than getting higher Rewards.
So what’s your solution then just let unfair matchmaking continue
There's a number of things you could have done. You could have had separate Brackets for Rewards based on Prestige and continued to have fair Matches. You could have had an adjustment period outside of the Season so it doesn't affect peoples' Season. You could have also separated Season from off-season to prevent it from being manipulated. You could have designed a more balanced system that uses a mixture of both which would eventually balance itself out. I could come up with a number of ideas to prevent people from wasting their efforts during the Season just to appease the top Tier. What you have now is people being set up to fail in the name of the system being "broken", and the only ones who don't see that as a problem are the ones not affected. You have a much larger problem being created to make the most competitive happy, and the ones who will suffer from this are seen as necessary and expendable. That's not fairness. It's placation at the expense of people who are just doing their best in the Wars they are in. Once you start setting them up to fight Wars they will never win, that's just a balancing that's too sick for me to consider necessary.
I really can’t believe you keep pushing this weird idea you have of fairness.
The previous matchmaking favored those alliances enormously. And the rest of us suffered. It’s too bad now it’s their turn to suffer but it is the best way to make it FAIR.
We already have brackets/tiers. Defined by war rating. The rewards scale basing off those tiers. In “War” There shouldn’t be any other criteria than “War rating”. It’s in the name.
If you want to use prestige then what’s the point of war rating? Use prestige brackets, gain points during season and get your rewards. Does that sound familiar? Yeah. It’s AQ. Where skill is non existent.
What he is saying is just because you suffered does not mean the other side has to suffer as well. This attitude seems persistent in the community and its not good. (Nerfing content? reduce rewards).He gave many solutions which may not be perfect but it is a start. Frankly, I think season 19 is going to be a waste of time for majority of the alliances. Changes should not be dropped all at once. First the rating, then the map would have been better. Skill is non existent in AQ? First time I am hearing this. Every aspect requires skill. AQ is a constant, it does not mean it requires no skill.
You think those in Tiers 1-5 don't leave their Allies in the off to peck off lower Allies for Item-free Wins? Please
I’ve been in a fair amount of allies throughout my time in the game ranging from t2/1 to t20 and have never once have they swapped ally during the off season it’s definitely less common then you think
I think cutting the points would bring zero because somebody has to be in t1 2 etc U cut the points and the same alliamces will be in the same leagues only with half points I dot understand that
That's exactly my point. Cutting the WRP in half for everyone doesn't do anything because everyone will still experience the same grossly overpowered Matches. Season 19 is just going to be sacrificed for people so the system can balance. It's going to be an unfair bloodbath.
it needs to happen. 10mil rating alliances do not deserve to be above 30mil alliances becuase in no world would the 10 mil aalliance ever win if they fought each other. the system that has allowed small allies to leapfrog larger allies because they never fight is an unfair handicapped system and has no place in a system where everyone is fighting for the same ppol of rewards.
so this needs to happen and should have happened a long time ago.
No. It does not "need" to happen. Those Alliances fight their own fair Matches and earn their own way to wherever they are. They Match, and fight, and put every bit of effort in they can. A month's worth of Wars to work towards the end goal. The fact that a fair fight is a foreign concept to some is ridiculous to me, but the truth is they didn't leapfrog anywhere. They earned it through the Points they earned in their own Matches. Now people are bitter that they can't peck them off. There are other solutions and it absolutely does not need to happen. Those people played the system fairly and earned what they earned based on their own performance. It does not need to happen. Those Alliances represent many people who put every effort they can into Seasons. Forcing them to do Wars that they absolutely cannot win as something that "has to happen" is totally disrespectful and caters to one demographic alone. The demographic that can't get past their Ego because Allies smaller than them are earning big Rewards. There would have been other options. Making them fight Wars they literally can't win and ruining their Season when they're working just as hard as anyone else is just flat-out cruel. Everything makes a difference during the Season. Every Alliance you do that to has 30 people putting in their best efforts and what you're talking about is Wars that no matter how hard they try, they can't win. I mean literally can't. Numerically can't. You're talking to the wrong person if you're trying to sell the idea that this kind of mistreatment is necessary. Yes, I use the word mistreatment without any kind of dramatics. The people working their butts off to earn Rewards in Season are being mistreated because people complained about who else was getting what. It's altogether unfair. If you don't care about the efforts that hundreds if not thousands of people put into a Season, that's your shortcoming. I do.
your logic makes no sense when talking about a system that award rewards based on a leaderboard. a system that allows alliance X to finish in 1000th place while alliance y finishes in 5000th place when inf the two alliances ever fought alliance X would have no chance and be destoyed by alliance Y is a total farce.
imagine a sports competition. where someone finishes in first place because they only played the bottom teams and won all matches while a team finishes last because they only played the top teams. HOW IS THAT FAIR? teams fighting for spots in a leaderboard need to have the ability to reasonably beat all those below them. an alliance should not be ranked 10th overall because they are the best 10 million rated alliance. because they only fought other 10million alliances, while a 30 million alliance finishes 100th becuase they did not do well against other 30 million alliances. if these two alliance ever fought we know who would win.
a system that segregates alliances into pools based on alliance ratings only works if each pool has their own set of rewards.
most people know this, even kabam know ths hense why they are changing the system.
once again you are very very out of touch with the community and you have a poor way of looking at the system.
TL:DR if a 2million alliance wins 10/2 season because it only fought other 2 million alliances, while a 40million alliance loses 3/7 season while fighting only other 40million alliances. the 2 million alliance does not deserve to finish higher on the leaderboard and get better rewards becuase they were fighting in different competitions.. different competitions cant have the same pool of rewards.
I'm not out of touch with anything. I presented ideas on how to accommodate that. There are other ways. Forcing people to ruin their Season by fighting Wars they are guaranteed to lose, just to balance the system, makes them nothing but collateral damage. That's more inappropriate than getting higher Rewards.
So what’s your solution then just let unfair matchmaking continue
There's a number of things you could have done. You could have had separate Brackets for Rewards based on Prestige and continued to have fair Matches. You could have had an adjustment period outside of the Season so it doesn't affect peoples' Season. You could have also separated Season from off-season to prevent it from being manipulated. You could have designed a more balanced system that uses a mixture of both which would eventually balance itself out. I could come up with a number of ideas to prevent people from wasting their efforts during the Season just to appease the top Tier. What you have now is people being set up to fail in the name of the system being "broken", and the only ones who don't see that as a problem are the ones not affected. You have a much larger problem being created to make the most competitive happy, and the ones who will suffer from this are seen as necessary and expendable. That's not fairness. It's placation at the expense of people who are just doing their best in the Wars they are in. Once you start setting them up to fight Wars they will never win, that's just a balancing that's too sick for me to consider necessary.
For one having different rewards based on prestige is stupid it’s bad enough one game mode is based on it we don’t need another You complain about tanking which doesn’t exist in the higher tiers anymore but then want an adjustment period outside of the season which would 100% lead to tanking
Not in higher Tiers. In lower Tiers. That's my entire point. People are acting like the only ones that exist and matter are the top Allies. The rest are just collateral damage. The argument was they were earning the same Rewards. Tying Points and Rewards into Prestige would solve that problem. Unless that's not the problem at all and people just want to bully weaker Allies using Matches they can't win. Sounds more like a vendetta than fairness.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
Tying Points and Rewards into Prestige would solve that problem.
There are few ideas I can think of that are worse than tying alliance war rewards to prestige. Tying alliance war rewards to hair color would not be a worse idea.
I can't believe this is actually a thing. As I mentioned before, our match making rules should work for the simple case of four alliances, two 22 million A and B and two 30 million C and D. Let's say we decide the "fair" thing to do is for A to match with B and C to match with D. A and D win. There's now two possibilities. A matches with D since they both won and B and C match because they both lost. Or A matches with B again and C matches with D again because matching 22 to 30 is "unfair."
The first option is how I think competition should work. The second is complete madness. And I could define "complete madness" with thirty pages of mathematical game theory, or I can just settle for making everyone who thinks that's reasonable to state so in this example so everyone at least knows what the logical ramifications of this definition of "fairness" is, and let the chips fall where they may. And I think that's the better option. Let everyone have to stand behind their definition of fairness in the bright light of day
I vote option 1, and anyone who thinks that's somehow letting one alliance "bully" another or letting "unfair" matches take place, I'm fine with that.
Tying Points and Rewards into Prestige would solve that problem.
There are few ideas I can think of that are worse than tying alliance war rewards to prestige. Tying alliance war rewards to hair color would not be a worse idea.
I can't believe this is actually a thing. As I mentioned before, our match making rules should work for the simple case of four alliances, two 22 million A and B and two 30 million C and D. Let's say we decide the "fair" thing to do is for A to match with B and C to match with D. A and D win. There's now two possibilities. A matches with D since they both won and B and C match because they both lost. Or A matches with B again and C matches with D again because matching 22 to 30 is "unfair."
The first option is how I think competition should work. The second is complete madness. And I could define "complete madness" with thirty pages of mathematical game theory, or I can just settle for making everyone who thinks that's reasonable to state so in this example so everyone at least knows what the logical ramifications of this definition of "fairness" is, and let the chips fall where they may. And I think that's the better option. Let everyone have to stand behind their definition of fairness in the bright light of day
I vote option 1, and anyone who thinks that's somehow letting one alliance "bully" another or letting "unfair" matches take place, I'm fine with that.
I agree. That is how it was supposed to work. My only concern is they are doing this during AW season where winning is what matters because winning gives season points. Let's take a case of 2 alliances. One lower war rating alliance correctly matched and another higher war rating alliance horribly matched. It is possible that before the season ends, these two alliances will not meet at all, with the first alliance say A winning most of the wars thereby getting more season points and alliance B losing almost all of the points which could result in getting them lower rewards than alliance A which is not fair. It could get evened out in a couple of seasons or the alliance may simply quit and go into a dummy alliance figuring that they could get better rewards that way. Either way, Kabam has gone on this direction and the people with higher war rating want the "other guys" to suffer. The usual way then.lol
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t want actual fair matchups War rating should be the only deciding factor in matchups as for the where I “think” they should be if they deserve to be In that tier they will stay there your prestige idea would screw over all the actual smaller skilled allies who had the skill and put in the effort and time to get to where they did
I do want fair Matches. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. Matches that aren't over before they're even played. When you vary the Ally strength beyond what's possibly won, that's unfair. War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season. The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t want actual fair matchups War rating should be the only deciding factor in matchups as for the where I “think” they should be if they deserve to be In that tier they will stay there your prestige idea would screw over all the actual smaller skilled allies who had the skill and put in the effort and time to get to where they did
I do want fair Matches. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. Matches that aren't over before they're even played. When you vary the Ally strength beyond what's possibly won, that's unfair. War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season. The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
@GroundedWisdom Its useless mate. One of the few times I agree with you on. Ultimately, the answer we will get is that they deserve that loss, because they had unfair advantage all these seasons. I don't understand this mentality. I hope kabam sees these discussions and decides on a staggered approach to implement changes
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t want actual fair matchups War rating should be the only deciding factor in matchups as for the where I “think” they should be if they deserve to be In that tier they will stay there your prestige idea would screw over all the actual smaller skilled allies who had the skill and put in the effort and time to get to where they did
I do want fair Matches. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. Matches that aren't over before they're even played. When you vary the Ally strength beyond what's possibly won, that's unfair. War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season. The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
@GroundedWisdom Its useless mate. One of the few times I agree with you on. Ultimately, the answer we will get is that they deserve that loss, because they had unfair advantage all these seasons. I don't understand this mentality. I hope kabam sees these discussions and decides on a staggered approach to implement changes
Great solution. Turn the system in on itself. Waiting 24 hours to enter a Fight you know you're going to lose no matter what you do. What do you say to your guys then? "Sorry, guys. Our efforts don't matter. We don't deserve to win.".
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t want actual fair matchups War rating should be the only deciding factor in matchups as for the where I “think” they should be if they deserve to be In that tier they will stay there your prestige idea would screw over all the actual smaller skilled allies who had the skill and put in the effort and time to get to where they did
I do want fair Matches. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. Matches that aren't over before they're even played. When you vary the Ally strength beyond what's possibly won, that's unfair. War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season. The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
@GroundedWisdom Its useless mate. One of the few times I agree with you on. Ultimately, the answer we will get is that they deserve that loss, because they had unfair advantage all these seasons. I don't understand this mentality. I hope kabam sees these discussions and decides on a staggered approach to implement changes
Great solution. Turn the system in on itself. Waiting 24 hours to enter a Fight you know you're going to lose no matter what you do. What do you say to your guys then? "Sorry, guys. Our efforts don't matter. We don't deserve to win.".
Nah, we will decide to create a new alliance and work the system. Apparently that is what Kabam wants. lol
And we don't actually know what type of match up we will get. I don't think you can get a list of Alliances with war rating anywhere. Would be useful thing to have in game actually
Hi guys! I really appreciate all efforts you are making and I am sure the most of us will enjoy the new aw But just one concern: reducing the rating war by 50% for ALL alliances, in which way can change the matchmatching? If the update will affect all alliances, nothing will change Am I wrong?
I think cutting the points would bring zero because somebody has to be in t1 2 etc U cut the points and the same alliamces will be in the same leagues only with half points I dot understand that
That's exactly my point. Cutting the WRP in half for everyone doesn't do anything because everyone will still experience the same grossly overpowered Matches. Season 19 is just going to be sacrificed for people so the system can balance. It's going to be an unfair bloodbath.
it needs to happen. 10mil rating alliances do not deserve to be above 30mil alliances becuase in no world would the 10 mil aalliance ever win if they fought each other. the system that has allowed small allies to leapfrog larger allies because they never fight is an unfair handicapped system and has no place in a system where everyone is fighting for the same ppol of rewards.
so this needs to happen and should have happened a long time ago.
No. It does not "need" to happen. Those Alliances fight their own fair Matches and earn their own way to wherever they are. They Match, and fight, and put every bit of effort in they can. A month's worth of Wars to work towards the end goal. The fact that a fair fight is a foreign concept to some is ridiculous to me, but the truth is they didn't leapfrog anywhere. They earned it through the Points they earned in their own Matches. Now people are bitter that they can't peck them off. There are other solutions and it absolutely does not need to happen. Those people played the system fairly and earned what they earned based on their own performance. It does not need to happen. Those Alliances represent many people who put every effort they can into Seasons. Forcing them to do Wars that they absolutely cannot win as something that "has to happen" is totally disrespectful and caters to one demographic alone. The demographic that can't get past their Ego because Allies smaller than them are earning big Rewards. There would have been other options. Making them fight Wars they literally can't win and ruining their Season when they're working just as hard as anyone else is just flat-out cruel. Everything makes a difference during the Season. Every Alliance you do that to has 30 people putting in their best efforts and what you're talking about is Wars that no matter how hard they try, they can't win. I mean literally can't. Numerically can't. You're talking to the wrong person if you're trying to sell the idea that this kind of mistreatment is necessary. Yes, I use the word mistreatment without any kind of dramatics. The people working their butts off to earn Rewards in Season are being mistreated because people complained about who else was getting what. It's altogether unfair. If you don't care about the efforts that hundreds if not thousands of people put into a Season, that's your shortcoming. I do.
your logic makes no sense when talking about a system that award rewards based on a leaderboard. a system that allows alliance X to finish in 1000th place while alliance y finishes in 5000th place when inf the two alliances ever fought alliance X would have no chance and be destoyed by alliance Y is a total farce.
imagine a sports competition. where someone finishes in first place because they only played the bottom teams and won all matches while a team finishes last because they only played the top teams. HOW IS THAT FAIR? teams fighting for spots in a leaderboard need to have the ability to reasonably beat all those below them. an alliance should not be ranked 10th overall because they are the best 10 million rated alliance. because they only fought other 10million alliances, while a 30 million alliance finishes 100th becuase they did not do well against other 30 million alliances. if these two alliance ever fought we know who would win.
a system that segregates alliances into pools based on alliance ratings only works if each pool has their own set of rewards.
most people know this, even kabam know ths hense why they are changing the system.
once again you are very very out of touch with the community and you have a poor way of looking at the system.
TL:DR if a 2million alliance wins 10/2 season because it only fought other 2 million alliances, while a 40million alliance loses 3/7 season while fighting only other 40million alliances. the 2 million alliance does not deserve to finish higher on the leaderboard and get better rewards becuase they were fighting in different competitions.. different competitions cant have the same pool of rewards.
I'm not out of touch with anything. I presented ideas on how to accommodate that. There are other ways. Forcing people to ruin their Season by fighting Wars they are guaranteed to lose, just to balance the system, makes them nothing but collateral damage. That's more inappropriate than getting higher Rewards.
So what’s your solution then just let unfair matchmaking continue
There's a number of things you could have done. You could have had separate Brackets for Rewards based on Prestige and continued to have fair Matches. You could have had an adjustment period outside of the Season so it doesn't affect peoples' Season. You could have also separated Season from off-season to prevent it from being manipulated. You could have designed a more balanced system that uses a mixture of both which would eventually balance itself out. I could come up with a number of ideas to prevent people from wasting their efforts during the Season just to appease the top Tier. What you have now is people being set up to fail in the name of the system being "broken", and the only ones who don't see that as a problem are the ones not affected. You have a much larger problem being created to make the most competitive happy, and the ones who will suffer from this are seen as necessary and expendable. That's not fairness. It's placation at the expense of people who are just doing their best in the Wars they are in. Once you start setting them up to fight Wars they will never win, that's just a balancing that's too sick for me to consider necessary.
I really can’t believe you keep pushing this weird idea you have of fairness.
The previous matchmaking favored those alliances enormously. And the rest of us suffered. It’s too bad now it’s their turn to suffer but it is the best way to make it FAIR.
We already have brackets/tiers. Defined by war rating. The rewards scale basing off those tiers. In “War” There shouldn’t be any other criteria than “War rating”. It’s in the name.
If you want to use prestige then what’s the point of war rating? Use prestige brackets, gain points during season and get your rewards. Does that sound familiar? Yeah. It’s AQ. Where skill is non existent.
What he is saying is just because you suffered does not mean the other side has to suffer as well. This attitude seems persistent in the community and its not good. (Nerfing content? reduce rewards).He gave many solutions which may not be perfect but it is a start. Frankly, I think season 19 is going to be a waste of time for majority of the alliances. Changes should not be dropped all at once. First the rating, then the map would have been better. Skill is non existent in AQ? First time I am hearing this. Every aspect requires skill. AQ is a constant, it does not mean it requires no skill.
I did not say that because I suffered it’s now their turn. I explicitly said “it’s too bad” but it is what it is. Same as when it was the other way around. The system need to reset for standings to go back to normal. Sadly, that means some alliances will suffer. Nobody likes that. But, again, it is what it is.
How does skill get you ahead of another ally in AQ? You know what I meant when I said that. At the end, if you have higher prestige than an alliance that’s more skilled than yours, you will still place above them. AW is different. And it should. You want skill to be what separates alliances in AW. Not prestige.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t want actual fair matchups War rating should be the only deciding factor in matchups as for the where I “think” they should be if they deserve to be In that tier they will stay there your prestige idea would screw over all the actual smaller skilled allies who had the skill and put in the effort and time to get to where they did
I do want fair Matches. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. Matches that aren't over before they're even played. When you vary the Ally strength beyond what's possibly won, that's unfair. War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season. The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
You act like it wouldn’t even out sooner rather than later. Now I do agree that during off season, the total amount of war rating that can be gained/lost should be decreased to avoid the tanking becoming a big issue, but there also needs to be a way for new alliances to get to where they belong faster during off season too.
Everyone will get to a point where they have a fair fight in the majority of wars, sure you might steamroll or get steamrolled on occasions, but that just happens and that’s fine.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
How would this make matches fair at all you’ve given no explanation how this would make alliance war fair if anything it would make it worse
No it wouldn't. It would mean people could progress based on Matches they actually have a chance of winning and the Rewards would reflect the whole "bigger Allies are getting the same as these leapfrog Allies" problem. Fair is exactly what it is. What's not fair is wanting to set people up in Matches they can't win, just to teach them some kind of lesson for playing and advancing beyond where you think they should be.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t want actual fair matchups War rating should be the only deciding factor in matchups as for the where I “think” they should be if they deserve to be In that tier they will stay there your prestige idea would screw over all the actual smaller skilled allies who had the skill and put in the effort and time to get to where they did
I do want fair Matches. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. Matches that aren't over before they're even played. When you vary the Ally strength beyond what's possibly won, that's unfair. War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season. The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
You act like it wouldn’t even out sooner rather than later. Now I do agree that during off season, the total amount of war rating that can be gained/lost should be decreased to avoid the tanking becoming a big issue, but there also needs to be a way for new alliances to get to where they belong faster during off season too.
Everyone will get to a point where they have a fair fight in the majority of wars, sure you might steamroll or get steamrolled on occasions, but that just happens and that’s fine.
What we're talking about is not just "that just happens". Going into Season 19 with a total shift will be a huge happening based on where War Ratings are now. It will be a mess at the expense of people who are just playing War to the best of their abilities. It's going to ruin the Season for many people, all in the name of "it has to happen".
You were supportive of the season being ruined for many a couple of seasons back when the fifth war "didn't count" but war rating changed. Using your own logic, alliances will finish where they deserve based on how they perform in the matches they are given.
My question is what's going to stop Tanking and manipulating War Rating off-season? It's not just Tiers 1-5 that do it.
It doesn't sounds like you're in a tier 1-5 alliance and tanking hasn't been a thing for almost a year now.
This is due in part to an announcement made last July that stated that all War Ratings for tiers 1-5 will be locked and tiers 6-9 will decrease the amount of war rating they can achieve.
Tanking is still a thing. It's just done during the season with shells. Jump to your alliance that just tanked and tank the one you jumped from.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold.
Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist.
You were supportive of the season being ruined for many a couple of seasons back when the fifth war "didn't count" but war rating changed. Using your own logic, alliances will finish where they deserve based on how they perform in the matches they are given.
No. I was supportive of not writing the entire Season off for everyone because of one discounted War.
Comments
Skill is non existent in AQ? First time I am hearing this. Every aspect requires skill. AQ is a constant, it does not mean it requires no skill.
The argument was they were earning the same Rewards. Tying Points and Rewards into Prestige would solve that problem. Unless that's not the problem at all and people just want to bully weaker Allies using Matches they can't win. Sounds more like a vendetta than fairness.
I can't believe this is actually a thing. As I mentioned before, our match making rules should work for the simple case of four alliances, two 22 million A and B and two 30 million C and D. Let's say we decide the "fair" thing to do is for A to match with B and C to match with D. A and D win. There's now two possibilities. A matches with D since they both won and B and C match because they both lost. Or A matches with B again and C matches with D again because matching 22 to 30 is "unfair."
The first option is how I think competition should work. The second is complete madness. And I could define "complete madness" with thirty pages of mathematical game theory, or I can just settle for making everyone who thinks that's reasonable to state so in this example so everyone at least knows what the logical ramifications of this definition of "fairness" is, and let the chips fall where they may. And I think that's the better option. Let everyone have to stand behind their definition of fairness in the bright light of day
I vote option 1, and anyone who thinks that's somehow letting one alliance "bully" another or letting "unfair" matches take place, I'm fine with that.
War Rating alone might have been the only deciding factor before it was manipulated beyond recognition. Then the need for another regulating factor was introduced. Now, you have Allies that are going to suffer certain Losses just for the sake of balancing. That affects their entire Season.
The argument was that Allies who had lower Rating were earning higher Rewards because they never came up against the big boys. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say their Rating shows they shouldn't be there and still dismiss Prestige. They're connected. What I offered was a solution that would prevent that because there are limits on the Points an Ally can earn based on those same factors people are pointing out. There wouldn't be any leapfrog because an Ally could only earn so many Points. There would also be reasonable Matches that weren't already decided before they started. War Rating would balance out because it couldn't be manipulated with Prestige also being a factor, and the Leaderboard would show what people say should be the case. Only that idea doesn't involve watching them face Loss after Loss just to make people happy. That kind of mentality is vengeful and unfair altogether.
And we don't actually know what type of match up we will get. I don't think you can get a list of Alliances with war rating anywhere. Would be useful thing to have in game actually
But just one concern: reducing the rating war by 50% for ALL alliances, in which way can change the matchmatching? If the update will affect all alliances, nothing will change
Am I wrong?
I explicitly said “it’s too bad” but it is what it is. Same as when it was the other way around.
The system need to reset for standings to go back to normal. Sadly, that means some alliances will suffer. Nobody likes that. But, again, it is what it is.
How does skill get you ahead of another ally in AQ? You know what I meant when I said that.
At the end, if you have higher prestige than an alliance that’s more skilled than yours, you will still place above them.
AW is different. And it should. You want skill to be what separates alliances in AW. Not prestige.
Now I do agree that during off season, the total amount of war rating that can be gained/lost should be decreased to avoid the tanking becoming a big issue, but there also needs to be a way for new alliances to get to where they belong faster during off season too.
Everyone will get to a point where they have a fair fight in the majority of wars, sure you might steamroll or get steamrolled on occasions, but that just happens and that’s fine.
Using your own logic, alliances will finish where they deserve based on how they perform in the matches they are given.
Ebb and flow- Knockdown - Darkhawk will make this a pain ( thinking corvus with prox sysnergy, KM, Medusa or Vision Aarkus)
Ebb and flow Intercept - Thor rag on this , would the auto block not count as intercept ?
Buff inbalance - Would this place a debuff for each buff so e.g. Duped Venom gets 3 buffs so 3 debuffs get placed ?
in regards to indefinite debuffs, if they are purified are they reapplied ? or only when the conditions are met again such as gaining a buff