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.
It looks like, all these alliances that fought fairly will then have to be pushed into the correct tier before this idea can be implemented (assuming it is correct).
And because it was not intended that they could get so high up and by passing stronger alliances.
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.
Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points
Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with.
People can assert that "survival of the fittest" will happen, but I'm telling you point blank that there will be Matches that are gauranteed Losses. Ranks, Rosters, Node increases, differences in CR, all of that factors in. This will set people up to lose by default, just to adjust things. Might as well call Season 19 the Season of Top Tier Only.
We don’t need another AQ in AW. Multiplying points based on prestige is literally the same thing as AQ. We need to keep prestige out of this.
There are no guaranteed losses. There will be for a while until the ratings balance themselves out. After that, not anymore. And, the matches fought between alliances of different tier but right in the border would be amazingly unfair. You could win but would get less points than they would. And not because of your skill (war rating) but because of your rank ups.
The move to multiple hidden nodes spread out in the map is not a good idea. You moved past it before please move past it now. It just spreads the burden to have scouter lens masteries to (at least) 3 guys instead of one.
This new intercept nodes are NOT good. Aegis intercept was difficult, but you only needed to do the required thing a set amount of times. Not indefinetly. And with the unpredictability of the AI we don’t need to be FORCED to keep intercepting through the whole fight.
The move to have everybody tackle both the “bridge” minis is a good one. That
I’ll wait until the defense tactics changes are announced but please consider eliminating them. They don’t work.
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
It sounds like you think some alliances have "incorrect" war ratings because of a calculation error that the new system is intended to correct, and it will address that by essentially generating losses for alliances that would otherwise have won, causing them to lose rewards they should not lose. But that's not what appears to be the case. The problem with war ratings today is that alliances did not all have the same chance to match with each other. As a result, some alliances were facing easier competition than average (normalized to rating), increasing their rating, and others were facing harder competition than average, and have a lower rating than they might otherwise have.
Let's take an exaggerated and simplified case. Let's say my alliance decided to dump rating, back when Kabam was apparently using alliance rating as a match criteria. When we had a 2000 war rating we should have been matching against other 2000 alliances, all of which should have had roughly the same strength. But instead, I ordered my players to sell everything except defenders and attackers, so my alliance rating was a ridiculously low number like say 6,000,000. Instead of matching against the average 2000 rating alliance, who might have had an average alliance rating of 20 million, the game was artificially limiting our matches to alliances closer to 6 million. If all the 6 million alliances preferentially match against each other, *someone* has to get to 2000, because someone has to win and someone has to lose. If we happen to be one of the best 6 million alliances we're just going to keep winning and winning, and our rating is going to go higher than higher, and no one is ever going to beat us because the alliances strong enough to beat us aren't inside our little bubble. Eventually our rating could be 2800, having never faced anything but 6 million alliances.
That rating was "earned" by winning, but we got it through facing an artificially small pool of opponents, and we just happened to be the best out of that pool. When Kabam removes that extra match criteria and we now have to fight *all* 2800 alliances, things will be different. *If* we earned that rating fighting alliances that were at least average strength compared to all 2800 alliances, our rating won't suffer, because out average competition won't change. The pool will get bigger, but not stronger. But if our little pocket of competition was weaker than the average 2800 alliance our competition will, on average, get stronger. We will now have to face stronger 2800 alliances. And our rating will go down.
But this isn't an artificial reduction in rating. This is the same mechanism that causes alliances to move up and down all the time as they get stronger and weaker, relative to the competition, every normal season. Every season there are alliances that change in some way: people leave, people join, people suddenly pull Doom. When that happens, their rating is "wrong" relative to their strength now. And wins and losses in season will "correct" that over time, to reflect your true position relative to the competition. Kabam altering the match system is basically doing the same thing on a larger scale: alliances used to compare themselves to a smaller pool of opponents, that pool is getting bigger, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as stronger than the smaller pool, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as weaker than the smaller pool, and their rating will change to reflect that new pecking order. The rewards alliances might lose because they descend in rating are roughly counterbalanced by the rewards they must have won when they originally ascended in rating, which were higher than they would have gotten in the current match system.
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
It sounds like you think some alliances have "incorrect" war ratings because of a calculation error that the new system is intended to correct, and it will address that by essentially generating losses for alliances that would otherwise have won, causing them to lose rewards they should not lose. But that's not what appears to be the case. The problem with war ratings today is that alliances did not all have the same chance to match with each other. As a result, some alliances were facing easier competition than average (normalized to rating), increasing their rating, and others were facing harder competition than average, and have a lower rating than they might otherwise have.
Let's take an exaggerated and simplified case. Let's say my alliance decided to dump rating, back when Kabam was apparently using alliance rating as a match criteria. When we had a 2000 war rating we should have been matching against other 2000 alliances, all of which should have had roughly the same strength. But instead, I ordered my players to sell everything except defenders and attackers, so my alliance rating was a ridiculously low number like say 6,000,000. Instead of matching against the average 2000 rating alliance, who might have had an average alliance rating of 20 million, the game was artificially limiting our matches to alliances closer to 6 million. If all the 6 million alliances preferentially match against each other, *someone* has to get to 2000, because someone has to win and someone has to lose. If we happen to be one of the best 6 million alliances we're just going to keep winning and winning, and our rating is going to go higher than higher, and no one is ever going to beat us because the alliances strong enough to beat us aren't inside our little bubble. Eventually our rating could be 2800, having never faced anything but 6 million alliances.
That rating was "earned" by winning, but we got it through facing an artificially small pool of opponents, and we just happened to be the best out of that pool. When Kabam removes that extra match criteria and we now have to fight *all* 2800 alliances, things will be different. *If* we earned that rating fighting alliances that were at least average strength compared to all 2800 alliances, our rating won't suffer, because out average competition won't change. The pool will get bigger, but not stronger. But if our little pocket of competition was weaker than the average 2800 alliance our competition will, on average, get stronger. We will now have to face stronger 2800 alliances. And our rating will go down.
But this isn't an artificial reduction in rating. This is the same mechanism that causes alliances to move up and down all the time as they get stronger and weaker, relative to the competition, every normal season. Every season there are alliances that change in some way: people leave, people join, people suddenly pull Doom. When that happens, their rating is "wrong" relative to their strength now. And wins and losses in season will "correct" that over time, to reflect your true position relative to the competition. Kabam altering the match system is basically doing the same thing on a larger scale: alliances used to compare themselves to a smaller pool of opponents, that pool is getting bigger, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as stronger than the smaller pool, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as weaker than the smaller pool, and their rating will change to reflect that new pecking order. The rewards alliances might lose because they descend in rating are roughly counterbalanced by the rewards they must have won when they originally ascended in rating, which were higher than they would have gotten in the current match system.
All Alliances are being reduced by 50%. Which means the effect is bupkis. Everyone is affected the same way. Season 19 will be a Season of overpowered mismatches. High Wins for the largest Allies, and Loss after Loss for people who, through no fault of their own, were playing within their own limits.
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.
Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points
Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with.
Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more points Your complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win
Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge.
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.
Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points
Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with.
Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more points Your complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win
Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge.
Systematic revenge? What are you on about Just be glad you got the benefit out of the horrible matchmaking it’s like complaining that Kabam is fixing a bug
What benefit? I'm in Silver 1. I didn't benefit from it at all. I'm talking about fairness for the people who are on the other end of being forced to lose because the concept of a fair fight is too foreign for the people who think they're entitled to watch them fail. Revenge is exactly what it's about. If they can't get it by beating them through Matches, they'll threaten to start dummy Allies and beat them that way. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's anything but a benefit for anyone. It's sacrificing peoples' Seasons just to keep the top happy. I'm done going on about it. Just watch the result when the Season starts. If anyone can call it justified or fair, they need to do some serious rethinking on those definitions.
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
It sounds like you think some alliances have "incorrect" war ratings because of a calculation error that the new system is intended to correct, and it will address that by essentially generating losses for alliances that would otherwise have won, causing them to lose rewards they should not lose. But that's not what appears to be the case. The problem with war ratings today is that alliances did not all have the same chance to match with each other. As a result, some alliances were facing easier competition than average (normalized to rating), increasing their rating, and others were facing harder competition than average, and have a lower rating than they might otherwise have.
Let's take an exaggerated and simplified case. Let's say my alliance decided to dump rating, back when Kabam was apparently using alliance rating as a match criteria. When we had a 2000 war rating we should have been matching against other 2000 alliances, all of which should have had roughly the same strength. But instead, I ordered my players to sell everything except defenders and attackers, so my alliance rating was a ridiculously low number like say 6,000,000. Instead of matching against the average 2000 rating alliance, who might have had an average alliance rating of 20 million, the game was artificially limiting our matches to alliances closer to 6 million. If all the 6 million alliances preferentially match against each other, *someone* has to get to 2000, because someone has to win and someone has to lose. If we happen to be one of the best 6 million alliances we're just going to keep winning and winning, and our rating is going to go higher than higher, and no one is ever going to beat us because the alliances strong enough to beat us aren't inside our little bubble. Eventually our rating could be 2800, having never faced anything but 6 million alliances.
That rating was "earned" by winning, but we got it through facing an artificially small pool of opponents, and we just happened to be the best out of that pool. When Kabam removes that extra match criteria and we now have to fight *all* 2800 alliances, things will be different. *If* we earned that rating fighting alliances that were at least average strength compared to all 2800 alliances, our rating won't suffer, because out average competition won't change. The pool will get bigger, but not stronger. But if our little pocket of competition was weaker than the average 2800 alliance our competition will, on average, get stronger. We will now have to face stronger 2800 alliances. And our rating will go down.
But this isn't an artificial reduction in rating. This is the same mechanism that causes alliances to move up and down all the time as they get stronger and weaker, relative to the competition, every normal season. Every season there are alliances that change in some way: people leave, people join, people suddenly pull Doom. When that happens, their rating is "wrong" relative to their strength now. And wins and losses in season will "correct" that over time, to reflect your true position relative to the competition. Kabam altering the match system is basically doing the same thing on a larger scale: alliances used to compare themselves to a smaller pool of opponents, that pool is getting bigger, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as stronger than the smaller pool, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as weaker than the smaller pool, and their rating will change to reflect that new pecking order. The rewards alliances might lose because they descend in rating are roughly counterbalanced by the rewards they must have won when they originally ascended in rating, which were higher than they would have gotten in the current match system.
High Wins for the largest Allies, and Loss after Loss for people who, through no fault of their own, were playing within their own limits.
Well, it is game developer who needs to fix this.
I was looking at who ends up below me on the leaderboard.
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
It sounds like you think some alliances have "incorrect" war ratings because of a calculation error that the new system is intended to correct, and it will address that by essentially generating losses for alliances that would otherwise have won, causing them to lose rewards they should not lose. But that's not what appears to be the case. The problem with war ratings today is that alliances did not all have the same chance to match with each other. As a result, some alliances were facing easier competition than average (normalized to rating), increasing their rating, and others were facing harder competition than average, and have a lower rating than they might otherwise have.
Let's take an exaggerated and simplified case. Let's say my alliance decided to dump rating, back when Kabam was apparently using alliance rating as a match criteria. When we had a 2000 war rating we should have been matching against other 2000 alliances, all of which should have had roughly the same strength. But instead, I ordered my players to sell everything except defenders and attackers, so my alliance rating was a ridiculously low number like say 6,000,000. Instead of matching against the average 2000 rating alliance, who might have had an average alliance rating of 20 million, the game was artificially limiting our matches to alliances closer to 6 million. If all the 6 million alliances preferentially match against each other, *someone* has to get to 2000, because someone has to win and someone has to lose. If we happen to be one of the best 6 million alliances we're just going to keep winning and winning, and our rating is going to go higher than higher, and no one is ever going to beat us because the alliances strong enough to beat us aren't inside our little bubble. Eventually our rating could be 2800, having never faced anything but 6 million alliances.
That rating was "earned" by winning, but we got it through facing an artificially small pool of opponents, and we just happened to be the best out of that pool. When Kabam removes that extra match criteria and we now have to fight *all* 2800 alliances, things will be different. *If* we earned that rating fighting alliances that were at least average strength compared to all 2800 alliances, our rating won't suffer, because out average competition won't change. The pool will get bigger, but not stronger. But if our little pocket of competition was weaker than the average 2800 alliance our competition will, on average, get stronger. We will now have to face stronger 2800 alliances. And our rating will go down.
But this isn't an artificial reduction in rating. This is the same mechanism that causes alliances to move up and down all the time as they get stronger and weaker, relative to the competition, every normal season. Every season there are alliances that change in some way: people leave, people join, people suddenly pull Doom. When that happens, their rating is "wrong" relative to their strength now. And wins and losses in season will "correct" that over time, to reflect your true position relative to the competition. Kabam altering the match system is basically doing the same thing on a larger scale: alliances used to compare themselves to a smaller pool of opponents, that pool is getting bigger, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as stronger than the smaller pool, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as weaker than the smaller pool, and their rating will change to reflect that new pecking order. The rewards alliances might lose because they descend in rating are roughly counterbalanced by the rewards they must have won when they originally ascended in rating, which were higher than they would have gotten in the current match system.
I know how the war rating worked and why people wanted to match using war rating. I understand that. My only problem was doing this in during season and punishing legitimate players along with the cheaters for something that was not their fault. But that seems to be the case with Kabam these days, burn down the forest and if some animals die, so be it. In summary, you seem to be saying that, yes, people may lose rewards because of horrible matchups. But they have been getting exaggerated rewards all these seasons and they deserve to get less rewards this time. It was not their fault. It was set up that way by Kabam. So, how exactly is punishing them for playing the game the way kabam wanted them to play fair?. next, you will be saying shell alliances are also fair, since it is not against TOS.
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.
there is no way to balance the system other than to go through a small period of potentail unfairness and mis matches. but the overall result will be a much fairer system then we have now. so just have to deal with it for a small time and then it will sort itself out.
and yes you are clearly out of touch., just look at your disagrees. people do not like what you are saying. it means you are out of touch with the majority of the people.
Question about Ebb & Flow-Intercept mechanics with Ghost. If Ghost intercepts, she will get a precision passive from the node, preventing her from phasing until it's gone. Will attacking more consume the passive like the one she gets from phasing, or can ghost just not phase at all until the 6 seconds are up and protection returns?
so much to read through but eb and flow intercept reads awful. I guess its made for ghost to fight but I can see that node being a pain
Does incoming damage include DOT and passives like plasma? Also, Hazard shift sounds like a pain, incinerate and poison immune? Mephisto comes to mind. Iceman, red hulk and BWCV depending on her curse. Anyone else?
It’s alternating technically only need 1 immunity if played right
True, but that technique would effectively change a 3 minute timer into a 1.5 minute timer. And also leave you vulnerable to being cornered.
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.
there is no way to balance the system other than to go through a small period of potentail unfairness and mis matches. but the overall result will be a much fairer system then we have now. so just have to deal with it for a small time and then it will sort itself out.
and yes you are clearly out of touch., just look at your disagrees. people do not like what you are saying. it means you are out of touch with the majority of the people.
I'm sorry. You must be new here. The Disagrees are as reliable as Bernie Madoff. They're used to troll on people who others don't like. You should read half the Disagrees I have. They don't even make sense, and aren't anything anyone could disagree with. It is NOT the only way, and I do not consider the efforst of that many honest Players doing their best for a month as something that is trivial. These people put in their best just like anyone else, top or bottom, and that's just as valuable as the Players in the Top Alliance. Their time and effort is worth something. They work their asses off the best they can to get Rewards at the end of the Season, and forcing them into Matches they'll never win for some distorted view of a better system for everyone is just plain ignorant. Ignorant to their efforts, ignorant to their value as Players, and ingorant to the number of people this is going to happen to. Take a look at the Matches. The entire system is going to be affected. It's easy to say, "We're in a huge Ally so we'll be fine. It needs to happen.", but what about the people on the other end of that? Do they matter? The answer is absolutely. There is another way. I don't consider a month's worth of honest effort as something that is disposable for the "greater good".
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.
there is no way to balance the system other than to go through a small period of potentail unfairness and mis matches. but the overall result will be a much fairer system then we have now. so just have to deal with it for a small time and then it will sort itself out.
and yes you are clearly out of touch., just look at your disagrees. people do not like what you are saying. it means you are out of touch with the majority of the people.
In fairness, half the times the disagrees are justified, but the other half the times grounded still gets disagrees just cause it's him, even though sometimes his comments are justified.
You're still not getting it, and I'm not interested in discussing it with you anymore. I'm not getting sidetracked on a discussion about Disagrees either. They were added so people wouldn't troll the Flags. It isn't a small amount of headache. There are other ways to address the Rewards. Which is, after all, the heart of the problem presented. Having a smaller Account with the knowledge and skill of a much more developed Player is absolutely not a gauge into fairness based on ability. Nor is an experienced Player starting a new Account an accurate gauge for how easy it is to progress. It is not what has to happen, and no amount of dispute is going to convince me that people being forced to lose automatically and forfeit their efforts to grow is a necessary solution for a long-term good. What happens when you devalue a majority to appease a minority? I think we know the answer to that one. Who wants to play Wars that are decided before they even start? Place your Champs, wait 20 some hours, and start Attack knowing there's no way in hell you'll ever win. Try a whole Season of that. Multiply that by the number of Alliances that will have to go through that. Factor in how it feels. What you get is a miserable experience that could be prevented with some better forethought. But by all means, you go ahead and keep trying to explain how those peoples' experiences don't matter in the long run. I'm not having it.
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.
Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points
Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with.
Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more points Your complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win
Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge.
Systematic revenge? What are you on about Just be glad you got the benefit out of the horrible matchmaking it’s like complaining that Kabam is fixing a bug
What benefit? I'm in Silver 1. I didn't benefit from it at all. I'm talking about fairness for the people who are on the other end of being forced to lose because the concept of a fair fight is too foreign for the people who think they're entitled to watch them fail. Revenge is exactly what it's about. If they can't get it by beating them through Matches, they'll threaten to start dummy Allies and beat them that way. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's anything but a benefit for anyone. It's sacrificing peoples' Seasons just to keep the top happy. I'm done going on about it. Just watch the result when the Season starts. If anyone can call it justified or fair, they need to do some serious rethinking on those definitions.
Grounded, my alliance, which is not a top alliance, fat cat alliance or whatever you want to call it..by any stretch, has essentially been cheated out of countless rewards both season and per war for months and months because of the prestige matching. If you haven't been on the other side of it you have no idea what you're talking about. Before prestige matching started we were t3-5 earning appropriate rewards for our level. We are now t5-7. Doesn't sound that bad? Consider this.. We've only gotten *stronger* since then and have gone *down* in tier when we should have gone up. Even if our strength remained static during this time, that's still a considerable loss of rewards. But factor in the fact that we should have progressed, but instead fell down in rank and it's very unfair.
It's not just about the fact that lower prestige alliances were effectively taking rewards from people they never have to face in competition and skewing the ranks/tiers. That's only one part of it. The prestige matching system fundamentally changed the entire concept of how the game mode functioned. The concept of how war has always worked in this game is as follows... Win a war? Congrats, you will now face a slightly tougher oppenent. Win again.. next one will be harder still, etc. Until at a certain point, you meet your match and lose. You then receive a slightly less difficult match, etc.. until you level off at a certain point in the rankings.
With prestige matching, this is no longer the case. In two separate and opposite ways. Lower prestige alliances have been able to perpetually move up in ranks and rewards without any meaningful increase in difficulty. I have real knowledge of this because I have friends in lower prestige alliances who have given me the information. I'm not just speculating. Meanwhile, higher prestige alliances can lose 10 wars in a row and the difficulty never decreases. In fact, in my own personal experience, I can tell you that we were almost always matched with someone 20-30% larger than us. All because the system reaches across many factors just to match prestige. Even during a losing streak. This is never how war worked in the history of the game. During season 17 in particular, we threw up our hands because with each loss the difficulty *increased* ..like significantly..each time. I think you've grossly underestimated how many mid to mid/high level alliances were negatively affected by this. It's not just the "fat cats" or "top dogs" or whatever you want to call them.
Do I think that this correction to the rankings will be rough for a brief time for lower prestige alliances? Yes, I do. Do I think it's the travesty of justice you seem to be describing? Absolutely not. The loss of rewards my alliance and alliances in similar situations experienced over months and the extra rewards that lower prestige alliances have been given is far more impactful. To call it revenge is just plain ignorant and insulting. We've been working for years to grow our alliance. We've paid our dues. Newer players are progressing faster than ever. Along with a sense of entitlement. It takes hard work and dedication to grow your alliance. You have to pay your dues to earn higher ranks and rewards. They won't be handed to you.
You're still not getting it, and I'm not interested in discussing it with you anymore. I'm not getting sidetracked on a discussion about Disagrees either. They were added so people wouldn't troll the Flags. It isn't a small amount of headache. There are other ways to address the Rewards. Which is, after all, the heart of the problem presented. Having a smaller Account with the knowledge and skill of a much more developed Player is absolutely not a gauge into fairness based on ability. Nor is an experienced Player starting a new Account an accurate gauge for how easy it is to progress. It is not what has to happen, and no amount of dispute is going to convince me that people being forced to lose automatically and forfeit their efforts to grow is a necessary solution for a long-term good. What happens when you devalue a majority to appease a minority? I think we know the answer to that one. Who wants to play Wars that are decided before they even start? Place your Champs, wait 20 some hours, and start Attack knowing there's no way in hell you'll ever win. Try a whole Season of that. Multiply that by the number of Alliances that will have to go through that. Factor in how it feels. What you get is a miserable experience that could be prevented with some better forethought. But by all means, you go ahead and keep trying to explain how those peoples' experiences don't matter in the long run. I'm not having it.
i highly doubt you will stop arguing.
its only even an issue cus the current system is broken and alliance are sitting where they do not belong. the only way to change this is to reset it. they could reset everyones rating to 0 bu that will be even worse temporarily. the way in which the current system is broken is the problem.
noone is saying small alliances and noobs don't matter. noobs do matter, but noobs should not be able to beat experienced players because of a broken system.
if noobs and veterans are playing for the same rewards then they need to play each other. if you believe they shouldn't play each other then they need to play for different reawrds.
Handed to them? You mean earned them by fighting the best they can in their own Wars. Because they didn't fight Alliances 3 times their strength, they didn't earn them? Please. I'm done here.
Handed to them? You mean earned them by fighting the best they can in their own Wars. Because they didn't fight Alliances 3 times their strength, they didn't earn them? Please. I'm done here.
you already said you are done here. but here you are. either continue talking or not. but if you are going to say you are done then be done.
Handed to them? You mean earned them by fighting the best they can in their own Wars. Because they didn't fight Alliances 3 times their strength, they didn't earn them? Please. I'm done here.
and yeah almost handed to them. a 5 million alliance should not be fighting in tier 5. the high tiers should be for the strong allies. the fact that a 5 mil ally gets to tier 5 while fighting only 5 mil allies is the problem. they will only be stuck fighting stronger allies for a while because they need to go back where they belong. in what world does a 5mil ally deserve to be at the top getting top dog rewards because they are the best 5mil ally while a 20mil ally is t10 getting low rewards because they are the worst 20 mil ally? they are still better than the 5mil ally and should be rewarded as such. if the two fought we know who would win hense why you are complaining.
No. The problem is the Rewards. That can be solved. It gets to Tier 5 by winning its own Wars. You're not going to see the problem, and I'm not going to keep going over it. It is wrong on many levels to sabotage people and their efforts no matter how altruistic you think the goal is. Wrong is wrong. So I'm done. You want to keep making points, by all means. I've made mine.
Comments
And because it was not intended that they could get so high up and by passing stronger alliances.
Multiplying points based on prestige is literally the same thing as AQ.
We need to keep prestige out of this.
There are no guaranteed losses. There will be for a while until the ratings balance themselves out. After that, not anymore.
And, the matches fought between alliances of different tier but right in the border would be amazingly unfair. You could win but would get less points than they would.
And not because of your skill (war rating) but because of your rank ups.
The move to multiple hidden nodes spread out in the map is not a good idea. You moved past it before please move past it now.
It just spreads the burden to have scouter lens masteries to (at least) 3 guys instead of one.
This new intercept nodes are NOT good. Aegis intercept was difficult, but you only needed to do the required thing a set amount of times. Not indefinetly. And with the unpredictability of the AI we don’t need to be FORCED to keep intercepting through the whole fight.
The move to have everybody tackle both the “bridge” minis is a good one. That
I’ll wait until the defense tactics changes are announced but please consider eliminating them. They don’t work.
Let's take an exaggerated and simplified case. Let's say my alliance decided to dump rating, back when Kabam was apparently using alliance rating as a match criteria. When we had a 2000 war rating we should have been matching against other 2000 alliances, all of which should have had roughly the same strength. But instead, I ordered my players to sell everything except defenders and attackers, so my alliance rating was a ridiculously low number like say 6,000,000. Instead of matching against the average 2000 rating alliance, who might have had an average alliance rating of 20 million, the game was artificially limiting our matches to alliances closer to 6 million. If all the 6 million alliances preferentially match against each other, *someone* has to get to 2000, because someone has to win and someone has to lose. If we happen to be one of the best 6 million alliances we're just going to keep winning and winning, and our rating is going to go higher than higher, and no one is ever going to beat us because the alliances strong enough to beat us aren't inside our little bubble. Eventually our rating could be 2800, having never faced anything but 6 million alliances.
That rating was "earned" by winning, but we got it through facing an artificially small pool of opponents, and we just happened to be the best out of that pool. When Kabam removes that extra match criteria and we now have to fight *all* 2800 alliances, things will be different. *If* we earned that rating fighting alliances that were at least average strength compared to all 2800 alliances, our rating won't suffer, because out average competition won't change. The pool will get bigger, but not stronger. But if our little pocket of competition was weaker than the average 2800 alliance our competition will, on average, get stronger. We will now have to face stronger 2800 alliances. And our rating will go down.
But this isn't an artificial reduction in rating. This is the same mechanism that causes alliances to move up and down all the time as they get stronger and weaker, relative to the competition, every normal season. Every season there are alliances that change in some way: people leave, people join, people suddenly pull Doom. When that happens, their rating is "wrong" relative to their strength now. And wins and losses in season will "correct" that over time, to reflect your true position relative to the competition. Kabam altering the match system is basically doing the same thing on a larger scale: alliances used to compare themselves to a smaller pool of opponents, that pool is getting bigger, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as stronger than the smaller pool, and some alliances will see that bigger pool as weaker than the smaller pool, and their rating will change to reflect that new pecking order. The rewards alliances might lose because they descend in rating are roughly counterbalanced by the rewards they must have won when they originally ascended in rating, which were higher than they would have gotten in the current match system.
I didn't benefit from it at all. I'm talking about fairness for the people who are on the other end of being forced to lose because the concept of a fair fight is too foreign for the people who think they're entitled to watch them fail. Revenge is exactly what it's about. If they can't get it by beating them through Matches, they'll threaten to start dummy Allies and beat them that way. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's anything but a benefit for anyone. It's sacrificing peoples' Seasons just to keep the top happy.
I'm done going on about it. Just watch the result when the Season starts. If anyone can call it justified or fair, they need to do some serious rethinking on those definitions.
I was looking at who ends up below me on the leaderboard.
Rating 30,439,379
War Rating 777
Bronze 2
Why are they even here in this tier?
AW looks to be more of the same and it’s a game mode I won’t bother with.
In summary, you seem to be saying that, yes, people may lose rewards because of horrible matchups. But they have been getting exaggerated rewards all these seasons and they deserve to get less rewards this time. It was not their fault. It was set up that way by Kabam. So, how exactly is punishing them for playing the game the way kabam wanted them to play fair?. next, you will be saying shell alliances are also fair, since it is not against TOS.
but the overall result will be a much fairer system then we have now.
so just have to deal with it for a small time and then it will sort itself out.
and yes you are clearly out of touch., just look at your disagrees. people do not like what you are saying. it means you are out of touch with the majority of the people.
It is NOT the only way, and I do not consider the efforst of that many honest Players doing their best for a month as something that is trivial. These people put in their best just like anyone else, top or bottom, and that's just as valuable as the Players in the Top Alliance. Their time and effort is worth something. They work their asses off the best they can to get Rewards at the end of the Season, and forcing them into Matches they'll never win for some distorted view of a better system for everyone is just plain ignorant. Ignorant to their efforts, ignorant to their value as Players, and ingorant to the number of people this is going to happen to. Take a look at the Matches. The entire system is going to be affected. It's easy to say, "We're in a huge Ally so we'll be fine. It needs to happen.", but what about the people on the other end of that? Do they matter? The answer is absolutely.
There is another way. I don't consider a month's worth of honest effort as something that is disposable for the "greater good".
Cause with the new map, some node combinations with the current ones could be hard roadblocks...
hope it hurries up and gets approved...
It isn't a small amount of headache. There are other ways to address the Rewards. Which is, after all, the heart of the problem presented. Having a smaller Account with the knowledge and skill of a much more developed Player is absolutely not a gauge into fairness based on ability. Nor is an experienced Player starting a new Account an accurate gauge for how easy it is to progress.
It is not what has to happen, and no amount of dispute is going to convince me that people being forced to lose automatically and forfeit their efforts to grow is a necessary solution for a long-term good. What happens when you devalue a majority to appease a minority? I think we know the answer to that one.
Who wants to play Wars that are decided before they even start? Place your Champs, wait 20 some hours, and start Attack knowing there's no way in hell you'll ever win. Try a whole Season of that. Multiply that by the number of Alliances that will have to go through that. Factor in how it feels. What you get is a miserable experience that could be prevented with some better forethought. But by all means, you go ahead and keep trying to explain how those peoples' experiences don't matter in the long run. I'm not having it.
Before prestige matching started we were t3-5 earning appropriate rewards for our level. We are now t5-7. Doesn't sound that bad? Consider this.. We've only gotten *stronger* since then and have gone *down* in tier when we should have gone up. Even if our strength remained static during this time, that's still a considerable loss of rewards. But factor in the fact that we should have progressed, but instead fell down in rank and it's very unfair.
It's not just about the fact that lower prestige alliances were effectively taking rewards from people they never have to face in competition and skewing the ranks/tiers. That's only one part of it. The prestige matching system fundamentally changed the entire concept of how the game mode functioned. The concept of how war has always worked in this game is as follows... Win a war? Congrats, you will now face a slightly tougher oppenent. Win again.. next one will be harder still, etc. Until at a certain point, you meet your match and lose. You then receive a slightly less difficult match, etc.. until you level off at a certain point in the rankings.
With prestige matching, this is no longer the case. In two separate and opposite ways. Lower prestige alliances have been able to perpetually move up in ranks and rewards without any meaningful increase in difficulty. I have real knowledge of this because I have friends in lower prestige alliances who have given me the information. I'm not just speculating. Meanwhile, higher prestige alliances can lose 10 wars in a row and the difficulty never decreases. In fact, in my own personal experience, I can tell you that we were almost always matched with someone 20-30% larger than us. All because the system reaches across many factors just to match prestige. Even during a losing streak. This is never how war worked in the history of the game. During season 17 in particular, we threw up our hands because with each loss the difficulty *increased* ..like significantly..each time. I think you've grossly underestimated how many mid to mid/high level alliances were negatively affected by this. It's not just the "fat cats" or "top dogs" or whatever you want to call them.
Do I think that this correction to the rankings will be rough for a brief time for lower prestige alliances? Yes, I do.
Do I think it's the travesty of justice you seem to be describing? Absolutely not. The loss of rewards my alliance and alliances in similar situations experienced over months and the extra rewards that lower prestige alliances have been given is far more impactful. To call it revenge is just plain ignorant and insulting. We've been working for years to grow our alliance. We've paid our dues. Newer players are progressing faster than ever. Along with a sense of entitlement. It takes hard work and dedication to grow your alliance. You have to pay your dues to earn higher ranks and rewards. They won't be handed to you.
its only even an issue cus the current system is broken and alliance are sitting where they do not belong.
the only way to change this is to reset it.
they could reset everyones rating to 0 bu that will be even worse temporarily.
the way in which the current system is broken is the problem.
noone is saying small alliances and noobs don't matter.
noobs do matter, but noobs should not be able to beat experienced players because of a broken system.
if noobs and veterans are playing for the same rewards then they need to play each other.
if you believe they shouldn't play each other then they need to play for different reawrds.
but here you are.
either continue talking or not.
but if you are going to say you are done then be done.
a 5 million alliance should not be fighting in tier 5.
the high tiers should be for the strong allies.
the fact that a 5 mil ally gets to tier 5 while fighting only 5 mil allies is the problem.
they will only be stuck fighting stronger allies for a while because they need to go back where they belong.
in what world does a 5mil ally deserve to be at the top getting top dog rewards because they are the best 5mil ally while a 20mil ally is t10 getting low rewards because they are the worst 20 mil ally?
they are still better than the 5mil ally and should be rewarded as such. if the two fought we know who would win hense why you are complaining.