**WE ARE NO LONGER Temporarily Reverting Tier 1 War Ban System**

After further discussion, the game team has made the decision not make adjustements to the ban system.
The previously proposed fix would have resolved the issue for Summoners who are on the cusp of T1/T2 play, and negatively impacted Alliances more securely in T1. Instead, we recommend that cusp Alliances switch to Manual Placement to your members to place the allotted 5 Ban Champions limit there.

Apologies for the back and forth, and for any confusion.
Options

Alliance War Season 19: Updates to Path Identities and New Nodes! [ June 30]

1383941434446

Comments

  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.
  • Options
    danielmathdanielmath Posts: 4,051 ★★★★★

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    i guess i don't know what's going on, and nobody has explained it
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,643 ★★★★★
    @GroundedWisdom it has nothing to do with top alliances wanting their own bracket or dictating where others should be. If group X can get to Plat 1 or Master by fighting other groups in Plat 1/Master, then they deserve to be there regardless of PI or prestige. If they get there fighting only gold alliances then something is broken.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★

    @GroundedWisdom it has nothing to do with top alliances wanting their own bracket or dictating where others should be. If group X can get to Plat 1 or Master by fighting other groups in Plat 1/Master, then they deserve to be there regardless of PI or prestige. If they get there fighting only gold alliances then something is broken.

    I get the Rewards. They could have been addressed differently. Anyhow, it is what it is.
  • Options
    Speeds80Speeds80 Posts: 2,013 ★★★★
    It’s not the top alliances in rating that this benefits the most, i think it’s more aimed at stopping the burnout in the low relegated high rated alliances like mine, we had wars with zero deaths last season, we were stuck in too easy tiers but only ever facing other alliances in our same situation, giant blob created by the bubble situation, no end of 30m alliances in tiers 11-13, barely ever played the same one twice the last 4 seasons
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    Speeds80 said:

    It’s not the top alliances in rating that this benefits the most, i think it’s more aimed at stopping the burnout in the low relegated high rated alliances like mine, we had wars with zero deaths last season, we were stuck in too easy tiers but only ever facing other alliances in our same situation, giant blob created by the bubble situation, no end of 30m alliances in tiers 11-13, barely ever played the same one twice the last 4 seasons

    So what you're saying is because you can't advance fighting Alliances that are Matched evenly, you want to beat lower-rated Allies so you can advance? Otherwise I fail to see how you're going to benefit from it.
    This Season will have gains for Alliances that vastly overpower their opponents, and the opponents will have to sacrifice their Season with mismatches. If you think this is going to be beneficial, wait and see what happens when the system is shocked into these Matches.
    That's about all I have left to say. Wait and see the result of the abrupt change.
  • Options
    Speeds80Speeds80 Posts: 2,013 ★★★★
    This would be correct if it wasn’t the low tier alliances competing for the same rewards I am, they are displacing me on the table, the table/ tiers are where the rewards are decided, I say it’a less fair that those 12m alliances have taken the rewards I would have got before the matchmaking system was changed, the pot of rewards Is singular and the bubbles have created a burnout situation, there is going to be burnout for lower level alliances this round for sure, the rules are changed back to when we were always a g1/ g2 alliance, With almost zero item use, then we became a silver 1 alliance with revives expiring because the maps weren’t suited for our game difficulty, and our r5 defense rosters Were a waste of resources, the reason we ended up in those maps, the bubble system where 12m alliances displaced us but never had to face us, now my 5/65 resources spent on defenders will be useful once again. As I said before There’s no way this new system can hurt my alliance, it’s back to what we had 10 seasons ago. As with life ‘fair’ Is through your life lens and if you are being adversely affected it may seem unfair, the question is which system is most fair, not based on previous rules or previous results, but common sense that if your 12m alliance is taking rewards off my 30m alliance then we should be able to fight you for the rewards, complaining is one thing but actually coming up with a fair solution that works better for all parties is much harder than it sounds, fair is not weak alliances being artificially protected from matchmaking stronger alliances so they can earn better rewards. That’s not like real competition when the reward pool is a single pool
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,643 ★★★★★

    Speeds80 said:

    It’s not the top alliances in rating that this benefits the most, i think it’s more aimed at stopping the burnout in the low relegated high rated alliances like mine, we had wars with zero deaths last season, we were stuck in too easy tiers but only ever facing other alliances in our same situation, giant blob created by the bubble situation, no end of 30m alliances in tiers 11-13, barely ever played the same one twice the last 4 seasons

    So what you're saying is because you can't advance fighting Alliances that are Matched evenly, you want to beat lower-rated Allies so you can advance? Otherwise I fail to see how you're going to benefit from it.
    This Season will have gains for Alliances that vastly overpower their opponents, and the opponents will have to sacrifice their Season with mismatches. If you think this is going to be beneficial, wait and see what happens when the system is shocked into these Matches.
    That's about all I have left to say. Wait and see the result of the abrupt change.
    This shouldn't be hard. Once upon a time, if a group of vets started a new alliance they'd win wars against lower groups in lower tiers until they naturally got to where they should be. Under the current system you could be in silver and only face other similar alliances. Yes, if you are in a tier that is generally full of lower groups you ought to fight some of them to move on to the next tier. That's how it ought to work.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,010 ★★★★

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.
  • Options
    QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 810 ★★★★
    edited July 2020
    Wow, you need to stop looking at everything myopically through your own narrow point of view. If Kabam had created bracketed systems where 4-5k prestige alliances got X for being #1 and 5-6k prestige alliances got X+1 for being #1 that would be fine. But you have all alliances jumbled together getting the same rewards with match making skewed favorably toward lower prestige alliances that are good at war.

    I have looked at the leader boards over several seasons and at least 1/3 of each tier is taken up by smaller alliances. How do you think that makes larger alliances feel? The ones that have spent years building their roster only to see 1 year old accounts place higher in war just because they happen to be better at war than other people in their prestige range.

    You have tons of 8-10k prestige alliances sitting in Gold tiers because they keep beating up on another. On the other side, there are 4-7k prestige alliances placing in Platinum because the system will search far and wide for a match that is closest to their prestige.

    I know this because I have experience on both sides of the coin. My main alliance is about 9.7k prestige and we are in Gold 2. We are average to a little above average at war and usually finish seasons 7-5. At this point we don't really care about war because we know the system does not favor alliances like us. And there are plenty of alliances in the same situation.

    On the other hand, I created a test alliance a few seasons ago to show how broken the system is in it's current form. This alliance is about 3.1k prestige. You know where we finished last season? Gold 2 playing 1 frigging BG wars. That's because we win every war and are in tier 4. We've gotten matches against alliances more than 1k war rating apart but you know what our prestige was very close. How is that evenly remotely fair that an alliance with 1/3 the prestige gets the same rewards. Oh and we also spent zero items for any war.

    I agree with you that shelling alliances is a problem. But I highly doubt 1/3 of all alliances shell out to a lower rated one. In case anyone needs a reminder, this is what the leader board looked like at the end of season 16.


  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,643 ★★★★★

    What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.

    Yes. The best Little League team went undefeated against other little league teams and so they deserve World Series rings because they beat the opponents that they were given to face. The Yankees had to play the Red Sox a bunch of times and lost some games, so they don't deserve it. Makes sense.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    QuikPik said:

    Wow, you need to stop looking at everything myopically through your own narrow point of view. If Kabam had created bracketed systems where 4-5k prestige alliances got X for being #1 and 5-6k prestige alliances got X+1 for being #1 that would be fine. But you have all alliances jumbled together getting the same rewards with match making skewed favorably toward lower prestige alliances that are good at war.

    I have looked at the leader boards over several seasons and at least 1/3 of each tier is taken up by smaller alliances. How do you think that makes larger alliances feel? The ones that have spent years building their roster only to see 1 year old accounts place higher in war just because they happen to be better at war than other people in their prestige range.

    You have tons of 8-10k prestige alliances sitting in Gold tiers because they keep beating up on another. On the other side, there are 4-7k prestige alliances placing in Platinum because the system will search far and wide for a match that is closest to their prestige.

    I know this because I have experience on both sides of the coin. My main alliance is about 9.7k prestige and we are in Gold 2. We are average to a little above average at war and usually finish seasons 7-5. At this point we don't really care about war because we know the system does not favor alliances like us. And there are plenty of alliances in the same situation.

    On the other hand, I created a test alliance a few seasons ago to show how broken the system is in it's current form. This alliance is about 3.1k prestige. You know where we finished last season? Gold 2 playing 1 frigging BG wars. That's because we win every war and are in tier 4. We've gotten matches against alliances more than 1k war rating apart but you know what our prestige was very close. How is that evenly remotely fair that an alliance with 1/3 the prestige gets the same rewards. Oh and we also spent zero items for any war.

    I agree with you that shelling alliances is a problem. But I highly doubt 1/3 of all alliances shell out to a lower rated one. In case anyone needs a reminder, this is what the leader board looked like at the end of season 16.


    I made that suggestion. Bracketing the Rewards. I also don't have objections to War Rating only if it wasn't able to be manipulated had ALL Tiers been frozen in the off. My issue is the solution is to jolt everything by ruining the efforts of many people during the Season, and the outlook on this is it "has to happen". People are not collateral damage.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★

    What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.

    Yes. The best Little League team went undefeated against other little league teams and so they deserve World Series rings because they beat the opponents that they were given to face. The Yankees had to play the Red Sox a bunch of times and lost some games, so they don't deserve it. Makes sense.
    Little League. Hmm...because they don't have the same Rating? Are they not playing in the same Tiers with the same Nodes?
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,010 ★★★★

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    You’re disproving your own point, if they have no chance of winning whatsoever they should have no chance of obtaining the same rewards whatsoever.

    I think it’s fair that for one season some alliances will be disadvantaged because they’ve had multiple seasons with an advantage.
  • Options
    QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 810 ★★★★
    You don't realize that all of these higher prestige alliances have been collateral damage over the past 10 seasons. They've been dropping in rating even though their war performance has remained the same. What has changed? Kabam changed the match making system to prestige based and all these smaller alliances are passing them without ever having a chance to play against them.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    You’re disproving your own point, if they have no chance of winning whatsoever they should have no chance of obtaining the same rewards whatsoever.

    I think it’s fair that for one season some alliances will be disadvantaged because they’ve had multiple seasons with an advantage.
    No. That's not what I said at all.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    QuikPik said:

    You don't realize that all of these higher prestige alliances have been collateral damage over the past 10 seasons. They've been dropping in rating even though their war performance has remained the same. What has changed? Kabam changed the match making system to prestige based and all these smaller alliances are passing them without ever having a chance to play against them.

    Their War Rating is dropping because they're losing. It doesn't drop unless they do.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,010 ★★★★

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    Do you think it’s fair that an alliance who only have to heal r4 5* attackers get the same or more rewards than those having to heal r5 5* and 6* r1/2 champs? Wether the fights are more or less challenging is irrelevant, the cost overall are less.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    Do you think it’s fair that an alliance who only have to heal r4 5* attackers get the same or more rewards than those having to heal r5 5* and 6* r1/2 champs? Wether the fights are more or less challenging is irrelevant, the cost overall are less.
    So you're saying the more you pay the more you should get? Did you actually just say that as an example to what's fair?
  • Options
    QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 810 ★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    You don't realize that all of these higher prestige alliances have been collateral damage over the past 10 seasons. They've been dropping in rating even though their war performance has remained the same. What has changed? Kabam changed the match making system to prestige based and all these smaller alliances are passing them without ever having a chance to play against them.

    Their War Rating is dropping because they're losing. It doesn't drop unless they do.
    Our war rating hasn't dropped. It's the fact that 800 lesser prestige alliances have moved ahead us without us ever facing them. How is it a war when an alliance that is playing rock, paper, scissors is rated better at war than one that plays machine gun, grenade, rocket launcher?
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,010 ★★★★

    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    Do you think it’s fair that an alliance who only have to heal r4 5* attackers get the same or more rewards than those having to heal r5 5* and 6* r1/2 champs? Wether the fights are more or less challenging is irrelevant, the cost overall are less.
    So you're saying the more you pay the more you should get? Did you actually just say that as an example to what's fair?
    That’s exactly what I said, show me a real world example where it’s not true.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,010 ★★★★
    And let’s not pretend that that’s not exactly the way this game works, you could literally do no content but buy all the offers and gmc’s and still be ahead of a FTP doing all content.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    Do you think it’s fair that an alliance who only have to heal r4 5* attackers get the same or more rewards than those having to heal r5 5* and 6* r1/2 champs? Wether the fights are more or less challenging is irrelevant, the cost overall are less.
    So you're saying the more you pay the more you should get? Did you actually just say that as an example to what's fair?
    That’s exactly what I said, show me a real world example where it’s not true.
    What you're describing is a pay-to-win situation, and that has nothing to do with fairness. Just spending. It takes more Pots to heal their Champs, so they deserve better Rewards? Only if they earn them by winning with those Pots. You don't get rewarded for spending any more than anyone else. You get rewarded for winning.
  • Options
    QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 810 ★★★★
    And you shouldn't be rewarded for winning by ranking hard defenders to rank 5 over someone that is placing R4 4* on defense? Because literally that is what some of these small alliances in platinum tiers are placing for defense.

    The one mysterious war we had a few seasons ago where it all of sudden was war rating based. We matched against an alliance that was 2k less prestige but similar war rating. They couldn't clear any of our bosses. War should be based on war rating only, prestige is for AQ.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,010 ★★★★

    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    Do you think it’s fair that an alliance who only have to heal r4 5* attackers get the same or more rewards than those having to heal r5 5* and 6* r1/2 champs? Wether the fights are more or less challenging is irrelevant, the cost overall are less.
    So you're saying the more you pay the more you should get? Did you actually just say that as an example to what's fair?
    That’s exactly what I said, show me a real world example where it’s not true.
    What you're describing is a pay-to-win situation, and that has nothing to do with fairness. Just spending. It takes more Pots to heal their Champs, so they deserve better Rewards? Only if they earn them by winning with those Pots. You don't get rewarded for spending any more than anyone else. You get rewarded for winning.
    You think the game isn’t pay to win? That’s cute.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    QuikPik said:

    And you shouldn't be rewarded for winning by ranking hard defenders to rank 5 over someone that is placing R4 4* on defense? Because literally that is what some of these small alliances in platinum tiers are placing for defense.

    The one mysterious war we had a few seasons ago where it all of sudden was war rating based. We matched against an alliance that was 2k less prestige but similar war rating. They couldn't clear any of our bosses. War should be based on war rating only, prestige is for AQ.

    You're comparing apples and oranges there. Compared to what the R5s are placing, it's less. Compared to what their opponents are placing, it's pretty much the same. I don't know how many more ways I can say it but you can't compare without looking at the perspective. The higher Ally is facing opponents proportionately equal to what they're using and the lower Alliance is doing the same. Which means it's literally the same thing with different Ranked Champs.
    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    Markjv81 said:

    TL;DR: I know what's going on and it's not in the spirit of fairness.

    Fairness is relative, I don’t think it’s fair an alliance gets master rewards facing gold 1 alliances. This will stop that.
    Fairness isn't that relative. You think it's fair for people to wait 24 hours for a Match they have no chance of winning whatsoever?
    Do you think it’s fair that an alliance who only have to heal r4 5* attackers get the same or more rewards than those having to heal r5 5* and 6* r1/2 champs? Wether the fights are more or less challenging is irrelevant, the cost overall are less.
    So you're saying the more you pay the more you should get? Did you actually just say that as an example to what's fair?
    That’s exactly what I said, show me a real world example where it’s not true.
    What you're describing is a pay-to-win situation, and that has nothing to do with fairness. Just spending. It takes more Pots to heal their Champs, so they deserve better Rewards? Only if they earn them by winning with those Pots. You don't get rewarded for spending any more than anyone else. You get rewarded for winning.
    You think the game isn’t pay to win? That’s cute.
    Not when it comes to War. You can spend and not secure a Win. You don't buy Wins unless you score enough Points with those Boosts and Pots to gain it. You don't default or deserve more because you spent more. In fact, the system is designed to award more for not having to spend, with Attack Bonus. No idea what you're on about, but using more Pots doesn't automatically give better Rewards.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,341 ★★★★★
    "They would lose if they fought against the Allies we're fighting against."
    How about if they were using what you were using to do it? Still so sure?
    Perspective.
Sign In or Register to comment.