"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.
If you don’t understand that winning wars then you are lost. If 2 forces face off against one another, 1 has a supply line and the other one doesn’t; who do you think will come out ahead...
That is totally war. There are plenty of examples where the underdog wins in war; the American Revolution, Sparta, Vietnam. If the lesser equipped smaller side can win then they get the spoils of war. Wars are never evenly matched, it's a fact of life.Sparta fights Persia, they win. Good for them, now they fight Mongolia; they win again. Now they fight Greece; they win again. Now they fight the Romans; they lose. Back down to fighting Greece. At no point should Sparta fight peasants and militia while still moving up in rankings.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good". Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter. “... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
What a surprise GW talking about wars and tiers he knows nothing about still
Punished or are they just accustomed to being overly rewarded?Perspective.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good". Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter. “... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true. No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible. As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
If you ask anyone; you will continue to play wars but you will finish 2-3 tiers higher than you usually you do for 10 seasons BUT then you will have 1 difficult season...what do you think they'd choose.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good". Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter. “... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true. No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible. As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please. Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.
Punished or are they just accustomed to being overly rewarded?Perspective. Punished means punished, as if they owe some kind of loss quota for retribution to people who are more concerned with their Wars than their own.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good". Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter. “... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true. No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible. As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please. Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time. I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
Punished or are they just accustomed to being overly rewarded?Perspective. Punished means punished, as if they owe some kind of loss quota for retribution to people who are more concerned with their Wars than their own. They don't owe anything any more than they are owed anything. What they need to do is actually compete against alliances in their own tiers. If they can't actually compete with them, well they'll realize they've been getting much easier matches than they should have been. They'll still be getting a higher multiplier than they probably should have for quite a while which will lessen the blow from any losses. Eventually they'll level out and figure out how where in progression and skill they actually fall
Punished or are they just accustomed to being overly rewarded?Perspective. Punished means punished, as if they owe some kind of loss quota for retribution to people who are more concerned with their Wars than their own. They don't owe anything any more than they are owed anything. What they need to do is actually compete against alliances in their own tiers. If they can't actually compete with them, well they'll realize they've been getting much easier matches than they should have been. They'll still be getting a higher multiplier than they probably should have for quite a while which will lessen the blow from any losses. Eventually they'll level out and figure out how where in progression and skill they actually fall A higher Multipler for all those Losses which are predetermined? Gracious. It's wrong. Period.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good". Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter. “... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true. No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible. As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please. Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time. I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong. You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Punished or are they just accustomed to being overly rewarded?Perspective. Punished means punished, as if they owe some kind of loss quota for retribution to people who are more concerned with their Wars than their own. They don't owe anything any more than they are owed anything. What they need to do is actually compete against alliances in their own tiers. If they can't actually compete with them, well they'll realize they've been getting much easier matches than they should have been. They'll still be getting a higher multiplier than they probably should have for quite a while which will lessen the blow from any losses. Eventually they'll level out and figure out how where in progression and skill they actually fall A higher Multipler for all those Losses which are predetermined? Gracious. It's wrong. Period. If they're so predetermined they weren't all that great to be in that tier to begin with.
@GroundedWisdom The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this. After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good". Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter. “... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true. No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible. As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please. Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time. I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong. You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game. Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
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?
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.
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.
