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

Markjv81

GroundedWisdom said:

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:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom 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.

This is true if you don’t understand the system as you clearly don’t. Watch lagacys videos from last season, from memory he only lost 3 AB across the entire season because he spent up big on boosts and potions, where as someone like me who doesn’t spend on boosts and potions died more than he did. The system actually encourages pots and boost usage to lessen the chance of dying.

GroundedWisdom

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

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:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom 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.

This is true if you don’t understand the system as you clearly don’t. Watch lagacys videos from last season, from memory he only lost 3 AB across the entire season because he spent up big on boosts and potions, where as someone like me who doesn’t spend on boosts and potions died more than he did. The system actually encourages pots and boost usage to lessen the chance of dying.

The system doesn't "encourage" it. You increase your chances of it. Regardless, using Boosts and Pots is a choice, not a guarantee you're going to win, and it certainly doesn't mean you deserve more Rewards because you did. You earn Rewards.

QuikPik

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...

Markjv81

GroundedWisdom said:

"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.

That’s irrelevant, they haven’t earned the right progressionally or monetarily to have that level of champ.

GroundedWisdom

QuikPik said:

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...

You're arguing that people who are more stocked will win against people who are less stocked. That's common sense. The fact that they should be allowed to beyond what one side is literally capable of doing is the problem. That is not War. That is ambush. A War takes place between two sides that actually have a chance of winning based on performance. When one side has NO possible chance of winning no matter how they perform, that's the problem. That's exactly what is being set in motion.

QuikPik

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.

xNig

@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

QuikPik said:

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.

You're comparing ACTUAL War with a game. We're not storming the beaches of Normandy. We're playing a game. One that's supposed to be in the spirit of fairness.

GroundedWisdom

xNig said:

@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".

Markjv81

People have the option to not participate if they feel so strongly against it, either way the desired result is still achieved.

xNig

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

@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.

GroundedWisdom

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

@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.

GroundedWisdom

As for Tanking, nothing was done for Tiers 6 and below, besides reducing the amount they can gain or lose. Meanwhile, Tiers 1-5 are frozen. So Tiers 1-5 are protected, and not only that, have license to jump around and take Allies out below them with their own Allies safely frozen.

Markjv81

Punished or are they just accustomed to being overly rewarded?
Perspective.

Worknprogress

What a surprise GW talking about wars and tiers he knows nothing about still

GroundedWisdom

Worknprogress said:

What a surprise GW talking about wars and tiers he knows nothing about still

Mhmm. Kay.

GroundedWisdom

Markjv81 said:

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.

QuikPik

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.

Worknprogress

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

@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.

GroundedWisdom

QuikPik said:

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.

A difficult Season is downplaying it. I don't care how you spin it. Setting people up to fail just to balance the system is not right. Downright immoral, actually. I don't even fault the game team. They're giving the Top what they want. The problem with that is they're shafting everyone else in the process.

GroundedWisdom

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

@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.

Worknprogress

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

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

Worknprogress

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

@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

GroundedWisdom

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

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.

Worknprogress

I basically took an entire year off from war and even I realized that matchmaking was completely broken

Worknprogress

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

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

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

@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.

GroundedWisdom

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Worknprogress said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

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.

They were. When they were playing Matches they had a chance of winning. Such a foreign concept, I know. People fighting a fair fight.

Worknprogress

You keep saying it's equal bc their attackers are similar to the defenders they're facing but in tons of instances that's not even remotely true. You have people with R5 5* attackers when they're barely out of Act 4 these days bc of things like the glory store. They're taking those attackers up against 4* and R3 5* defenders. It's not remotely the same as people in higher tiers, not even the actual top, going up against R3 6*s.