**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options

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

14041424446

Comments

  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,018 ★★★★
    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,308 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    What you are hoping for and postulating as an ideal match/war system IS the War Ratings based war system. It just takes a few wars, or at most 1-2 seasons, to balance it out and you’ve gotten your ideal system.

    Yes, alliances with too high a war rating above their equilibrium war rating will suffer for this period. Just have your alliance take it easy as war ratings equalize. Simple. (I would like to add that a 2 BG Silver alliance is already taking it relatively easy.)
  • Options
    QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 810 ★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    What you are hoping for and postulating as an ideal match/war system IS the War Ratings based war system. It just takes a few wars, or at most 1-2 seasons, to balance it out and you’ve gotten your ideal system.

    Yes, alliances with too high a war rating above their equilibrium war rating will suffer for this period. Just have your alliance take it easy as war ratings equalize. Simple. (I would like to add that a 2 BG Silver alliance is already taking it relatively easy.)
    I'm not arguing because I'm getting something out of it. I'm talking about what's fair for everyone.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★
    Honestly, it's just peeing in the wind at this point. It's evident this Season is all about appeasing the top, right down to the increase in Rewards and none for anyone lower. The concept of fairness is only valid if it pertains to the top, not everyone else.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    I don't need one. We already have it, match on war rating. Alliances got a bunch of gimme seasons with some inflated rewards, if they're so inflated they get huge mismatches, they can just do like I said and boss rush or just run itemless until they get stopped.

    They lose literally nothing that way. They'll eventually level out and can choose to push to get higher and better or tread water where they are. It's not like they're just not going to get season rewards at all even if they lose every single war, they'll still probably get higher season rewards for at least one season than where there base ends up sitting.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    I don't need one. We already have it, match on war rating. Alliances got a bunch of gimme seasons with some inflated rewards, if they're so inflated they get huge mismatches, they can just do like I said and boss rush or just run itemless until they get stopped.

    They lose literally nothing that way. They'll eventually level out and can choose to push to get higher and better or tread water where they are. It's not like they're just not going to get season rewards at all even if they lose every single war, they'll still probably get higher season rewards for at least one season than where there base ends up sitting.
    That doesn't resolve the two issues I brought up. That ignores one of them. What's more is it downplays the issue. There are people being affected by this magical balancing process that will make everything all better. That doesn't just go away.
  • Options
    KnightZeroKnightZero Posts: 1,429 ★★★★★
    Are we getting any answers about Stubborn? And whether the 3 minute AW boosts are getting changed to 5 min?
    People have been asking this for days.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,018 ★★★★
    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,656 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    The problem with your system is it's not war and it artificially handicaps lower groups that can legitimately punch above their weight or it doesn't fix the problem. If the Prestige point brackets are soft, then the lower group who is better than their peers still finishes in the bracket with higher groups without ever fighting them. If it is more of a hard cap, then they get held back by not being able to fight in the higher tiers. With war rating, that lower group that can punch above their weight at least gets the opportunity to be tested by groups with stronger teams and less skill.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,656 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
    i don't agree with @GroundedWisdom but to say that there will be no mismatches because by definition all matches will be fair is to say nothing. Of course there will be mismatches. It's unavoidable.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,308 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
    i don't agree with @GroundedWisdom but to say that there will be no mismatches because by definition all matches will be fair is to say nothing. Of course there will be mismatches. It's unavoidable.
    Agree it’s unavoidable. But over time, the mismatches will decrease drastically as alliances climb/drop to their equilibrium war ratings (and Kabam does something about shell alliances).
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    The problem with your system is it's not war and it artificially handicaps lower groups that can legitimately punch above their weight or it doesn't fix the problem. If the Prestige point brackets are soft, then the lower group who is better than their peers still finishes in the bracket with higher groups without ever fighting them. If it is more of a hard cap, then they get held back by not being able to fight in the higher tiers. With war rating, that lower group that can punch above their weight at least gets the opportunity to be tested by groups with stronger teams and less skill.
    It is War. It just means the Rewards are scaled to where they're at and what they're working with. The idea of Alliances punching past their weight is an old one. That doesn't happen given the current scoring system. Not as often as it used to. This idea that people will push ahead if they have "skill" is not acknowledging the Champs that exist today, the Nodes that exist, the difference in Challenge Ratings, the scoring process, many things that have changed since that good ol' system where people could push through if they were really skilled. Back in the days when you could take ROL out with a 2*. It's not happening these days. All we have is a system that keeps everyone subdued if they're not at the top.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,018 ★★★★

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
    i don't agree with @GroundedWisdom but to say that there will be no mismatches because by definition all matches will be fair is to say nothing. Of course there will be mismatches. It's unavoidable.
    Obviously I wasn’t clear and/or my understanding of the +/- is wrong. Yes obviously there will be mismatched in terms of prestige and overall alliance strength but if both alliances have the same war rating then you’ll get an even spread of +/- not the ridiculously obscure ones like +100/-2. +/- should now only take rating into consideration.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
    i don't agree with @GroundedWisdom but to say that there will be no mismatches because by definition all matches will be fair is to say nothing. Of course there will be mismatches. It's unavoidable.
    Agree it’s unavoidable. But over time, the mismatches will decrease drastically as alliances climb/drop to their equilibrium war ratings (and Kabam does something about shell alliances).
    Over time. So screw the lower Seasons so it can make sense to the top. That it?
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,656 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    The problem with your system is it's not war and it artificially handicaps lower groups that can legitimately punch above their weight or it doesn't fix the problem. If the Prestige point brackets are soft, then the lower group who is better than their peers still finishes in the bracket with higher groups without ever fighting them. If it is more of a hard cap, then they get held back by not being able to fight in the higher tiers. With war rating, that lower group that can punch above their weight at least gets the opportunity to be tested by groups with stronger teams and less skill.
    It is War. It just means the Rewards are scaled to where they're at and what they're working with. The idea of Alliances punching past their weight is an old one. That doesn't happen given the current scoring system. Not as often as it used to. This idea that people will push ahead if they have "skill" is not acknowledging the Champs that exist today, the Nodes that exist, the difference in Challenge Ratings, the scoring process, many things that have changed since that good ol' system where people could push through if they were really skilled. Back in the days when you could take ROL out with a 2*. It's not happening these days. All we have is a system that keeps everyone subdued if they're not at the top.
    It doesn't happen in the current system? WTF lol. The whole point of much of this discussion is that it is happening in ridiculous ways because alliances don't have to fight the groups that are actually in their current bracket. It's amazing that you could post this after being involved in this discussion.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,656 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020

    xNig said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
    i don't agree with @GroundedWisdom but to say that there will be no mismatches because by definition all matches will be fair is to say nothing. Of course there will be mismatches. It's unavoidable.
    Agree it’s unavoidable. But over time, the mismatches will decrease drastically as alliances climb/drop to their equilibrium war ratings (and Kabam does something about shell alliances).
    Over time. So screw the lower Seasons so it can make sense to the top. That it?
    No, it hasn't made sense all over the bracket from Master to Bronze. It isn't about making sense at the top, it's about correcting what has been happening in matchmaking throughout the entire range of tiers. I have fought recently in Platinum, gold, and silver as my long time alliance blew up due to the train wreck that matchmaking became and I've bounced around for the first time since I was a new player.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    The problem with your system is it's not war and it artificially handicaps lower groups that can legitimately punch above their weight or it doesn't fix the problem. If the Prestige point brackets are soft, then the lower group who is better than their peers still finishes in the bracket with higher groups without ever fighting them. If it is more of a hard cap, then they get held back by not being able to fight in the higher tiers. With war rating, that lower group that can punch above their weight at least gets the opportunity to be tested by groups with stronger teams and less skill.
    It is War. It just means the Rewards are scaled to where they're at and what they're working with. The idea of Alliances punching past their weight is an old one. That doesn't happen given the current scoring system. Not as often as it used to. This idea that people will push ahead if they have "skill" is not acknowledging the Champs that exist today, the Nodes that exist, the difference in Challenge Ratings, the scoring process, many things that have changed since that good ol' system where people could push through if they were really skilled. Back in the days when you could take ROL out with a 2*. It's not happening these days. All we have is a system that keeps everyone subdued if they're not at the top.
    It doesn't happen in the current system? WTF lol. The whole point of much of this discussion is that it is happening in ridiculous ways because alliances don't have to fight the groups that are actually in their current bracket. It's amazing that you could post this after being involved in this discussion.
    The current Bracket is made up of Points. Points that are earned based on Wins and Losses. You don't actually fight everyone in the Bracket to get there. You put up Points in the same range as them.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,656 ★★★★★

    QuikPik said:

    I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

    I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
    That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
    That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
    If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map
    You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.
    So instead of controlling scoring based on prestige, you control scoring based on prestige. Okay got it now
    Not in the same sense, no. Not in the sense that it's set in stone. Alliances still earn their Tiers and scoring the same way. You either win and get more Points, or lose and get less. Only difference is the final result is lower Alliances are not capable of ending up higher than they "should" be.
    So by not completing the map you get less points and it affects your overall score and ranking for a set of rewards. You should call the prestige brackets modifiers and give them levels like epic, master, etc... Yep I see it now, totally different from AQ
    Not the same at all, actually. In AQ, you fight the same Maps. There's no opposing Alliance, no variables other than Minis and the slight increase over the 5 days, depending. What you're guaranteed is you get Rewards whether you finish the Map or not.
    In War, you're fighting other Alliances in a live-action, two-day event that entirely depends on how the War plays out. If you want to say it's the same as AQ just because I suggested that Prestige could determine the Points threshold, that's really a stretch.
    Controlling scoring based on prestige is AQ. The only difference is deaths outside of iteming out and not finishing a path matter and the devs don't choose defenders. So yes, while not exactly like AQ, it's basically AQ 2.0 like I said earlier. Completely and utterly pointless to have
    Not when you consider the main argument is that Alliances are finishing where they aren't supposed to be. I came up with a suggestion that would solve that issue without forcing Alliances to enter Matches that overpower them beyond what they have a fair chance of winning. By all means, if you have a better solution that solves both problems I outlined, be my guest.
    The problem with your system is it's not war and it artificially handicaps lower groups that can legitimately punch above their weight or it doesn't fix the problem. If the Prestige point brackets are soft, then the lower group who is better than their peers still finishes in the bracket with higher groups without ever fighting them. If it is more of a hard cap, then they get held back by not being able to fight in the higher tiers. With war rating, that lower group that can punch above their weight at least gets the opportunity to be tested by groups with stronger teams and less skill.
    It is War. It just means the Rewards are scaled to where they're at and what they're working with. The idea of Alliances punching past their weight is an old one. That doesn't happen given the current scoring system. Not as often as it used to. This idea that people will push ahead if they have "skill" is not acknowledging the Champs that exist today, the Nodes that exist, the difference in Challenge Ratings, the scoring process, many things that have changed since that good ol' system where people could push through if they were really skilled. Back in the days when you could take ROL out with a 2*. It's not happening these days. All we have is a system that keeps everyone subdued if they're not at the top.
    It doesn't happen in the current system? WTF lol. The whole point of much of this discussion is that it is happening in ridiculous ways because alliances don't have to fight the groups that are actually in their current bracket. It's amazing that you could post this after being involved in this discussion.
    The current Bracket is made up of Points. Points that are earned based on Wins and Losses. You don't actually fight everyone in the Bracket to get there. You put up Points in the same range as them.
    You just literally said nothing. Nothing that has anything to do with the current discussion. Again, you are either being willfully obtuse or you really don't get it. Not sure which is worse lol.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,386 ★★★★★
    No. I said what the system is. The Brackets are comprised of the Points people earn relative to others. People are in Master because they put up more Points than people in Plat. Not because they beat every Alliance in Platinum on the way to get there. The Season isn't even long enough for that. It's a measurement of Points from beginning to end. It's like saying, "Player X shouldn't get the Champ from the Arena like I will because I didn't come up against them in the Arena. Boy would I beat their Champs if I did.".
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,656 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020

    No. I said what the system is. The Brackets are comprised of the Points people earn relative to others. People are in Master because they put up more Points than people in Plat. Not because they beat every Alliance in Platinum on the way to get there. The Season isn't even long enough for that. It's a measurement of Points from beginning to end. It's like saying, "Player X shouldn't get the Champ from the Arena like I will because I didn't come up against them in the Arena. Boy would I beat their Champs if I did.".

    How does that advance the conversation in any way? Is anyone ignorant that points are the current metric? Who said anything about having to beat every team in the bracket you are in? This whole discussion is about the absurdity of treating teams the same way that did face the other groups in their bracket vs. teams that never faced anyone in their bracket. We had the whole little league discussion. I think that you are not actually incapable of grasping the point, so I vote for willfully obtuse.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,308 ★★★★★

    xNig said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    Markjv81 said:

    QuikPik said:

    I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

    Mismatches In rating is what cause such low rating point loses, even rating matches will give everyone roughly +/- 48 points.
    Right in Kabam’s attempt to normalize war ratings there’s going to be a lot of mismatches. Those alliances with inflated war ratings won’t drop that fast.
    No there will be 0 mismatches as all matches are done on rating and all alliances at the same rating will be considered equal. The winner will get +48ish the looser -48ish, loosing 3-4 wars in a row will be huge.
    i don't agree with @GroundedWisdom but to say that there will be no mismatches because by definition all matches will be fair is to say nothing. Of course there will be mismatches. It's unavoidable.
    Agree it’s unavoidable. But over time, the mismatches will decrease drastically as alliances climb/drop to their equilibrium war ratings (and Kabam does something about shell alliances).
    Over time. So screw the lower Seasons so it can make sense to the top. That it?
    How will it screw the lower Seasons? You yourself said that ranks are a direct correlation to matches done within the Season.

    So win or loss, the alliances will average around 140-190k thereabouts based on their points if they are skilled enough to 100% explore the map. So contrary to your belief, the “little guy” doesn’t get screwed if they decide to 100% the map and are capable enough to do so. If they can’t, it’s either they chose not to, or don’t have the capability to do so.

    What you are mistakened about is the alliances in a certain tier who are earning a certain multiplier, which is what the current season is about, adjusting it.

    In the new system, War rating decides matchups. A lower war rating reflects a weaker warring alliance, as simple as that.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,308 ★★★★★

    No. I said what the system is. The Brackets are comprised of the Points people earn relative to others. People are in Master because they put up more Points than people in Plat. Not because they beat every Alliance in Platinum on the way to get there. The Season isn't even long enough for that. It's a measurement of Points from beginning to end. It's like saying, "Player X shouldn't get the Champ from the Arena like I will because I didn't come up against them in the Arena. Boy would I beat their Champs if I did.".

    They did NOT put up more points than alliances in Plat. They put up the same amount of points, then the multiplier causes the disparity. THIS is what the readjustment of war ratings is about; putting alliances in the correct tiers so they earn the multiplier befitting of their war capabilities, which ultimately translates to season points.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,308 ★★★★★

    No. I said what the system is. The Brackets are comprised of the Points people earn relative to others. People are in Master because they put up more Points than people in Plat. Not because they beat every Alliance in Platinum on the way to get there. The Season isn't even long enough for that. It's a measurement of Points from beginning to end. It's like saying, "Player X shouldn't get the Champ from the Arena like I will because I didn't come up against them in the Arena. Boy would I beat their Champs if I did.".

    To add to your arena comparison, the matter of fact is, you did come up against them in arena on the leaderboard, and if Player X got the champ but you didn’t, that’s because he scored higher than you.
Sign In or Register to comment.