Soon. Lol. After a whole Season or two of this mess. That's okay though, right? As long as it doesn't mess your Season.
well yeah. that's the whole point of the new system. I'm sure you benefited from it, which wasn't necessarily your fault, but just a flawed system. imagine those who were in the opposite situation and struggled because of the old systen
I didn't benefit. I don't know why people keep saying I'm trying to get some unearned outcome. I'm talking about what's fair for EVERYONE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all I can see is a great deal of hypocritical minimizing of the real issue here. People complain about what they call unfair, but as soon as it becomes unfair for someone else, well that's just correcting. The problem is it shouldn't be unfair to anyone. Otherwise it's not a solution at all.
Your "everyone" is a very small proportion of us. Just look at this thread and see how many people have explained at lenght why the new system is better, and fairer, than the old for the player base that plays it.
War is meant to be a competitive mode, not a "Everyone gets a trophy" farce. There will be winners and there will be losers.
"Why play at all?" You asked. If you think losing is unfair, then yes, you are definitely playing the wrong game mode, pal.
What they're looking for is a system they can trust that will place them in a War they actually have a chance of winning if they play skillfully and intelligently..
Congrats! They have the very system they are looking for. Now that war rating is doing what it is supposed to do, they will get fair matches as soon as the +/- does its work. It'll get better each week and then it will be balanced.
No, they don't have that very system. The entire point of this Thread is about the fact that we don't have that very system. That response is either irreverent or smug. Perhaps both.
No we definitely have that system now. You just don't like it because you're losing.
Soon. Lol. After a whole Season or two of this mess. That's okay though, right? As long as it doesn't mess your Season.
well yeah. that's the whole point of the new system. I'm sure you benefited from it, which wasn't necessarily your fault, but just a flawed system. imagine those who were in the opposite situation and struggled because of the old systen
I didn't benefit. I don't know why people keep saying I'm trying to get some unearned outcome. I'm talking about what's fair for EVERYONE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all I can see is a great deal of hypocritical minimizing of the real issue here. People complain about what they call unfair, but as soon as it becomes unfair for someone else, well that's just correcting. The problem is it shouldn't be unfair to anyone. Otherwise it's not a solution at all.
Your "everyone" is a very small proportion of us. Just look at this thread and see how many people have explained at lenght why the new system is better, and fairer, than the old for the player base that plays it.
War is meant to be a competitive mode, not a "Everyone gets a trophy" farce. There will be winners and there will be losers.
"Why play at all?" You asked. If you think losing is unfair, then yes, you are definitely playing the wrong game mode, pal.
What they're looking for is a system they can trust that will place them in a War they actually have a chance of winning if they play skillfully and intelligently..
Congrats! They have the very system they are looking for. Now that war rating is doing what it is supposed to do, they will get fair matches as soon as the +/- does its work. It'll get better each week and then it will be balanced.
No, they don't have that very system. The entire point of this Thread is about the fact that we don't have that very system. That response is either irreverent or smug. Perhaps both.
No we definitely have that system now. You just don't like it because you're losing.
Not at all. I'm an adult. If we lose, we lose. Our Match is even enough that we have a chance. That's the difference. I'm not thinking of only myself here.
Hello, i was doing act 5 chapter 3 completion and i got stuck because i am missing one cosmic gate key for the last path. And i cant find it anywhere. And i am sure that it is not in other chapters, because i checked them all. Please if u have any ideas or suggestions let me know.
I just find it disingenuous that people are willing to sacrifice the efforts of other people when their argument is it's not fair the way it was. Pretty one-sided, TBH.
Soon. Lol. After a whole Season or two of this mess. That's okay though, right? As long as it doesn't mess your Season.
well yeah. that's the whole point of the new system. I'm sure you benefited from it, which wasn't necessarily your fault, but just a flawed system. imagine those who were in the opposite situation and struggled because of the old systen
I didn't benefit. I don't know why people keep saying I'm trying to get some unearned outcome. I'm talking about what's fair for EVERYONE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all I can see is a great deal of hypocritical minimizing of the real issue here. People complain about what they call unfair, but as soon as it becomes unfair for someone else, well that's just correcting. The problem is it shouldn't be unfair to anyone. Otherwise it's not a solution at all.
Your "everyone" is a very small proportion of us. Just look at this thread and see how many people have explained at lenght why the new system is better, and fairer, than the old for the player base that plays it.
War is meant to be a competitive mode, not a "Everyone gets a trophy" farce. There will be winners and there will be losers.
"Why play at all?" You asked. If you think losing is unfair, then yes, you are definitely playing the wrong game mode, pal.
What they're looking for is a system they can trust that will place them in a War they actually have a chance of winning if they play skillfully and intelligently..
Congrats! They have the very system they are looking for. Now that war rating is doing what it is supposed to do, they will get fair matches as soon as the +/- does its work. It'll get better each week and then it will be balanced.
No, they don't have that very system. The entire point of this Thread is about the fact that we don't have that very system. That response is either irreverent or smug. Perhaps both.
No we definitely have that system now. You just don't like it because you're losing.
I think people would be less upset if the system wasn’t being balanced during season. Those low alliances are going to start off losing the first 5 or so because they’re matched with an alliance they have no shot against. My alt alliance has an average of 3k pi, went against an alliance with 90% defenders were 5* R4 or higher and had 9 6* r3 on attack. Only points we’ll probably get are from diversity. It’s my alt, I don’t really care, but if that example is happening often, people have a right to be upset.
Soon. Lol. After a whole Season or two of this mess. That's okay though, right? As long as it doesn't mess your Season.
well yeah. that's the whole point of the new system. I'm sure you benefited from it, which wasn't necessarily your fault, but just a flawed system. imagine those who were in the opposite situation and struggled because of the old systen
I didn't benefit. I don't know why people keep saying I'm trying to get some unearned outcome. I'm talking about what's fair for EVERYONE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all I can see is a great deal of hypocritical minimizing of the real issue here. People complain about what they call unfair, but as soon as it becomes unfair for someone else, well that's just correcting. The problem is it shouldn't be unfair to anyone. Otherwise it's not a solution at all.
Your "everyone" is a very small proportion of us. Just look at this thread and see how many people have explained at lenght why the new system is better, and fairer, than the old for the player base that plays it.
War is meant to be a competitive mode, not a "Everyone gets a trophy" farce. There will be winners and there will be losers.
"Why play at all?" You asked. If you think losing is unfair, then yes, you are definitely playing the wrong game mode, pal.
What they're looking for is a system they can trust that will place them in a War they actually have a chance of winning if they play skillfully and intelligently..
Congrats! They have the very system they are looking for. Now that war rating is doing what it is supposed to do, they will get fair matches as soon as the +/- does its work. It'll get better each week and then it will be balanced.
No, they don't have that very system. The entire point of this Thread is about the fact that we don't have that very system. That response is either irreverent or smug. Perhaps both.
No we definitely have that system now. You just don't like it because you're losing.
Not at all. I'm an adult. If we lose, we lose. Our Match is even enough that we have a chance. That's the difference. I'm not thinking of only myself here.
oh come on everyone of you is just being a sore loser here afraid of a few loses to let the +/- work out and finally let all alliances come into the right place
Every one of us? Did I not just say our Match was fair? I'm speaking up for the people who have to have their Season ruined because of this. Sore loser implies they actually have a fair shot. You know, like people who couldn't win their own wars against Allies with equal strength? No one is afraid of a few Losses. They're being placed into Wars they'll never win and being told it's all for the best. I can't say what I would say if I was actually speaking for myself because it's against the rules. If it was me going through it, my response to that sentiment wouldn't likely be on a Hallmark Card.
Due to matchmaking previously seeming to be based around alliance size and prestige you effectively had 2 ‘divisions’ of AW running parallel to each other. Big alliances only fought big alliances and small alliances fought small alliances. Now the only factor is war rating so if you’re a smaller alliance in P1 or whatever you’ve earned it.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
Just give it a couple of wars to get the true rating of an alliance down to scale and people wont complain after that
You willing to give up your own Wars for that?
Yes. I was expecting a few matches that my alliance wouldn’t win with the change but this first one isn’t one of them apparently. Not that this team is awful... they’re 10mil rating less than us, but they did manage to beat the Korg in each bg with no deaths... if they had pulled that level of competence off for all their fights they’d be fine and could’ve won... but they’ve died 80~ times elsewhere, which is more than my alliance died in total throughout the entire last season.
Soon. Lol. After a whole Season or two of this mess. That's okay though, right? As long as it doesn't mess your Season.
well yeah. that's the whole point of the new system. I'm sure you benefited from it, which wasn't necessarily your fault, but just a flawed system. imagine those who were in the opposite situation and struggled because of the old systen
I didn't benefit. I don't know why people keep saying I'm trying to get some unearned outcome. I'm talking about what's fair for EVERYONE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all I can see is a great deal of hypocritical minimizing of the real issue here. People complain about what they call unfair, but as soon as it becomes unfair for someone else, well that's just correcting. The problem is it shouldn't be unfair to anyone. Otherwise it's not a solution at all.
Your "everyone" is a very small proportion of us. Just look at this thread and see how many people have explained at lenght why the new system is better, and fairer, than the old for the player base that plays it.
War is meant to be a competitive mode, not a "Everyone gets a trophy" farce. There will be winners and there will be losers.
"Why play at all?" You asked. If you think losing is unfair, then yes, you are definitely playing the wrong game mode, pal.
What they're looking for is a system they can trust that will place them in a War they actually have a chance of winning if they play skillfully and intelligently..
Congrats! They have the very system they are looking for. Now that war rating is doing what it is supposed to do, they will get fair matches as soon as the +/- does its work. It'll get better each week and then it will be balanced.
No, they don't have that very system. The entire point of this Thread is about the fact that we don't have that very system. That response is either irreverent or smug. Perhaps both.
Yes, they do. Unsurprisingly you are wrong again. Once the war ratings normalize they will face other alliances that deserve whatever war rating they have. The entire point of this thread is that some skilled lower groups never got challenged because they only faced other similar but less skilled lower groups which allowed them to advance far beyond their means. Once things normalize they will get appropriate matches. It's amazing that you don't seem to have a grasp on the point of this thread which, btw, I thought you were quitting because you were so mad...
Just give it a couple of wars to get the true rating of an alliance down to scale and people wont complain after that
You willing to give up your own Wars for that?
Lots of alliances gave up many seasons already. Hell, lot's of alliances, including my own which I was in since before 12.0 blew up due to the previous system. If this had happened 2 seasons ago we'd still be together probably. I'm not mad, but hell yes I'd give up some wars for an equitable system.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
That's not what we have here, is it? I'm familiar with the way things used to be, before Seasons existed and people fought their way up the rungs until they plateaued. That is a natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. We have a deliberate change that is resulting in Matches that are absolutely insanely varied (6 Mil against 40 Mil? Come on.), and there's nothing natural about it. People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize. In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
Just give it a couple of wars to get the true rating of an alliance down to scale and people wont complain after that
You willing to give up your own Wars for that?
Lots of alliances gave up many seasons already. Hell, lot's of alliances, including my own which I was in since before 12.0 blew up due to the previous system. If this had happened 2 seasons ago we'd still be together probably. I'm not mad, but hell yes I'd give up some wars for an equitable system.
Wait...I thought it was because of Defense Tactics....or was it Node changes....or the last thing people give up Wars for....always something.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
That's not what we have here, is it? I'm familiar with the way things used to be, before Seasons existed and people fought their way up the rungs until they plateaued. That is a natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. We have a deliberate change that is resulting in Matches that are absolutely insanely varied (6 Mil against 40 Mil? Come on.), and there's nothing natural about it. People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize. In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
You're either trolling or you are oblivious. I don't really care which. You're simply wrong.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
That's not what we have here, is it? I'm familiar with the way things used to be, before Seasons existed and people fought their way up the rungs until they plateaued. That is a natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. We have a deliberate change that is resulting in Matches that are absolutely insanely varied (6 Mil against 40 Mil? Come on.), and there's nothing natural about it. People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize. In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
A lot more even then people dare to realize lmao. It's the little league analogy all over again. The best little league team is closer to the other little league teams even if they never lose than they are to the pro teams. The Best pro team is closer to the worst then they are to the little league team. It's very fair for them to play each other. It's not fair for them to compete for the same rewards. Willfully obtuse you are. We don't have a deliberate change, we are going back to that natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. Prestige threw it all out of whack.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
That's not what we have here, is it? I'm familiar with the way things used to be, before Seasons existed and people fought their way up the rungs until they plateaued. That is a natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. We have a deliberate change that is resulting in Matches that are absolutely insanely varied (6 Mil against 40 Mil? Come on.), and there's nothing natural about it. People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize. In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
You've completely missed the point and avoided answering anything I asked... somehow I'm not even surprised that this was the outcome.
Can you try again just answering the proposed question and what end of the scenario you believe should happen?
"Little League....Big League...." You think people are automatically better because their Champs are higher? Hate to break it to you, but the highest Champs don't make someone skilled. Matches were even. Nodes were the same. Fire power on both sides of the War were around par. Looks to me like some people with strong Champs couldn't accept batting average.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
That's not what we have here, is it? I'm familiar with the way things used to be, before Seasons existed and people fought their way up the rungs until they plateaued. That is a natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. We have a deliberate change that is resulting in Matches that are absolutely insanely varied (6 Mil against 40 Mil? Come on.), and there's nothing natural about it. People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize. In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
You've completely missed the point and avoided answering anything I asked... somehow I'm not even surprised that this was the outcome.
Can you try again just answering the proposed question and what end of the scenario you believe should happen?
Neither scenario have anything to do with what we have. Hence my response.
Soon. Lol. After a whole Season or two of this mess. That's okay though, right? As long as it doesn't mess your Season.
well yeah. that's the whole point of the new system. I'm sure you benefited from it, which wasn't necessarily your fault, but just a flawed system. imagine those who were in the opposite situation and struggled because of the old systen
I didn't benefit. I don't know why people keep saying I'm trying to get some unearned outcome. I'm talking about what's fair for EVERYONE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all I can see is a great deal of hypocritical minimizing of the real issue here. People complain about what they call unfair, but as soon as it becomes unfair for someone else, well that's just correcting. The problem is it shouldn't be unfair to anyone. Otherwise it's not a solution at all.
Your "everyone" is a very small proportion of us. Just look at this thread and see how many people have explained at lenght why the new system is better, and fairer, than the old for the player base that plays it.
War is meant to be a competitive mode, not a "Everyone gets a trophy" farce. There will be winners and there will be losers.
"Why play at all?" You asked. If you think losing is unfair, then yes, you are definitely playing the wrong game mode, pal.
What they're looking for is a system they can trust that will place them in a War they actually have a chance of winning if they play skillfully and intelligently..
Congrats! They have the very system they are looking for. Now that war rating is doing what it is supposed to do, they will get fair matches as soon as the +/- does its work. It'll get better each week and then it will be balanced.
No, they don't have that very system. The entire point of this Thread is about the fact that we don't have that very system. That response is either irreverent or smug. Perhaps both.
No we definitely have that system now. You just don't like it because you're losing.
I think people would be less upset if the system wasn’t being balanced during season. Those low alliances are going to start off losing the first 5 or so because they’re matched with an alliance they have no shot against. My alt alliance has an average of 3k pi, went against an alliance with 90% defenders were 5* R4 or higher and had 9 6* r3 on attack. Only points we’ll probably get are from diversity. It’s my alt, I don’t really care, but if that example is happening often, people have a right to be upset.
I don't disagree with you. But I'd rather they do this after an announcement and at the beginning of the season than in the middle of it. It does suck to lose. On the other side of the coin though, I've worked on my account a lot and put lots of time and money into it. I completed the abyss, act 6 which I'm halfway through exploring, and I've built a large roster of 5 and 6 defenders. Up until now I've been getting lesser rewards than somebody with a 4 star roster. And I never complained before. But they are showing up here crying and being sore losers because they don't wanna lose their rewards to anybody regardless of whether they are better or not. They don't want to earn their places. They want easy matches to win so they can "feel" like they earned their rewards.
Just give it a couple of wars to get the true rating of an alliance down to scale and people wont complain after that
You willing to give up your own Wars for that?
Lots of alliances gave up many seasons already. Hell, lot's of alliances, including my own which I was in since before 12.0 blew up due to the previous system. If this had happened 2 seasons ago we'd still be together probably. I'm not mad, but hell yes I'd give up some wars for an equitable system.
Wait...I thought it was because of Defense Tactics....or was it Node changes....or the last thing people give up Wars for....always something.
No, you thought wrong. I'm shocked that you are wrong again. We stopped pushing war because we didn't think the rewards were worth the item use necessary to maintain plat 1 or plat 2, which would have been fine with a reasonable matchmaking system. What killed the alliance was our prestige still got us matches against groups pushing for those rewards long after we dropped many tiers below them. The only recourse for lots of our players was to leave and either join a low prestige group or go back to a Plat 1 or Master group. That left our core with a revolving door every offseason and even throughout the season until the cutoff. We had very little turnover before matchmaking got screwed up. This is the sort of thing you wouldn't know about running two battlegroups in Silver.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
That's not what we have here, is it? I'm familiar with the way things used to be, before Seasons existed and people fought their way up the rungs until they plateaued. That is a natural occurrence that comes with natural progression. We have a deliberate change that is resulting in Matches that are absolutely insanely varied (6 Mil against 40 Mil? Come on.), and there's nothing natural about it. People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize. In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
You've completely missed the point and avoided answering anything I asked... somehow I'm not even surprised that this was the outcome.
Can you try again just answering the proposed question and what end of the scenario you believe should happen?
Neither scenario have anything to do with what we have. Hence my response.
Yes it doea because with the current matchmaking system eventually the war ratings will balance out to which you then couls go on a winning streak, raising your war rating and thus encountering the exact scenario I originally put out.
Please go back, read it and look at it for what it actually is, i mean even the question before the scenario is something easy enough to answer and does apply to what we have with the matchmaking being on war rating.
"Little League....Big League...." You think people are automatically better because their Champs are higher? Hate to break it to you, but the highest Champs don't make someone skilled. Matches were even. Nodes were the same. Fire power on both sides of the War were around par. Looks to me like some people with strong Champs couldn't accept batting average.
"Little League....Big League...." You think people are automatically better because their Champs are higher? Hate to break it to you, but the highest Champs don't make someone skilled. Matches were even. Nodes were the same. Fire power on both sides of the War were around par. Looks to me like some people with strong Champs couldn't accept batting average.
So you think that somebody with 6*s just magically got them without any skill. You aren’t even cavalier yet and here you are arguing that you are better with your 4s and 5s than somebody who had to complete content to get 6*s. Yet you are here crying because you can’t beat those teams. You sound so uneducated it’s actually gross.
Comments
No one is afraid of a few Losses. They're being placed into Wars they'll never win and being told it's all for the best. I can't say what I would say if I was actually speaking for myself because it's against the rules. If it was me going through it, my response to that sentiment wouldn't likely be on a Hallmark Card.
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider:
After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
I was expecting a few matches that my alliance wouldn’t win with the change but this first one isn’t one of them apparently.
Not that this team is awful... they’re 10mil rating less than us, but they did manage to beat the Korg in each bg with no deaths... if they had pulled that level of competence off for all their fights they’d be fine and could’ve won... but they’ve died 80~ times elsewhere, which is more than my alliance died in total throughout the entire last season.
People played War as it was, won Wars within the War schematic, and for all intents and purposes, played War better than others with higher Champs. Forget what they were working with. They won more of their Wars. People keep saying it was utterly broken, but I'm not that convinced that it was more broken than this. Nor would I agree that one broken situation is a resolution to another. It's really simple. Alliances that were weaker were winning their Wars, but their Champs were weaker. Not just their opponents. It was pretty much on par with the larger Alliances whose opponents were stronger, but so was the fire power they were using. It's alot more even than people dare to realize.
In summary, I know that naturally happens. Not like this. Nothing natural about it. There's a serious number of people who are being disregarded here.
Can you try again just answering the proposed question and what end of the scenario you believe should happen?
You think people are automatically better because their Champs are higher?
Hate to break it to you, but the highest Champs don't make someone skilled.
Matches were even. Nodes were the same. Fire power on both sides of the War were around par. Looks to me like some people with strong Champs couldn't accept batting average.
Please go back, read it and look at it for what it actually is, i mean even the question before the scenario is something easy enough to answer and does apply to what we have with the matchmaking being on war rating.