But please enjoy silver 1, and it’s rewards, my alliance will no longer be stuck there and we will miss those rewards about as much as the revolving door after every season and soulless grind for recruiting a silver 1 30m Alliance
Now two 6* teams can compete with each other to see who is really the best without a 4* team sitting in a ranking over them without having to face them for it. I love it!
Now two 6* teams can compete with each other to see who is really the best without a 4* team sitting in a ranking over them without having to face them for it. I love it!
And IF the 4* ally manages it, wow!
Lol yeah for sure! I mean I do hear a lot of talk about “skillz”. Just nobody backing up that talk. Or acknowledging that the 6* team became a 6* team through these “skillz” lol
If you are campaigning for that broken system to be brought back by saying that all the matches were fair and that my 30m alliance belonged in silver 1 receiving 3 * shards because we couldn’t win as many matches as those 3* alliances exploiting that system And displacing us from rewards we clearly are capable of competing for. then you may as well save your breath just like we may as well save our breath in Responding to you, you continue to antagonise, you don’t bring any solution. But guess what we don’t need a solution, it’s here, all we as a community need is the Entitled 4* alliances who think they deserve gold Rewards to be ignored long enough for The system to right itself, back to the fairest system that was ever in place and clearly didn’t need replacing
I'm not campaigning for anything. Had the system stayed the way it was, I provided a way to accommodate the Rewards so that Alliances would received Rewards appropriate to what they were working with, but that was overlooked. What I want is for people to stop pretending that the complaints aren't warranted because what people are facing during their Season efforts is Matches they have no chance of winning at all. It should have been handled differently and now people are being forced into Losses just to fix the system. With encouragement no less, by a Special Event. Did I think the Matches were fair before? Absolutely. That's why I said so in this Thread. I don't really care who agrees with me or not. I know what I'm saying. As much as people think Alliances using lower Champs weren't working as hard, that's not the case. They were fighting equal strength Matches in the same Tiers with the same Nodes. I still think that, no matter what anyone's Ego says. Regardless, my real issue is what we're dealing with now, and it's disrespectful for people to keep telling others everything is as it should be. These Matches are ridiculous, so let them complain.
If you are campaigning for that broken system to be brought back by saying that all the matches were fair and that my 30m alliance belonged in silver 1 receiving 3 * shards because we couldn’t win as many matches as those 3* alliances exploiting that system And displacing us from rewards we clearly are capable of competing for. then you may as well save your breath just like we may as well save our breath in Responding to you, you continue to antagonise, you don’t bring any solution. But guess what we don’t need a solution, it’s here, all we as a community need is the Entitled 4* alliances who think they deserve gold Rewards to be ignored long enough for The system to right itself, back to the fairest system that was ever in place and clearly didn’t need replacing
I'm not campaigning for anything. Had the system stayed the way it was, I provided a way to accommodate the Rewards so that Alliances would received Rewards appropriate to what they were working with, but that was overlooked. What I want is for people to stop pretending that the complaints aren't warranted because what people are facing during their Season efforts is Matches they have no chance of winning at all. It should have been handled differently and now people are being forced into Losses just to fix the system. With encouragement no less, by a Special Event. Did I think the Matches were fair before? Absolutely. That's why I said so in this Thread. I don't really care who agrees with me or not. I know what I'm saying. As much as people think Alliances using lower Champs weren't working as hard, that's not the case. They were fighting equal strength Matches in the same Tiers with the same Nodes. I still think that, no matter what anyone's Ego says. Regardless, my real issue is what we're dealing with now, and it's disrespectful for people to keep telling others everything is as it should be. These Matches are ridiculous, so let them complain.
I don't think anyone is claiming these new matchups are fair. We all know they're next to unwinnable in many cases. I think, and I'm guessing that most people would tend to agree, that the old system was far from fair, but I'd rather not go into it again. Obviously, both sides have made up their minds and there's no changing of opinions that'll happen. But again, no one is trying to silence those who are complaining. They're not fair, and it's plain as that. But the new system is in place already and kabam are probably sticking with it.
On a side note, if you said the old system was fair, would you say the new one is unfair for lower players when the war ratings are relatively stable? Let's say if the season is over and everyone is "where they should be' according to the war rating rankings, which system do you think is better for all players, especially the non-whales who are progressing? If both systems were at a balance, or as balanced as each system could be, which do you think would be better for the game. I genuinely want to know what you think, and I apologize in advance if i sound snide or anything like that. I just want to know where your problems are with the system, whether it's this transition phase or how matchmaking is based off war rating.
You literally went on to say the old matchups were fairer. Like everyone has said we don’t agree that the current matchups are fair for the lower alliance, but they are justified after 8 seasons where they were given unjustifiable advantage at the direct detriment of any alliance with higher prestige than them
I said even Matches are fair. Yes. I did. If people can't win a fair fight, or only win some and lose some, then how can they judge others winning more fair fights? I don't get how people can't see how an even Match is fair. Whether it's pride based on the fact that their Champs are higher, or entitlement because they're used to dominating the board, or just plain bitterness because they're only winning so many of their own Matches, i don't get it. Forget the fact that the bigger guys could crush the smaller guys. That is a comparison that shouldn't have come into the situation. Look at one side fighting Opponents equal to what THEY are bringing to the table. That is fair. It's fair for the little guys and it's fair for the bigger guys. The Matches themselves were fair. I'm sorry, but no argument to the contrary is going to convince me the bigger guys are working harder because what they're working with is also stronger.
You literally went on to say the old matchups were fairer. Like everyone has said we don’t agree that the current matchups are fair for the lower alliance, but they are justified after 8 seasons where they were given unjustifiable advantage at the direct detriment of any alliance with higher prestige than them
I said even Matches are fair. Yes. I did. If people can't win a fair fight, or only win some and lose some, then how can they judge others winning more fair fights? I don't get how people can't see how an even Match is fair. Whether it's pride based on the fact that their Champs are higher, or entitlement because they're used to dominating the board, or just plain bitterness because they're only winning so many of their own Matches, i don't get it. Forget the fact that the bigger guys could crush the smaller guys. That is a comparison that shouldn't have come into the situation. Look at one side fighting Opponents equal to what THEY are bringing to the table. That is fair. It's fair for the little guys and it's fair for the bigger guys. The Matches themselves were fair. I'm sorry, but no argument to the contrary is going to convince me the bigger guys are working harder because what they're working with is also stronger.
Ok then they should be ranked higher than the even teams they beat. They shouldn’t be ranked higher than the clearly bigger teams that they didn’t. What aren’t you understanding?
Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here? We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.
Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here? We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.
It's always been about rewards. Why should a 20 mill alliance get master rewards well dying 40x a war. Well a 40 mill alliance gets plat 3 rewards dying only 5-10x. When in all reality if the 20 mil were to fight the 40 mil. The 40 mil would easily walk through the defense with 0 deaths.
Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here? We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.
Of course it's about rewards. It's about alliances getting what they deserve. A fair system that doesn't place alliances above ones they can't compete with. Am I happy about how this season will be? No, because it sucks big time for those who are going to fall hard. But am I happy about being in a lower tier than alliances who can't beat mine for the past 10 seasons? No, and it should have been corrected a long time ago. Although I do pray that your alliance gets wacked for the next 10 seasons. That sounds fair to me. I didn't hear you complaining about getting better rewards than you should have.
There is no good way to correct this. Time is the only thing that can fix this.
The issue is the war ratings are so broken from the previous failed system, that was basically ignoring war rating and tier in place of predominantly prestige based matchups, evident from the examples. War ratings have been broken, these Matchups are a result of the war ratings being so out of whack For so long. you can only focus on a few crazy results which are unfair but completely justified now that we see how broken the previous system was, and we all know they will be fixed soon. Every one of these pictures will be less likely in one war, because the losers are going to drop and the winners are going to climb. Problem Is you are trying to say my alliance which has suffered from The broken system doesn’t deserve to get the rewards we did before the broken system was put in place, and will get now it has been gone, focusing on the fix as it happens and before it’s been finished is always going to be problematic, failing to acknowledge Something was wrong which lead to this fix being needed is obtuse and close minded
8 seasons of broken system requiring 5-6 wars to fix, absolutely justifiable, please take into account those 8 seasons of brokenness before you freak out to defend a few outliers caused by the broken war ratings system
@GroundedWisdom let me ask you a qestion; you have said many tines throughout this thread that previously the matchups were fair and if the low level alliance, which placed against another low level alliance, were winning more of it's matchups then it deserved to be ranked higher than a strong level alliance that was winning say only 50% of its matches against other strong level alliances.
You say they were both fair matchups as the strong level alliance had the same nodes and all that as the low level alliance and that when it came to the defenders... well they had stronger attackers to deal with them and that made it fair.
Now seems fair to you, low level alliance vs low level alliance with appropriate attackers and defenders for that level of alliance is the same as strong alliance vs strong alliance with attacker and defenders for that level of alliance. Both are fair and whoever has a higher percentage of wins over a season of these matchups should be higher in your opinion. Correct?
However I don't think you are fully grasping what the strong level alliance actually faces and how compared to the low level alliance it actually isn't equal to what they face.
A low level alliance can have a 5* r4 Thing (sig20) as a boss (completely possible with how fast players can advance now and pick up a handful of 5* coupled with calendar or event awakening gems). Someone on the attacking side could have a 5* r3-4 stealth spidy as their top champ and have good chance of soloing that Thing boss (even without stealthy) in the 3 minute time limit.
Now compare that to what a strong alliance might face, they can come up against a 6* r2-3 thing with a high signature. There will probably be someone in the alliance with a 5* r5 stealth spidy or possibly a 6* r2 version.
The 5* r3-4 stealth vs a 5* r4 Thing (low sig) is in no way the same as 5* r5 (or 6*r2) stealth vs a 6* r2-3 Thing (hig sig) in the same time limit.
Just because the stronger alliance has stronger champs that does not mean dealing with the stronger defenders is equal to a low level alliance attacker dealing with an equally lower defender on the same exact node. Factor in sig levels, time limits and the stronger alliance has a much more difficult task ahead of them.
Your argument that these stronger alliances simply aren't winning enough compared to these lower level alliances, to which you believe have equally corresponding difficulties in opponents, and thus don't deserve to be moving up the ranks is actually insulting, inconsiderate and plain selfish.
Our prestige is 10800, we finish top-90 in AQ. Everyone in our alliance has gotten completion on Act 6. At least half of our alliance has done an AoL pass, and the rest are working on it. Yet we've been able to get into P4 one time in the last 12 months because we never match up against the P1-P4 alliances ahead of us whose prestige is 2k lower than ours. We were fighting the same 3-4 alliances every AW season, and our members got so disillusioned with AW because the matchmaking system effectively penalized us for having a high prestige.
The whinging in this thread is very entertaining. The bottom line is that those of us that have had our war rankings suppressed are now ecstatic that we get a chance to compete with the weaker alliances that have been protected and not defending their rankings against stronger alliances.
I could not care less about 8k P1 alliances getting steamrolled - I don't take any special pleasure in seeing people have to fight an unwinnable AW, but I am glad we will finally get a chance to see how our alliance truly stacks up against the rest of the competition. We didn't get the unbalanced matchup that some of the others here posted about, but we still won our first war pretty handily. The only thing that made me "happy" about that was the fact that we got extra points from our obviously weaker adversary leaving 35 defenders up. A few more wars like that and we should get a big boost in the standings - then we'll go up against balanced competition for fair rewards and everyone will be happy.
Except for the 8K alliances that were getting P1 rewards that will now be scuffling for G1. I suppose they won't be happy. But they can invest the same amount of time and resources into the game that the rest of us have, build a deep roster of 5/65 and get some 6* R3 from AoL or Act 6 and then start competing again for the rewards they've been earning at the expense of stronger alliances who were unfairly penalized by matchmaking heavily weighting prestige ratings.
Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here? We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.
The top couldn't care less whether the little guy succeeds or fails. If anything I'm sure many at the top want the game to succeed and so they want the little guy to succeed. The idea that this is about accommodating the top is absurd. Kabam can see in their data that the previous system was failing to produce legitimate results across the whole spectrum. You think the whales were up there shaking their fists trying to figure out how to screw the little guy and Kabam is playing the shill?
After one or two season small alliances will be pushed back to where they belong and there will be no more complaints as such.
That will be shorted much sooner. A couple of weeks will be enough to short things out. The 10+ seasons aw circus is finally over 🥳
Tbh for the many that are in gold 1/plat 4, it’ll be sorted probably by the 4th or 5th war. The only ones that will take forever to sort are the 8k prestige groups that got plat 1 while steam rolling plat4/3 8k prestige groups.
After one or two season small alliances will be pushed back to where they belong and there will be no more complaints as such.
That will be shorted much sooner. A couple of weeks will be enough to short things out. The 10+ seasons aw circus is finally over 🥳
Tbh for the many that are in gold 1/plat 4, it’ll be sorted probably by the 4th or 5th war. The only ones that will take forever to sort are the 8k prestige groups that got plat 1 while steam rolling plat4/3 8k prestige groups.
It won't take that long with the war ratings cut in half.
I think the fact that I could’ve got my 2nd account, that only has 3 5*s and easily gotten higher ranked rewards than my main that has over 20 6*s says everything you need about the old system.
A plat 2 alliance could all start new accounts, get 8 maxed 4*s and steamroll for several seasons and likely land plat 1 with relative ease, if they then played it smart and never opened any of the crystals they got from wars, they could keep that going for multiple seasons, then when they were done, pop all the crystals.
After one or two season small alliances will be pushed back to where they belong and there will be no more complaints as such.
That will be shorted much sooner. A couple of weeks will be enough to short things out. The 10+ seasons aw circus is finally over 🥳
Tbh for the many that are in gold 1/plat 4, it’ll be sorted probably by the 4th or 5th war. The only ones that will take forever to sort are the 8k prestige groups that got plat 1 while steam rolling plat4/3 8k prestige groups.
It won't take that long with the war ratings cut in half.
Yeah forever was the wrong word, but it’ll take them a bit longer just because they’re higher up.
If the war rating is the same, then you are competing against others for the same rewards, if you want those rewards, you’ll have to beat them. Simple.
There’s only 1 solution that could’ve removed many of the lopsided (but fair as far as war rating is concerned) matches. And that would’ve been for kabam to set everyone’s war rating to 0 and then used their prestige to give them a new starting war rating (something like prestige/10= war rating) this would’ve moved everyone back to where they theoretically should’ve been, essentially resetting the ranking, but of course not everyone cares about prestige or is at an equal skill to their prestige, so some would fall quite a bit, others would rise, but nothing would be lopsided as all your opponents would be similar in prestige, atleast for a few weeks until it starts mixing around again, and then anyone whining would truly be deluded.
I don't care that they switched back to War Rating. It's the implementation and the effects I disagree with, and that has just as much to do with the Players wanting changes now as it does the hastiness of it.
There’s only 1 solution that could’ve removed many of the lopsided (but fair as far as war rating is concerned) matches. And that would’ve been for kabam to set everyone’s war rating to 0 and then used their prestige to give them a new starting war rating (something like prestige/10= war rating) this would’ve moved everyone back to where they theoretically should’ve been, essentially resetting the ranking, but of course not everyone cares about prestige or is at an equal skill to their prestige, so some would fall quite a bit, others would rise, but nothing would be lopsided as all your opponents would be similar in prestige, atleast for a few weeks until it starts mixing around again, and then anyone whining would truly be deluded.
Are there negative points going under zero? Doing that still would place teams that are mismatched against each other until ranks are created but if there aren’t negative points then it would take longer to create ranks. By cutting everybody’s points by half, it leaves room for points to be deducted or gained. Or that’s what it seems like. I don’t know for sure.
Comments
Alliance
On a side note, if you said the old system was fair, would you say the new one is unfair for lower players when the war ratings are relatively stable? Let's say if the season is over and everyone is "where they should be' according to the war rating rankings, which system do you think is better for all players, especially the non-whales who are progressing? If both systems were at a balance, or as balanced as each system could be, which do you think would be better for the game. I genuinely want to know what you think, and I apologize in advance if i sound snide or anything like that. I just want to know where your problems are with the system, whether it's this transition phase or how matchmaking is based off war rating.
Forget the fact that the bigger guys could crush the smaller guys. That is a comparison that shouldn't have come into the situation. Look at one side fighting Opponents equal to what THEY are bringing to the table. That is fair. It's fair for the little guys and it's fair for the bigger guys. The Matches themselves were fair. I'm sorry, but no argument to the contrary is going to convince me the bigger guys are working harder because what they're working with is also stronger.
We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.
Why should a 20 mill alliance get master rewards well dying 40x a war. Well a 40 mill alliance gets plat 3 rewards dying only 5-10x.
When in all reality if the 20 mil were to fight the 40 mil. The 40 mil would easily walk through the defense with 0 deaths.
There is no good way to correct this. Time is the only thing that can fix this.
Matchups are a result of the war ratings being so out of whack For so long. you can only focus on a few crazy results which are unfair but completely justified now that we see how broken the previous system was, and we all know they will be fixed soon. Every one of these pictures will be less likely in one war, because the losers are going to drop and the winners are going to climb. Problem Is you are trying to say my alliance which has suffered from
The broken system doesn’t deserve to get the rewards we did before the broken system was put in place, and will get now it has been gone, focusing on the fix as it happens and before it’s been finished is always going to be problematic, failing to acknowledge
Something was wrong which lead to this fix being needed is obtuse and close minded
You say they were both fair matchups as the strong level alliance had the same nodes and all that as the low level alliance and that when it came to the defenders... well they had stronger attackers to deal with them and that made it fair.
Now seems fair to you, low level alliance vs low level alliance with appropriate attackers and defenders for that level of alliance is the same as strong alliance vs strong alliance with attacker and defenders for that level of alliance. Both are fair and whoever has a higher percentage of wins over a season of these matchups should be higher in your opinion. Correct?
However I don't think you are fully grasping what the strong level alliance actually faces and how compared to the low level alliance it actually isn't equal to what they face.
A low level alliance can have a 5* r4 Thing (sig20) as a boss (completely possible with how fast players can advance now and pick up a handful of 5* coupled with calendar or event awakening gems). Someone on the attacking side could have a 5* r3-4 stealth spidy as their top champ and have good chance of soloing that Thing boss (even without stealthy) in the 3 minute time limit.
Now compare that to what a strong alliance might face, they can come up against a 6* r2-3 thing with a high signature. There will probably be someone in the alliance with a 5* r5 stealth spidy or possibly a 6* r2 version.
The 5* r3-4 stealth vs a 5* r4 Thing (low sig) is in no way the same as 5* r5 (or 6*r2) stealth vs a 6* r2-3 Thing (hig sig) in the same time limit.
Just because the stronger alliance has stronger champs that does not mean dealing with the stronger defenders is equal to a low level alliance attacker dealing with an equally lower defender on the same exact node. Factor in sig levels, time limits and the stronger alliance has a much more difficult task ahead of them.
Your argument that these stronger alliances simply aren't winning enough compared to these lower level alliances, to which you believe have equally corresponding difficulties in opponents, and thus don't deserve to be moving up the ranks is actually insulting, inconsiderate and plain selfish.
The whinging in this thread is very entertaining. The bottom line is that those of us that have had our war rankings suppressed are now ecstatic that we get a chance to compete with the weaker alliances that have been protected and not defending their rankings against stronger alliances.
I could not care less about 8k P1 alliances getting steamrolled - I don't take any special pleasure in seeing people have to fight an unwinnable AW, but I am glad we will finally get a chance to see how our alliance truly stacks up against the rest of the competition. We didn't get the unbalanced matchup that some of the others here posted about, but we still won our first war pretty handily. The only thing that made me "happy" about that was the fact that we got extra points from our obviously weaker adversary leaving 35 defenders up. A few more wars like that and we should get a big boost in the standings - then we'll go up against balanced competition for fair rewards and everyone will be happy.
Except for the 8K alliances that were getting P1 rewards that will now be scuffling for G1. I suppose they won't be happy. But they can invest the same amount of time and resources into the game that the rest of us have, build a deep roster of 5/65 and get some 6* R3 from AoL or Act 6 and then start competing again for the rewards they've been earning at the expense of stronger alliances who were unfairly penalized by matchmaking heavily weighting prestige ratings.
The 10+ seasons aw circus is finally over 🥳
The only ones that will take forever to sort are the 8k prestige groups that got plat 1 while steam rolling plat4/3 8k prestige groups.
A plat 2 alliance could all start new accounts, get 8 maxed 4*s and steamroll for several seasons and likely land plat 1 with relative ease, if they then played it smart and never opened any of the crystals they got from wars, they could keep that going for multiple seasons, then when they were done, pop all the crystals.
Simple.
But it will be soon.