@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Even after all that, they decided to create baby Allies and take people out. Which is why I have no patience left for it. One unfair turn after another, and those that aren't interested in fair play find any pigeonhole they can to screw others over. Then they complain because measures have to be taken to prevent it from happening. Fairness isn't an option apparently. Makes people not even want to play.
I think you're unwittingly answering your own problem here- the cheaters will always find their way through the system. Ideally, we don't want that to happen, and I think there are solid ways to prevent it. But prestoge is not the best way to do that. In the process, many legitimate players have had to work a lot harder to get worse rewards than players who have coasted into multiple tiers above where they belong. Everyone's playing for the same spots. They need to face the same competition to get there. I really wonder how a system that aggregates individualized war performance would fair.
It was the only way to stop it at the time, before it was frozen. I'm also sick of hearing people justify allowing cheating by saying they'll always do it. This entire situation is proof that the consequences just compile when there isn't total assurance they can't. So it's time to separate Seasons from off-season completely, for starters. Not just for Tiers 1-5. Then addressing the monopolization of the War Leaderboard by starting lower Accounts and keeping weaker Alliances down. I'm at zero tolerance at this point. I'm tired of coming up with ideas to make it fair just to have people try a new avenue. Make it ironclad and let people play fairly. That's where I'm at now.
Whoever came up with such a stupid match distribution strategy should burn in hell ... It would not be easier to create a system similar to any other sports system!?!? The way I see it now, the distribution is comparable to the fight of Khabib Nurmagomedov against a novice fighter who came to sports the first day or Manchester United plays against a yard football team ... This is a huge flaw for the Kabam and the kabam should be changed or many players will lose, the opponent must be selected according to the league in which it is composed and not of all the possible otherwise it’s nonsense ... The meaning of these leagues is now lost at all !!!!
@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Easy matches will disappear after the war ratings correct themselves. This wasn't about getting easy matches, it was about ending a system that allowed teams with 3*s from ranking higher then much higher alliances because they only faced other groups with 3*s. I agree that a bracketing system would be one way to fix the problem. To me it would make AW fell more like EQ. It would also end the possibility of higher groups (or mid-tier groups) who want to play casual war. If you want to run no items wars and war rating is the determining factor, you'll play against other groups doing the same thing, or lower skilled groups who are up and coming. Those can be fun matches for both sides. But if you only match against similar prestige groups in your bracket you kind of have to be all in or not play. I prefer this system (which is how war was for most of its existence). War rating will sort everyone to the spot their skill and teams allow. Up and coming skilled lower groups will still punch above their weight and rise above otherwise similar groups until they hit a plateau. Then they'll move up as they progress. Higher groups will do the same. It's how war was designed.
In fact, the kabams were supposed to completely nullify the prestige ratings and assign the first matches to the leagues and then to the prestige points, but they made some kind of hell for some and an easy victory for others this is not a season it's a circus !!! My union carries the second generation of the season so the opponent is several times stronger than us !!! I think that we will have to lose a couple more times until we come across an opponent worthy of us and all these defeats due to the fault of the cabs are your fault !!! My players are very angry with you and you won’t get more than one star in a game store !!!
Whoever came up with such a stupid match distribution strategy should burn in hell ... It would not be easier to create a system similar to any other sports system!?!? The way I see it now, the distribution is comparable to the fight of Khabib Nurmagomedov against a novice fighter who came to sports the first day or Manchester United plays against a yard football team ... This is a huge flaw for the Kabam and the kabam should be changed or many players will lose, the opponent must be selected according to the league in which it is composed and not of all the possible otherwise it’s nonsense ... The meaning of these leagues is now lost at all !!!!
It's just for a little while while the war ratings normalize. It's the way war always worked before prestige was added. You will compete with other alliances with a similar war rating who are fighting at a similar level. The current mismatches are only because the war ratings are skewed by the prestige system. The current system will allow you to play against other yard football teams or in the USA MLS lol until you are able to take on Manchester United. (Unless of course Manchester United decides to jump to a shell, but you can't have everything).
@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Easy matches will disappear after the war ratings correct themselves. This wasn't about getting easy matches, it was about ending a system that allowed teams with 3*s from ranking higher then much higher alliances because they only faced other groups with 3*s. I agree that a bracketing system would be one way to fix the problem. To me it would make AW fell more like EQ. It would also end the possibility of higher groups (or mid-tier groups) who want to play casual war. If you want to run no items wars and war rating is the determining factor, you'll play against other groups doing the same thing, or lower skilled groups who are up and coming. Those can be fun matches for both sides. But if you only match against similar prestige groups in your bracket you kind of have to be all in or not play. I prefer this system (which is how war was for most of its existence). War rating will sort everyone to the spot their skill and teams allow. Up and coming skilled lower groups will still punch above their weight and rise above otherwise similar groups until they hit a plateau. Then they'll move up as they progress. Higher groups will do the same. It's how war was designed.
This system that you prefer is broken and only benefits strong alliances... the way this system you like works makes it impossible for an alliance with strong players to drop below gold because silver and below is where my alliance "belongs"... so once a strong alliance drops to gold 3 they would still be safe since they aren't going to lose to the alliances in silver 3x weaker than they are... so in other words... all you need is strong players to ensure that even if you lack the skill required you still get gold?... this is the system the strong alliances want because it guarantees a successful reward for them with no success acquired... which is why a bracketing system needs to be thrown into the mix... if you have the skills required to beat alliances who are on the same level as you then you deserve to be rewarded good for it... if you can't beat an alliance on your level you don't deserve good rewards... simple as that...
Whoever came up with such a stupid match distribution strategy should burn in hell ... It would not be easier to create a system similar to any other sports system!?!? The way I see it now, the distribution is comparable to the fight of Khabib Nurmagomedov against a novice fighter who came to sports the first day or Manchester United plays against a yard football team ... This is a huge flaw for the Kabam and the kabam should be changed or many players will lose, the opponent must be selected according to the league in which it is composed and not of all the possible otherwise it’s nonsense ... The meaning of these leagues is now lost at all !!!!
You want to know why some people are getting such bad matchups?
It’s because the old matchmaking system was rewarding Coventry and Liverpool the exact same prize money’s despite Liverpool winning the premier league and Coventry winning EFL1. And I think even you can agree that isn’t right. My alliance is up against an alliance that’s 11mil rating above us, and tbh, had my alliance had more experience in tier 5 maps, we might’ve beaten them, but that’s fine, they have stronger attackers and defenders so they deserve the win and deserve to be higher than us.
@GroundedWisdom you keep saying all you have to say, and then saying more...
Yes, until someone keeps tagging me. Also, if someone is going to imply I'm contradicting myself without providing further information, I'm going to provide it myself.
i am not going to talk until someone talks to me.... how about you just don't talk?
and many people here have provided much information as to how you are wrong. yet you just keep providing the same argument that makes no sense.
just wait a season and all will be good. the issue will resolve itself. its quite simple
Whoever came up with such a stupid match distribution strategy should burn in hell ... It would not be easier to create a system similar to any other sports system!?!? The way I see it now, the distribution is comparable to the fight of Khabib Nurmagomedov against a novice fighter who came to sports the first day or Manchester United plays against a yard football team ... This is a huge flaw for the Kabam and the kabam should be changed or many players will lose, the opponent must be selected according to the league in which it is composed and not of all the possible otherwise it’s nonsense ... The meaning of these leagues is now lost at all !!!!
It's just for a little while while the war ratings normalize. It's the way war always worked before prestige was added. You will compete with other alliances with a similar war rating who are fighting at a similar level. The current mismatches are only because the war ratings are skewed by the prestige system. The current system will allow you to play against other yard football teams or in the USA MLS lol until you are able to take on Manchester United. (Unless of course Manchester United decides to jump to a shell, but you can't have everything).
Yes, but so far it turns out that we are a yard team and are suffering a devastating defeat from Manchester United and others from the Champions League ... How not fair
@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Easy matches will disappear after the war ratings correct themselves. This wasn't about getting easy matches, it was about ending a system that allowed teams with 3*s from ranking higher then much higher alliances because they only faced other groups with 3*s. I agree that a bracketing system would be one way to fix the problem. To me it would make AW fell more like EQ. It would also end the possibility of higher groups (or mid-tier groups) who want to play casual war. If you want to run no items wars and war rating is the determining factor, you'll play against other groups doing the same thing, or lower skilled groups who are up and coming. Those can be fun matches for both sides. But if you only match against similar prestige groups in your bracket you kind of have to be all in or not play. I prefer this system (which is how war was for most of its existence). War rating will sort everyone to the spot their skill and teams allow. Up and coming skilled lower groups will still punch above their weight and rise above otherwise similar groups until they hit a plateau. Then they'll move up as they progress. Higher groups will do the same. It's how war was designed.
This system that you prefer is broken and only benefits strong alliances... the way this system you like works makes it impossible for an alliance with strong players to drop below gold because silver and below is where my alliance "belongs"... so once a strong alliance drops to gold 3 they would still be safe since they aren't going to lose to the alliances in silver 3x weaker than they are... so in other words... all you need is strong players to ensure that even if you lack the skill required you still get gold?... this is the system the strong alliances want because it guarantees a successful reward for them with no success acquired... which is why a bracketing system needs to be thrown into the mix... if you have the skills required to beat alliances who are on the same level as you then you deserve to be rewarded good for it... if you can't beat an alliance on your level you don't deserve good rewards... simple as that...
By all means, request your bracketing system, but if they added one I can guarantee that landing silver as a (relatively compared to other big alliances) low skilled big alliance will get you better rewards than landing platinum in the little alliance pool. Then of course there’s the fact that if you rank high enough in the little alliance bracket you’ll get shunted up to the next bracket for an entire season, which means if you couldn’t compete, you’d have to deal with it for 12 wars.
After a few wars, you’ll find that under the current system the majority of matches will be between alliances of equal war rating, prestige and alliance rating. If you win a bunch, you’ll play against a stronger alliance that’s struggling, but youd have to overpower several of these slightly larger (because the war rating difference would likely be less than 5mil) alliances before you come across matches where the rating is 10mil different, at which point you have reached your current skill ceiling. By doing AQ and solo quests you’ll be able to push that ceiling up and compete with the alliance you once had no chance against.
Why do I keep seeing these stupid arguments about rankings being only about skill? Rankings are about the strongest teams in order. They require strong champs and skill. The ones who I hear cry about it the most are the ones who aren’t skilled enough to beat the teams in their tier. Which proves you jumped a lot of deserving teams that were skilled and bigger but had to face harder teams than you.
I like how people disagree with the idea of a bracketing system... most likely they are the high rated low skilled players...
We used to have a bracket system for AQ, it was actually kinda irritating as if some new guy screwed your AQ week up you’d have to play the next AQ week for much weaker rewards.
@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Easy matches will disappear after the war ratings correct themselves. This wasn't about getting easy matches, it was about ending a system that allowed teams with 3*s from ranking higher then much higher alliances because they only faced other groups with 3*s. I agree that a bracketing system would be one way to fix the problem. To me it would make AW fell more like EQ. It would also end the possibility of higher groups (or mid-tier groups) who want to play casual war. If you want to run no items wars and war rating is the determining factor, you'll play against other groups doing the same thing, or lower skilled groups who are up and coming. Those can be fun matches for both sides. But if you only match against similar prestige groups in your bracket you kind of have to be all in or not play. I prefer this system (which is how war was for most of its existence). War rating will sort everyone to the spot their skill and teams allow. Up and coming skilled lower groups will still punch above their weight and rise above otherwise similar groups until they hit a plateau. Then they'll move up as they progress. Higher groups will do the same. It's how war was designed.
This system that you prefer is broken and only benefits strong alliances... the way this system you like works makes it impossible for an alliance with strong players to drop below gold because silver and below is where my alliance "belongs"... so once a strong alliance drops to gold 3 they would still be safe since they aren't going to lose to the alliances in silver 3x weaker than they are... so in other words... all you need is strong players to ensure that even if you lack the skill required you still get gold?... this is the system the strong alliances want because it guarantees a successful reward for them with no success acquired... which is why a bracketing system needs to be thrown into the mix... if you have the skills required to beat alliances who are on the same level as you then you deserve to be rewarded good for it... if you can't beat an alliance on your level you don't deserve good rewards... simple as that...
By all means, request your bracketing system, but if they added one I can guarantee that landing silver as a (relatively compared to other big alliances) low skilled big alliance will get you better rewards than landing platinum in the little alliance pool. Then of course there’s the fact that if you rank high enough in the little alliance bracket you’ll get shunted up to the next bracket for an entire season, which means if you couldn’t compete, you’d have to deal with it for 12 wars.
Nah... platinum rewards for a lower tier should be better than silver for a higher tier... once again we're talking about rewarding alliances for being able to win against someone on their level... you apparently can't comprehend the fact that giving trash rewards to low tier brackets is equal to screwing over anyone in a lower rated alliance just because they dont have a bunch of maxed out 5 and 6 star champs... I'm saying if you are in a 20mil alliance and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil
Why do I keep seeing these stupid arguments about rankings being only about skill? Rankings are about the strongest teams in order. They require strong champs and skill. The ones who I hear cry about it the most are the ones who aren’t skilled enough to beat the teams in their tier. Which proves you jumped a lot of deserving teams that were skilled and bigger but had to face harder teams than you.
every war we won was against alliances at the same level as us... not 3x weaker than us... so what part of that was a lack of skill?
Whoever came up with such a stupid match distribution strategy should burn in hell ... It would not be easier to create a system similar to any other sports system!?!? The way I see it now, the distribution is comparable to the fight of Khabib Nurmagomedov against a novice fighter who came to sports the first day or Manchester United plays against a yard football team ... This is a huge flaw for the Kabam and the kabam should be changed or many players will lose, the opponent must be selected according to the league in which it is composed and not of all the possible otherwise it’s nonsense ... The meaning of these leagues is now lost at all !!!!
It's just for a little while while the war ratings normalize. It's the way war always worked before prestige was added. You will compete with other alliances with a similar war rating who are fighting at a similar level. The current mismatches are only because the war ratings are skewed by the prestige system. The current system will allow you to play against other yard football teams or in the USA MLS lol until you are able to take on Manchester United. (Unless of course Manchester United decides to jump to a shell, but you can't have everything).
Yes, but so far it turns out that we are a yard team and are suffering a devastating defeat from Manchester United and others from the Champions League ... How not fair
But your yard team was earning the exact same prize money for playing yard teams as Manchester United were earning for playing champions league teams just last season, that is also massively unfair.
that was weird... it merged my 2 posts... anywho... that should have said if you are in a 20mil ally and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil ally you don't deserve to be rewarded as good as a 10mil ally who CAN beat a 9.5 - 10.5 mil ally...
@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Easy matches will disappear after the war ratings correct themselves. This wasn't about getting easy matches, it was about ending a system that allowed teams with 3*s from ranking higher then much higher alliances because they only faced other groups with 3*s. I agree that a bracketing system would be one way to fix the problem. To me it would make AW fell more like EQ. It would also end the possibility of higher groups (or mid-tier groups) who want to play casual war. If you want to run no items wars and war rating is the determining factor, you'll play against other groups doing the same thing, or lower skilled groups who are up and coming. Those can be fun matches for both sides. But if you only match against similar prestige groups in your bracket you kind of have to be all in or not play. I prefer this system (which is how war was for most of its existence). War rating will sort everyone to the spot their skill and teams allow. Up and coming skilled lower groups will still punch above their weight and rise above otherwise similar groups until they hit a plateau. Then they'll move up as they progress. Higher groups will do the same. It's how war was designed.
This system that you prefer is broken and only benefits strong alliances... the way this system you like works makes it impossible for an alliance with strong players to drop below gold because silver and below is where my alliance "belongs"... so once a strong alliance drops to gold 3 they would still be safe since they aren't going to lose to the alliances in silver 3x weaker than they are... so in other words... all you need is strong players to ensure that even if you lack the skill required you still get gold?... this is the system the strong alliances want because it guarantees a successful reward for them with no success acquired... which is why a bracketing system needs to be thrown into the mix... if you have the skills required to beat alliances who are on the same level as you then you deserve to be rewarded good for it... if you can't beat an alliance on your level you don't deserve good rewards... simple as that...
By all means, request your bracketing system, but if they added one I can guarantee that landing silver as a (relatively compared to other big alliances) low skilled big alliance will get you better rewards than landing platinum in the little alliance pool. Then of course there’s the fact that if you rank high enough in the little alliance bracket you’ll get shunted up to the next bracket for an entire season, which means if you couldn’t compete, you’d have to deal with it for 12 wars.
Nah... platinum rewards for a lower tier should be better than silver for a higher tier... once again we're talking about rewarding alliances for being able to win against someone on their level... you apparently can't comprehend the fact that giving trash rewards to low tier brackets is equal to screwing over anyone in a lower rated alliance just because they dont have a bunch of maxed out 5 and 6 star champs... I'm saying if you are in a 20mil alliance and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil
Let’s not talk about who can’t comprehend what when you’re so blinded by the rewards you were ‘earning’ that you can’t see the flaws of the old system. I’m in a 30mil alliance, I’m currently facing a 41mil alliance and I still consider this to be a better system than the old one so don’t act like we all only like this system because we are all getting easy matches.
@xNig did you see that you aren't skilled? @Skitard said so so it must be true lol.
I'm not talking about @xNig in general... I'm talking about alliances who were strong but couldn't win... so they cried and got their easy matches... also... at no point did I cry about anything... i simply said it's B.S. that kabam doesn't have a bracketing system... alliances that can go 2 full seasons without losing very many wars should be placed in gold... but with slightly lower rewards than higher tier brackets... but you must've bypassed reading that part... no surprise since you also accused me of saying that xNig lacked skill... however since I don't know xNig it's possible that he does lack skill... but again... i dunno...
Easy matches will disappear after the war ratings correct themselves. This wasn't about getting easy matches, it was about ending a system that allowed teams with 3*s from ranking higher then much higher alliances because they only faced other groups with 3*s. I agree that a bracketing system would be one way to fix the problem. To me it would make AW fell more like EQ. It would also end the possibility of higher groups (or mid-tier groups) who want to play casual war. If you want to run no items wars and war rating is the determining factor, you'll play against other groups doing the same thing, or lower skilled groups who are up and coming. Those can be fun matches for both sides. But if you only match against similar prestige groups in your bracket you kind of have to be all in or not play. I prefer this system (which is how war was for most of its existence). War rating will sort everyone to the spot their skill and teams allow. Up and coming skilled lower groups will still punch above their weight and rise above otherwise similar groups until they hit a plateau. Then they'll move up as they progress. Higher groups will do the same. It's how war was designed.
This system that you prefer is broken and only benefits strong alliances... the way this system you like works makes it impossible for an alliance with strong players to drop below gold because silver and below is where my alliance "belongs"... so once a strong alliance drops to gold 3 they would still be safe since they aren't going to lose to the alliances in silver 3x weaker than they are... so in other words... all you need is strong players to ensure that even if you lack the skill required you still get gold?... this is the system the strong alliances want because it guarantees a successful reward for them with no success acquired... which is why a bracketing system needs to be thrown into the mix... if you have the skills required to beat alliances who are on the same level as you then you deserve to be rewarded good for it... if you can't beat an alliance on your level you don't deserve good rewards... simple as that...
By all means, request your bracketing system, but if they added one I can guarantee that landing silver as a (relatively compared to other big alliances) low skilled big alliance will get you better rewards than landing platinum in the little alliance pool. Then of course there’s the fact that if you rank high enough in the little alliance bracket you’ll get shunted up to the next bracket for an entire season, which means if you couldn’t compete, you’d have to deal with it for 12 wars.
Nah... platinum rewards for a lower tier should be better than silver for a higher tier... once again we're talking about rewarding alliances for being able to win against someone on their level... you apparently can't comprehend the fact that giving trash rewards to low tier brackets is equal to screwing over anyone in a lower rated alliance just because they dont have a bunch of maxed out 5 and 6 star champs... I'm saying if you are in a 20mil alliance and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil
Why do I keep seeing these stupid arguments about rankings being only about skill? Rankings are about the strongest teams in order. They require strong champs and skill. The ones who I hear cry about it the most are the ones who aren’t skilled enough to beat the teams in their tier. Which proves you jumped a lot of deserving teams that were skilled and bigger but had to face harder teams than you.
every war we won was against alliances at the same level as us... not 3x weaker than us... so what part of that was a lack of skill?
It’s not lack of skill. It’s lack of strength. You think a team that’s stronger than you can’t beat those same teams??? Exactly how do you think they built those rosters?? And what’s the purpose in playing if just using 2s and 3s gets you big rewards. Where’s the incentive to gain stronger champs if they don’t matter because you think a 4 star team beating up another 4 star team is harder than a 6 team beating a 6 team? I mean what??? You better hope they don’t go back to the old system because if you start pulling 6s it’s back to bronze with ya. How do you not realize how stupid that sounds??
I could argue it's lack of skill as well because if people can't win Matches against Allies the same strength as them, then they can't speak for other Allies that are. People are tired that they're not getting better Rewards from winning only half their own Matches. Do better.
that was weird... it merged my 2 posts... anywho... that should have said if you are in a 20mil ally and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil ally you don't deserve to be rewarded as good as a 10mil ally who CAN beat a 9.5 - 10.5 mil ally...
The fact that you believe a 10mil ally facing another 10mil ally faces the same type of challenge that a 20mil ally facing another 20mil ally shows you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Factor in higher champ levels, higher sig level, higher health pools coupled with the same nodes and time limits and you'll see the 20mil ally has a greater challenge.
Given similar skill levels a 5* r3/4 attacker facing a low sig 5* r4 or unduped 6*r1 defender is not equal to a 5* r4/5 high sig 5* r5 or 6* r2/3.
Also it's not that these 20mil allys can't beat them, often it's very close and comes down to 1 or 2 attack bonus for either side with can be caused by so many factors and not just lack of skill.
Here’s some facts. If you wanna be in 12th place then you’re gonna have to compete with the team in 12th place now. No more sissy fights between 1000th place and 1020th place to decide 18th place because their teams are equal. Compete against the teams that deserve those spots and stop spamming this nonsensical, entitled, crybaby trash on here.
that was weird... it merged my 2 posts... anywho... that should have said if you are in a 20mil ally and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil ally you don't deserve to be rewarded as good as a 10mil ally who CAN beat a 9.5 - 10.5 mil ally...
The fact that you believe a 10mil ally facing another 10mil ally faces the same type of challenge that a 20mil ally facing another 20mil ally shows you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Factor in higher champ levels, higher sig level, higher health pools coupled with the same nodes and time limits and you'll see the 20mil ally has a greater challenge.
Given similar skill levels a 5* r3/4 attacker facing a low sig 5* r4 or unduped 6*r1 defender is not equal to a 5* r4/5 high sig 5* r5 or 6* r2/3.
Also it's not that these 20mil allys can't beat them, often it's very close and comes down to 1 or 2 attack bonus for either side with can be caused by so many factors and not just lack of skill.
Did you forget to factor in the higher Levels they're using for fire power as well, or are you just comparing what someone else is working with to the larger Champs?
that was weird... it merged my 2 posts... anywho... that should have said if you are in a 20mil ally and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil ally you don't deserve to be rewarded as good as a 10mil ally who CAN beat a 9.5 - 10.5 mil ally...
The fact that you believe a 10mil ally facing another 10mil ally faces the same type of challenge that a 20mil ally facing another 20mil ally shows you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Factor in higher champ levels, higher sig level, higher health pools coupled with the same nodes and time limits and you'll see the 20mil ally has a greater challenge.
Given similar skill levels a 5* r3/4 attacker facing a low sig 5* r4 or unduped 6*r1 defender is not equal to a 5* r4/5 high sig 5* r5 or 6* r2/3.
Also it's not that these 20mil allys can't beat them, often it's very close and comes down to 1 or 2 attack bonus for either side with can be caused by so many factors and not just lack of skill.
Did you forget to factor in the higher Levels they're using for fire power as well, or are you just comparing what someone else is working with to the larger Champs?
Umm did you not see that included in the third paragraph or are you just choosing what to read again?
that was weird... it merged my 2 posts... anywho... that should have said if you are in a 20mil ally and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil ally you don't deserve to be rewarded as good as a 10mil ally who CAN beat a 9.5 - 10.5 mil ally...
The fact that you believe a 10mil ally facing another 10mil ally faces the same type of challenge that a 20mil ally facing another 20mil ally shows you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Factor in higher champ levels, higher sig level, higher health pools coupled with the same nodes and time limits and you'll see the 20mil ally has a greater challenge.
Given similar skill levels a 5* r3/4 attacker facing a low sig 5* r4 or unduped 6*r1 defender is not equal to a 5* r4/5 high sig 5* r5 or 6* r2/3.
Also it's not that these 20mil allys can't beat them, often it's very close and comes down to 1 or 2 attack bonus for either side with can be caused by so many factors and not just lack of skill.
Did you forget to factor in the higher Levels they're using for fire power as well, or are you just comparing what someone else is working with to the larger Champs?
Umm did you not see that included in the third paragraph or are you just choosing what to read again?
that was weird... it merged my 2 posts... anywho... that should have said if you are in a 20mil ally and can't beat a 19.5mil - 20.5mil ally you don't deserve to be rewarded as good as a 10mil ally who CAN beat a 9.5 - 10.5 mil ally...
The fact that you believe a 10mil ally facing another 10mil ally faces the same type of challenge that a 20mil ally facing another 20mil ally shows you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Factor in higher champ levels, higher sig level, higher health pools coupled with the same nodes and time limits and you'll see the 20mil ally has a greater challenge.
Given similar skill levels a 5* r3/4 attacker facing a low sig 5* r4 or unduped 6*r1 defender is not equal to a 5* r4/5 high sig 5* r5 or 6* r2/3.
Also it's not that these 20mil allys can't beat them, often it's very close and comes down to 1 or 2 attack bonus for either side with can be caused by so many factors and not just lack of skill.
Did you forget to factor in the higher Levels they're using for fire power as well, or are you just comparing what someone else is working with to the larger Champs?
That’s what makes them a stronger team!!! Stop arguing that you deserve to rank above teams that beat you.
Comments
It’s because the old matchmaking system was rewarding Coventry and Liverpool the exact same prize money’s despite Liverpool winning the premier league and Coventry winning EFL1.
And I think even you can agree that isn’t right.
My alliance is up against an alliance that’s 11mil rating above us, and tbh, had my alliance had more experience in tier 5 maps, we might’ve beaten them, but that’s fine, they have stronger attackers and defenders so they deserve the win and deserve to be higher than us.
how about you just don't talk?
and many people here have provided much information as to how you are wrong.
yet you just keep providing the same argument that makes no sense.
just wait a season and all will be good.
the issue will resolve itself.
its quite simple
After a few wars, you’ll find that under the current system the majority of matches will be between alliances of equal war rating, prestige and alliance rating. If you win a bunch, you’ll play against a stronger alliance that’s struggling, but youd have to overpower several of these slightly larger (because the war rating difference would likely be less than 5mil) alliances before you come across matches where the rating is 10mil different, at which point you have reached your current skill ceiling.
By doing AQ and solo quests you’ll be able to push that ceiling up and compete with the alliance you once had no chance against.
I’m in a 30mil alliance, I’m currently facing a 41mil alliance and I still consider this to be a better system than the old one so don’t act like we all only like this system because we are all getting easy matches.
Nowadays people seem to think complaining can get them their way.
Factor in higher champ levels, higher sig level, higher health pools coupled with the same nodes and time limits and you'll see the 20mil ally has a greater challenge.
Given similar skill levels a 5* r3/4 attacker facing a low sig 5* r4 or unduped 6*r1 defender is not equal to a 5* r4/5 high sig 5* r5 or 6* r2/3.
Also it's not that these 20mil allys can't beat them, often it's very close and comes down to 1 or 2 attack bonus for either side with can be caused by so many factors and not just lack of skill.