**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But the real situation is, you are in Gold 2 category!!! Your alliance should be very fortunate / skillful. Otherwise your category is incredibly high, by considering the low alliance rating!
So I think this team matching is pretty common and understandable. An alliance with 10+ million alliance rating in Gold 2 category is the majority. I anticipate that the system failed to find an alliance with similar alliance rating for you, so they picked the closest one, which was still far higher than your alliance~
You cannot only compete against a subset of the competition but claim to place higher than alliances you never face, and your competition never faces. There must exist a shared pool of competition that links all the competitors together. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the undefeated pee wee football team gets placed as a wild card in the NFL playoffs. They did face comparable competition and they did earn their wins, but the simple fact is none of those wins are comparable to NFL wins, because there's no shared competition.
It is interesting to me how many people are still attempting to claim that the system is "obviously" unfair. I posed a hypothetical that I haven't seen anyone attempting to justify segregrated match making respond to. I'll repeat it here: .
I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."
I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
The change is not the issue. Had it been introduced in a way that wasn't affecting peoples' Seasons, there would be little to dispute. The issue is placing people in Matches they have no way of winning seriously affects their Season, and the Season is a measurement of how people perform from start to finish. Making their performance moot is not a fair measurement.
The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction. Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE? Is it the data that Quik presented, or is it because other people think they don't belong there? Both cases have been judged by using the metric Prestige as a determining factor. Which is comically ironic to me. People don't want Prestige to be used in Matchmaking, and they don't agree to limiting the Points based on Prestige Brackets, but they want final results that reflect greatest to least Prestige.
The whole opposition just deemed itself the judge of who earned what and who didn't, who worked harder, who belongs where, who deserves what, and the basis of their proof is the very thing they're countering.
Perhaps I overestimated the logic capabilities.
Way to restate your many times disproved point and not interact with his argument at all. You may as well have said "I disagree because I disagree" which probably isn't far from the truth.
They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets.
This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.