I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
Amazing, someone who can see both sides of this. And I do agree, a better method to start alliances out this season could have been devised, but I don't think Kabam is capable of that. Hopefully this levels out quickly, but I don't think it will. It really sucks for the alliances who benefitted from the old matchmaking system.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
No one said their time and effort is not valuable, if they cant beat an alliance with identical rating and get thrashed, they don't deserve to be there in the first place.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
No one said their time and effort is not valuable, if they cant beat an alliance with identical rating and get thrashed, they don't deserve to be there in the first place.
Just stop. We all know they're not beating an Alliance 3 and 4 times their size.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
No one said their time and effort is not valuable, if they cant beat an alliance with identical rating and get thrashed, they don't deserve to be there in the first place.
Just stop. We all know they're not beating an Alliance 3 and 4 times their size.
Meaning they don't deserve to be in that same tier as the alliance they are facing, they got there by facing low level alliances.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the more you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
They're being told it is necessary because it is necessary, and no amount of complaining about it will change that. There's no way to arbitrarily correct ratings, because there's no formula that can tell you what an alliance rating is "supposed to be." If there were, we wouldn't have to actually fight the wars. And we couldn't do this off season because the ratings only adjust correctly if everyone places the same level of effort they ordinarily do within the season. You can't force people to do that out of season, because that's literally impossible.
The blame for all of this correctly belongs to the people who advocated for broken match systems, who cried foul when they matched against a higher rated alliance and claimed it was "unfair" and the developer(s) who listened to them. All of them collectively did something a first year game theory student could have told them would eventually have problems. They were told on these very forums for years that it was causing problems. And if those problems could magically be waved away, people would be stating *how*. But no one has stated a solution that actually works, they've all been trivially easy to prove are broken. And to be honest, the problems we're experiencing now *should* be destroying the credibility of those people who got us here in the first place: I wouldn't be taking a flier on any unproven suggestion for modifying rating from anyone who thought the previous system was a good idea in the first place.
The current pain is a function of the brokenness of the old system, and the amount of time it was allowed to persist. And now that the pain has arrived, people want to blame everyone else for it. The blame for the pain rests with the people who created the situation in the first place, and that's the people who advocated for the match changes reflected in the previous system. The people who advocated for those changes and are now complaining about the problems as if it isn't their fault, I honestly have zero sympathy for. Those who didn't know any better and now have to suffer through the ratings transition I do have sympathy for, but it isn't anyone else's fault that they are paying the price for other people's stupidity.
People can advocate any position they want. But the harm currently being delivered to some alliances now isn't Kabam's fault. It is the fault of the people who advocated for the broken system. They broke it, and now they have to live with the collateral damage of being very, very wrong.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
Lol! You are clueless. I've had seasons where I faced 4 alliances the entire season. Same 4 alliances over and over. You will not win every single time like that. Defenses changed slightly, guys have a slip up. 1 mistake. Literally 1 mistake would cost you a war. Meanwhile small alliances were leapfrogging many alliances because they faced different small alliances all the time. If you can't see the difference you're just blind. You are literally unable to see more than 1 side of this. Are you 12, have you hit puberty? Because your level of maturaty and ability to reason are less than what my 7 year old has.
They are similar...that's my point. War rating is easily manipulated...to base matchmaking on this more than say, Ave member rating or prestige or tier is the complete opposite of what any logical person would suggest.
I would think that shell alliances are another problem by itself, separate from matchmaking.
Hopefully Kabam introduces something to stop that, going forward.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
They're being told it is necessary because it is necessary, and no amount of complaining about it will change that. There's no way to arbitrarily correct ratings, because there's no formula that can tell you what an alliance rating is "supposed to be." If there were, we wouldn't have to actually fight the wars. And we couldn't do this off season because the ratings only adjust correctly if everyone places the same level of effort they ordinarily do within the season. You can't force people to do that out of season, because that's literally impossible.
The blame for all of this correctly belongs to the people who advocated for broken match systems, who cried foul when they matched against a higher rated alliance and claimed it was "unfair" and the developer(s) who listened to them. All of them collectively did something a first year game theory student could have told them would eventually have problems. They were told on these very forums for years that it was causing problems. And if those problems could magically be waved away, people would be stating *how*. But no one has stated a solution that actually works, they've all been trivially easy to prove are broken. And to be honest, the problems we're experiencing now *should* be destroying the credibility of those people who got us here in the first place: I wouldn't be taking a flier on any unproven suggestion for modifying rating from anyone who thought the previous system was a good idea in the first place.
The current pain is a function of the brokenness of the old system, and the amount of time it was allowed to persist. And now that the pain has arrived, people want to blame everyone else for it. The blame for the pain rests with the people who created the situation in the first place, and that's the people who advocated for the match changes reflected in the previous system. The people who advocated for those changes and are now complaining about the problems as if it isn't their fault, I honestly have zero sympathy for. Those who didn't know any better and now have to suffer through the ratings transition I do have sympathy for, but it isn't anyone else's fault that they are paying the price for other people's stupidity.
People can advocate any position they want. But the harm currently being delivered to some alliances now isn't Kabam's fault. It is the fault of the people who advocated for the broken system. They broke it, and now they have to live with the collateral damage of being very, very wrong.
No, it's the fault of the people who created the situation that made it necessary to need something to regulate the Matches to begin with. The same people who complain that other people are getting better Rewards because of their own consequences. Nice try at pointing the finger at me. Next time you can do it with less words if you like.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
Do we receive Rewards based on our own progress, or do we receive it based on ifs?
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
What exactly is it that you want at this point mate? The system is in place. If you want people to apologize, its not going to happen. If you want the old system back, it may happen but even I don't want that at this point and I was against this decision of switching the matchmaking method that has resulted in uneven matches. At this point, it just feels like you are arguing for sympathy, which to be honest, none of the alliance that benefited from the system is going to get. As much as I hate to say it, the system is here to stay, so instead of arguing in circles as to how it should have been implemented, we are better off in thinking ways to improve this war rating based method so that all alliances have a best chance to get good matches and improve.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
What exactly is it that you want at this point mate? The system is in place. If you want people to apologize, its not going to happen. If you want the old system back, it may happen but even I don't want that at this point and I was against this decision of switching the matchmaking method that has resulted in uneven matches. At this point, it just feels like you are arguing for sympathy, which to be honest, none of the alliance that benefited from the system is going to get. As much as I hate to say it, the system is here to stay, so instead of arguing in circles as to how it should have been implemented, we are better off in thinking ways to improve this war rating based method so that all alliances have a best chance to get good matches and improve.
What I want is an acknowledgement for what these Players have had to go through just to make others happy. At the very least for people to respect the fact that they're not happy and they shouldn't have to be. It's not okay. Not at all.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
Do we receive Rewards based on our own progress, or do we receive it based on ifs?
Progression. You haven’t progressed enough to be able to beat better teams yet and you’re frustrated about it. You should find another game to play.
Hmm.....I'm pretty sure what you do on the field in War is what you get rewarded on in War. Not what you've beaten in Story, buds.
Incorrect. You play story and events to unlock stronger champs to use in war. You dislike this and fair rankings. You should find another game to play.
You might. That doesn't mean everything else in the game serves War.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
Do we receive Rewards based on our own progress, or do we receive it based on ifs?
That has nothing to do with what I said, at the end of the day No Name should have not placed masters, like these low level alliances should not get higher level rewards for fighting smaller alliances while high level players are stuck in S1/G3
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
What exactly is it that you want at this point mate? The system is in place. If you want people to apologize, its not going to happen. If you want the old system back, it may happen but even I don't want that at this point and I was against this decision of switching the matchmaking method that has resulted in uneven matches. At this point, it just feels like you are arguing for sympathy, which to be honest, none of the alliance that benefited from the system is going to get. As much as I hate to say it, the system is here to stay, so instead of arguing in circles as to how it should have been implemented, we are better off in thinking ways to improve this war rating based method so that all alliances have a best chance to get good matches and improve.
What I want is an acknowledgement for what these Players have had to go through just to make others happy. At the very least for people to respect the fact that they're not happy and they shouldn't have to be. It's not okay. Not at all.
Why? Nothing will come out of acknowledging that.People have acknowledged that these alliances are suffering but nothing can be done about it now. I think it is better to move forward.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
Do we receive Rewards based on our own progress, or do we receive it based on ifs?
That has nothing to do with what I said, at the end of the day No Name should have not placed masters, like these low level alliances should not get higher level rewards for fighting smaller alliances while high level players are stuck in S1/G3
That has everything to do with what you said. This whole bloody movement was started by the whole mentality that "If they had to fight us, they'd get slaughtered.". Well, if I had a stem, I'd be a pumpkin. People earn based on what they DO in War. The value of what they do isn't measured by what they CAN'T do IF they were against bigger Allies. People get measured by what they do.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
What exactly is it that you want at this point mate? The system is in place. If you want people to apologize, its not going to happen. If you want the old system back, it may happen but even I don't want that at this point and I was against this decision of switching the matchmaking method that has resulted in uneven matches. At this point, it just feels like you are arguing for sympathy, which to be honest, none of the alliance that benefited from the system is going to get. As much as I hate to say it, the system is here to stay, so instead of arguing in circles as to how it should have been implemented, we are better off in thinking ways to improve this war rating based method so that all alliances have a best chance to get good matches and improve.
What I want is an acknowledgement for what these Players have had to go through just to make others happy. At the very least for people to respect the fact that they're not happy and they shouldn't have to be. It's not okay. Not at all.
Why? Nothing will come out of acknowledging that.People have acknowledged that these alliances are suffering but nothing can be done about it now. I think it is better to move forward.
Right. So move forward and they face Match after Match they can't win, and nothing is done or said about it? Seem right to you?
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
Do we receive Rewards based on our own progress, or do we receive it based on ifs?
That has nothing to do with what I said, at the end of the day No Name should have not placed masters, like these low level alliances should not get higher level rewards for fighting smaller alliances while high level players are stuck in S1/G3
That has everything to do with what you said. This whole bloody movement was started by the whole mentality that "If they had to fight us, they'd get slaughtered.". Well, if I had a stem, I'd be a pumpkin. People earn based on what they DO in War. The value of what they do isn't measured by what they CAN'T do IF they were against bigger Allies. People get measured by what they do.
Well lets see what these 12 mil alliances can DO against 30mil alliances, if they cant beat them and are both in G2 and have the same war rating then the match up is fair and if they get thrashed they dont deserve to be there
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
But this is exactly how alliances felt for 10 seasons who had zero chance to move from a horrible match making system. Does that not matter to you too? This matchmaking will eventually be fair, it will take time.
Bologna. They were Matched with Alliances that were the same size. They had a chance to win their Wars.
While 30 mil alliances are stuck in S1/G3 getting low rewards while these small level alliances are getting G1 rewards without fighting these big alliacnes. So getting better rewards for low effort? I will say it again No Name got master level rewards for facing P2/P3 alliances is that fair to you? @GroundedWisdom
I said they had a chance. Meaning they had every possibility of winning. They just didn't. They didn't move up because they didn't win enough of their own Wars. You can't argue with that logic because the system is designed to move you up the morw you win. Not at all the same as making the playing field so far that there's no chance at all.
NoName would have no chance at all making masters they would get thrashed by KenOB, A S R, Ny718, Is08a, Ssx1, D69, NewN Agt-G etc, they instead got masters by facing lower level alliances which is unfair. They would have no possibility of winning if they faced those master alliances, so there just argued with your logic.
Do we receive Rewards based on our own progress, or do we receive it based on ifs?
That has nothing to do with what I said, at the end of the day No Name should have not placed masters, like these low level alliances should not get higher level rewards for fighting smaller alliances while high level players are stuck in S1/G3
That has everything to do with what you said. This whole bloody movement was started by the whole mentality that "If they had to fight us, they'd get slaughtered.". Well, if I had a stem, I'd be a pumpkin. People earn based on what they DO in War. The value of what they do isn't measured by what they CAN'T do IF they were against bigger Allies. People get measured by what they do.
Well lets see what these 12 mil alliances can DO against 30mil alliances, if they cant beat them and are both in G2 and have the same war rating then the match up is fair and if they get thrashed they dont deserve to be there
TL;DR - We know they can't win so let's watch them fail for our own enjoyment.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
What exactly is it that you want at this point mate? The system is in place. If you want people to apologize, its not going to happen. If you want the old system back, it may happen but even I don't want that at this point and I was against this decision of switching the matchmaking method that has resulted in uneven matches. At this point, it just feels like you are arguing for sympathy, which to be honest, none of the alliance that benefited from the system is going to get. As much as I hate to say it, the system is here to stay, so instead of arguing in circles as to how it should have been implemented, we are better off in thinking ways to improve this war rating based method so that all alliances have a best chance to get good matches and improve.
What I want is an acknowledgement for what these Players have had to go through just to make others happy. At the very least for people to respect the fact that they're not happy and they shouldn't have to be. It's not okay. Not at all.
Why? Nothing will come out of acknowledging that.People have acknowledged that these alliances are suffering but nothing can be done about it now. I think it is better to move forward.
Right. So move forward and they face Match after Match they can't win, and nothing is done or said about it? Seem right to you?
I don't like the scenario, but Kabam has put the system in place, but, I am not sure what arguing about it is helping anyone let alone the alliances getting mauled. If acknowledgment is what you were after for those alliances, every complaint has been replied to, not in the best way, but it was acknowledged. But, when you argue the same thing over and over again, it is not helping anyone post constructive things in the thread. I know you are passionate about this, but there comes a time to let go. Pick your battles.
Comments
The blame for all of this correctly belongs to the people who advocated for broken match systems, who cried foul when they matched against a higher rated alliance and claimed it was "unfair" and the developer(s) who listened to them. All of them collectively did something a first year game theory student could have told them would eventually have problems. They were told on these very forums for years that it was causing problems. And if those problems could magically be waved away, people would be stating *how*. But no one has stated a solution that actually works, they've all been trivially easy to prove are broken. And to be honest, the problems we're experiencing now *should* be destroying the credibility of those people who got us here in the first place: I wouldn't be taking a flier on any unproven suggestion for modifying rating from anyone who thought the previous system was a good idea in the first place.
The current pain is a function of the brokenness of the old system, and the amount of time it was allowed to persist. And now that the pain has arrived, people want to blame everyone else for it. The blame for the pain rests with the people who created the situation in the first place, and that's the people who advocated for the match changes reflected in the previous system. The people who advocated for those changes and are now complaining about the problems as if it isn't their fault, I honestly have zero sympathy for. Those who didn't know any better and now have to suffer through the ratings transition I do have sympathy for, but it isn't anyone else's fault that they are paying the price for other people's stupidity.
People can advocate any position they want. But the harm currently being delivered to some alliances now isn't Kabam's fault. It is the fault of the people who advocated for the broken system. They broke it, and now they have to live with the collateral damage of being very, very wrong.
Hopefully Kabam introduces something to stop that, going forward.