Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

1515254565762

Comments

  • Speeds80Speeds80 Member Posts: 2,017 ★★★★
    edited July 2020
    The problem is the 12 year olds were stuck in grade 2, getting grade 2 rewards, trying hard To pass their 12yo exams to progress to grade 3, while the 7 year old in grade 2 with them were able to sit 7 year olds exams and if they did well they could progress to grade 9, And get grade 9 rewards, While only sitting exams made for 7 year olds, now the seven year olds are getting grade 9 exams because they’ve been in grade 9 passing with honours with their grade 2 level tests, and guess what the grade 9 exams are way harder than they realised, and now they want to stay in grade 9, even though they are only seven years old , because Grade 9 has great rewards
  • edited July 2020
    This content has been removed.
  • Speeds80Speeds80 Member Posts: 2,017 ★★★★
    We are not fighting fairness. We are fighting against unfairness, you are just looking at the 7 year olds saying but they were doing so well in grade 9, why do they have to sit grade 9 exams now
  • This content has been removed.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Member Posts: 8,672 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    Speeds80 said:

    They WERE fighting people that were actually in that Tier. Quite fairly.

    Did you miss quickpiks example, he made it to tier 6 with a 3* alliance, he wasnt fighting anyone in tier 6, they would have to pull low rated opponents from as far away as tier 9 (if I recall the numbers correctly) one bg wars reaching gold 2. I think locking ratings may work long term. But This preseason I think maybe not. i think the smart (non platinum) alliances were climbing anyway, instead Of tanking, they knew things were about to start evening out and alliances like mine who are placed way out of where we should be tried to get to a better multiplier to start the season
    So the Matches were even. Fair fights. God forbid people be measured by having an even playing field.
    Stop it. Skilled vets running 3*s vs actual 3* alliances is no more fair than the 40 million alliance beating up on the 20 million alliance.
    @LeNoirFaineant I don't do war but that really happens? I've always wondered how alliances with very low rating end up in gold 1,2 getting rewards they "shouldn't" be getting.

    I'm not 100% sure of my facts but I remember people telling that lower players should not be able to access higher reward " because it does some shizz". When low rated alliances get into good isn't that exactly what's happening?

    Iirc even non lvl60 players shouldn't have been able to get rewards from Canadian difficulty because they haven't "grinded enough" by some people and one of them is supporting the previous flawed (o don't know how they used to do but have a rough idea) system that does exactly that

    Since the system was prioritizing similar prestige lower groups would keep matching other lower groups even though they were advance well past their matchups in the tiers.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,553 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    Superflex said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .



    Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?


    I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.



    You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
    No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess.
    As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
    But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
    You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
    Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
    No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
    They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
    So it's about revenge then.
    Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.

    If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.

    You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.

    A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
    You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place."
    Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,553 ★★★★★

    Superflex said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .



    Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?


    I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.



    You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
    No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess.
    As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
    But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
    You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
    Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
    No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
    They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
    So it's about revenge then.
    Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.

    If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.

    You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.

    A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
    You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place."
    Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
    Monopoly doesn’t apply. They have stronger better champs that they worked to get. If you wanna get ahead of them in the ranks then you are gonna have to do the same thing. Stop insulting everybody for being better than you.
    Who's talking about me? I'm not in any of the Alliances in question. You just displayed why monopoly applies. "This is our territory. We earned it. We own it. How dare they come on our turf?"
  • Agent_X_zzzAgent_X_zzz Member Posts: 4,498 ★★★★★

    Superflex said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .



    Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?


    I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.



    You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
    No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess.
    As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
    But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
    You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
    Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
    No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
    They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
    So it's about revenge then.
    Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.

    If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.

    You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.

    A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
    You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place."
    Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
    The lower level alliances got their rewards by getting easy matchups with little competition and to get rewards they shouldn't have gotten, they didn't fight the 30mil+ alliances that are trapped due to flawed matchmaking and stuck in S1/G3 while these little alliances are getting G1/P4 rewards that they shouldn't be getting, they basically got a bye to get around these big alliances that would crush them, if they got them fairly then they these little alliances should have no problem beating the S1 30mil rated alliances, yet they don't meaning they don't belong where they are. I have said it many times but you won't address it, noname placed masters because they fought P2/P3 alliances for master level rewards. Is that fair to you? Getting easier matches and better rewards than they deserve?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,553 ★★★★★
    Eaj222 said:

    Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.

    Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
    They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
    It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.

    They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
    Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Agent_X_zzzAgent_X_zzz Member Posts: 4,498 ★★★★★

    Eaj222 said:

    Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.

    Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
    They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
    It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.

    They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
    Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
    You just can't simply accept the fact that what is going on is good for the game, kabam said and I quote "at the end of the season will determine where alliances belong." You need to realize this is what is right for the game.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,553 ★★★★★
    This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,553 ★★★★★

    Eaj222 said:

    Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.

    Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
    They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
    It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.

    They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
    Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
    You just can't simply accept the fact that what is going on is good for the game, kabam said and I quote "at the end of the season will determine where alliances belong." You need to realize this is what is right for the game.
    Alright. Kabam says they're going to discount half your Wars this Season for the betterment of the game. What's your reaction?
  • Eaj222Eaj222 Member Posts: 32

    Eaj222 said:

    Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.

    Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
    They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
    It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.

    They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
    Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
    I'm confused... How is the element of attack being removed? The "problem" for many is that the element of defense is exponentially increasing in difficulty. That's the complaint right? I mean, that's what any good alliance intends to do to win. I mean, I don't stress over what nodes to drop each specific chosen defender on because I'm hoping for a fair fight.
  • -sixate--sixate- Member Posts: 1,532 ★★★★★
    QuikPik said:

    For those that are arguing about skill; I've seen first hand the skill level difference between a higher prestige and a lower prestige alliance. I've seen a lesser skilled alliance lose their R4 Colossus to an R4 AA on a nothing node. Colossus on auto-fight can almost beat that AA. People losing their R4 CG to Iceman; that is literally a match completely in CG's favor unless you can't avoid his sp1 or sp2 but oh wait that may be due to something I can't place my finger on it. Other trash champs that are taking out R4 attackers in section 1; Rocket, DPX, Electro, CAIW, YJ. If all of these smaller alliances claim to be skilled they would be able to beat these R4 not particularly hard defenders in section 1.

    I realize a higher prestige alliance is going to place tougher defenders but most of the diversity trash is placed in section 1.

    My guess is they are used to steam rolling R5 4* defense that is randomly thrown on the map.

    I completely agree, it is a joke. We got kills from 6* R1 Vulture and Loki on nothing nodes in the first section. We literally couldn't believe it. First 3 wars and our defense didn't get taken out 100% by alliances with higher war rating and they finished way higher than us the previous season. This whole smaller more skilled argument just needs to stop. Only people who lack skill brag about how great they are. I just let my performace do the talking.

    And another comparison. My R5 sig 200 Warlock got 11 kills on the boss node with Flow and was still standing at the end of the last war. When we face skilled alliances I'm lucky to get 1 kill out of him.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,330 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020

    Eaj222 said:

    Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.

    Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
    They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
    It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.

    They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
    Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
    You just can't simply accept the fact that what is going on is good for the game, kabam said and I quote "at the end of the season will determine where alliances belong." You need to realize this is what is right for the game.
    Alright. Kabam says they're going to discount half your Wars this Season for the betterment of the game. What's your reaction?
    How are they discounting half the wars?

    Lower alliances still have a chance of taking the boss and the majority of the points. If they can’t take down 3 lanes (arguably even just 1 lane), the minis and the boss with 10 guys, guess what, they shouldn’t be in that tier (or even 3 tiers lower) in the first place.

    It’s a fair matchup by ALL means. If they’re really as skilled as you and they themselves claim to be, show it by taking down the defenders placed with fewer deaths. If they can’t, then it’s really their problem, not Kabam’s, nor the matchmaking.

    Like you said here,

    “They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.”

    They matched their wars and played them. So play them.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,553 ★★★★★
    Eaj222 said:

    Eaj222 said:

    Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.

    Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
    They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
    It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.

    They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
    Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
    I'm confused... How is the element of attack being removed? The "problem" for many is that the element of defense is exponentially increasing in difficulty. That's the complaint right? I mean, that's what any good alliance intends to do to win. I mean, I don't stress over what nodes to drop each specific chosen defender on because I'm hoping for a fair fight.
    Removing the element of Attack because these opponents are 3 and 4 times greater in some cases. Which means it's over before they even play it.
This discussion has been closed.