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?"
Right... "How dare the champ defend his title! I wanna win!"
That entirely depends on how the Champ defends their Title. If it's by pecking off guys too weak to compete, then what kind of competition is that? Besides, that Title lasts two weeks, then it's back to earning it again.
The champ doesn't defend against anybody who is not in his tier. Don't blame the champ. Blame the system for putting that small team in a tier that it can't compete in.
I did too. It worked at the time, FWIW. I didn't make anyone take that idea, and I certainly didn't make it stay this long. I wanted something to prevent the damage from people playing the system. Which it did. Once War Rating was frozen, it should have gone back, but there are also ways of doing that without shocking the system like this.
I don't know about you but when a Middle Schooler wants to beat up a First Grader and brags about it, I call it a bully.
You keep posting things like this. For the most part, people are just happy that matchmaking is being fixed. I don't see a whole lot of gloating or glee over beating smaller alliances. Our first two matches were very lopsided in our favor. We commiserated with them. The third war was more reasonable and they cleared the map. I expect the next will be much closer to even, and then probably even after that. 3-5 wars was my guess at the beginning. I'm not sure that warrants 54 pages of you being outraged for the Predicament of the Little Guy and making all kinds of fallacious arguments on their behalf.
The one good I hope comes out of all of this is that next time, when people start claiming that they "deserve" to have all of their matches be with alliances of equal prestige or alliance rating, even if war rating is identical, the rest of the player community won't be as quick to indulge them.
I put a lot of effort into trying to quash silly crystal odds conspiracy myths back in the day. Probably put hundreds of hours into analyzing live streamed crystal openings and performing statistical analysis on a wide range of crystals. But if I'm being honest, what turned the tide on those becoming marginalized was not people like me arguing against them, but rather the people who were arguing in favor of those conspiracy myths. At some point, no one wanted to be on their side.
If I'm being honest at one point I thought adding prestige to the matchmaking might be a good thing to stop people from shell jumping for easy wars against low alliances but as so often happens the cure proved worse than the disease.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
Similar to how you don’t see that the current system is more fair than the previous one.
In theory, a 6m alliance CAN win a 40m alliance. IF they can clear the opposing defenders at fewer deaths and/or equal deaths but have higher diversity. Whether in practical it’s possible or not, it’s a different story due to ability (which is once again subjective). But regardless, the “chance to win” is there, no matter you wanna see it or not.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
Similar to how you don’t see that the current system is more fair than the previous one.
In theory, a 6m alliance CAN win a 40m alliance. IF they can clear the opposing defenders at fewer deaths and/or equal deaths but have higher diversity. Whether in practical it’s possible or not, it’s a different story. But regardless, the “chance to win” is there, no matter you wanna see it or not.
Technically there's a possibility of being visited by 3 Ghosts on Christmas Eve.
I don't know about you but when a Middle Schooler wants to beat up a First Grader and brags about it, I call it a bully.
You keep posting things like this. For the most part, people are just happy that matchmaking is being fixed. I don't see a whole lot of gloating or glee over beating smaller alliances. Our first two matches were very lopsided in our favor. We commiserated with them. The third war was more reasonable and they cleared the map. I expect the next will be much closer to even, and then probably even after that. 3-5 wars was my guess at the beginning. I'm not sure that warrants 54 pages of you being outraged for the Predicament of the Little Guy and making all kinds of fallacious arguments on their behalf.
The one good I hope comes out of all of this is that next time, when people start claiming that they "deserve" to have all of their matches be with alliances of equal prestige or alliance rating, even if war rating is identical, the rest of the player community won't be as quick to indulge them.
I put a lot of effort into trying to quash silly crystal odds conspiracy myths back in the day. Probably put hundreds of hours into analyzing live streamed crystal openings and performing statistical analysis on a wide range of crystals. But if I'm being honest, what turned the tide on those becoming marginalized was not people like me arguing against them, but rather the people who were arguing in favor of those conspiracy myths. At some point, no one wanted to be on their side.
If I'm being honest at one point I thought adding prestige to the matchmaking might be a good thing to stop people from shell jumping for easy wars against low alliances but as so often happens the cure proved worse than the disease.
That's unfortunately a much trickier problem to solve. After a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that one way to address this is to replace alliance war rating with player war rating, and use some mathematical gyration to create a composite alliance war rating score. However, this seemed to be the worst possible moment to post an article describing it.
I suspect this would be enough to get the gist across for anyone interested. Pretend you're an alliance of one, and every time your alliance wins you win, and every time your alliance loses you lose. Adjust your rating as if you alone faced the other alliance. Make the alliance war rating the average of the members. If everyone has been together forever, this is indistinguishable from the current system. If everyone jumps to a shell, the shell instantly gets the same rating they had before. And if just one (or a few) people jump to a new alliance, their ratings will converge over time to the alliance they moved to.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
Similar to how you don’t see that the current system is more fair than the previous one.
In theory, a 6m alliance CAN win a 40m alliance. IF they can clear the opposing defenders at fewer deaths and/or equal deaths but have higher diversity. Whether in practical it’s possible or not, it’s a different story. But regardless, the “chance to win” is there, no matter you wanna see it or not.
Technically there's a possibility of being visited by 3 Ghosts on Christmas Eve.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
Similar to how you don’t see that the current system is more fair than the previous one.
In theory, a 6m alliance CAN win a 40m alliance. IF they can clear the opposing defenders at fewer deaths and/or equal deaths but have higher diversity. Whether in practical it’s possible or not, it’s a different story. But regardless, the “chance to win” is there, no matter you wanna see it or not.
Technically there's a possibility of being visited by 3 Ghosts on Christmas Eve.
And avoid my question entirely.
There was no question in what you commented. You're arguing on a technicality like you don't already know there's no way for the 6 Mil to beat the 40 Mil.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
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?"
Yes their argument of “we beat you so we earned this spot” holds more value than your “well it’s not fair because I can beat smaller teams than me”
Their argument isn't that they can beat smaller Teams than them. That's the argument of people who are pushing for unfair Matches.
No their argument is that those smaller teams are ranked higher than them. And that smaller team isn’t better.
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?
After going through 8-10 seasons of garbage, if I believe that it will fix matchmaking I'm thrilled.
Anybody else get the feeling kabam have just checked themselves out of forums these days, pretty sure we could get away with anything. Might start a pastime Of forum Commentary. David Attenborough voice, here we have the classic grounded wisdom forum topic, where he has a few supporters chime in early on and quickly realise they are trying to engage with people who’ve played the game a lot more than them and at higher levels than them. They quickly see sense and abandon the battle, the embattled gw though, tenacious as ever, keeps the battle going by repeating his annoying two small points over and over again, whilst ignoring the fact that he is making no sense, and that his defense of the now extinct system is as pointless as anybody actually attempting to argue with him. The battle for the last word continues though, each group somehow thinking that saying the same point that has been raised on Most of the 50+ pages of this topic, that the old system was broken, and that these few wars now, were unfortunately needed to bring matches based on skill back to the game. Not in the short term, but the long term, for everybody’s benefit .
Do people remember when gw semi retired, how short a topic this would have been over such a Short term issue. Arguing with gw = pointless, you can make the perfect argument and the perfect analogy and he will just return to an old rhetoric that somebody else has already analysed as incorrect, he just has to have the last word
I don't know about you but when a Middle Schooler wants to beat up a First Grader and brags about it, I call it a bully.
You keep posting things like this. For the most part, people are just happy that matchmaking is being fixed. I don't see a whole lot of gloating or glee over beating smaller alliances. Our first two matches were very lopsided in our favor. We commiserated with them. The third war was more reasonable and they cleared the map. I expect the next will be much closer to even, and then probably even after that. 3-5 wars was my guess at the beginning. I'm not sure that warrants 54 pages of you being outraged for the Predicament of the Little Guy and making all kinds of fallacious arguments on their behalf.
The one good I hope comes out of all of this is that next time, when people start claiming that they "deserve" to have all of their matches be with alliances of equal prestige or alliance rating, even if war rating is identical, the rest of the player community won't be as quick to indulge them.
I put a lot of effort into trying to quash silly crystal odds conspiracy myths back in the day. Probably put hundreds of hours into analyzing live streamed crystal openings and performing statistical analysis on a wide range of crystals. But if I'm being honest, what turned the tide on those becoming marginalized was not people like me arguing against them, but rather the people who were arguing in favor of those conspiracy myths. At some point, no one wanted to be on their side.
If I'm being honest at one point I thought adding prestige to the matchmaking might be a good thing to stop people from shell jumping for easy wars against low alliances but as so often happens the cure proved worse than the disease.
That's unfortunately a much trickier problem to solve. After a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that one way to address this is to replace alliance war rating with player war rating, and use some mathematical gyration to create a composite alliance war rating score. However, this seemed to be the worst possible moment to post an article describing it.
I suspect this would be enough to get the gist across for anyone interested. Pretend you're an alliance of one, and every time your alliance wins you win, and every time your alliance loses you lose. Adjust your rating as if you alone faced the other alliance. Make the alliance war rating the average of the members. If everyone has been together forever, this is indistinguishable from the current system. If everyone jumps to a shell, the shell instantly gets the same rating they had before. And if just one (or a few) people jump to a new alliance, their ratings will converge over time to the alliance they moved to.
I'm not opposed to the idea. I've seen much simpler systems though. I've seen games where a player changing alliances is locked out for the duration or a portion of the upcoming season. Largely that was due to the devs not wanting to deal with the creativity of players to get around in place systems. Yeah it's a little harsh lol but effective.
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?
Yawn.
I average one and a half groups during season (two for five wars, one for seven wars). They already discount half my wars every season. I was in tier 7 and barely made it into Silver 1, because scoring seasons doesn't account for alliances that aren't full. So you're going to have to do better than that. I already get **** rewards every season because the game has no better solution that doesn't penalize everyone else, and I'm in danger of reaching the challenger maps with no reward increase for the same reason.
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.
Act 6 opponents are 3 and 4 times greater in almost all cases. How is it over before they even play it?
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?
After going through 8-10 seasons of garbage, if I believe that it will fix matchmaking I'm thrilled.
I'd wager anyone would think it was unfair if the shoe was on their foot.
Our first three wars have been quite eye opening compared to the types of matches we'd always face. We began to prioritize aq over war after a while because we'd gotten fed up with it and instead decided the monotony of aq was worth more long term based on the effort and item use required to hit top 90. It actually seemed like the lower we fell from P4 into g1 and at one point G2 the wars became more death match in nature.
This is what we have faced so far compared to the usual 10.5k plus teams on a day to day basis previously, and how they fared.
KILL DEATH G2 7815 18 MIL 97 105 G1 9576 27 MIL 86 90 P3 9462 27 MIL 147 126
This has translated in a jump from T6 to T4.
I take it our next war we will match with an even closer team to us... But our last war we faced a so called p3 placed team. If we faced teams like that constantly, we'd never lose. It hurts knowing that those kinds of teams were all above us in previous seasons.... Because they struggled more than any p3 team should compared to the constant beatings we'd give and take in g1 vs it felt like the same handful of teams we'd face multiple times a season. And always again in off seasons.
I also know first hand how winning actually drops your ranking. Season 17 we streaked into the end and were finally going to land back in P4 winning the last 3 or so in a row as we kept going up with each win (of course a loss hit you like a hammer) . I think we were g1 Rank 3 before our last win . Last war we win again, and we drop 10 spots. That hurt bad. The anger by everyone was palpable. We pretty much discounted season 18 because when we do well we get screwed and when we don't care we land exactly in the same spot. Killed our morivarion.
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?
Yawn.
I average one and a half groups during season (two for five wars, one for seven wars). They already discount half my wars every season. I was in tier 7 and barely made it into Silver 1, because scoring seasons doesn't account for alliances that aren't full. So you're going to have to do better than that. I already get **** rewards every season because the game has no better solution that doesn't penalize everyone else, and I'm in danger of reaching the challenger maps with no reward increase for the same reason.
Wake me when someone has it worse than that.
I get that struggle. I was just making a point. I'm also pretty grateful for the most part we haven't been affected much because we run 2 BGs just shy of our third. I just think there could have been a way of going about the reintroduction that didn't end up in such varied Matches during the Season. For these people, it's like a brick wall. One Season they're fighting reasonable Matches and the next they're kicked in the junk.
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.
Yes I can, and yes I did. No one is telling customers what you claim they are being told, and anyone who thinks that is what they are being told is someone I probably can't help, and won't go out of my way to help at the expense of the rest of the game.
These people have been bringing up their issues since the change, and all people on here have been telling them is, "War Ratings are the same. All is as it should be." You're blind if you can't see that's exactly what they're being told. There's no way for them to win these Matches. That's what they keep bringing up. So their effort is expendable for what you think is for the good of the game.
The only reason anyone’s season would be ruined because of this change is because they didn’t have the experience to form a strategy to maximize points during the transition phase. If they had played the matches smart they could have done a boss rush with 3 lanes. The boss rewards the most points on the map, they would just need to organize a plan of attack.
There is also the fact that a lot of alliances who are used to clearing maps aren’t doing it now, thereby lowering their season scores also. It will balance out and alliances will quickly be facing the competition that is both challenging without being overwhelming as it should be. Then they will move around a bit in the tiers, going upon a while on a winning streak and down again once they reach their summit.
The only people’s who’s season is ruined are the quitters who refuse to try and cry instead. It sucks to be on the lower end of a match, but we’ve all been there. Back when wars first came out we faced MMXIV, there was no way we could win, but that was how it was and we enjoyed the challenge.
I am truly amazed that I keep seeing the same argument from you, it’s like you have some form of OCD to argue everything regardless of all the evidence being presented, almost like you think you’re a white knight on a crusade for fairness for the little guy.
I got news for you, we were all the little guy once, we grew up. It’s time you did as well.
Even in losses a lot of low alliances were playing with higher multipliers than they would ordinarily be able to have. Many will be getting winnable matches next war. Many more the war after that.
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?
After going through 8-10 seasons of garbage, if I believe that it will fix matchmaking I'm thrilled.
I'd wager anyone would think it was unfair if the shoe was on their foot.
It's also probably not going to be 1/2 the wars. I agree that it's less than ideal, I just don't think its the unmitigated disaster you are making it out to be. They cut the war ratings in half to shorten the duration. If I were a newer player and had been getting plat 4 rewards and I understood that I shouldn't have been I'd be good with the current 3-5 hard wars knowing I was still way better off. If I mistakenly thought I had a right to Plat 4 and permanent easier matches I'd probably think it was unfair. But I'd be wrong. We'd be wrong together.
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.
Yes I can, and yes I did. No one is telling customers what you claim they are being told, and anyone who thinks that is what they are being told is someone I probably can't help, and won't go out of my way to help at the expense of the rest of the game.
These people have been bringing up their issues since the change, and all people on here have been telling them is, "War Ratings are the same. All is as it should be." You're blind if you can't see that's exactly what they're being told. There's no way for them to win these Matches. That's what they keep bringing up. So their effort is expendable for what you think is for the good of the game.
The only reason anyone’s season would be ruined because of this change is because they didn’t have the experience to form a strategy to maximize points during the transition phase. If they had played the matches smart they could have done a boss rush with 3 lanes. The boss rewards the most points on the map, they would just need to organize a plan of attack.
There is also the fact that a lot of alliances who are used to clearing maps aren’t doing it now, thereby lowering their season scores also. It will balance out and alliances will quickly be facing the competition that is both challenging without being overwhelming as it should be. Then they will move around a bit in the tiers, going upon a while on a winning streak and down again once they reach their summit.
The only people’s who’s season is ruined are the quitters who refuse to try and cry instead. It sucks to be on the lower end of a match, but we’ve all been there. Back when wars first came out we faced MMXIV, there was no way we could win, but that was how it was and we enjoyed the challenge.
I am truly amazed that I keep seeing the same argument from you, it’s like you have some form of OCD to argue everything regardless of all the evidence being presented, almost like you think you’re a white knight on a crusade for fairness for the little guy.
I got news for you, we were all the little guy once, we grew up. It’s time you did as well.
You think I'm arguing for myself? Not at all.
No, I think you’re arguing because it’s a compulsion that you can’t resist. You may not think your doing it for yourself, but face it, you enjoy the argument and no amount of explanation on why the change happened will stop you or your desire to defend the perceived persecution. No one is bragging about beating smaller alliances, those of us who are can sympathize with them because we have been there. My alliance has even taken in lower attack teams in our first war because the maps were half full with defenders.
I’ll be glad once the competition becomes clear and when everyone is facing an appropriate opponent. That should be very soon as each war we’ve played has come closer to our strength and we are back in the tier we were in a year ago.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
Yup. I am.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
Yup. I am.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
I did answer that. Within reasonable differences. Certainly not exceeding twice the size like the 3-4 times we've seen. The Matches should have at the very least been given reasonable parameters for discrepancy. Even if that meant widening the range of War Rating to Match in the meantime. The system could have been changed with making it an easier transition when we all know the most competitive time is during the Season. A combination of both was the original suggestion I had. Frankly I'm tickled at the implication that I'm not contributing any ideas, if that's what you're getting at. I've given them every step of the way. I'm not just here crying wolf.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
Yup. I am.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
I did answer that. Within reasonable differences. Certainly not exceeding twice the size like the 3-4 times we've seen. The Matches should have at the very least been given reasonable parameters for discrepancy. Even if that meant widening the range of War Rating to Match in the meantime. The system could have been changed with making it an easier transition when we all know the most competitive time is during the Season. A combination of both was the original suggestion I had. Frankly I'm tickled at the implication that I'm not contributing any ideas, if that's what you're getting at. I've given them every step of the way. I'm not just here crying wolf.
This would have been a horrible solution. If the matches were driven by parameters other than war rating and resulted in low alliances with inflated ratings having winnable matches how would that fix the problem? If the matches were not winnable but it was just somewhat less of a mismatch who cares? Kabam cut the war rating in half to make this as quick and painless as possible. An easier transition would just prolong the bleeding. Gotta rip the bandaid off. Peeling it off slowly is far worse.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
Yup. I am.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
Frankly I'm tickled at the implication that I'm not contributing any ideas, if that's what you're getting at. I've given them every step of the way. I'm not just here crying wolf.
Are you really tickled? Was the boy that cried wolf out of ideas? This is one of the strangest statements you've ever made on the Forum lol. You have put forth ideas, and the flaws in them have been demonstrated. That hasn't stopped you from putting them forth again. Still waiting for you to answer @DNA3000's question unless you did and I missed it.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
Yup. I am.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
I did answer that. Within reasonable differences. Certainly not exceeding twice the size like the 3-4 times we've seen. The Matches should have at the very least been given reasonable parameters for discrepancy. Even if that meant widening the range of War Rating to Match in the meantime. The system could have been changed with making it an easier transition when we all know the most competitive time is during the Season. A combination of both was the original suggestion I had. Frankly I'm tickled at the implication that I'm not contributing any ideas, if that's what you're getting at. I've given them every step of the way. I'm not just here crying wolf.
This would have been a horrible solution. If the matches were driven by parameters other than war rating and resulted in low alliances with inflated ratings having winnable matches how would that fix the problem? If the matches were not winnable but it was just somewhat less of a mismatch who cares? Kabam cut the war rating in half to make this as quick and painless as possible. An easier transition would just prolong the bleeding. Gotta rip the bandaid off. Peeling it off slowly is far worse.
Cutting War Rating in half did nothing to stop these wide discrepancies from happening, which is my largest issue with the current situation. Making soft set parameters, mostly War Rating but not exceeding a certain strength variation, would have made it easier on the people who are affected by this. One side is not more important than the other, and this whole approach is hasty. For the record, it was never my intention to only use Prestige as a metric. I don't know how that became the sole deciding factor. At the time, I suggested using it in combination with War Rating to counteract the mess with Tanking and manipulating War Rating. It was an idea I threw out there. It worked, but for some reason it stayed after they decided to freeze Ratings. Which should all be frozen. That's what I've really said from the beginning. Separate the two and there's no possibility of it. In any case, somehow it stayed around. I have no idea if they had to because War Rating was a much larger mess, it was used for quicker Matches, or it was just something that didn't get switched back. I don't know because I don't make the decisions. All I know is there could have been an easier way than abruptly changing it back like this. People are getting hammered.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
You don't see how a 6 Mil Alliance has no chance to win against a 40 Mil? I mean I get that you're skeptical of skill in general, but come on....
How is this supposed to be interpreted as anything other than a jab targeted at another specific player?
That's not a jab. xNig has been very vocal about his skepticism regarding the skills of others. Lol.
Yup. I am.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
Frankly I'm tickled at the implication that I'm not contributing any ideas, if that's what you're getting at. I've given them every step of the way. I'm not just here crying wolf.
Are you really tickled? Was the boy that cried wolf out of ideas? This is one of the strangest statements you've ever made on the Forum lol. You have put forth ideas, and the flaws in them have been demonstrated. That hasn't stopped you from putting them forth again. Still waiting for you to answer @DNA3000's question unless you did and I missed it.
My ideas work just fine. You're arguing for one of them right now, Seasons. I've given a number of ideas. I'm just not the one that makes the calls.
Comments
In theory, a 6m alliance CAN win a 40m alliance. IF they can clear the opposing defenders at fewer deaths and/or equal deaths but have higher diversity. Whether in practical it’s possible or not, it’s a different story due to ability (which is once again subjective). But regardless, the “chance to win” is there, no matter you wanna see it or not.
I suspect this would be enough to get the gist across for anyone interested. Pretend you're an alliance of one, and every time your alliance wins you win, and every time your alliance loses you lose. Adjust your rating as if you alone faced the other alliance. Make the alliance war rating the average of the members. If everyone has been together forever, this is indistinguishable from the current system. If everyone jumps to a shell, the shell instantly gets the same rating they had before. And if just one (or a few) people jump to a new alliance, their ratings will converge over time to the alliance they moved to.
Of forum
Commentary.
David Attenborough voice, here we have the classic grounded wisdom forum topic, where he has a few supporters chime in early on and quickly realise they are trying to engage with people who’ve played the game a lot more than them and at higher levels than them. They quickly see sense and abandon the battle, the embattled gw though, tenacious as ever, keeps the battle going by repeating his annoying two small points over and over again, whilst ignoring the fact that he is making no sense, and that his defense of the now extinct system is as pointless as anybody actually attempting to argue with him. The battle for the last word continues though, each group somehow thinking that saying the same point that has been raised on Most of the 50+ pages of this topic, that the old system was broken, and that these few wars now, were unfortunately needed to bring matches based on skill back to the game. Not in the short term, but the long term, for everybody’s benefit .
Do people remember when gw semi retired, how short a topic this would have been over such a Short term issue.
Arguing with gw = pointless, you can make the perfect argument and the perfect analogy and he will just return to an old rhetoric that somebody else has already analysed as incorrect, he just has to have the last word
I average one and a half groups during season (two for five wars, one for seven wars). They already discount half my wars every season. I was in tier 7 and barely made it into Silver 1, because scoring seasons doesn't account for alliances that aren't full. So you're going to have to do better than that. I already get **** rewards every season because the game has no better solution that doesn't penalize everyone else, and I'm in danger of reaching the challenger maps with no reward increase for the same reason.
Wake me when someone has it worse than that.
This is what we have faced so far compared to the usual 10.5k plus teams on a day to day basis previously, and how they fared.
KILL DEATH
G2 7815 18 MIL 97 105
G1 9576 27 MIL 86 90
P3 9462 27 MIL 147 126
This has translated in a jump from T6 to T4.
I take it our next war we will match with an even closer team to us... But our last war we faced a so called p3 placed team. If we faced teams like that constantly, we'd never lose. It hurts knowing that those kinds of teams were all above us in previous seasons.... Because they struggled more than any p3 team should compared to the constant beatings we'd give and take in g1 vs it felt like the same handful of teams we'd face multiple times a season. And always again in off seasons.
I also know first hand how winning actually drops your ranking. Season 17 we streaked into the end and were finally going to land back in P4 winning the last 3 or so in a row as we kept going up with each win (of course a loss hit you like a hammer) . I think we were g1 Rank 3 before our last win . Last war we win again, and we drop 10 spots. That hurt bad. The anger by everyone was palpable. We pretty much discounted season 18 because when we do well we get screwed and when we don't care we land exactly in the same spot. Killed our morivarion.
I’ll be glad once the competition becomes clear and when everyone is facing an appropriate opponent. That should be very soon as each war we’ve played has come closer to our strength and we are back in the tier we were in a year ago.
Middle Korg. They couldn’t get past it at all.
You were talking about lower alliances being skilled? Lol
So answer my question here.
What is deemed a “fair reasonable” war? Have an absolute, objective answer, not just some “oh it’s fair because I think it’s fair” BS. Cause what you think and what I think and what others think can be very different.
If you can’t or won’t answer that, you yourself have no solution to contribute and as I said earlier, are just farming for dislikes and being self-righteous for the “little man” who you THINK you know and understand.
Frankly I'm tickled at the implication that I'm not contributing any ideas, if that's what you're getting at. I've given them every step of the way. I'm not just here crying wolf.
For the record, it was never my intention to only use Prestige as a metric. I don't know how that became the sole deciding factor. At the time, I suggested using it in combination with War Rating to counteract the mess with Tanking and manipulating War Rating. It was an idea I threw out there. It worked, but for some reason it stayed after they decided to freeze Ratings. Which should all be frozen. That's what I've really said from the beginning. Separate the two and there's no possibility of it. In any case, somehow it stayed around. I have no idea if they had to because War Rating was a much larger mess, it was used for quicker Matches, or it was just something that didn't get switched back. I don't know because I don't make the decisions. All I know is there could have been an easier way than abruptly changing it back like this. People are getting hammered.