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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
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.
Wait...What? Hold on...What? First of all, at no point have I argued for Seasons as such. Seasons are a given in this discussion. But are you claiming that we have Seasons by means of your idea? Also, still waiting for you to answer @DNA3000
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
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.
Wait...What? Hold on...What? First of all, at no point have I argued for Seasons as such. Seasons are a given in this discussion. But are you claiming that we have Seasons by means of your idea? Also, still waiting for you to answer @DNA3000
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 sense some kind of entitlement here, you cannot actually tell anything from the forum account regarding the game. I entered forums almost 3 yrs after I started playing the game. I see his point, but what he wants is only possible in an ideal world. Kabam switched everything too quickly, either they did not know or did not care about the ramifications, both of which seems idiotic. I hear some people blaming mismatched alliances, which makes no sense. They played the system which was designed. What were they supposed to do? Lose matches just because they got easy matches. Most people playing the game don't care about the mechanics of matchmaking. If what they seem is fair, they go about their day. When matches become screwed, they complain in forums. If you see many people complaining, they have under 50 posts. Telling them that they were enjoying higher rewards simply is untrue because as GW said, according to them, they won their wars, and moved up. They were not looking at other alliances at all. I agree that war rating is better in the long run, even GW agrees that though I doubt he will admit it. lol. But, kabam has to sort out the kinks in the system to prevent exploitation by so called high skilled high tiered players. As far as I see, they are the ones creating shell alliances and tanking and all that nonsense. I have not seen anyone abandon engaging with GW and post creatively. If you don'e want someone to reply? stop replying to them.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
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.
What is “reasonable”? That’s subjective. Give something quantifiable.
So not exceeding twice the size? Funny. A 10m matching a 20m is fair to you? Or a 15m matching a 30m?
See what I mean by subjectivity? You need to do ALOT better for ANY of your arguments to hold any ground (pun intended).
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
I agree, freeze war rating at 1k if the alliance is a fresh one and tier at 10 off season. Alliances below tier 10 cannot improve tiers and alliances above 1k cannot improve war rating off-season. It may affect new alliances, but if we are going for a season where you decide everything is based on war rating, don't allow it to be manipulated. Taking war rating to 0 means the season has to be longer because we cannot have enough matches to find out the best alliance. It could be some metric of prestige, tier and alliance rating at the start of the season.
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
I agree, freeze war rating at 1k if the alliance is a fresh one and tier at 10 off season. Alliances below tier 10 cannot improve tiers and alliances above 1k cannot improve war rating off-season. It may affect new alliances, but if we are going for a season where you decide everything is based on war rating, don't allow it to be manipulated. Taking war rating to 0 means the season has to be longer because we cannot have enough matches to find out the best alliance. It could be some metric of prestige, tier and alliance rating at the start of the season.
The one thing that really didn't make sense to me is Tiers 1-5 were frozen, but not the rest. Which means they can still be affected. I know for a fact Tanking still happens below. Came across them ourselves. I think an allowance of 0-200 for starting Alliances might be a good range for starting an Ally off-season. Freeze the rest. That's my view.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
"Making the top happy" at this point in the conversation is dishonest. This has zero to do with making the top happy. I've been on the wrong side of mismatches every bit as lopsided as the current ones. Again, you have failed to interact with my argument at all. A longer period of losing in which a win actually prolongs it more isn't kinder than a short blood bath. Longer is more demotivating. I was half joking when I said your MO is to say what you think without actually engaging the argument but that is what you are doing. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
"Making the top happy" at this point in the conversation is dishonest. This has zero to do with making the top happy. I've been on the wrong side of mismatches every bit as lopsided as the current ones. Again, you have failed to interact with my argument at all. A longer period of losing in which a win actually prolongs it more isn't kinder than a short blood bath. Longer is more demotivating. I was half joking when I said your MO is to say what you think without actually engaging the argument but that is what you are doing. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
I'm not going be baited into more disagreements, sorry.
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
And in your magical world, resetting all to 0 will ensure that matchups don’t become “unfair”?
Guess what? A 40m alliance is now set at 0 war ratings, so is a 5m alliance.
Sometimes your suggestions really don’t make sense. (Seriously)
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
How will it be for nothing. in a war or two everyone war rating will be doing its job. Resetting to zero and using prestige for a time will be horrible. RIP the high prestige alliance and retirement alliances that want to run no items wars. Big boost for the skilled lower prestige groups. This is a terrible idea.
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.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
How will it be for nothing. in a war or two everyone war rating will be doing its job. Resetting to zero and using prestige for a time will be horrible. RIP the high prestige alliance and retirement alliances that want to run no items wars. Big boost for the skilled lower prestige groups. This is a terrible idea.
It's for nothing if they don't stop the cause of needing to use it in the first place, for ALL Players. Not just Tier 1-5.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
"Making the top happy" at this point in the conversation is dishonest. This has zero to do with making the top happy. I've been on the wrong side of mismatches every bit as lopsided as the current ones. Again, you have failed to interact with my argument at all. A longer period of losing in which a win actually prolongs it more isn't kinder than a short blood bath. Longer is more demotivating. I was half joking when I said your MO is to say what you think without actually engaging the argument but that is what you are doing. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
I'm not going be baited into more disagreements, sorry.
You twice didn't answer my point yet you disagreed with me. No baiting required. What you mean is you won't engage in an actual discussion you can't win, you will just make your same point for the 1000th time. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
"Making the top happy" at this point in the conversation is dishonest. This has zero to do with making the top happy. I've been on the wrong side of mismatches every bit as lopsided as the current ones. Again, you have failed to interact with my argument at all. A longer period of losing in which a win actually prolongs it more isn't kinder than a short blood bath. Longer is more demotivating. I was half joking when I said your MO is to say what you think without actually engaging the argument but that is what you are doing. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
I'm not going be baited into more disagreements, sorry.
You twice didn't answer my point yet you disagreed with me. No baiting required. What you mean is you won't engage in an actual discussion you can't win, you will just make your same point for the 1000th time. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
No, at this point you're just being argumentative on DNA's behalf.
@LeNoirFaineant@xNig can we please drop the unproductive discussion and focus on the suggestions he and I provided to make matched more fair? I agree resetting to 0 is not correct.Any other ideas?
Forget fair matchups this one is not not even a matchup its more of thrashing, matchups like this are example of ignorance shown towards the middle class alliance. Don't we guys deserve a place in rhe game. Its works only to give sadness rather than giving joy of playing. How are we even supposed to think of playing against opponents like this. I have seen a lot of guys saying that this will take you where you belong. So is this the way game will be going by only caring for the higher class on expense of middle class alliance. No wonder seeing people saying that we are stronger we need to go above and they are the same people who talk of equality in real life when they are the biggest supporter of inequality in virtual life. Does strong needs to become stronger or should the lower one be given chance to stand on par with them. If this is the way kabam will be treating middle class alliance then it is surely doing an injustice to us. Guys don't be ignorant in intoxication of power and just turn your face away from this. This is game meant to be joyful and give happiness whn you play when you sometimes win sometimes loose but always on fair terms but we definitely don't deserve the sadness of being helpless with such matchmaking. We are not here for the thrashing from unfair matchups but deserve fair matchups for that joy of playing Hope you have a nice day ahead because ours couldn't be by such unfair matchups. Have a nice day ahead.
You are absolutly fair and right, we have the same problems. We are not much of a spenders, and we cannot call out for an action like meny pro youtubers did about act6, and so on, but our alliance decided to stop playing wars and stop spending money in the game. Yet this is not a huge loss for kabam, but if every second ally from middle class does so, it csn make a change. The broken system just got more rubbish, but if we take ourselves out of it, we could preserve something, and high class allies could play againts each other again. And will see what next season brings
@LeNoirFaineant@xNig can we please drop the unproductive discussion and focus on the suggestions he and I provided to make matched more fair? I agree resetting to 0 is not correct.Any other ideas?
I wasn't suggesting resetting it. I was showing where the Seasons idea originated.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
"Making the top happy" at this point in the conversation is dishonest. This has zero to do with making the top happy. I've been on the wrong side of mismatches every bit as lopsided as the current ones. Again, you have failed to interact with my argument at all. A longer period of losing in which a win actually prolongs it more isn't kinder than a short blood bath. Longer is more demotivating. I was half joking when I said your MO is to say what you think without actually engaging the argument but that is what you are doing. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
I'm not going be baited into more disagreements, sorry.
You twice didn't answer my point yet you disagreed with me. No baiting required. What you mean is you won't engage in an actual discussion you can't win, you will just make your same point for the 1000th time. Still waiting for you to answer DNA.
No, at this point you're just being argumentative on DNA's behalf.
No, as far as I'm concerned you are like the knight in The Holy Grail with both his arms cut off who keeps fighting because it's "just a flesh wound." DNA destroyed your whole argument about fairness and you ignored it and keep arguing. So for me, as long as you are still posting in this thread it's relevant every time until you answer it. Still waiting btw.
@LeNoirFaineant@xNig can we please drop the unproductive discussion and focus on the suggestions he and I provided to make matched more fair? I agree resetting to 0 is not correct.Any other ideas?
There’s no suggestion I can suggest that will sit well with you since we cannot agree on the definition of “fair”.
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.
Cutting the war rating in half makes every war far more impactful on the tier you are in and what the next matchup will be. It wasn't designed to prevent mismatches, it was designed to limit them. You seem to have ignored my point, which is becoming a common theme. If you softened the blow by giving them 10 really hard and probably unwinnable matches vs. 3-5 blood baths that isn't kinder. Especially if they win some of them and go up in war rating prolonging the correction. Your fix for your largest issue makes it worse. Also, this is just an irrelevant aside, are you taking credit for Kabam's decision to use prestige? Just curious.
Am I taking credit? No. I put ideas out there and they decide if they go with it or not. I can certainly take credit for my own thoughts, and I'm pretty good at keeping tabs on the ones I put out there. I can't speak for any decisions they make or who they take them from. The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
More tempered doesn't work if it doesn't result in losses and a lowering of war rating. No one cares if they lose 4 wars badly or slightly less badly. Any solution that results in some group losing and losing for a longer period of time is worse. I'm saying a more tempered transition which amounts to a longer period of not getting correct matches is less kind than what we have. You reiterated your statement but didn't actually interact with what I said as per your current MO. I agreed that mismatches are the exact issue you are talking about and made a claim that a few bad mismatches are better than a prolonged transition in which you are still losing. The war rating doesn't get fixed without the losing part. Also still waiting for you to answer DNA.
A few bad mismatches, easy for someone to say who isn't in those Matches. THAT is the effect that is my concern. That is the effect I'm speaking to softening. Making the top happy doesn't have to come at the expense of them in such a way that it demotivates them to even try or play. Also...
why are you bringing up a post from 3 years ago??? when i bought up a post that you made 2 years ago contradicting what you are saying now you had a go at me and told me not to bring 2 year old posts up in this thread.
here you are now bringing up 3 year old posts. SMH...
@LeNoirFaineant@xNig can we please drop the unproductive discussion and focus on the suggestions he and I provided to make matched more fair? I agree resetting to 0 is not correct.Any other ideas?
What is fair is for you to win matches and increase your war rating until you get matched by someone you can't beat. You lose war rating and get matched by a slightly less powerful opponent. As you get stronger or push harder you move up the tiers, or if you have a more casual alliance you stay there and win/lose against similar groups. That's what is happening now with an admittedly rough transition period, albeit less rough than @GroundedWisdom's idea of dragging it out much longer with some sort of prolong-the-losing-but-don't-make-it-as-harsh algorithm.
Comments
The mismatches is the exact issue I'm talking about. You seem to be the one ignoring the points I'm making. Doing things faster at the expense of honest Players is not something I'm willing to consider more than a more tempered transition.
I hear some people blaming mismatched alliances, which makes no sense. They played the system which was designed. What were they supposed to do? Lose matches just because they got easy matches. Most people playing the game don't care about the mechanics of matchmaking. If what they seem is fair, they go about their day. When matches become screwed, they complain in forums. If you see many people complaining, they have under 50 posts. Telling them that they were enjoying higher rewards simply is untrue because as GW said, according to them, they won their wars, and moved up. They were not looking at other alliances at all.
I agree that war rating is better in the long run, even GW agrees that though I doubt he will admit it. lol. But, kabam has to sort out the kinks in the system to prevent exploitation by so called high skilled high tiered players. As far as I see, they are the ones creating shell alliances and tanking and all that nonsense. I have not seen anyone abandon engaging with GW and post creatively. If you don'e want someone to reply? stop replying to them.
Also...
So not exceeding twice the size? Funny. A 10m matching a 20m is fair to you? Or a 15m matching a 30m?
See what I mean by subjectivity? You need to do ALOT better for ANY of your arguments to hold any ground (pun intended).
Taking war rating to 0 means the season has to be longer because we cannot have enough matches to find out the best alliance. It could be some metric of prestige, tier and alliance rating at the start of the season.
Guess what? A 40m alliance is now set at 0 war ratings, so is a 5m alliance.
Sometimes your suggestions really don’t make sense. (Seriously)
Forget it bro. He doesn’t dare to answer questions that he doesn’t have a counter point to.
Just look at what I asked him. Define “reasonable”.
His answer? Reasonable is... “reasonable”. Omg debate king of the year.
What’s your definition of it?
when i bought up a post that you made 2 years ago contradicting what you are saying now you had a go at me and told me not to bring 2 year old posts up in this thread.
here you are now bringing up 3 year old posts.
SMH...