**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

1…5658606162

Comments

  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,638 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Pulyaman said:

    @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.
    So they originated with your idea? Still waiting btw.
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    @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”.

    What’s your definition of it?
    That is a big assumption that I will not agree. I agree that fair is a relative term. I think we can agree that the prestige system gave fair matches and not fair rewards. What we need to do is move towards a system that has both. War rating in the long term will ensure that provided everyone will play fair or forced to play fair. I think people see only high tiers alliances using shells, but we know it is not true. Even plat and gold alliances do that which makes war rating easily manipulated. What do you think can be done to prevent this?
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    @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?

    This is the l easiest way to get to a point where all matches are fair, in 6-8 weeks this will have been forgotten. There’s is literally no other way to make it happen.
    What's done is done. I am not happy with how it was done, but nothing can be done now. The fact that you think 6-8 weeks of unwinnable matches in good is telling. But, opinions differ based on experiences, so I am not going to argue on that.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,003 ★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    @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”.

    What’s your definition of it?
    That is a big assumption that I will not agree. I agree that fair is a relative term. I think we can agree that the prestige system gave fair matches and not fair rewards. What we need to do is move towards a system that has both. War rating in the long term will ensure that provided everyone will play fair or forced to play fair. I think people see only high tiers alliances using shells, but we know it is not true. Even plat and gold alliances do that which makes war rating easily manipulated. What do you think can be done to prevent this?
    You can’t say fair is relative and then say agree that the prestige system gave fair matches because that’s simply not true based on ones perspective. Having a tier 1 alliance facing alliances in tier 6 and below from my perspective was not fair because tier should be and indication of strength, not just simply an indication of how many wars you’ve won.
  • Options
    Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Mr_Platypus said:

    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).

    I am not that hopeful on Kabam identifying the offenders and banning them, but yes that would have been a little less jarring in terms of matches
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    @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”.

    What’s your definition of it?
    That is a big assumption that I will not agree. I agree that fair is a relative term. I think we can agree that the prestige system gave fair matches and not fair rewards. What we need to do is move towards a system that has both. War rating in the long term will ensure that provided everyone will play fair or forced to play fair. I think people see only high tiers alliances using shells, but we know it is not true. Even plat and gold alliances do that which makes war rating easily manipulated. What do you think can be done to prevent this?
    You can’t say fair is relative and then say agree that the prestige system gave fair matches because that’s simply not true based on ones perspective. Having a tier 1 alliance facing alliances in tier 6 and below from my perspective was not fair because tier should be and indication of strength, not just simply an indication of how many wars you’ve won.
    I don't think tier 1 vs tier 6 alliances faced in the prestige based matchmaking. But I don't know everything. From what I have read in over 50 pages of comments, alliances were matched evenly with the better alliance on that day winning the war. The problem was the rewards structure was a single tier 1 meaning low tiered alliances progressed faster than high tiered alliances.
    I still say it was fair is relative because we have people arguing that the last system was fair in terms of rewards also. So, being fair is relative.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,003 ★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).

    I am not that hopeful on Kabam identifying the offenders and banning them, but yes that would have been a little less jarring in terms of matches
    That’s not even close to a bannable offence. You don’t think the current AW match making is fair but you think it’s fair to ban someone based on leaving a specific alliance? What if they didn’t leave but were kicked, who gets banned then?
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).

    I am not that hopeful on Kabam identifying the offenders and banning them, but yes that would have been a little less jarring in terms of matches
    That’s not even close to a bannable offence. You don’t think the current AW match making is fair but you think it’s fair to ban someone based on leaving a specific alliance? What if they didn’t leave but were kicked, who gets banned then?
    Either you are not reading my posts or not understanding them. I am not asking individual accounts to be banned from the game, I am asking alliances involving in shells to be banned. Go read the post to which I replied to. But, I am not hopeful on them banning them because as you said, it is difficult to identify them.
    I never said the current matchmaking is unfair.Where are you getting these?. What I have been saying is that the way it was implemented was unfair to lower tier alliances.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,249 ★★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    @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”.

    What’s your definition of it?
    That is a big assumption that I will not agree. I agree that fair is a relative term. I think we can agree that the prestige system gave fair matches and not fair rewards. What we need to do is move towards a system that has both. War rating in the long term will ensure that provided everyone will play fair or forced to play fair. I think people see only high tiers alliances using shells, but we know it is not true. Even plat and gold alliances do that which makes war rating easily manipulated. What do you think can be done to prevent this?
    This new system will give fair matches and fair rewards. There’s nothing to be done tbh. I’ve also explained (if my post got approved) why a short span of losses will triumph a prolonged duration of losing for allies with inflated war ratings.

    On the topic of shells, quite some time back, I gave the suggestion to tag each individual’s war rating to the moving average of the past 12 wars they have participated in, with the alliance’s war rating being the average of everyone’s rating. This allows a more realistic representation of an alliance’s warring capabilities, even if there are personnel changes within an alliance (eg swapping to shells or having stronger/weaker players join the alliance).
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,249 ★★★★★
    Mr_Platypus said:

    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).

    I would disagree with that because, as usual, “worst” is also subjective. What might be bad to you might not be bad to me. And because it’s going to be a case by case basis, this means more work for Kabam backend, which also means less resources dedicated to making the game better (eg champ updates).

    Ideally, the system should be able to correct itself without interference (therefore, the suggestion above).
  • Options
    Speeds80Speeds80 Posts: 2,013 ★★★★
    It’s actually mind blowing that gw won’t back down from that idea, Tempering this adjustment period would be far worse long term, 10- 15 unwinnable wars For the way out of place teams has to be worse for An alliance than A few wars with massively decreasing alliance strengths being seen in every war. Someone said that the Kabam have said matchmaking has actually algorithmed right now to make big mismatches (not sure if it’s true) but it actually makes sense, alliances that can’t pass the first (node 23) miniboss will drop faster because of much lower points and so the system will settle faster. These whitewashes are actually making the adjustment really fast, we won our third war by just 20 points, We have jumped from t11 to tier 6 already, it’s happening reasonably quickly
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,249 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).

    I am not that hopeful on Kabam identifying the offenders and banning them, but yes that would have been a little less jarring in terms of matches
    That’s not even close to a bannable offence. You don’t think the current AW match making is fair but you think it’s fair to ban someone based on leaving a specific alliance? What if they didn’t leave but were kicked, who gets banned then?
    Pulyaman said:

    Markjv81 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    Fairest they could’ve done, wouldve been to set everyone to 0, then use something like:
    ‘prestige/10=new starting war rating’
    This wouldve theoretically put everyone in a relatively similar order to where they ought to finish.
    So an 8500 prestige alliance wouldve started at 850 war rating, a 10250 prestige alliance would’ve started at 1025 war rating. Obviously we still match alliances based on war rating only.
    If tanking starts becoming a big issue, then they can reset it all again using the same formula and give a temporary season reward ban for the worst offenders (applied to player accounts rather than the alliance so they don’t switch to a shell).

    I am not that hopeful on Kabam identifying the offenders and banning them, but yes that would have been a little less jarring in terms of matches
    That’s not even close to a bannable offence. You don’t think the current AW match making is fair but you think it’s fair to ban someone based on leaving a specific alliance? What if they didn’t leave but were kicked, who gets banned then?
    Either you are not reading my posts or not understanding them. I am not asking individual accounts to be banned from the game, I am asking alliances involving in shells to be banned. Go read the post to which I replied to. But, I am not hopeful on them banning them because as you said, it is difficult to identify them.
    I never said the current matchmaking is unfair.Where are you getting these?. What I have been saying is that the way it was implemented was unfair to lower tier alliances.
    Subjectivity, as always. Once we have that in any system, there will be someone who will be unhappy.

    Let me give an example that I used in running my alliance when donations were a thing.

    During Season, as long as one person did not place their defenders, that person will be required to cover the entire alliance’s worth of donations (either gold / loyalty / BC) for a week unless there are very very very special circumstances (yes, that’s 3 “very”s). Because it is so objective, there are 0 arguments on who needs to be penalized and why.

    Generally, what this boils down to is,
    Fact : Player X did not place defenders.
    Penalty : Cover donations for 1 week.

    If we want to provide solutions to solve shelling and rating manipulation issues, we cannot leave an ounce of that to subjectivity.
  • Options
    one_punch_girlone_punch_girl Posts: 24 ★
    What if Kabam had reset war rating according to prestige and started from there? That would have put the 4* alliances that were getting gold 1 rewards at the level of maybe silver 1. Just like that, big bang method, no "unfair" matchups.

    The good ones would have to work their way back up, the bad ones would fall down during the season. The final result of the season would be the same as with the current method.

    But I don't even want to imagine the outcry... How unfair to lower the rating of alliances that didn't lose any wars and increase the rating of others that did have losses before.
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    xNig said:

    @GroundedWisdom

    I’m directing this question to you and you only.

    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.
    There shouldn't be a regulatory measure. I don't play war so lower alliances who want to be in a similar tier as me can be subject to a 'pity system'. What your asking for has the same flaws as the previous matchmaking. It won't solve anything.

    While this may sound bad to you, there never has to be a 'chance to win'. If my ally hasn't won a war in tier 9 (We haven't), if we somehow go on a win streak and land in t7, we should not be given a chance to win.

    We landed in t7, so we compete with other allys in t7, no matter what the chance is to lose. You may be thinking, "What's the fun in that? That's not a fair matchup!" The answer to that is it isn't and it shouldn't be.

    At some point in the season, every ally will lose at some point (Unless you are from KenOB). How badly that loss it doesn't matter, but that's what comes with competing.

    Alliances that are getting trampled now definitely don't need a pity system. Them getting tramples shows that they placed higher than they can handle. That's not their fault, it's the system's.

    Kabam fixed the issue by fixing the system. That was the right choice.
    Everyone loses a war at some point. But there is a difference between a chance to win and knowing you have no chance of winning. Even with all the skill in the world, you cannot win with 4 stars against rank 2 and rank 3 6 stars in war, before you time out. You can win one or 2 fights, not all of them. That was the point he was making. Please don't say then they did not deserve to be in that place, we have gone through pages of that argument. How bad you lose matters in seasons. There was already an example in the previous posts, earlier system had a sections of players fighting each other, but the problem was they were fighting for a common reward. As it is, there is no other option other than to let it play out. The season is ruined for many alliances.
  • Options
    Mtl55Mtl55 Posts: 63 ★
    I have seen a lot of people calling it putting the smaller ones where they belong and honestly if this much toxic this has become then im sorry but we all are going in a wrong way.
    Guys game is not about putting you where you belong its about that joy of playing which honestly no one is getting now neither the bigger one in thrashing of tiny guys nor smaller ones feeling like a duck in open water.
    Please don't be toxic towards the tiny guys beacuse they matter too they are also a part of it and we need to take them along with us not to leave them stranded behind and bossing around them like they are slaves no this us toxic at best.
    And honestly what difference does a few tiers make and kabam doesn't care about lower allies of silver and gold it only looks to plat and those so don't fight on rewards but instead try to look for that joy of gaming which this matchmaking is not giving. It is instead taking the fun and joy away and giving sadness.
  • Options
    Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 1,003 ★★★★
    Mtl55 said:

    I have seen a lot of people calling it putting the smaller ones where they belong and honestly if this much toxic this has become then im sorry but we all are going in a wrong way.
    Guys game is not about putting you where you belong its about that joy of playing which honestly no one is getting now neither the bigger one in thrashing of tiny guys nor smaller ones feeling like a duck in open water.
    Please don't be toxic towards the tiny guys beacuse they matter too they are also a part of it and we need to take them along with us not to leave them stranded behind and bossing around them like they are slaves no this us toxic at best.
    And honestly what difference does a few tiers make and kabam doesn't care about lower allies of silver and gold it only looks to plat and those so don't fight on rewards but instead try to look for that joy of gaming which this matchmaking is not giving. It is instead taking the fun and joy away and giving sadness.

    All these arguments can easily apply to both sides, for every person that is against this new match making there’s is equal amounts that were unhappy with the old.

    If a few tiers don’t make a difference then why all the complaints about the new system?
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,638 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    LeNoirFaineant said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Pulyaman said:

    DNA3000 said:

    LeNoirFaineant said:

    DNA3000 said:

    LeNoirFaineant said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    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.
    Um...it will stop the cause of needing to use it. The cause was prestige wars and inflated war ratings. Boom, problem solved.
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    xNig said:

    @GroundedWisdom

    I’m directing this question to you and you only.

    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.
    There shouldn't be a regulatory measure. I don't play war so lower alliances who want to be in a similar tier as me can be subject to a 'pity system'. What your asking for has the same flaws as the previous matchmaking. It won't solve anything.

    While this may sound bad to you, there never has to be a 'chance to win'. If my ally hasn't won a war in tier 9 (We haven't), if we somehow go on a win streak and land in t7, we should not be given a chance to win.

    We landed in t7, so we compete with other allys in t7, no matter what the chance is to lose. You may be thinking, "What's the fun in that? That's not a fair matchup!" The answer to that is it isn't and it shouldn't be.

    At some point in the season, every ally will lose at some point (Unless you are from KenOB). How badly that loss it doesn't matter, but that's what comes with competing.

    Alliances that are getting trampled now definitely don't need a pity system. Them getting tramples shows that they placed higher than they can handle. That's not their fault, it's the system's.

    Kabam fixed the issue by fixing the system. That was the right choice.
    Everyone loses a war at some point. But there is a difference between a chance to win and knowing you have no chance of winning. Even with all the skill in the world, you cannot win with 4 stars against rank 2 and rank 3 6 stars in war, before you time out. You can win one or 2 fights, not all of them. That was the point he was making. Please don't say then they did not deserve to be in that place, we have gone through pages of that argument. How bad you lose matters in seasons. There was already an example in the previous posts, earlier system had a sections of players fighting each other, but the problem was they were fighting for a common reward. As it is, there is no other option other than to let it play out. The season is ruined for many alliances.
    Only ruined if you think the previous match making was better, which it wasn’t.
    How does that work? Previous matchmaking was better for some and not for others. Seasons are still ruined for some alliances regardless of what anyone thinks. I mean, I assume you think you got unfair matched because of previous system, but you don't think getting unwinnable matches ruined this season for some alliances?
  • Options
    PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    xNig said:

    @GroundedWisdom

    I’m directing this question to you and you only.

    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.
    There shouldn't be a regulatory measure. I don't play war so lower alliances who want to be in a similar tier as me can be subject to a 'pity system'. What your asking for has the same flaws as the previous matchmaking. It won't solve anything.

    While this may sound bad to you, there never has to be a 'chance to win'. If my ally hasn't won a war in tier 9 (We haven't), if we somehow go on a win streak and land in t7, we should not be given a chance to win.

    We landed in t7, so we compete with other allys in t7, no matter what the chance is to lose. You may be thinking, "What's the fun in that? That's not a fair matchup!" The answer to that is it isn't and it shouldn't be.

    At some point in the season, every ally will lose at some point (Unless you are from KenOB). How badly that loss it doesn't matter, but that's what comes with competing.

    Alliances that are getting trampled now definitely don't need a pity system. Them getting tramples shows that they placed higher than they can handle. That's not their fault, it's the system's.

    Kabam fixed the issue by fixing the system. That was the right choice.
    Everyone loses a war at some point. But there is a difference between a chance to win and knowing you have no chance of winning. Even with all the skill in the world, you cannot win with 4 stars against rank 2 and rank 3 6 stars in war, before you time out. You can win one or 2 fights, not all of them. That was the point he was making. Please don't say then they did not deserve to be in that place, we have gone through pages of that argument. How bad you lose matters in seasons. There was already an example in the previous posts, earlier system had a sections of players fighting each other, but the problem was they were fighting for a common reward. As it is, there is no other option other than to let it play out. The season is ruined for many alliances.
    If they are getting crushed, they really don't deserve their spot. A loss is one thing. A thrashing is another. It's not like their matching you with deathmatches. You are being matched with people simliar, above and below you. If you can't compete, you may need to step down.

    You say that how big a loss is does matter, and I get that. But sometimes you are going to lose badly. It happens. What shouldn't happen is lower allys streaking their way to the top through easy matches and avoiding losses entirely.
    Did you not see a 4 mill alliances matching with 20 mill or something alliance? They are being matched with death matches.People commenting here say that as if in earlier system, alliances placed defenses and showed up for war and won it without even fighting. They were fighting similar sized alliances. Matches were not the problem, rewards were.
This discussion has been closed.