**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.

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

1…5657586062

Comments

  • DopaDopa Posts: 18 ★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Dopa said:

    Mcord117 said:

    ok I am going to be the bad guy here.An alliance under 20 mil and 9k prestige should not be able to finish plat 4. There are sooooo many alliances that are far larger with higher prestige that will steam roll either of those alliances that were struggling to hold onto gold 1 under old match making

    Does that mean your better or just bigger? I understand the thinking of them not deserving it , but do you if you cant beat similar size and prestige alliances to yours?

    It must be tough facing the new reality where you can't compete when you thought you could. In truth, the only one trying to say they're better than others is you. All you ever did was beat a less organized alliance than your own, and you called that skill. Trust me as someone who fought there (then left after the defense tactics were introduced) that there is a major difference between a higher alliance and newer alliance that goes far beyond the champs on their roster.

    I'm sure you don't believe me, so allow me to demonstrate. Many complain that Modok was too difficult. Yet, I amd many others were doing them with 4*s just so it could feel like a slight challenge. You were pusbing it with the best of your roster and sometimes failing. I couldn't be bothered to use the top part of my roster because that would be boring. So yeah, I'm sure shifting reality to believe that you have more skill is easier than accepting that you have to take the long way to actually accomplish. Learn to intercept, beat some of act 6, and then we can discuss who is better lol. But this conversation has nothing to do with that, I assure you. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to pretend this conversation is about inability to win, because I'm not the one with a complex.
    Sounds more like you cant beat the alliances your own size and you know nothing of my account or skill..lol..I'm not complaining about the new system I just get a kick out of bigger = overall better..I'm also not saying I'm ve
    Markjv81 said:

    Dopa said:

    They could stop all this by bracketing rewards based off prestige and shrinking the amount of plat, gold, s alliances in each bracket..based rewards off the brackets where you can enlist in a higher bracket for better rewards if you want..most of the large alliances complaining would still not make plat or whatever level they feel they deserve for being a large not very good alliance

    What would be the point of designing a completely new system that will just get us to the exact same place the current one will eventually get us too?
    It wont because larger alliances that arent very good will climb ranking just because they are larger..if they shrunk the rewards pools and bracketed, alliances wont be rewarded for being bigger! They would actually have to be good also..
  • DopaDopa Posts: 18 ★
    Dopa said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Dopa said:

    Mcord117 said:

    ok I am going to be the bad guy here.An alliance under 20 mil and 9k prestige should not be able to finish plat 4. There are sooooo many alliances that are far larger with higher prestige that will steam roll either of those alliances that were struggling to hold onto gold 1 under old match making

    Does that mean your better or just bigger? I understand the thinking of them not deserving it , but do you if you cant beat similar size and prestige alliances to yours?

    It must be tough facing the new reality where you can't compete when you thought you could. In truth, the only one trying to say they're better than others is you. All you ever did was beat a less organized alliance than your own, and you called that skill. Trust me as someone who fought there (then left after the defense tactics were introduced) that there is a major difference between a higher alliance and newer alliance that goes far beyond the champs on their roster.

    I'm sure you don't believe me, so allow me to demonstrate. Many complain that Modok was too difficult. Yet, I amd many others were doing them with 4*s just so it could feel like a slight challenge. You were pusbing it with the best of your roster and sometimes failing. I couldn't be bothered to use the top part of my roster because that would be boring. So yeah, I'm sure shifting reality to believe that you have more skill is easier than accepting that you have to take the long way to actually accomplish. Learn to intercept, beat some of act 6, and then we can discuss who is better lol. But this conversation has nothing to do with that, I assure you. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to pretend this conversation is about inability to win, because I'm not the one with a complex.
    Sounds more like you cant beat the alliances your own size and you know nothing of my account or skill..lol..I'm not complaining about the new system I just get a kick out of bigger = overall better..I'm also not saying I'm ve
    Markjv81 said:

    Dopa said:

    They could stop all this by bracketing rewards based off prestige and shrinking the amount of plat, gold, s alliances in each bracket..based rewards off the brackets where you can enlist in a higher bracket for better rewards if you want..most of the large alliances complaining would still not make plat or whatever level they feel they deserve for being a large not very good alliance

    What would be the point of designing a completely new system that will just get us to the exact same place the current one will eventually get us too?
    It wont because larger alliances that arent very good will climb ranking just because they are larger..if they shrunk the rewards pools and bracketed, alliances wont be rewarded for being bigger! They would actually have to be good also..
    But then the same ppl would be complaining that reward pools arent large enough rather than just getting better
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    Dopa said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Dopa said:

    Mcord117 said:

    ok I am going to be the bad guy here.An alliance under 20 mil and 9k prestige should not be able to finish plat 4. There are sooooo many alliances that are far larger with higher prestige that will steam roll either of those alliances that were struggling to hold onto gold 1 under old match making

    Does that mean your better or just bigger? I understand the thinking of them not deserving it , but do you if you cant beat similar size and prestige alliances to yours?

    It must be tough facing the new reality where you can't compete when you thought you could. In truth, the only one trying to say they're better than others is you. All you ever did was beat a less organized alliance than your own, and you called that skill. Trust me as someone who fought there (then left after the defense tactics were introduced) that there is a major difference between a higher alliance and newer alliance that goes far beyond the champs on their roster.

    I'm sure you don't believe me, so allow me to demonstrate. Many complain that Modok was too difficult. Yet, I amd many others were doing them with 4*s just so it could feel like a slight challenge. You were pusbing it with the best of your roster and sometimes failing. I couldn't be bothered to use the top part of my roster because that would be boring. So yeah, I'm sure shifting reality to believe that you have more skill is easier than accepting that you have to take the long way to actually accomplish. Learn to intercept, beat some of act 6, and then we can discuss who is better lol. But this conversation has nothing to do with that, I assure you. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to pretend this conversation is about inability to win, because I'm not the one with a complex.
    Sounds more like you cant beat the alliances your own size and you know nothing of my account or skill..lol..I'm not complaining about the new system I just get a kick out of bigger = overall better..I'm also not saying I'm ve
    Markjv81 said:

    Dopa said:

    They could stop all this by bracketing rewards based off prestige and shrinking the amount of plat, gold, s alliances in each bracket..based rewards off the brackets where you can enlist in a higher bracket for better rewards if you want..most of the large alliances complaining would still not make plat or whatever level they feel they deserve for being a large not very good alliance

    What would be the point of designing a completely new system that will just get us to the exact same place the current one will eventually get us too?
    It wont because larger alliances that arent very good will climb ranking just because they are larger..if they shrunk the rewards pools and bracketed, alliances wont be rewarded for being bigger! They would actually have to be good also..
    I just find it ridiculous that you’re talking as you are now, a Map 4 Silver 2 934 war rating 350k 6.8k prestige player.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Aburaees said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Aburaees said:

    This thread has become a loop.

    And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

    But two things come to my mind:

    1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
    2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field ;)

    That’s all

    War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.
    But this is what I’m talking about. Different paradigms.

    Telling us what war “should” do is a subjective value judgement. If Kabam had its own analogue of the Geneva Convention we’d have an objective standard by which to assess fairness.

    Personally I think alliances that have invested in their rosters have earned their hegemony. But I also think it’s fair to allow David the opportunity to take on Goliath - because sometimes David can win.

    If we strictly control the maximum size difference between competing alliances we limit David to only fighting David, and Goliath to only fighting Goliath.
    Only when Goliath falls asleep and forget to clear the boss in all 3 bg. Lets be real. If you are telling me that an alliance which places max 4 stars will defeat a alliance that places max 5 stars, it will not happen. If you are placing max 5 stars, it means you have even better attackers that will shred the opponents defense.

    You keep saying things like that. "Seasons are ruined." But this is one season, and only a portion of it at that. It's not ideal obviously, but after the correction is completed then we should have the ideal mm system where your performance determines your tier. You may be a 10m ally, but if you can beat other 10m ally, you will start to match vs a 15m ally. If you beat that, you can start to match vs 20m all the while gaining multiplier in the process. Once you find your limit your multiplier will stop to increase. So once this system is in place we can see if it works as it should.

    I really like some of your ideas, and I think you were right when you said many will just disagree so no real point in this except as a mental exercise. But Im having difficulty understanding why you seem indict the entire system off a temporary phase.
    The seasons are ruined comments were in regard to the alliances that were getting very bad match ups. Not for everyone obviously. People who were getting bad rewards despite bring a big alliance will have a good season.

    I don't know when I said it is temporary. I think what you mean is when I said some people are saying they were getting horrible match ups in the last seasons so that they could not move up. I meant that after the system settles down, they are going to get the same match ups. So, in terms of rewards, it will get better for the top tier alliances, in terms of match ups, we will all be back to what we were getting in previous seasons.
  • Sensei_MaatSensei_Maat Posts: 396 ★★★
    Dopa said:

    Sensei_Maat said:

    Dopa said:

    I'm not saying a 5mill alliances deserves the rewards of a 30 mill alliance but plz quit saying you are a better alliance because you're high rated or high prestige..I guarantee there are a lot of "better" 5-10mill alliances than plenty of larger alliances..They just dont have the game time in yet to grow that large..That's doesnt make you better..just bigger..if you were a good big alliance you would just beat up on alliances the same size as you and get the rewards you feel you deserve anyways

    but when the aim of the game is roster development and roster growth, then bigger = better.
    more high ranked champs = better account.
    alliance full of better accounts = better alliance.
    only when compating alliances of similar rosters does ability play a part as who is better.

    skill = better player,
    but size of account = better account.
    Better acct yes I agree but being bigger doesnt = better in all senses..skill is very possibly better on an alliance 10mill that stomps similar size alliances as opposed to a 30mill ally that gets stomped by similar size alliances..if you are a bigger more experienced ally shouldnt you be able to beat up on similar alliances?
    yes but the 10mil alliance does not deserve to rank higher and take rewards away from the 30mil alliance.
    even 'IF" the two alliances are evenly matched in skill the fact that the 30mill alliance is bigger and more experienced entitles them to more rewards.
    the 10mil ranking in gold 1 while the 30mil ranking in gold 3 makes 0 sense. cus the 10mil my be the best 10mil ally out there but it doesn't deserve to steal the reards from a bigger one.

    by your thought, the 30 top skilled players in the game should all start alt accounts, and then they should be entitled to be the #1 ranked ally in war season. if they started new accounts and only ranked 2* and only competed with 2* in war they would have an ally rating of less than 1 million and would therefore play only 1 million ranked allies, and due to skill would win every war crushing noobs and therefore be able to eventually rank #1 in war season using only 2* champs. imagine that. a ally full of accounts with only 2* as #1 in war. there is no way that is the best ally and deserving of #1, they would have clearly only got there due to the opposition they would have faced.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    Dopa said:

    Dopa said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Dopa said:

    Mcord117 said:

    ok I am going to be the bad guy here.An alliance under 20 mil and 9k prestige should not be able to finish plat 4. There are sooooo many alliances that are far larger with higher prestige that will steam roll either of those alliances that were struggling to hold onto gold 1 under old match making

    Does that mean your better or just bigger? I understand the thinking of them not deserving it , but do you if you cant beat similar size and prestige alliances to yours?

    It must be tough facing the new reality where you can't compete when you thought you could. In truth, the only one trying to say they're better than others is you. All you ever did was beat a less organized alliance than your own, and you called that skill. Trust me as someone who fought there (then left after the defense tactics were introduced) that there is a major difference between a higher alliance and newer alliance that goes far beyond the champs on their roster.

    I'm sure you don't believe me, so allow me to demonstrate. Many complain that Modok was too difficult. Yet, I amd many others were doing them with 4*s just so it could feel like a slight challenge. You were pusbing it with the best of your roster and sometimes failing. I couldn't be bothered to use the top part of my roster because that would be boring. So yeah, I'm sure shifting reality to believe that you have more skill is easier than accepting that you have to take the long way to actually accomplish. Learn to intercept, beat some of act 6, and then we can discuss who is better lol. But this conversation has nothing to do with that, I assure you. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to pretend this conversation is about inability to win, because I'm not the one with a complex.
    Sounds more like you cant beat the alliances your own size and you know nothing of my account or skill..lol..I'm not complaining about the new system I just get a kick out of bigger = overall better..I'm also not saying I'm ve
    Markjv81 said:

    Dopa said:

    They could stop all this by bracketing rewards based off prestige and shrinking the amount of plat, gold, s alliances in each bracket..based rewards off the brackets where you can enlist in a higher bracket for better rewards if you want..most of the large alliances complaining would still not make plat or whatever level they feel they deserve for being a large not very good alliance

    What would be the point of designing a completely new system that will just get us to the exact same place the current one will eventually get us too?
    It wont because larger alliances that arent very good will climb ranking just because they are larger..if they shrunk the rewards pools and bracketed, alliances wont be rewarded for being bigger! They would actually have to be good also..
    But then the same ppl would be complaining that reward pools arent large enough rather than just getting better
    Lots of hot air coming from a 6.9k prestige 350k player leading a 934 rating Silver 2 10m alliance. Lol
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    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?
    No. It doesn’t. That’s because whatever points they scrap together will be subjected to a higher multiplier cause of the tier they were in when they lost.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Aburaees said:

    This thread has become a loop.

    And it boils down to two competing paradigms regarding fairness.

    But two things come to my mind:

    1. This game is about roster development. If level playing fields were ever desirable we wouldn’t have levels, ranks nor tiers.
    2. The most interactive mode in this game is called War, and all’s fair in love and war. War isn’t about fairness, but about strategy and resourcefulness. Nobody insists on WWI or WWII being rerun on a level playing field ;)

    That’s all

    War matches should provide an equal opportunity for both sides to win. That is all it boils down to. That is what I feel is fair in terms of matchmaking.
    And we will get there after this transition period.
    Yes, hopefully.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    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?
    No. It doesn’t. That’s because whatever points they scrap together will be subjected to a higher multiplier cause of the tier they were in when they lost.
    The higher they were, the faster they will fall. I am sure that was the intent behind the change however indirect. I guess it is ruined in terms of the enjoyment of playing alliance war.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    Kobster89 said:

    xNig said:

    Kobster89 said:

    xNig 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?
    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).
    Eh I’d disagree with this because there have been times I’ve taken a break and gone to bronze allies and then when I want to come back I wouldn’t be able to due to the bronze ally lowering my war rating
    It goes both ways.

    When you go from your current tier to the bronze alliance, the bronze alliance’s war capabilities increase because you bring your roster, experience and skills to them. This will be directly reflected in the increase in alliance’s war rating. (Side note, this is also the argument used for lower prestige alliances bypassing the old system by having strong guys join and hold key defender spots, and them taking out bosses to give these lower prestige alliances wins.)

    When you rejoin the original alliance after playing 1-2 seasons in the bronze level, you’ll need to get reacclimatized with the higher tier nodes and defenders, this will also reflect in the slight decrease of the original alliance’s war capabilities and rating.

    So by having this individual war rating per person, the factors of “taking a break” can also be accounted for.
    Ye but it wouldn’t it’d be like if your prestige went down when you went to a lower ally you just wouldn’t be able to get back into any high allies at all
    Within the same tier isn’t too big of an issue as the difference will be divided by 30.

    Assuming an alliance at 3k ratings with 29 people, adding 1 person with 0 ratings will cause the alliance war rating to drop from 3,000 to 2,900, which arguably, isn’t even a tier drop.

    Similarly, an alliance at 2.5k ratings with 29 people adding 1 with 0 ratings will see a drop from 2,500 to 2,417.

    This is a hypothetical situation that is highly unlikely as, even on a break, I doubt people will go to an alliance with 0 war ratings. Even if they do for some reason, joining back the original alliance will not skew war ratings of that alliance too much to cause a significant effect. (Side note, arguably they will want you back cause you’ll cause their ratings to drop, which means an easier 1-2 wars for them at the onset of a season.)
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,245 ★★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    xNig said:

    Pulyaman said:

    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?
    No. It doesn’t. That’s because whatever points they scrap together will be subjected to a higher multiplier cause of the tier they were in when they lost.
    The higher they were, the faster they will fall. I am sure that was the intent behind the change however indirect. I guess it is ruined in terms of the enjoyment of playing alliance war.
    For a few wars, yes. But no transition period will be able to make everyone happy. I’m sure you’ve experienced this in life too.
  • Corby11Corby11 Posts: 170 ★
    In every aspect of this game rewards are based on player progression and roster, you can’t do level 7 incursions till you have the required number of 5* you can’t compete in uncollected quests till you have become uncollected you can’t win the featured 5* in Arena till you have enough champions to generate the score why should AW be any different? Next we will be saying if you win 200 matches in the 2* arena you should get the same rewards as someone who wins 200 matches in the 5* arena because you have demonstrated the same amount of skill in the game yes?? Not going to happen, content and rewards are and should be tailored to your progression in the game. You want better rewards develop your roster and join a higher alliance simple as. Yes reward tiers with some overlap would be 1 way to allow smaller alliances to gain a bit better rewards for their efforts but they still hit the problem that they are top of silver league today then 1 guy dupes his doom and tomorrow they wake up bottom of gold and all their matches just got harder. As a 10k plus prestige player I shouldn’t be rewarded for joining a 5k alliance with a couple of my buddies and helping them steamroller their way to platinum against other 5k alliances made up of players in the 3-6k prestige range I should be able to gain better rewards in the higher alliance.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    pseudosane 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.

    Lol so a first grader that skipped ahead to the 12th grade can graduate passing a first grader exam, but failing a 12th grade exam?
    People knew those Allies had no chance against them. That's why they wanted the switch flipped. Let's stop pretending it's all about seeing if they can hang.

    I finally agree with you. People knew these alliances have no chance against them. And that's exactly why they wanted the switch flipped. Why are alliances that can't hang with them taking their spots in higher tiers? There's no rational reason (I know you have a reason, but that one isn't rational as you've established by refusing to answer basic questions on your respons).

    But it's also about whether they can hang. Because if an alliance CAN hang, absolutely no one nor their mother has a problem with them staying in their current rewards bracket.
    Disagree with that one. Then the argument would go to them cheating.
  • pseudosanepseudosane Posts: 3,813 Guardian
    GroundedWisdom said:

    pseudosane 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.

    Lol so a first grader that skipped ahead to the 12th grade can graduate passing a first grader exam, but failing a 12th grade exam?
    People knew those Allies had no chance against them. That's why they wanted the switch flipped. Let's stop pretending it's all about seeing if they can hang.
    Yep they knew they have no chance against real opposition yet wanted those rewards. Lets stop pretending they ever earned those high tier rewards.
    You keep telling that they "earned" it under the previous system, and bigger allies didnt, right? Kabam set up that system, and now they set this one up. Stop complaining and earn those rewards again.
    (for my background, I'm from a t4/3 p4/3 ally, running three high(ish) prestige accounts)
  • Mtl55Mtl55 Posts: 63 ★


    Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    pseudosane said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    pseudosane 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.

    Lol so a first grader that skipped ahead to the 12th grade can graduate passing a first grader exam, but failing a 12th grade exam?
    People knew those Allies had no chance against them. That's why they wanted the switch flipped. Let's stop pretending it's all about seeing if they can hang.
    Yep they knew they have no chance against real opposition yet wanted those rewards. Lets stop pretending they ever earned those high tier rewards.
    You keep telling that they "earned" it under the previous system, and bigger allies didnt, right? Kabam set up that system, and now they set this one up. Stop complaining and earn those rewards again.
    (for my background, I'm from a t4/3 p4/3 ally, running three high(ish) prestige accounts)
    They did. You can't argue that. They earned them the way the system was. Broken or not. That's what happened.
    I don't care what you're using. I'm not in a peeing contest. I'm also not here for my own benefit.
    Ebony_Naw said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    pseudosane 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.

    Lol so a first grader that skipped ahead to the 12th grade can graduate passing a first grader exam, but failing a 12th grade exam?
    People knew those Allies had no chance against them. That's why they wanted the switch flipped. Let's stop pretending it's all about seeing if they can hang.

    I finally agree with you. People knew these alliances have no chance against them. And that's exactly why they wanted the switch flipped. Why are alliances that can't hang with them taking their spots in higher tiers? There's no rational reason (I know you have a reason, but that one isn't rational as you've established by refusing to answer basic questions on your respons).

    But it's also about whether they can hang. Because if an alliance CAN hang, absolutely no one nor their mother has a problem with them staying in their current rewards bracket.
    Disagree with that one. Then the argument would go to them cheating.

    Not sure I understand what you mean
    Had these Alliances won even in this system, people would then accuse them of cheating. The hypercompetitivenes is never-ending with Seasons. Watched it from the start.
  • Mtl55Mtl55 Posts: 63 ★
    So much toxicity guys from so called larger alliances and telling smaller ones to now put them to their place guys honestly what difference does a few tiers make nothing, but taking away that joy of gaming by this matchmaking is truely cruel to them. And at the end you guys will see that what you were thinking in progressing upside will not happen by that much level because soon again those larger alliance will reach their saturation again because if you were not able to beat your equal strength ally back then you will not be able to do it now but in that process you surely have taken away the joy of playing from the smaller guys.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Mtl55 said:



    Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.

    Bigger alliances want equality of competition, which is exactly what we will have once the transition settles everyone into where they belong. Imagine working in a company and asking for equal pay as someone who has been there for 30 years when you are just starting out. Oh, the toxicity of that 30 year veteran of the company for saying no, it doesn't work that way. And imagine the 4th grader asking to graduate high school because he was able to pass all his tests in 4th grade. The principal better prepare for a lawsuit if he says no.

    We want you to be able yo play weaker alliances at your level. But don't expect platinum or masters rewards for it.
    No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.
  • GreekhitGreekhit Posts: 2,819 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    GroundedWisdom said:


    No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.

    They will have wars that can actually have a chance in from next week, when war rating will have correct settled.
    Kabam would have avoid this outcry, if instead of half cutting the war ratings, had scrapped them at all and give a starting war rating according to ally prestige (f.e 850 starting war rating for 8.5k pi ally, 410 starting war rating for 4.1 pi ally etc.).
    Patience and things will be absolutely fair 😉
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Mtl55 said:



    Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.

    Bigger alliances want equality of competition, which is exactly what we will have once the transition settles everyone into where they belong. Imagine working in a company and asking for equal pay as someone who has been there for 30 years when you are just starting out. Oh, the toxicity of that 30 year veteran of the company for saying no, it doesn't work that way. And imagine the 4th grader asking to graduate high school because he was able to pass all his tests in 4th grade. The principal better prepare for a lawsuit if he says no.

    We want you to be able yo play weaker alliances at your level. But don't expect platinum or masters rewards for it.
    No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.

    You have. You said they earned their rewards by winning the wars at their level. Which also implies merit to that system, which opens up counterarguments to the system. But regardless, you have said they earned those rewards.
    What's already taken place? Yes. They earned them. That's what happened. We can't argue they didn't earn them because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have in the system that wasn't being used. I explained how they got them.
This discussion has been closed.