P1 alliance who can’t clear half the map against a G2 alliance picked up 2 x 6* 3x5* 10 t5cc 1.5 t5b and 3 x t2a end of last season while we picked up 2k 6* shards. That’s without the additional 6* and 5* shards they collected per war as a result of been unfairly advanced into higher map tiers. Shows what bs the whole thing was and how much it’s cost higher alliances over the last few seasons. And yes before anyone says it not every 30mil 10k+ prestige G2 alliance would have been in P1 but there are an hell of a lot of alliances going to be moving up a reward bracket and some several brackets now that it’s a even playing field - multiply that through 5 or 6 seasons it soon adds up.
Agree, a lot of alliances got shafted on season rewards for many seasons. My alliance finished Silver 2 last season. Just beat a P3 alliance. So glad this will finally get sorted out. This system for matchmaking will place everyone closer to where they should be. You want to climb the leaderboards? Get organized and make rankups for AW defense. It's that simple. We're not a P1 alliance, but we're certainly way better than Silver 3.
A very good point has been brought up that exposes a way to "cheat" your way through a war season. Ever since they removed the treasury, there is no longer any reason to keep an alliance. Instead of using shell alliances to gain an edge as in previous seasons, now all alliances have to do is just start a new alliance and have everyone jump in. Same folks, new alliance, 0 war rating to start and BAM, they can run through the season facing other low rating alliances who are actually low rated! This could become a huge problem!!!
Except the multiplier is so low, even winning all 12 wars at that multiplier will not net you substantial rewards if you’re that overpowered to begin with.
Well let's see what is possible. Let's say that the alliance averages about 145k points per war, and wins all of them. That would be 195k points per war, or 2340k for the season. And let's say they start at tier 22 and rise all the way up to tier 11, which is rising twelve tiers in twelve wars, which I think is way more than could happen, but let's go with that anyway. In that case, the average multiplier for those twelve wars would be about 1.6. The total for the season would be about 3.74 million. I *think* that puts the alliance in Gold 3. This is the absolute best case scenario. So any alliance reaching Gold 3 or higher cannot make use of this strategy to improve things.
But I think jumping from tier 22 to tier 11 in one season is overly generous. If they only rise eight tiers in 12 wars then the average multiplier will be closer to 1.4 and the total season score closer to 3.28 million which I think is likely to be Silver 1.
And in either case, having an average multiplier of 1.4 or 1.6 means you're only doing as well as an alliance that is winning 50/50 with a multiplier of between 1.6 and 1.84 (due to winning always vs half the time), which are alliances between tier 14 and tier 16. So any alliance higher than tier 14 cannot gain anything from this strategy.
In practice, given that the wars will get harder to win 100% of as rating rises, I don't think this is a practical strategy.
A very good point has been brought up that exposes a way to "cheat" your way through a war season. Ever since they removed the treasury, there is no longer any reason to keep an alliance. Instead of using shell alliances to gain an edge as in previous seasons, now all alliances have to do is just start a new alliance and have everyone jump in. Same folks, new alliance, 0 war rating to start and BAM, they can run through the season facing other low rating alliances who are actually low rated! This could become a huge problem!!!
Except the multiplier is so low, even winning all 12 wars at that multiplier will not net you substantial rewards if you’re that overpowered to begin with.
Well let's see what is possible. Let's say that the alliance averages about 145k points per war, and wins all of them. That would be 195k points per war, or 2340k for the season. And let's say they start at tier 22 and rise all the way up to tier 11, which is rising twelve tiers in twelve wars, which I think is way more than could happen, but let's go with that anyway. In that case, the average multiplier for those twelve wars would be about 1.6. The total for the season would be about 3.74 million. I *think* that puts the alliance in Gold 3. This is the absolute best case scenario. So any alliance reaching Gold 3 or higher cannot make use of this strategy to improve things.
But I think jumping from tier 22 to tier 11 in one season is overly generous. If they only rise eight tiers in 12 wars then the average multiplier will be closer to 1.4 and the total season score closer to 3.28 million which I think is likely to be Silver 1.
And in either case, having an average multiplier of 1.4 or 1.6 means you're only doing as well as an alliance that is winning 50/50 with a multiplier of between 1.6 and 1.84 (due to winning always vs half the time), which are alliances between tier 14 and tier 16. So any alliance higher than tier 14 cannot gain anything from this strategy.
In practice, given that the wars will get harder to win 100% of as rating rises, I don't think this is a practical strategy.
Not to mention the individual war win rewards that, at 50/50 in a higher tier, will be better than 100/0 3-4 tiers lower.
Competition should be open and should drive people to improve to achieve their end goal. All the alliances at the upper end of the game worked hard to get there, what’s the point in doing that if it’s actually easier to win top rewards by staying at the bottom. All the top athletes would just sit on their sofas watching tv instead of training every day for the Olympics etc. if that was the case.
The issue with the previous system was not so much teams getting matched by prestige as the fact that there was only 1 prize tier that everyone was sharing despite not having to face open competition with everyone chasing those rewards. The result was the very top people in the game got the very top prizes then the top people in the lower prestige bracket got the next best prizes and a whole bunch of teams in the middle just got shafted. That’s the complaint and it’s totally justified.
You cannot see it, but i am playing the worlds smallest violin for you! Listen real close and you will hear it! All those lovely 6 star shards going to undeserving alliances that got doggie doo matches and got lucky took a bunch of shards away from the big bad endgamers!
On second thoughts maybe you should keep it out and play a tune for all those 8k prestige alliances that can’t pull Platinum rewards now, might cheer them up.
It’s specifically annoying because Kabam introduced the system of prestige as a way of splitting out the field in AQ. You have to push prestige to be able to compete at a top level and as a result many top end players ranked hero’s based on prestige rather than playability. That prestige then hamstrings you in another aspect of the game is totally wrong.
I am certain that wasn’t Kabams end objective when they changed the system all those seasons back which is why having realised the unintended result they have now changed it again.
If war rating is the same then the match is fair - end of.
This will all be naturally sorted in next 5-10 wars and people find their current place (dependent on roster depth and skill) and then will be able to plan and grow from there.
It is actually one of the fairest thing done in a long time
We lost our last war on diversity, 28m - 30m and the war before that we won by 20 points. can’t get closer than that and we were t12 end of last season and silver 1 for last few seasons. we have settled Right back to where we were for ten seasons before the broken matchmaking tier 6-7 and bordering gold 1 and 2 depending on a win or loss. For an alliance 5 tiers out of place For the last 4-5 seasons. this only took 3 wars to fix
Comments
But I think jumping from tier 22 to tier 11 in one season is overly generous. If they only rise eight tiers in 12 wars then the average multiplier will be closer to 1.4 and the total season score closer to 3.28 million which I think is likely to be Silver 1.
And in either case, having an average multiplier of 1.4 or 1.6 means you're only doing as well as an alliance that is winning 50/50 with a multiplier of between 1.6 and 1.84 (due to winning always vs half the time), which are alliances between tier 14 and tier 16. So any alliance higher than tier 14 cannot gain anything from this strategy.
In practice, given that the wars will get harder to win 100% of as rating rises, I don't think this is a practical strategy.
The issue with the previous system was not so much teams getting matched by prestige as the fact that there was only 1 prize tier that everyone was sharing despite not having to face open competition with everyone chasing those rewards. The result was the very top people in the game got the very top prizes then the top people in the lower prestige bracket got the next best prizes and a whole bunch of teams in the middle just got shafted. That’s the complaint and it’s totally justified.
I am certain that wasn’t Kabams end objective when they changed the system all those seasons back which is why having realised the unintended result they have now changed it again.
I guess the closest to an unfair match we’ve gotten was 10.4k prestige to 10k. 43m to 35m or so.
This will all be naturally sorted in next 5-10 wars and people find their current place (dependent on roster depth and skill) and then will be able to plan and grow from there.
It is actually one of the fairest thing done in a long time