**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.
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.
Comments
Do you see a non league team crying when they draw Man Utd in the FA Cup, no they celebrate and even with little chance of winning they play and recognise they when there is only 1 set of prizes then everyone has to beat the best to get to the top.
War rating is the same, to go up and win best rewards you must beat people and grow
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
In a sports league, teams in the same division don't avoid competing with each other because one team has a far better team than the other. Take the premier league for example. Should Norwich not have to play liverpool, since liverpool's team is 50x better than that of Norwich, despite them being in the same division?
Thanks for your reply, tor option 1 I feel like this is new ground, and realising how much inflated alliances were about to be cleared out of the mid/ top tiers and seeing some rounded figures may have discouraged this, for example my wins in t11 are worth far less than my wins now in tier 6/7, in fact from memory a loss in t6 is almost comparable to a win in tier 11, remembering In this scenario we are leaving the top platinums locked. Iβm not convinced we couldnβt have got reasonable participation but I guess the top 25% may have had less reason to try and gain multipliers as they are still close to where they will end up unlike alliances Like mine who were the epitomy of getting screwed by last matchmaking system.
Second point i understand what you are saying but Iβm trying to throw a bone here To the genuine new alliances, I donβt think they would actually win if they are getting matched up with someone on the plus side of 50-100% of their prestige, again remembering nobody is going to be trying to use an exploit that is only for 5 wars in a new alliance. I donβt think it needs addressing yet. But I have to say the new war nodes and potion use is frustrating people, and I wouldnβt be surprised if this becomes an exploit for retired alliances in the future and we may keep seeing <1m alliances matched up with 20m alliances happening. Which, as an outlier isnβt a big deal. but if it results from a possible trend then it is concerning, also bearing in mind alliances donβt have treasuries anymore. So there is very little hiking then from starting a new alliance and all jumping over.
Seems like a simple suggestion that couldnβt be exploited to me. A matchmaking parameter for a 1k prestige alliance for 5 wars only being able to match 500-1.5k prestige alliances. would still be reasonably 50:50 win rate, and any brand new alliance who is 8k deserves to be facing 4-12k alliances rather than 1k alliances, still perceivable a 50:50 win rate, thatβs why I left such a huge number, i canβt see it as being exploitable but I also understand anybodies reluctance to rely on anything other than war rating after the debacle that was the previous system
Return to old system which majority hated
Or
Continue with new system which majority wanted
Which do you choose?
I assume you'll ride the fence and say no comment
Just cause wars was screwed up from the get go they donβt get to fix it
If you in letβs say plat1(Iβm not) you SHOULD have to play ANYBODY in plat1
Not just ppl close to you in strength
Even when presenting them with facts and reason, they don't understand.
I'll try one more time to dumb it down:. Your strength in Alliance Wars is determined your War Rating. Alliance rating is pointless and has no bearing on any aspect of the game.
Exsmple:
You win a war, your war rating goes up, showing your new strength. You win the next, war rating goes up, you're more powerfull. You win and win and win until at the end you have to face KenoB.
The system was broken before, now it readjust itself until everyone will have the war rating to match their actual strength. Then will have "fair" matches
But I am curious how war rating is not taking into account what is happening now. In my mind, what is happening now is a direct reflection of the old system meeting the new system. The very reason the current matchups are occurring is because of the old system and now the new system so I don't really understand how it's not an accurate reflection. Unless you feel that matchups will always remain as they are now. But then the system would be broke.
War rating is all that matters because that is all the system uses for matchmaking. To say otherwise is false under the current system. Many of those posting regarding ally pi ratings are continuously erring in pointing out that ally pi's are vastly different so it is a mismatch. Perhaps. But ally pi rating is not a great indicator of strength. It CAN be but it is not the BEST indicator of strength. Those parameters can be altered. I asked this in another thread, If i sell all my 1 2 and 3 stars what happens to my pi? What if all 30 of my ally mates do the same? Does the matchup with another alliance against us somehow become easier for them? Of course not.
Finally, pointing out ally pi rating and pointing to it as proof of a mismatch ignores the very premise of the quoted post above. You say that this is the result of 2 systems coming together and that it ignores what is happening now. War rating is very much taking into account what happened before hence the varied disparity in alliance pi. It is in effect, the very proof you say is lacking.
In order for war rating to become accurate wars fought must have meaning. Off season wars lack meaning. Only the season can adequately provide that meaning.