no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
Our precise rating is 16, 96,2804. Which means approx 17mil and I mentioned we, the alliance, not a single person. We are fighting thee bgs. We have good players and even when we lose we don't lose to a very high margin we manage to clear all bgs even though we fight against r5 fivestars and six stars. I reported this issue to kabam and they told they won't be able to do anything about this. They told almost like it's all based on our luck and they pretty much can't do anything about this. Higher alliances intentionally lose wars during off season to get lower war ratings so that they can demolish lower alliances. So what should the lower alliances do? That's the only thing I'm asking here. Is there any other method than spending tons of revives and boosts to win wars? Even though we use potions and revives they just get the win easily
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
I think he might be talking about Alliance Rating @Lormif
Yes I am
Again, it is your alliance's total power, it means nothing in war. Your war rating, which is your win loss record is all that matters, as it should be. You can be a low level alliance with 15m and beat a 30m alliance if you have the appropriate skill.
Your Alliance's total power matters because it's what the other side's total power has to come up against.
This argument doesn't fully hold though. It means they have more ranked up champs, meaning more diversity, but no ones maximum defense per player can be much higher than 100k before nodes. Alliance Hero Rating is artificially capped by the 5 champs anyone can place. A 15m rated alliance can all place 100k defense per player if they've only maxed out defenders. A 60m alliance could also only place that at max as well.
Alliance hero rating is a very poor and easily manipulated number.
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
Our precise rating is 16, 96,2804. Which means approx 17mil and I mentioned we, the alliance, not a single person. We are fighting thee bgs. We have good players and even when we lose we don't lose to a very high margin we manage to clear all bgs even though we fight against r5 fivestars and six stars. I reported this issue to kabam and they told they won't be able to do anything about this. They told almost like it's all based on our luck and they pretty much can't do anything about this. Higher alliances intentionally lose wars during off season to get lower war ratings so that they can demolish lower alliances. So what should the lower alliances do? That's the only thing I'm asking here. Is there any other method than spending tons of revives and boosts to win wars? Even though we use potions and revives they just get the win easily
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
I think he might be talking about Alliance Rating @Lormif
Yes I am
Again, it is your alliance's total power, it means nothing in war. Your war rating, which is your win loss record is all that matters, as it should be. You can be a low level alliance with 15m and beat a 30m alliance if you have the appropriate skill.
Your Alliance's total power matters because it's what the other side's total power has to come up against.
It does not matter. A 4* champion can beat a 6* in war if played properly, and likewise you can lose with your 6* against a 4* defender if you play poorly. If you cannot beat a gold 3 alliance there is no way you should be getting gold 2 rewards just because you have a smaller roster, especially since pi can be manipulated.
It matters. No matter how skilled you are, you can only do so much with a butter knife against a Katana.
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
Our precise rating is 16, 96,2804. Which means approx 17mil and I mentioned we, the alliance, not a single person. We are fighting thee bgs. We have good players and even when we lose we don't lose to a very high margin we manage to clear all bgs even though we fight against r5 fivestars and six stars. I reported this issue to kabam and they told they won't be able to do anything about this. They told almost like it's all based on our luck and they pretty much can't do anything about this. Higher alliances intentionally lose wars during off season to get lower war ratings so that they can demolish lower alliances. So what should the lower alliances do? That's the only thing I'm asking here. Is there any other method than spending tons of revives and boosts to win wars? Even though we use potions and revives they just get the win easily
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
I think he might be talking about Alliance Rating @Lormif
Yes I am
Again, it is your alliance's total power, it means nothing in war. Your war rating, which is your win loss record is all that matters, as it should be. You can be a low level alliance with 15m and beat a 30m alliance if you have the appropriate skill.
Your Alliance's total power matters because it's what the other side's total power has to come up against.
It does not matter. A 4* champion can beat a 6* in war if played properly, and likewise you can lose with your 6* against a 4* defender if you play poorly. If you cannot beat a gold 3 alliance there is no way you should be getting gold 2 rewards just because you have a smaller roster, especially since pi can be manipulated.
It matters. No matter how skilled you are, you can only do so much with a butter knife against a Katana.
terrible analogy. You are grasping at straws so poorly. It does not matter and you still cannot get past the argument that if you cannot beat a g3 alliance you should not be getting g2 rewards and you didnt even try because you know that.
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
Our precise rating is 16, 96,2804. Which means approx 17mil and I mentioned we, the alliance, not a single person. We are fighting thee bgs. We have good players and even when we lose we don't lose to a very high margin we manage to clear all bgs even though we fight against r5 fivestars and six stars. I reported this issue to kabam and they told they won't be able to do anything about this. They told almost like it's all based on our luck and they pretty much can't do anything about this. Higher alliances intentionally lose wars during off season to get lower war ratings so that they can demolish lower alliances. So what should the lower alliances do? That's the only thing I'm asking here. Is there any other method than spending tons of revives and boosts to win wars? Even though we use potions and revives they just get the win easily
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
I think he might be talking about Alliance Rating @Lormif
Yes I am
Again, it is your alliance's total power, it means nothing in war. Your war rating, which is your win loss record is all that matters, as it should be. You can be a low level alliance with 15m and beat a 30m alliance if you have the appropriate skill.
Your Alliance's total power matters because it's what the other side's total power has to come up against.
It does not matter. A 4* champion can beat a 6* in war if played properly, and likewise you can lose with your 6* against a 4* defender if you play poorly. If you cannot beat a gold 3 alliance there is no way you should be getting gold 2 rewards just because you have a smaller roster, especially since pi can be manipulated.
It matters. No matter how skilled you are, you can only do so much with a butter knife against a Katana.
terrible analogy. You are grasping at straws so poorly. It does not matter and you still cannot get past the argument that if you cannot beat a g3 alliance you should not be getting g2 rewards and you didnt even try because you know that.
You keep rebutting with Rewards when we're discussing the fairness of the Matches. Saying it doesn't matter is just ignoring how War works, as if you can pair any two Alliances in the game and call it fair. Not the case at all.
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
Our precise rating is 16, 96,2804. Which means approx 17mil and I mentioned we, the alliance, not a single person. We are fighting thee bgs. We have good players and even when we lose we don't lose to a very high margin we manage to clear all bgs even though we fight against r5 fivestars and six stars. I reported this issue to kabam and they told they won't be able to do anything about this. They told almost like it's all based on our luck and they pretty much can't do anything about this. Higher alliances intentionally lose wars during off season to get lower war ratings so that they can demolish lower alliances. So what should the lower alliances do? That's the only thing I'm asking here. Is there any other method than spending tons of revives and boosts to win wars? Even though we use potions and revives they just get the win easily
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
I think he might be talking about Alliance Rating @Lormif
Yes I am
Again, it is your alliance's total power, it means nothing in war. Your war rating, which is your win loss record is all that matters, as it should be. You can be a low level alliance with 15m and beat a 30m alliance if you have the appropriate skill.
Your Alliance's total power matters because it's what the other side's total power has to come up against.
It does not matter. A 4* champion can beat a 6* in war if played properly, and likewise you can lose with your 6* against a 4* defender if you play poorly. If you cannot beat a gold 3 alliance there is no way you should be getting gold 2 rewards just because you have a smaller roster, especially since pi can be manipulated.
It matters. No matter how skilled you are, you can only do so much with a butter knife against a Katana.
terrible analogy. You are grasping at straws so poorly. It does not matter and you still cannot get past the argument that if you cannot beat a g3 alliance you should not be getting g2 rewards and you didnt even try because you know that.
You keep rebutting with Rewards when we're discussing the fairness of the Matches. Saying it doesn't matter is just ignoring how War works, as if you can pair any two Alliances in the game and call it fair. Not the case at all.
I see you still ignore my rebuttal of your Alliance Hero Rating argument. I'm waiting.
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
Our precise rating is 16, 96,2804. Which means approx 17mil and I mentioned we, the alliance, not a single person. We are fighting thee bgs. We have good players and even when we lose we don't lose to a very high margin we manage to clear all bgs even though we fight against r5 fivestars and six stars. I reported this issue to kabam and they told they won't be able to do anything about this. They told almost like it's all based on our luck and they pretty much can't do anything about this. Higher alliances intentionally lose wars during off season to get lower war ratings so that they can demolish lower alliances. So what should the lower alliances do? That's the only thing I'm asking here. Is there any other method than spending tons of revives and boosts to win wars? Even though we use potions and revives they just get the win easily
no one has a rating of 15m, you have a total pi of 15m. The only rating that matters is your war rating which is your win/loss, there is no screw up.
Under the old system you were matched with easier opponents, and therefore allowed an easier time climbing the rankings than larger alliances were, therefore you were ranked too high, the new system is fixing that.
Also how many BGs are you fighting?
I think he might be talking about Alliance Rating @Lormif
Yes I am
Again, it is your alliance's total power, it means nothing in war. Your war rating, which is your win loss record is all that matters, as it should be. You can be a low level alliance with 15m and beat a 30m alliance if you have the appropriate skill.
Your Alliance's total power matters because it's what the other side's total power has to come up against.
It does not matter. A 4* champion can beat a 6* in war if played properly, and likewise you can lose with your 6* against a 4* defender if you play poorly. If you cannot beat a gold 3 alliance there is no way you should be getting gold 2 rewards just because you have a smaller roster, especially since pi can be manipulated.
It matters. No matter how skilled you are, you can only do so much with a butter knife against a Katana.
terrible analogy. You are grasping at straws so poorly. It does not matter and you still cannot get past the argument that if you cannot beat a g3 alliance you should not be getting g2 rewards and you didnt even try because you know that.
You keep rebutting with Rewards when we're discussing the fairness of the Matches. Saying it doesn't matter is just ignoring how War works, as if you can pair any two Alliances in the game and call it fair. Not the case at all.
strawman argument. And you cannot jut pair any two alliances together, that is why we have a war rating. It takes into account the disparities in skill and roster strength. An alliance who can beat a higher pi opponent will have a higher war rating than one that cannot, all things held equally. Also rewards are intriguingly linked to fairness in this. If you pay for 1/10 of a pizza you and your group orders you eating all the pizza (the reward for the joint effort) is not fair to the others. Likewise in a system of fairness if you cannot beat someone you should not get better rewards than them.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
So you don't have an answer for it.
Literally the way that the Hero Rating route could he abused is so obvious. "Oh man, facing alliances with the same Hero rating is tough. Everyone, sell all your 4* and below champs and don't rank up any 5 or 6* champs except the best attackers and defenders, we'll go from being a 60m alliance to a 30m and we'll crush all those idiots that didn't do the same!"
That's what would happen so the people who care the most about War get easier fights.
Hero rating means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You could have a 500k personal hero rating and have 5 R3 6* Sig 200 defenders in theory.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
Where did I say that? Seems like you're twisting my argument to fit yours. What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
Where did I say that? Seems like you're twisting my argument to fit yours. What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
No, that is the system that you want, it may not be the reason you want it, but that IS the system you want. There is no way to impliment what you want without creating the system I stated. There is no actual "fair playing field" system how you want it, because it is completely open to manipulation.
also please stop with the "nothing about rewards", no one here believes you play war for the fun of it, and do not care about the rewards, and if you care about the rewards that is part of it.
if there were no rewards at all associated with alliance war, i'd actually agree with GW. However, since the purpose of war is to compete for rewards, you should play against the alliances who are competing for the same rewards you are.
Yes it is similar but how will it be fair if an elephant has a fight with a goat
Here is the problem with your analogy.
1) in this game skill can overcome pretty much everything in war. 2) it is easy to be an elephant posing as a goat. Take an alliances who has all their members sell all their 4* and 3* champs, and recruits 3 newbs, their total alliance "rating" (the total pi for their alliance) will be artificially low. And if sufficiently skilled can gain more 5* shards than they lose out on from dupes, because under the old system they would be fighting ants.
War rating, your win loss record, accounts for almost all the ways you can manipulate the rating, and in frozen ratings in the off season and it becomes very difficult to manipulate the system.
This bold part is false information.
what is false about it, please make sure not to confuse total pi, which is the pi of all your champions together with prestige, which is completely different and limited to only your top 5 champions.
Man, I request you to discuss this with someone you are comfortable with. The PI full form is power Index. There is no such term or relation as alliance pi rating. PI is effected by masteries and confined only to champs, not to a whole alliance. The term 'rating' you are defining as 'total pi for their alliance' is 'Total base hero rating' of all members of the alliance.
That's all I had to add in this thread, I have seen threads on AW may go south pretty raat, that's why I don't comment on them, but I do read. Ciao
Your alliance rating, as opposed to your alliance's war rating, is the total base hero rating of all your alliance members. The "total base hero rating" is the characters total pi of all their champions INCLUDING MASTERIES. IF you go down the line in your alliance members list and add all their numbers together you will get that rating.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
Where did I say that? Seems like you're twisting my argument to fit yours. What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
No, that is the system that you want, it may not be the reason you want it, but that IS the system you want. There is no way to impliment what you want without creating the system I stated. There is no actual "fair playing field" system how you want it, because it is completely open to manipulation.
also please stop with the "nothing about rewards", no one here believes you play war for the fun of it, and do not care about the rewards, and if you care about the rewards that is part of it.
No. That is not the system I want. I've explained in great detail how I came to suggesting using Prestige, how it was no longer needed with Ratings frozen in the off-time, and how the side effect could have been handled other ways besides allowing people to benefit from grossly overpowered Matches. You're adding one Strawman after another. I'm talking about fairness in Matches. Not allowing unfair Matches for the sake of Rewards. I also didn't say I don't care about Rewards, and I certainly didn't say I want them unfairly. I said I wasn't talking about them. We need to walk away because this is getting ridiculous.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
Where did I say that? Seems like you're twisting my argument to fit yours. What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
No, that is the system that you want, it may not be the reason you want it, but that IS the system you want. There is no way to impliment what you want without creating the system I stated. There is no actual "fair playing field" system how you want it, because it is completely open to manipulation.
also please stop with the "nothing about rewards", no one here believes you play war for the fun of it, and do not care about the rewards, and if you care about the rewards that is part of it.
No. That is not the system I want. I've explained in great detail how I came to suggesting using Prestige, how it was no longer needed with Ratings frozen in the off-time, and how the side effect could have been handled other ways besides allowing people to benefit from grossly overpowered Matches. You're adding one Strawman after another. I'm talking about fairness in Matches. Not allowing unfair Matches for the sake of Rewards. I also didn't say I don't care about Rewards, and I certainly didn't say I want them unfairly. I said I wasn't talking about them. We need to walk away because this is getting ridiculous.
Say it with me, war rating takes into account roster size AND skill, repeat it until you understand it. If yuou are skilled alliance and you beat larger alliances you will go up, if you are not you go down... You have said multiple times you dont care about rewards in other threads, and that is the entire point of you saying "Nothing about Rewards", you are attempting to stop looking at the fairness of the entire system and focus on one aspect that YOU belive is unfair, while ignoring that war rating takes that into account.
none of your suggestions prevented the manipulation that happens in those systems. How do you stop people from only ranking up low prestige champions in a prestige system for example? I am not creating a strawman, because I am very specifically linking what will happen to what you want, not calming that what will happen is what you want.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
Where did I say that? Seems like you're twisting my argument to fit yours. What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
No, that is the system that you want, it may not be the reason you want it, but that IS the system you want. There is no way to impliment what you want without creating the system I stated. There is no actual "fair playing field" system how you want it, because it is completely open to manipulation.
also please stop with the "nothing about rewards", no one here believes you play war for the fun of it, and do not care about the rewards, and if you care about the rewards that is part of it.
No. That is not the system I want. I've explained in great detail how I came to suggesting using Prestige, how it was no longer needed with Ratings frozen in the off-time, and how the side effect could have been handled other ways besides allowing people to benefit from grossly overpowered Matches. You're adding one Strawman after another. I'm talking about fairness in Matches. Not allowing unfair Matches for the sake of Rewards. I also didn't say I don't care about Rewards, and I certainly didn't say I want them unfairly. I said I wasn't talking about them. We need to walk away because this is getting ridiculous.
Say it with me, war rating takes into account roster size AND skill, repeat it until you understand it. If yuou are skilled alliance and you beat larger alliances you will go up, if you are not you go down... You have said multiple times you dont care about rewards in other threads, and that is the entire point of you saying "Nothing about Rewards", you are attempting to stop looking at the fairness of the entire system and focus on one aspect that YOU belive is unfair, while ignoring that war rating takes that into account.
none of your suggestions prevented the manipulation that happens in those systems. How do you stop people from only ranking up low prestige champions in a prestige system for example? I am not creating a strawman, because I am very specifically linking what will happen to what you want, not calming that what will happen is what you want.
No, War Rating doesn't take into account Roster size and skill, when another system has been used for 9 Seasons or so. It's all over the place. Saying everything is all better by default is just a band-aid statement.
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
they do it all the time, it is called SKILL. This is a skilled base game, and in a skilled based game skill matters more than roster, and you base matches on skill not roster sizes because you can be unskilled with a larger roster, or skilled with a smaller roster, and your win loss records takes this into account.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
Where did I say that? Seems like you're twisting my argument to fit yours. What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
No, that is the system that you want, it may not be the reason you want it, but that IS the system you want. There is no way to impliment what you want without creating the system I stated. There is no actual "fair playing field" system how you want it, because it is completely open to manipulation.
also please stop with the "nothing about rewards", no one here believes you play war for the fun of it, and do not care about the rewards, and if you care about the rewards that is part of it.
No. That is not the system I want. I've explained in great detail how I came to suggesting using Prestige, how it was no longer needed with Ratings frozen in the off-time, and how the side effect could have been handled other ways besides allowing people to benefit from grossly overpowered Matches. You're adding one Strawman after another. I'm talking about fairness in Matches. Not allowing unfair Matches for the sake of Rewards. I also didn't say I don't care about Rewards, and I certainly didn't say I want them unfairly. I said I wasn't talking about them. We need to walk away because this is getting ridiculous.
Say it with me, war rating takes into account roster size AND skill, repeat it until you understand it. If yuou are skilled alliance and you beat larger alliances you will go up, if you are not you go down... You have said multiple times you dont care about rewards in other threads, and that is the entire point of you saying "Nothing about Rewards", you are attempting to stop looking at the fairness of the entire system and focus on one aspect that YOU belive is unfair, while ignoring that war rating takes that into account.
none of your suggestions prevented the manipulation that happens in those systems. How do you stop people from only ranking up low prestige champions in a prestige system for example? I am not creating a strawman, because I am very specifically linking what will happen to what you want, not calming that what will happen is what you want.
No, War Rating doesn't take into account Roster size and skill, when another system has been used for 9 Seasons or so. It's all over the place. Saying everything is all better by default is just a band-aid statement.
Yes it litterally does.
If you are a smaller good alliance and you win you go up, if you are a larger bad alliance and you lose you go down. War rating takes into account and roster size all into account. IF people are matched with a larger alliance that means that they are on par in terms of skill with that larger alliance.
We are a 35 mill rating team, and last season face a bunch of 15-25 mill team. But this season we are facing 25-42 mill teams. So yeah, give it this season and maybe another season, and then the playing level field will be leveled out and then your alliance will be facing alliances of the same strength (based on war rating)
I'm not ignoring anything. Saying it is just a number is cavalier and misguiding. I'm not getting into another back-and-forth with the same people. The fairness of Matches matters regardless of what Rewards are being played for. Rewards aren't earned fairly by unfair means. We might as well just agree to disagree because we've been here before.
you started this back and forth, and no one said it was "just a number" but you are making it out to be larger than it is, as well as ignoring that your war rating takes it into account as part of your win/losses.
I believe you said it doesn't matter. That is incorrect.
It does not matter, because skill can overcome it, I was very clear on that. 15m alliances beat 30m alliances all the time.
Just stop. The occasional people can eke out a Win. Saying it doesn't matter is just plain cavalier.
There is no problem with matchmaking. You spent multiple seasons facing underdeveloped patsies and racking up wins. Congratulations on your previous success. Now you’re getting market corrected.
Comments
Alliance hero rating is a very poor and easily manipulated number.
Literally the way that the Hero Rating route could he abused is so obvious. "Oh man, facing alliances with the same Hero rating is tough. Everyone, sell all your 4* and below champs and don't rank up any 5 or 6* champs except the best attackers and defenders, we'll go from being a 60m alliance to a 30m and we'll crush all those idiots that didn't do the same!"
That's what would happen so the people who care the most about War get easier fights.
Hero rating means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You could have a 500k personal hero rating and have 5 R3 6* Sig 200 defenders in theory.
I am sorry you want a system where you manipulate the system to get better rewards by not fighting harder opponents as you win more, that is not a skill based system.
What I want is a reasonable limitation on the variations in strength that come up that gives both sides an actual fair playing field. Nothing about Rewards, nothing about manipulation.
also please stop with the "nothing about rewards", no one here believes you play war for the fun of it, and do not care about the rewards, and if you care about the rewards that is part of it.
You're adding one Strawman after another. I'm talking about fairness in Matches. Not allowing unfair Matches for the sake of Rewards. I also didn't say I don't care about Rewards, and I certainly didn't say I want them unfairly. I said I wasn't talking about them.
We need to walk away because this is getting ridiculous.
Say it with me, war rating takes into account roster size AND skill, repeat it until you understand it. If yuou are skilled alliance and you beat larger alliances you will go up, if you are not you go down... You have said multiple times you dont care about rewards in other threads, and that is the entire point of you saying "Nothing about Rewards", you are attempting to stop looking at the fairness of the entire system and focus on one aspect that YOU belive is unfair, while ignoring that war rating takes that into account.
none of your suggestions prevented the manipulation that happens in those systems. How do you stop people from only ranking up low prestige champions in a prestige system for example? I am not creating a strawman, because I am very specifically linking what will happen to what you want, not calming that what will happen is what you want.
If you are a smaller good alliance and you win you go up, if you are a larger bad alliance and you lose you go down. War rating takes into account and roster size all into account. IF people are matched with a larger alliance that means that they are on par in terms of skill with that larger alliance.