Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
There's an asinine assumption here that everyone has the same skill level, and if they don't then they deserve to lose War. The problem is War is meant for all skill levels. People are supposed to progress as they go up. Not just get hammered over and over in Matches they can't compete with. Whether people admit it or not, there are Matches that shouldn't take place, and no one gains anything from them, winning or losing. This mentality is exactly what caused the problem that led to Prestige, and the reason I was so disappointed was because this change encouraged it with legitimacy. Get Rewards no matter who you take advantage of. That's the heart of the problem here. The abandonment of fair competition for the sake of Rewards. I get where that decision came from. I still don't agree with what it's feeding.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
There's an asinine assumption here that everyone has the same skill level, and if they don't then they deserve to lose War. The problem is War is meant for all skill levels. People are supposed to progress as they go up. Not just get hammered over and over in Matches they can't compete with. Whether people admit it or not, there are Matches that shouldn't take place, and no one gains anything from them, winning or losing. This mentality is exactly what caused the problem that led to Prestige, and the reason I was so disappointed was because this change encouraged it with legitimacy. Get Rewards no matter who you take advantage of. That's the heart of the problem here. The abandonment of fair competition for the sake of Rewards. I get where that decision came from. I still don't agree with what it's feeding.
It is asinine to think the argument being made here is that everyone has the same skill, the argument is that skill can overcome the obstacles . It is not asinine to say if you dont have the skills to overcome the obstacles then you should lose, that is logical.
you have not proven that this is an over and over and over again in matchups, despite being asked time and time again to prove it.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Then you defeated your own complaints now.
No. That's not what we have now.
you defeated your own arguments here because under prestige you argued skill can overcome, now you are arguing the opposite. Basically you are being inconsistant.
There's an asinine assumption here that everyone has the same skill level, and if they don't then they deserve to lose War. The problem is War is meant for all skill levels. People are supposed to progress as they go up. Not just get hammered over and over in Matches they can't compete with. Whether people admit it or not, there are Matches that shouldn't take place, and no one gains anything from them, winning or losing. This mentality is exactly what caused the problem that led to Prestige, and the reason I was so disappointed was because this change encouraged it with legitimacy. Get Rewards no matter who you take advantage of. That's the heart of the problem here. The abandonment of fair competition for the sake of Rewards. I get where that decision came from. I still don't agree with what it's feeding.
It is asinine to think the argument being made here is that everyone has the same skill, the argument is that skill can overcome the obstacles . It is not asinine to say if you dont have the skills to overcome the obstacles then you should lose, that is logical.
you have not proven that this is an over and over and over again in matchups, despite being asked time and time again to prove it.
No. What you're saying is any skill level can overcome any Match, and that IS asinine. It's saying everyone in War should hang, or lose. Everyone from Beginner to Master should have the same skill level and if not, they deserve to lose because any Match can be overcome. That's so unilateral that I don't know where to begin.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Then you defeated your own complaints now.
No. That's not what we have now.
you defeated your own arguments here because under prestige you argued skill can overcome, now you are arguing the opposite. Basically you are being inconsistant.
You're being inaccurate. My argument was under the premise of even Matches. Try some context.
There's an asinine assumption here that everyone has the same skill level, and if they don't then they deserve to lose War. The problem is War is meant for all skill levels. People are supposed to progress as they go up. Not just get hammered over and over in Matches they can't compete with. Whether people admit it or not, there are Matches that shouldn't take place, and no one gains anything from them, winning or losing. This mentality is exactly what caused the problem that led to Prestige, and the reason I was so disappointed was because this change encouraged it with legitimacy. Get Rewards no matter who you take advantage of. That's the heart of the problem here. The abandonment of fair competition for the sake of Rewards. I get where that decision came from. I still don't agree with what it's feeding.
It is asinine to think the argument being made here is that everyone has the same skill, the argument is that skill can overcome the obstacles . It is not asinine to say if you dont have the skills to overcome the obstacles then you should lose, that is logical.
you have not proven that this is an over and over and over again in matchups, despite being asked time and time again to prove it.
No. What you're saying is any skill level can overcome any Match, and that IS asinine. It's saying everyone in War should hang, or lose. Everyone from Beginner to Master should have the same skill level and if not, they deserve to lose because any Match can be overcome. That's so unilateral that I don't know where to begin.
no one has every said any skill level can overcome any match. Never ever. It is like you just cannot understand the basic argument so you are making stuff up.
There's an asinine assumption here that everyone has the same skill level, and if they don't then they deserve to lose War. The problem is War is meant for all skill levels. People are supposed to progress as they go up. Not just get hammered over and over in Matches they can't compete with. Whether people admit it or not, there are Matches that shouldn't take place, and no one gains anything from them, winning or losing. This mentality is exactly what caused the problem that led to Prestige, and the reason I was so disappointed was because this change encouraged it with legitimacy. Get Rewards no matter who you take advantage of. That's the heart of the problem here. The abandonment of fair competition for the sake of Rewards. I get where that decision came from. I still don't agree with what it's feeding.
It is asinine to think the argument being made here is that everyone has the same skill, the argument is that skill can overcome the obstacles . It is not asinine to say if you dont have the skills to overcome the obstacles then you should lose, that is logical.
you have not proven that this is an over and over and over again in matchups, despite being asked time and time again to prove it.
No. What you're saying is any skill level can overcome any Match, and that IS asinine. It's saying everyone in War should hang, or lose. Everyone from Beginner to Master should have the same skill level and if not, they deserve to lose because any Match can be overcome. That's so unilateral that I don't know where to begin.
no one has every said any skill level can overcome any match. Never ever. It is like you just cannot understand the basic argument so you are making stuff up.
Are you really trying that hard to contradict me, or are you genuinely confused?
There's an asinine assumption here that everyone has the same skill level, and if they don't then they deserve to lose War. The problem is War is meant for all skill levels. People are supposed to progress as they go up. Not just get hammered over and over in Matches they can't compete with. Whether people admit it or not, there are Matches that shouldn't take place, and no one gains anything from them, winning or losing. This mentality is exactly what caused the problem that led to Prestige, and the reason I was so disappointed was because this change encouraged it with legitimacy. Get Rewards no matter who you take advantage of. That's the heart of the problem here. The abandonment of fair competition for the sake of Rewards. I get where that decision came from. I still don't agree with what it's feeding.
It is asinine to think the argument being made here is that everyone has the same skill, the argument is that skill can overcome the obstacles . It is not asinine to say if you dont have the skills to overcome the obstacles then you should lose, that is logical.
you have not proven that this is an over and over and over again in matchups, despite being asked time and time again to prove it.
No. What you're saying is any skill level can overcome any Match, and that IS asinine. It's saying everyone in War should hang, or lose. Everyone from Beginner to Master should have the same skill level and if not, they deserve to lose because any Match can be overcome. That's so unilateral that I don't know where to begin.
no one has every said any skill level can overcome any match. Never ever. It is like you just cannot understand the basic argument so you are making stuff up.
Are you really trying that hard to contradict me, or are you genuinely confused?
The argument is that skill level determines the outcome, not that a new player can defeat any champion, and therefore no fight is mechanically impossible, which means the mechanics of the game does not make it impossible. You are the one confused here bud
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
I no longer see screen shots of these impossible matchups that's been unfair. We are at the point where everybody is at the level they should be skill wise.
I'm in p3 but if my alliance cared about war like the top level we have the potential to be p1 with our 48 million rating. Most of the alliances in p3 are 30-40 mill. This is what it is. You're falling on deaf ears at the point with your illogical arguments about how unfair it is. We went past the unfair mark last season and now teams are properly rated.
I no longer see screen shots of these impossible matchups that's been unfair. We are at the point where everybody is at the level they should be skill wise.
I'm in p3 but if my alliance cared about war like the top level we have the potential to be p1 with our 48 million rating. Most of the alliances in p3 are 30-40 mill. This is what it is. You're falling on deaf ears at the point with your illogical arguments about how unfair it is. We went past the unfair mark last season and now teams are properly rated.
Not so. They're still happening. We slaughtered 2 of them this Season.
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
No I didn't. I have no idea what you were reading, but you're either twisting my response, or misunderstanding what I said.
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
No I didn't. I have no idea what you were reading, but you're either twisting my response, or misunderstanding what I said.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
I no longer see screen shots of these impossible matchups that's been unfair. We are at the point where everybody is at the level they should be skill wise.
I'm in p3 but if my alliance cared about war like the top level we have the potential to be p1 with our 48 million rating. Most of the alliances in p3 are 30-40 mill. This is what it is. You're falling on deaf ears at the point with your illogical arguments about how unfair it is. We went past the unfair mark last season and now teams are properly rated.
Not so. They're still happening. We slaughtered 2 of them this Season.
Aren't you like in Silver though? You guys don't even take war seriously if you're playing on that level. Unless you're in gold there are going to wide discrepancies because you have newer players or "retired" player who don't play competitively anymore. Your rewards are not even worth arguing over.
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
No I didn't. I have no idea what you were reading, but you're either twisting my response, or misunderstanding what I said.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Yes. When Prestige was still being used I made the point that with even Matches, the difficulty was scaled the same. I didn't say anything about this system.
I no longer see screen shots of these impossible matchups that's been unfair. We are at the point where everybody is at the level they should be skill wise.
I'm in p3 but if my alliance cared about war like the top level we have the potential to be p1 with our 48 million rating. Most of the alliances in p3 are 30-40 mill. This is what it is. You're falling on deaf ears at the point with your illogical arguments about how unfair it is. We went past the unfair mark last season and now teams are properly rated.
Not so. They're still happening. We slaughtered 2 of them this Season.
Silver is always going to be an issue because of the wide discrepancy of players that choose to be there. Some have no interest in the higher tiers, so while they have "bigger" accounts, they put no effort in. Meanwhile, newer players are trying to push through. But to get to the accounts that do try in gold 3, they'll have to get through the accounts that don't in silver 1.
If they have "no hope" in silver 1, how exactly do you expect them to compete higher than that? And more importantly, why SHOULD they be higher than that? Not being condescending here. Genuinely, maybe silver 1/2 is just their ceiling for now.
The point I was making was that the Matches took place. It wasn't enjoyable by any means, nor was it a Win as far as I'm concerned. There shouldn't be slaughter Matches based on a variation in fire power.
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
No I didn't. I have no idea what you were reading, but you're either twisting my response, or misunderstanding what I said.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Yes. When Prestige was still being used I made the point that with even Matches, the difficulty was scaled the same. I didn't say anything about this system.
except it didnt, because you can manipulate prestige, and having a low prestige has no impact on if you are using 6*s or 5*s
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
No I didn't. I have no idea what you were reading, but you're either twisting my response, or misunderstanding what I said.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Yes. When Prestige was still being used I made the point that with even Matches, the difficulty was scaled the same. I didn't say anything about this system.
except it didnt, because you can manipulate prestige, and having a low prestige has no impact on if you are using 6*s or 5*s
Who is going to manipulate Prestige, besides people trying to take advantage of the system and take others out....and no. You can't manipulate Prestige. Once they're your Top Champs, they're your Top Champs. You can start decoy Accounts and not Rank, but if you're asking me to reason with that, you're asking the wrong person.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
This change took skill and multiplied it exponentially. Look at what happens to War. People saw Alliances fighting R4s with R4s, as a case example. They said they would never survive against their R3 6*s. The point I made before this all started was that the fire power on BOTH sides is evenly matched. Which means they're fighting fairly. What happens to a Champ when you place it on Defense? It increases in PI and difficulty based on the Tier and Nodes. Which means at Tier 1, that R4 isn't just an R4. Only your Attack is the same. Now people are saying any Roster size can take down any Roster size if they have skill. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you don't have the fire power, you have a water gun in WW2.
except as you agreed with earlier when you said you made the same argument under prestige if that even in the old system the firepower WAS NOT evenly matched. This system makes it more likely not less that the firepower will be evenly matched. The only pain point is new alliances created with more skill have to go through worse alliances to gain power, which we already talked about and talked about solutions.
No I didn't. I have no idea what you were reading, but you're either twisting my response, or misunderstanding what I said.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
Why imply that Master alliances are being matched against midrange alliances? Im honestly trying to understand your previous post.
Read back. The comment was that there is no Defense a Master Alliance can place that can't be overcome by a Stone. I didn't say it was happening. I was responding to the OP saying all Matches are capable of being won.
And that statement was true, any defense a master alliance can place a stone alliance can place, even at a super low prestige and alliance rating. It does not mean they are fighting a master alliance, but it does mean they will have the same difficulty as if they were, despite fighting a low end alliance.
I made that point when people argued Prestige Matchmaking, and how lower Alliances weren't playing as difficult Wars.
Yes. When Prestige was still being used I made the point that with even Matches, the difficulty was scaled the same. I didn't say anything about this system.
except it didnt, because you can manipulate prestige, and having a low prestige has no impact on if you are using 6*s or 5*s
Who is going to manipulate Prestige, besides people trying to take advantage of the system and take others out....and no. You can't manipulate Prestige. Once they're your Top Champs, they're your Top Champs. You can start decoy Accounts and not Rank, but if you're asking me to reason with that, you're asking the wrong person.
people who want to take advantage of a system that allows them to fight what you see as "easy" fights and get higher plat then they could otherwise. In other words a lot of people.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
That’s not necessarily true either.
I have a main account with a hero rating of 1.3m.
I have 2 alt accounts at around 500k. Both of the alt accounts have multiple maxed out 5* (1 has 6 and the other has 8). I could place defences with maxed out 5* on both those mini accounts.
Does this mean that the alt accounts are operated by someone less skilful than someone with a much higher rating? No, because it’s the same person.
Having a high rating and prestige isn’t the be all and end all. You can buy your way to an account like that simply by spending a tonne of money but not having much skill at all.
Comments
you have not proven that this is an over and over and over again in matchups, despite being asked time and time again to prove it.
I'm in p3 but if my alliance cared about war like the top level we have the potential to be p1 with our 48 million rating. Most of the alliances in p3 are 30-40 mill. This is what it is. You're falling on deaf ears at the point with your illogical arguments about how unfair it is. We went past the unfair mark last season and now teams are properly rated.
I have a main account with a hero rating of 1.3m.
I have 2 alt accounts at around 500k. Both of the alt accounts have multiple maxed out 5* (1 has 6 and the other has 8). I could place defences with maxed out 5* on both those mini accounts.
Does this mean that the alt accounts are operated by someone less skilful than someone with a much higher rating? No, because it’s the same person.
Having a high rating and prestige isn’t the be all and end all. You can buy your way to an account like that simply by spending a tonne of money but not having much skill at all.