if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
4th war in a row facing an ally with atleast 2K prestige better than us. All we are is fodder for the stronger allys
My current matchup is against an ally with 1.5k prestige more than us. We are 8.2k, they are 9.7. They have better attackers and defenders. Is our matchup fair? Yep. Am I complaining? Nah. We'll just have to fihht harder to get into g3 and make up for our dreadful start to the war season.
You do realize that prestige does not determine the strength of the roster? I could have 10 rank 5 and 9k prestige because of who I choose to rank up. That being said, just because someone gives a negative feedback does not mean it is not worth considering nor does it mean they are not fighting hard.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
4th war in a row facing an ally with atleast 2K prestige better than us. All we are is fodder for the stronger allys
My current matchup is against an ally with 1.5k prestige more than us. We are 8.2k, they are 9.7. They have better attackers and defenders. Is our matchup fair? Yep. Am I complaining? Nah. We'll just have to fihht harder to get into g3 and make up for our dreadful start to the war season.
Really a 8.2K, were a 5.8K and in Silver 1 too..u guys must suck!🤣
Cries about unfair wars. But still no problem making fun of others.
It's because he thinks he's skilled enough to be Master 1, but just lacks the champs. When he gets up to Act 6, way, way, way down the line he will understand.
Lol, speaking for me now huh. Actually I definitely don't think I'm skilled enuff for Master 1. And I've been Cav for a while now "brah". Skate around it all you want but the system is unfair for many smaller alliances. So try again forum tuff guy!🤣
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given. That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest. It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given. That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest. It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Wow, I don’t even know how to respond to this, it’s so absurd 😂
Im sorry but you can’t say my examples don’t count then say that’s a mismatch, my current matchup has a bigger difference in alliance rating and prestige than that.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
yes, there is. There is this thing called system fairness. You are stuck on one subsystem and refuse to acknowledge the fairness of the entire system. As I told you before you cannot adjust one thing without looking at how it affects the entire system, but you refuse. If you adjust how you want it to it means that people who cannot beat their peers in rankings will be getting the same if not better rewards for them, and that is the worse thing in a competitive system.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given. That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest. It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.
In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
Mismatches no longer exist. We get matched up by war rating. The only rare instance of a mismatch is when a new alliance is formed with high prestige and they have to work their way up. Outside of that if you have the same war rating you're fighting teams on your level who have a shot. All this talk is a bunch of players at Silver complaining about unfair matches when the nature of Silver is either newer players trying to move up, retired players with overblown accounts, or players running their baby accounts.
In gold 3 and up the disparity is far less and the range of players don't differ as much because everyone has more than enough r5's to place them for an entire defense. At that point the difference is skill, boosting, and item usage. We all know this yet people are disingenuous about unfair match ups.
4th war in a row facing an ally with atleast 2K prestige better than us. All we are is fodder for the stronger allys
My current matchup is against an ally with 1.5k prestige more than us. We are 8.2k, they are 9.7. They have better attackers and defenders. Is our matchup fair? Yep. Am I complaining? Nah. We'll just have to fihht harder to get into g3 and make up for our dreadful start to the war season.
Really a 8.2K, were a 5.8K and in Silver 1 too..u guys must suck!🤣
Look who's talking... We run 2bgs and had a bad start to the season.
I’m not entirely sure what he found so funny about it! My alliance has an average prestige of 9.3k and we’re silver 1.
Some of the guys I’ve had the joys of being in alliances with would struggle to hit silver 1 if the alliance was made up of 30 people with a similar skill level. And the rosters are typically pretty stacked, one guys sat on a sig200 6* Omega but can’t clear 4 fights in tier 6 AW without dying just as many times half the time. Almost as though the fact that his prestige and summoner rating are so high is irrelevant.
Some of the guys I’ve had the joys of being in alliances with would struggle to hit silver 1 if the alliance was made up of 30 people with a similar skill level. And their roster is pretty stacked, guys sat on a sig200 6* Omega but can’t clear 4 fights in tier 6 AW without dying just as many times half the time. Almost as though the fact that his prestige and summoner rating are so high is irrelevant.
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.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
Did you really ignore my post pontificating the reasons for such a matchup so that you can continue this nonsense narrative?
You mean did I ignore your effort to explain away the issue I presented and divert the problem? Yes. I ignored the ignore.
If you call trying to understand by exploring the potential reasons "explaining away and diverting the problem" then yes, that's exactly what I was doing. You can't call it an ignore when someone is actively engaged in trying to understand it. Well, you can. But a rational person would not.
Ah, yes. You must genuinely be trying to understand my "nonsense narrative". This is redundant at this point. The problem has been presented for 2 months. It's going to continue to be the problem, no matter how many times people try to spin it or brush it off. Whether or not something is done to address it, is out of my control. What I'm not going to do is pretend it's not a problem.
You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given. That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest. It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.
In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
How many times can you keep trying to justify taking advantage of Alliances too weak to win against the opponent? Nothing to do with skill, and that argument is knuckle dragging. What Alliances are working with has an effect on the War played out. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.". They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given. That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest. It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.
In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
How many times can you keep trying to justify taking advantage of Alliances too weak to win against the opponent? Nothing to do with skill, and that argument is knuckle dragging. What Alliances are working with has an effect on the War played out. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.
how many times can you push the same lies. It is everything to do with skill. Yes what they are working with has some effect, but it is not the end all be all you are making it out to be. It also does not address that you keep misrepresenting the cause of these changes.
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.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
Did you really ignore my post pontificating the reasons for such a matchup so that you can continue this nonsense narrative?
You mean did I ignore your effort to explain away the issue I presented and divert the problem? Yes. I ignored the ignore.
If you call trying to understand by exploring the potential reasons "explaining away and diverting the problem" then yes, that's exactly what I was doing. You can't call it an ignore when someone is actively engaged in trying to understand it. Well, you can. But a rational person would not.
Ah, yes. You must genuinely be trying to understand my "nonsense narrative". This is redundant at this point. The problem has been presented for 2 months. It's going to continue to be the problem, no matter how many times people try to spin it or brush it off. Whether or not something is done to address it, is out of my control. What I'm not going to do is pretend it's not a problem.
You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.
I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.
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.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
Did you really ignore my post pontificating the reasons for such a matchup so that you can continue this nonsense narrative?
You mean did I ignore your effort to explain away the issue I presented and divert the problem? Yes. I ignored the ignore.
If you call trying to understand by exploring the potential reasons "explaining away and diverting the problem" then yes, that's exactly what I was doing. You can't call it an ignore when someone is actively engaged in trying to understand it. Well, you can. But a rational person would not.
Ah, yes. You must genuinely be trying to understand my "nonsense narrative". This is redundant at this point. The problem has been presented for 2 months. It's going to continue to be the problem, no matter how many times people try to spin it or brush it off. Whether or not something is done to address it, is out of my control. What I'm not going to do is pretend it's not a problem.
You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.
I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.
you have yet to outline an actual issue, all you have done is go "look their total alliance rating is much higher PROBLEM!!!!".
However that is not indicative of an actual problem. You better than anyone should know how many post things as problems here that are not actual problems, so using that as a qualification is just plain strange.
Comments
Skate around it all you want but the system is unfair for many smaller alliances.
So try again forum tuff guy!🤣
They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest.
It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
In gold 3 and up the disparity is far less and the range of players don't differ as much because everyone has more than enough r5's to place them for an entire defense. At that point the difference is skill, boosting, and item usage. We all know this yet people are disingenuous about unfair match ups.
Almost as though the fact that his prestige and summoner rating are so high is irrelevant.
However that is not indicative of an actual problem. You better than anyone should know how many post things as problems here that are not actual problems, so using that as a qualification is just plain strange.