The challenge is with 3* champs.. I'll film it and put out there for all to see how "skill" only gets you so far.. You only want to use 4* champs because you KNOW champion ratings DO matter.🤣
I don't care about your skill..and that's why the challenge must be done with 3* champs..to simulate how it feels to be lesser skilled facing much higher prestige opponents. And I'm talking a mid sector too not 6 or 7. There is absolutely in no way any form of (reasonable) to say that less skilled players facing allys with much much higher prestige is fair.
2-3k prestige difference is roughly the difference between a 4* R5 and a 5* R4.
I’ll use my 4* R5s and you use your 5* R4s? Add me in game.
A 2-3k prestige difference is the same difference as there is between a maxed 4* and R4 5*. By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars.
You could do a 3* vs 4* challenge and have a 3k prestige gap still. But 3* vs 5* is a 6k prestige gap and your argument is that 2-3k prestige gaps are too high.
I don't care about your skill..and that's why the challenge must be done with 3* champs..to simulate how it feels to be lesser skilled facing much higher prestige opponents. And I'm talking a mid sector too not 6 or 7. There is absolutely in no way any form of (reasonable) to say that less skilled players facing allys with much much higher prestige is fair.
2-3k prestige difference is roughly the difference between a 4* R5 and a 5* R4.
I’ll use my 4* R5s and you use your 5* R4s? Add me in game.
A 2-3k prestige difference is the same difference as there is between a maxed 4* and R4 5*. By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars.
You could do a 3* vs 4* challenge and have a 3k prestige gap still. But 3* vs 5* is a 6k prestige gap and your argument is that 2-3k prestige gaps are too high.
High skilled players can do a lot with 4* champs this is a known. But because everyone keeps saying skill is all that matters..prove it. 3* incursion run because according to what many have said on this thread skill trumps all..so shouldn't be a problem for all the forum "skill" tuff guys.
I don't care about your skill..and that's why the challenge must be done with 3* champs..to simulate how it feels to be lesser skilled facing much higher prestige opponents. And I'm talking a mid sector too not 6 or 7. There is absolutely in no way any form of (reasonable) to say that less skilled players facing allys with much much higher prestige is fair.
2-3k prestige difference is roughly the difference between a 4* R5 and a 5* R4.
I’ll use my 4* R5s and you use your 5* R4s? Add me in game.
A 2-3k prestige difference is the same difference as there is between a maxed 4* and R4 5*. By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars
That example is not representative of what people are facing in War. It's a diversion. First of all, it's not even as extreme as some of the cases we've seen come up. Secondly, you're not just fighting a Max 4* against an R4. You're fighting an R4, increased by the Nodes relative to the Tier, with added difficulty based on Nodes and modifiers, with 3 minutes to win the Fight, and a loss of Points if you die. Easily justifiable when someone is at the "Expert" level, but that is the point they're trying to convey. The "Novices" and "Intermediate" are being Matched with the "Experts". That shouldn't take place. Not in a competition that measures your performance on every single War at the end of a month. There's nothing preventing it from happening. By all means, indulge this idea that everyone is the same as the top, and can get through any Match. I see through it.
If they're competing for the same rewards they should be allowed to face the experts. You killed your own argument by admitting that the higher alliances on a different level of expertise which is the point. You have and I mean never "spoken up" for the little guy. This is just the one time that the little guy point isn't popular on the forums.
I could be the worst player in this game..me vs him is not the point. Its having somebody prove that skill is all that matters..so a 3* incursion run should be a piece of cake, right? Because you know "skill" is all that matters when facing any opponent/node..according to the tuff guys
I guess I just figured out - the only way kabam could make war "fair" would be something like 4* wars, or wars where everyone is matched based on the defense they place. The downside is that this makes higher rarity champs less useful, and seems like it'd be counterproductive to pushing advancement.
That said, it wouldn't be terrible to have some 4* wars in an offseason or 1-2 a season I guess. Basically the current system is fair. If you want to be eligible for my rewards, and me for yours, we have to be able to beat each other. If I can't take you, you deserve the rewards, even if it's because you filled the map with 6* sig 200 R3s - if I'm not good enough to overcome that, it's on me.
If you want more fair (in terms of each war) matchmaking, then petition kabam for another bracket that pays less rewards too, where you can be matched by PI or something.
Then this takes “roster” out of the equation when deciding alliance war abilities, which is counter productive to Kabam’s business.
The 4* version does - having a lower bracket for lower prizes doesn't. It maintains top level prizes for people who invest in their roster and are the most skilled. The lower level bracket's prizes should cap out ~ current gold 1 prizes now, so you REALLY want to fight like maniacs, while avoiding the top level allys, for that level of prize, go for it!
Another option is to fatten up the AW payouts at all levels so even bad losses feel alright, or give a bonus to the lower level ally's win/loss reward based on how much smaller they were. That way, if they lose it's not like they're getting winning rewards, but they do get more when a 10M ally gets mollywopped by a 25M ally.
If there's an incentive to reduce alliance rating in war, then everyone will be doing that.
If someone loses, they lose. Softening the loss by giving more rewards defeats the purpose. It's exactly this mentality that caused participation trophies to exist.
ABOMB these people in here will never take your challenge, they know damn well that even the highly skilled in a 3* incursion run will only get so far. I luv how you backed them into a corner with their whole skill argument point of view!!! Lmao
I am not feeling backed into a corner, show me where 3*s are legit being played in war and I will take him up on it, why cannot that not be showed?
You claim that "skill" is the be all end all, therefore prove it with a 3* incursion run so all can see how far skill gets you when facing a higher rated opponent with node. You KNOW it wont end well and thats the point. Skill is not everything
ABOMB these people in here will never take your challenge, they know damn well that even the highly skilled in a 3* incursion run will only get so far. I luv how you backed them into a corner with their whole skill argument point of view!!! Lmao
I am not feeling backed into a corner, show me where 3*s are legit being played in war and I will take him up on it, why cannot that not be showed?
You claim that "skill" is the be all end all, therefore prove it with a 3* incursion run so all can see how far skill gets you when facing a higher rated opponent with node. You KNOW it wont end well and thats the point. Skill is not everything
This is related to war, I’m sure lormif and xNig would take you up on your challenge if you show evidence of 3*s being used consistently in war.
I could also save you the effort by saying, you won’t, I started playing 4+ years ago and even I barely used 3*s in war back then, and that was when 4*s were harder to get than 5*s currently
I'm not talking referencing war.. The challenge is a straight up call to prove that "skill" is all that matters like most here seem to think. So using 3* or 2* or 1* champs in incursion should be no problem. I'm just asking to prove it then.
I'm not talking referencing war.. The challenge is a straight up call to prove that "skill" is all that matters like most here seem to think. So using 3* or 2* or 1* champs in incursion should be no problem. I'm just asking to prove it then.
No you are creating another fallacy. No one is arguing AT ALL, that a 1, or 2 or 3 * should be able to take on any champion in war with just skill. There are some areas will just die, and if that was the requirement for those alliances there would be a mechanically impossible match up, atleast with the current stuborn tactics, but it would be that way with pretty much anyone they fought. So you are doing as I stated, you are doing a reduction to extreme fallacy.
I don't care about your skill..and that's why the challenge must be done with 3* champs..to simulate how it feels to be lesser skilled facing much higher prestige opponents. And I'm talking a mid sector too not 6 or 7. There is absolutely in no way any form of (reasonable) to say that less skilled players facing allys with much much higher prestige is fair.
2-3k prestige difference is roughly the difference between a 4* R5 and a 5* R4.
I’ll use my 4* R5s and you use your 5* R4s? Add me in game.
A 2-3k prestige difference is the same difference as there is between a maxed 4* and R4 5*. By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars
That example is not representative of what people are facing in War. It's a diversion. First of all, it's not even as extreme as some of the cases we've seen come up. Secondly, you're not just fighting a Max 4* against an R4. You're fighting an R4, increased by the Nodes relative to the Tier, with added difficulty based on Nodes and modifiers, with 3 minutes to win the Fight, and a loss of Points if you die. Easily justifiable when someone is at the "Expert" level, but that is the point they're trying to convey. The "Novices" and "Intermediate" are being Matched with the "Experts". That shouldn't take place. Not in a competition that measures your performance on every single War at the end of a month. There's nothing preventing it from happening. By all means, indulge this idea that everyone is the same as the top, and can get through any Match. I see through it.
If they're competing for the same rewards they should be allowed to face the experts. You killed your own argument by admitting that the higher alliances on a different level of expertise which is the point. You have and I mean never "spoken up" for the little guy. This is just the one time that the little guy point isn't popular on the forums.
Really? Then tell me. Why aren't people arguing for the Rewards? Why weren't they asking for the Rewards to change instead of the Matchmaking? Why doesn't this Thread say War Rewards is busted? The Matches are the issue. Not the Rewards. That could have been resolved differently. People wanted to take weaker Allies out. That's the entire basis of this change. They wanted it, and they got it. At the expense of the system and those who were depending on fair Matches.
I’d say that are a few things that would be impossible, within reason. Example, in the last 3 months (I forget the exact timings) someone went slightly viral in setting a challenge. The challenge was use any 1* on your roster to duel and beat this person’s 4* Dr Doom. Even Lagacy attempted and got no where fast. No one managed to do it.
I don't care about your skill..and that's why the challenge must be done with 3* champs..to simulate how it feels to be lesser skilled facing much higher prestige opponents. And I'm talking a mid sector too not 6 or 7. There is absolutely in no way any form of (reasonable) to say that less skilled players facing allys with much much higher prestige is fair.
2-3k prestige difference is roughly the difference between a 4* R5 and a 5* R4.
I’ll use my 4* R5s and you use your 5* R4s? Add me in game.
A 2-3k prestige difference is the same difference as there is between a maxed 4* and R4 5*. By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars
That example is not representative of what people are facing in War. It's a diversion. First of all, it's not even as extreme as some of the cases we've seen come up. Secondly, you're not just fighting a Max 4* against an R4. You're fighting an R4, increased by the Nodes relative to the Tier, with added difficulty based on Nodes and modifiers, with 3 minutes to win the Fight, and a loss of Points if you die. Easily justifiable when someone is at the "Expert" level, but that is the point they're trying to convey. The "Novices" and "Intermediate" are being Matched with the "Experts". That shouldn't take place. Not in a competition that measures your performance on every single War at the end of a month. There's nothing preventing it from happening. By all means, indulge this idea that everyone is the same as the top, and can get through any Match. I see through it.
If they're competing for the same rewards they should be allowed to face the experts. You killed your own argument by admitting that the higher alliances on a different level of expertise which is the point. You have and I mean never "spoken up" for the little guy. This is just the one time that the little guy point isn't popular on the forums.
Really? Then tell me. Why aren't people arguing for the Rewards? Why weren't they asking for the Rewards to change instead of the Matchmaking? Why doesn't this Thread say War Rewards is busted? The Matches are the issue. Not the Rewards. That could have been resolved differently. People wanted to take weaker Allies out. That's the entire basis of this change. They wanted it, and they got it. At the expense of the system and those who were depending on fair Matches.
I’m curious, when you say “ People wanted to take weaker Allies out”, who is “people”?
Anyone who argued "We never fought them and they're in the same Bracket. Let's see them beat us.".
how does that correlate? Again that does not match with the claim you are making. That just means hey they are in our bracket or above us, they should be as good or better than us, it is not the same thing as wanting to take out weaker alliances, I am not sure how you can with a straight face make that claim.
I don't care about your skill..and that's why the challenge must be done with 3* champs..to simulate how it feels to be lesser skilled facing much higher prestige opponents. And I'm talking a mid sector too not 6 or 7. There is absolutely in no way any form of (reasonable) to say that less skilled players facing allys with much much higher prestige is fair.
2-3k prestige difference is roughly the difference between a 4* R5 and a 5* R4.
I’ll use my 4* R5s and you use your 5* R4s? Add me in game.
A 2-3k prestige difference is the same difference as there is between a maxed 4* and R4 5*. By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars
That example is not representative of what people are facing in War. It's a diversion. First of all, it's not even as extreme as some of the cases we've seen come up. Secondly, you're not just fighting a Max 4* against an R4. You're fighting an R4, increased by the Nodes relative to the Tier, with added difficulty based on Nodes and modifiers, with 3 minutes to win the Fight, and a loss of Points if you die. Easily justifiable when someone is at the "Expert" level, but that is the point they're trying to convey. The "Novices" and "Intermediate" are being Matched with the "Experts". That shouldn't take place. Not in a competition that measures your performance on every single War at the end of a month. There's nothing preventing it from happening. By all means, indulge this idea that everyone is the same as the top, and can get through any Match. I see through it.
If they're competing for the same rewards they should be allowed to face the experts. You killed your own argument by admitting that the higher alliances on a different level of expertise which is the point. You have and I mean never "spoken up" for the little guy. This is just the one time that the little guy point isn't popular on the forums.
Really? Then tell me. Why aren't people arguing for the Rewards? Why weren't they asking for the Rewards to change instead of the Matchmaking? Why doesn't this Thread say War Rewards is busted? The Matches are the issue. Not the Rewards. That could have been resolved differently. People wanted to take weaker Allies out. That's the entire basis of this change. They wanted it, and they got it. At the expense of the system and those who were depending on fair Matches.
How does 1 correlate to the other? how does changing the rewards fix the fact that unskilled alliances were getting better rewards than better skilled alliances? The matches were an issue that caused the issue that was complained about. You are making zero sense. Now if you said reward STRUCTURE, then maybe, but then the only thing to do would be tiers, and again that would hurt small but skilled alliances.
How does changing the Rewards fix the Rewards? Going to have ro try better than that.
i don't really get why a lower rated alliance that would get destroyed by a higher rated alliance should be ranked higher then an alliance that would destroy them. This is the nonsense that happened when noname finished 2nd in masters despite not playing a single top 20 alliance, yet finished ahead of the likes of asr and us, even though we'd beat them by 100+ easily
Remember when their was a small blip of 1-2 matches where people complained of heavy mismatches during one of the final prestige war seasons? Let’s be honest here, that was kabam accidentally pushing the switch to change the matchmaking system too early. The system wasn’t changed because we complained about it, it was being changed anyways. So stop blaming the change on “those nasty, scary endgame players that just want to bully newbs”. Also, GW, you have R5 5*s and play at silver 1 level, you’re literally going on about looking out for the little guys whilst pummelling little guys. About as hypocritical as Abomb complaining about tuff guys wanting to stomp on newbs whilst having a 1.7mil player in his alliance stomping on his opponents.
Was literally going to say that. Abomb was getting mismatches because the top 3rd f his alliance dragged them through wins. Now, they're facing more balanced alliances and that doesn't sit right with him.
I don't even care enough to check on GWs alliance. If he had a bone of consistency it would die of loneliness. But sure, we're the hypocrites.
Actually, the 1.7m player isn’t there anymore. And he’s the only one with more than 2 R5s in his alliance. He’s not getting carried anymore and I guess he just can’t stand losing, so the change in matchmaking is just a convenient excuse to blame and complain about.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
- Max Planck
Remember when crystal conspiracies were the norm, and not the fringe? A lot of people, including me, tried to disprove those with data, and eventually they were pushed into the fringe. But it wasn't because we convinced all the conspiracy nuts, it was because players not invested in the argument came along and entered into an environment where the notion that the data didn't support these conspiracies was common, so they became the generation that simply belittled the conspiracy nuts into obscurity.
I suspect it will be the same with this. Most of the people who lived through both the change to, and the change back from, prestige based match making realize this is better, but there is a significant minority that do not understand why it was originally fine, why the prestige change broke it, and why it had to be changed back. But those people will get marginalized over time since it is, in fact, more fair this way. It just takes an uninvested perspective to see it.
The *argument* that ratings-based matching is the most fair matching system has already won. The only real arguments happening now are snipes at the presumptive motivations behind the change to the current system. I should say the reversal of the change that created the previous system, because the change to the current system was not an out of the blue change, it was actually a change that restored the original match system which was entirely war rating based, and was broken by the introduction of secondary match conditions. We didn't change to the current system, we undid the change to the previous system.
If you're focused on one war, you can maybe convince yourself that prestige matching is more fair. But anyone who looks at the entire season as a ranked competition, and your overall rank for the entire season is the driving factor, then any match system that allows an alliance to move up, pushing other alliances downward, while going out of its way to ensure there is no chance they will ever have to face the alliances they are pushing downward, is entirely unfair.
Wow. 4 5* R5s on profile and 9.7k prestige in Silver 1. Guess that Mole Man and Black Panther Civil War goes on defence ya?
Ehhh.. Wait... 411k ratings!?
Didn’t someone mention that this was impossible earlier in this thread?
9.7k prestige and you're complaining about match ups? I was facing 9.7k prestige allys and you're the ones that were taking all the gold 1-p1 spots that alliances like myself should've had. GTFOH with your complaining. If you have more than 5 r5's I don't want to hear that its not about skill. I bring r5's for AW attack on my level same as you. I don't go into war with r3 6 stars.
i don't really get why a lower rated alliance that would get destroyed by a higher rated alliance should be ranked higher then an alliance that would destroy them. This is the nonsense that happened when noname finished 2nd in masters despite not playing a single top 20 alliance, yet finished ahead of the likes of asr and us, even though we'd beat them by 100+ easily
No one said they should be. The point of this discussion is that the system shouldn't be placing them in Matches where they get "destroyed".
Can someone please be the bigger person in this argument? War does take skill, but if you can solo Collector and take an antman into war, you are gonna get wrecked
i don't really get why a lower rated alliance that would get destroyed by a higher rated alliance should be ranked higher then an alliance that would destroy them. This is the nonsense that happened when noname finished 2nd in masters despite not playing a single top 20 alliance, yet finished ahead of the likes of asr and us, even though we'd beat them by 100+ easily
No one said they should be. The point of this discussion is that the system shouldn't be placing them in Matches where they get "destroyed".
Right, the old system bumped a plat 2/3 alliance into the very top of masters, screwing over tons of alliances in the process. They have to get into their correct spot over time, which is what's happening. Cutting the war rating in half made the process quicker, but it still has to happen somehow. There's no way around that (in reality).
Lol, somebody don't agree with you so let's go tell the teacher. Skill isn't everything and you all KNOW it!
Not sure if this is a funny or just weird line of argument. But just for the record, having an advantage is not the same thing as being unfair. Height is an advantage in basketball, but we don't say a game of basketball is unfair if one team is taller. Some advantages are just inherent to the game.
Roster progress is an advantage inherent to the game. If one alliance has higher prestige, then they will have some advantage over the competition. But that isn't an unfair advantage. That's just how the game rewards players who rank up rosters of champions.
Skill isn't everything, but it accounts for a large proportion of an alliance's actual war fighting strength. That's why we match on war rating. War rating measures how strong the alliance is in terms of their wins and losses, and not their on paper strength. Roster measures *some* of the alliance strength. Wins and losses measures *all* of the alliance's strength, including both roster strength and the members' skill.
How strong is skill? Well, it is pretty strong. I bring in a team of three 5/65 attackers same as some of the strongest players in my alliance and also many of the strongest players in opposing alliances. But I *also* play a second account where my attack team is three 4/55s. On a good day I can play that account through its path and take out two or three minibosses without dying. I know that relative to our current war rating peers that's pretty good: players on both sides with 3x5/65 often die more, fighting comparable or even less difficult paths. So I know that skill can compensate for at least a CR10 difference in strength (one rank), and I'm not even the strongest war attacker there is. I think I'm one rank "more skillful" than the average player, which is a difference in prestige of about 33%. I suspect there has to be players out there two ranks higher in relative skill compared to the average player, players who can overcome a 70% difference in prestige relative to the average player.
At that level of skill, skill is "stronger" than roster in my opinion.
i don't really get why a lower rated alliance that would get destroyed by a higher rated alliance should be ranked higher then an alliance that would destroy them. This is the nonsense that happened when noname finished 2nd in masters despite not playing a single top 20 alliance, yet finished ahead of the likes of asr and us, even though we'd beat them by 100+ easily
No one said they should be. The point of this discussion is that the system shouldn't be placing them in Matches where they get "destroyed".
What you don't seem to understand is there's no way to do the one without the other, because the only way to avoid the former is to occasionally do the latter. Avoiding the latter automatically creates the former problem as an unavoidable side effect.
It is really simple: if the match system allows an alliance to avoid *any* alliances in a guaranteed fashion, it will *automatically* partition the match system - because that's synonymous. And once it partitions the matches, it will allow some alliances to leap frog past other alliances without ever having to face them or anyone else they faced because that's the definition of partitioning. And that creates the problem danielmath and others mention.
To put it in an even more direct way, these two statements are synonymous:
I want alliances to never have to face alliances vastly stronger on paper.
I want alliances to be able to score more points than alliances vastly stronger on paper and win more rewards than them.
i don't really get why a lower rated alliance that would get destroyed by a higher rated alliance should be ranked higher then an alliance that would destroy them. This is the nonsense that happened when noname finished 2nd in masters despite not playing a single top 20 alliance, yet finished ahead of the likes of asr and us, even though we'd beat them by 100+ easily
No one said they should be. The point of this discussion is that the system shouldn't be placing them in Matches where they get "destroyed".
What you don't seem to understand is there's no way to do the one without the other, because the only way to avoid the former is to occasionally do the latter. Avoiding the latter automatically creates the former problem as an unavoidable side effect.
It is really simple: if the match system allows an alliance to avoid *any* alliances in a guaranteed fashion, it will *automatically* partition the match system - because that's synonymous. And once it partitions the matches, it will allow some alliances to leap frog past other alliances without ever having to face them or anyone else they faced because that's the definition of partitioning. And that creates the problem danielmath and others mention.
To put it in an even more direct way, these two statements are synonymous:
I want alliances to never have to face alliances vastly stronger on paper.
I want alliances to be able to score more points than alliances vastly stronger on paper and win more rewards than them.
I completely disagree with that. It's possible to have a system that limits the variation in strengths of Alliances that Match. It can and should be in place, regardless of how unpopular that is.
i don't really get why a lower rated alliance that would get destroyed by a higher rated alliance should be ranked higher then an alliance that would destroy them. This is the nonsense that happened when noname finished 2nd in masters despite not playing a single top 20 alliance, yet finished ahead of the likes of asr and us, even though we'd beat them by 100+ easily
No one said they should be. The point of this discussion is that the system shouldn't be placing them in Matches where they get "destroyed".
What you don't seem to understand is there's no way to do the one without the other, because the only way to avoid the former is to occasionally do the latter. Avoiding the latter automatically creates the former problem as an unavoidable side effect.
It is really simple: if the match system allows an alliance to avoid *any* alliances in a guaranteed fashion, it will *automatically* partition the match system - because that's synonymous. And once it partitions the matches, it will allow some alliances to leap frog past other alliances without ever having to face them or anyone else they faced because that's the definition of partitioning. And that creates the problem danielmath and others mention.
To put it in an even more direct way, these two statements are synonymous:
I want alliances to never have to face alliances vastly stronger on paper.
I want alliances to be able to score more points than alliances vastly stronger on paper and win more rewards than them.
I completely disagree with that. It's possible to have a system that limits the variation in strengths of Alliances that Match. It can and should be in place, regardless of how unpopular that is.
talk about strawman. DNA was very specific that you can have a system like that, but it makes it so they are partitioned away frem stronger people, so never have to play them and therefore can get better rewards than them. That is unfair, and should not be in place. You should get better rewards than others if you cannot beat them. I should probably state that I believe DNA was specifically talking about within the bounds of the single bracket type system
Even if we make two brackets, those two statements are still true. Consider: suppose we make two completely separate brackets, both with their own independent rewards that are identical. Now consider the alliance that goes six and six in the upper bracket and compare them to the alliance that goes twelve and zero in the lower one. The lower one will almost certainly have higher rewards than the higher bracket one, even though the higher bracket alliance is stronger on paper, fought harder competition, but scored less points.
The only way to make a system in which everyone gets to match against alliances of the same war rating and prestige, and still make it impossible for a weaker alliance to get much larger rewards than a stronger alliance while facing much weaker competition would be to have the reward system ignore wins and losses and just hand out rewards proportional to prestige, regardless of the season score.
Just because a system like that doesn't allow for Alliances to punch past a certain amount of their own weight doesn't mean it's impossible to implement those limits. Considering there's only so far they can punch ahead and a more fair system is a greater priority, it's much less consequential.
Comments
You only want to use 4* champs because you KNOW champion ratings DO matter.🤣
By not accepting the challenge with a representative prestige gap, you’re admitting that the only way you could win is by handicapping the better player by a creating a larger prestige gap than what you face in your “un-winnable” wars.
You could do a 3* vs 4* challenge and have a 3k prestige gap still.
But 3* vs 5* is a 6k prestige gap and your argument is that 2-3k prestige gaps are too high.
But because everyone keeps saying skill is all that matters..prove it. 3* incursion run because according to what many have said on this thread skill trumps all..so shouldn't be a problem for all the forum "skill" tuff guys.
Its having somebody prove that skill is all that matters..so a 3* incursion run should be a piece of cake, right? Because you know "skill" is all that matters when facing any opponent/node..according to the tuff guys
If someone loses, they lose. Softening the loss by giving more rewards defeats the purpose. It's exactly this mentality that caused participation trophies to exist.
I could also save you the effort by saying, you won’t, I started playing 4+ years ago and even I barely used 3*s in war back then, and that was when 4*s were harder to get than 5*s currently
The challenge is a straight up call to prove that "skill" is all that matters like most here seem to think.
So using 3* or 2* or 1* champs in incursion should be no problem. I'm just asking to prove it then.
The Matches are the issue. Not the Rewards. That could have been resolved differently. People wanted to take weaker Allies out. That's the entire basis of this change. They wanted it, and they got it. At the expense of the system and those who were depending on fair Matches.
- Max Planck
Remember when crystal conspiracies were the norm, and not the fringe? A lot of people, including me, tried to disprove those with data, and eventually they were pushed into the fringe. But it wasn't because we convinced all the conspiracy nuts, it was because players not invested in the argument came along and entered into an environment where the notion that the data didn't support these conspiracies was common, so they became the generation that simply belittled the conspiracy nuts into obscurity.
I suspect it will be the same with this. Most of the people who lived through both the change to, and the change back from, prestige based match making realize this is better, but there is a significant minority that do not understand why it was originally fine, why the prestige change broke it, and why it had to be changed back. But those people will get marginalized over time since it is, in fact, more fair this way. It just takes an uninvested perspective to see it.
The *argument* that ratings-based matching is the most fair matching system has already won. The only real arguments happening now are snipes at the presumptive motivations behind the change to the current system. I should say the reversal of the change that created the previous system, because the change to the current system was not an out of the blue change, it was actually a change that restored the original match system which was entirely war rating based, and was broken by the introduction of secondary match conditions. We didn't change to the current system, we undid the change to the previous system.
If you're focused on one war, you can maybe convince yourself that prestige matching is more fair. But anyone who looks at the entire season as a ranked competition, and your overall rank for the entire season is the driving factor, then any match system that allows an alliance to move up, pushing other alliances downward, while going out of its way to ensure there is no chance they will ever have to face the alliances they are pushing downward, is entirely unfair.
Roster progress is an advantage inherent to the game. If one alliance has higher prestige, then they will have some advantage over the competition. But that isn't an unfair advantage. That's just how the game rewards players who rank up rosters of champions.
Skill isn't everything, but it accounts for a large proportion of an alliance's actual war fighting strength. That's why we match on war rating. War rating measures how strong the alliance is in terms of their wins and losses, and not their on paper strength. Roster measures *some* of the alliance strength. Wins and losses measures *all* of the alliance's strength, including both roster strength and the members' skill.
How strong is skill? Well, it is pretty strong. I bring in a team of three 5/65 attackers same as some of the strongest players in my alliance and also many of the strongest players in opposing alliances. But I *also* play a second account where my attack team is three 4/55s. On a good day I can play that account through its path and take out two or three minibosses without dying. I know that relative to our current war rating peers that's pretty good: players on both sides with 3x5/65 often die more, fighting comparable or even less difficult paths. So I know that skill can compensate for at least a CR10 difference in strength (one rank), and I'm not even the strongest war attacker there is. I think I'm one rank "more skillful" than the average player, which is a difference in prestige of about 33%. I suspect there has to be players out there two ranks higher in relative skill compared to the average player, players who can overcome a 70% difference in prestige relative to the average player.
At that level of skill, skill is "stronger" than roster in my opinion.
It is really simple: if the match system allows an alliance to avoid *any* alliances in a guaranteed fashion, it will *automatically* partition the match system - because that's synonymous. And once it partitions the matches, it will allow some alliances to leap frog past other alliances without ever having to face them or anyone else they faced because that's the definition of partitioning. And that creates the problem danielmath and others mention.
To put it in an even more direct way, these two statements are synonymous:
I want alliances to never have to face alliances vastly stronger on paper.
I want alliances to be able to score more points than alliances vastly stronger on paper and win more rewards than them.
The only way to make a system in which everyone gets to match against alliances of the same war rating and prestige, and still make it impossible for a weaker alliance to get much larger rewards than a stronger alliance while facing much weaker competition would be to have the reward system ignore wins and losses and just hand out rewards proportional to prestige, regardless of the season score.