**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
War Matchmaking is busted
This discussion has been closed.
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.