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.
When I talk about the brackets, I am talking about partitioning the rewards so the brackets have their own rewards, such that a lower brackets highest rewards is lower than the lowest rewards of the higher bracket.
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.
Of course you do. However, you're wrong.
You're entitled to think that. Doesn't mean you're any more right than I am.
And it does not mean they are wrong either. Outline how in a single bracket system you can partition people away from others without allowing them to get better rewards from those they are partitioned from.
I didn't argue for a Bracket system. I suggested that with the premise of the old Matchmaking. Currently that's no longer used. What I said was it's entirely feasible to regulate the differences in the Matches. Not hard to set limits.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
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.
Of course you do. However, you're wrong.
You're entitled to think that. Doesn't mean you're any more right than I am.
And it does not mean they are wrong either. Outline how in a single bracket system you can partition people away from others without allowing them to get better rewards from those they are partitioned from.
I didn't argue for a Bracket system. I suggested that with the premise of the old Matchmaking. Currently that's no longer used. What I said was it's entirely feasible to regulate the differences in the Matches. Not hard to set limits.
I never stated you did. Yes you can regulate the differences in matches, no one claimed you cannot. The issue is you cannot regulate the differences in matches AND keep rewards fair such that the lower skilled alliances cannot get better skilled rewards. I dont understand how you are not following this.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
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.
Of course you do. However, you're wrong.
You're entitled to think that. Doesn't mean you're any more right than I am.
The fact that I think you're wrong doesn't make me right. The fact that I've demonstrated logically that I'm right multiple times without convincing counter argument makes me right. The fact that I've gone out of my way to provide theoretical counter-argument opportunities that would prove me entirely wrong if the counter-point was proven and none of those have been taken up or challenged strongly implies no one can actually do so. For example, neither you not anyone else who thinks the previous system was better to my knowledge ever responded to my simple example of how match making should work between two high and two low prestige alliances, or attempted to argue why match making systems that work for many alliances would suddenly be inapplicable below a certain number.
The strongest ideas don't win out because everyone else acknowledges them. They only need to be unable to be countered. The current system can be objected to, but no one has countered it with a better option that eliminates the primary problem with the previous system, which was that for a system with one job, to decide who should get which rewards in the season, it failed to do so. The fact that it avoiding giving people hard match ups is not a positive benefit, when it fails its one and only job.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
You addressed the first rule, you never even attempted to address the second.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
You addressed the first rule, you never even attempted to address the second.
You keep asserting that, but what are you defining as less skilled?
Isn't that the entire argument? Alliances are earning greater Rewards? Bit of a contradiction to argue for the same allowance.
This is like saying that the only problem with a blind person declaring the winners of the 100 meter dash in the Olympics is just that some people are getting a better medal than others.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
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.
Of course you do. However, you're wrong.
You're entitled to think that. Doesn't mean you're any more right than I am.
The fact that I think you're wrong doesn't make me right. The fact that I've demonstrated logically that I'm right multiple times without convincing counter argument makes me right. The fact that I've gone out of my way to provide theoretical counter-argument opportunities that would prove me entirely wrong if the counter-point was proven and none of those have been taken up or challenged strongly implies no one can actually do so. For example, neither you not anyone else who thinks the previous system was better to my knowledge ever responded to my simple example of how match making should work between two high and two low prestige alliances, or attempted to argue why match making systems that work for many alliances would suddenly be inapplicable below a certain number.
The strongest ideas don't win out because everyone else acknowledges them. They only need to be unable to be countered. The current system can be objected to, but no one has countered it with a better option that eliminates the primary problem with the previous system, which was that for a system with one job, to decide who should get which rewards in the season, it failed to do so. The fact that it avoiding giving people hard match ups is not a positive benefit, when it fails its one and only job.
Isn't that the entire argument? Alliances are earning greater Rewards? Bit of a contradiction to argue for the same allowance.
This is like saying that the only problem with a blind person declaring the winners of the 100 meter dash in the Olympics is just that some people are getting a better medal than others.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
You mean like making the results at the end of the Season cheap Wins and overpowered Losses? Hmm...
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
You addressed the first rule, you never even attempted to address the second.
You keep asserting that, but what are you defining as less skilled?
This has been addressed over and over again. If my alliance cannot beat your alliance then I should not get better rewards, because your alliance is better than my alliance. That is how war was designed to be.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
You addressed the first rule, you never even attempted to address the second.
You keep asserting that, but what are you defining as less skilled?
This has been addressed over and over again. If my alliance cannot beat your alliance then I should not get better rewards, because your alliance is better than my alliance. That is how war was designed to be.
Better is within the Wsr scoring on an even playing field, at the very least within reasonable limits. When you outrank the Defense to the point that it gives an unfair advantage, you remove the skill factor.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
You addressed the first rule, you never even attempted to address the second.
You keep asserting that, but what are you defining as less skilled?
This has been addressed over and over again. If my alliance cannot beat your alliance then I should not get better rewards, because your alliance is better than my alliance. That is how war was designed to be.
Better is within the Wsr scoring on an even playing field, at the very least within reasonable limits. When you outrank the Defense to the point that it gives an unfair advantage, you remove the skill factor.
you are still intentionally skipping rule number two. How do you make it so that rewards are distributed based on a system in which the better alliances get the better rewards in your system. I mean at this point just admit you dont care about the fairness in the system itself as long as YOU get easy wins.
Isn't that the entire argument? Alliances are earning greater Rewards? Bit of a contradiction to argue for the same allowance.
This is like saying that the only problem with a blind person declaring the winners of the 100 meter dash in the Olympics is just that some people are getting a better medal than others.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
You mean like making the results at the end of the Season cheap Wins and overpowered Losses? Hmm...
Just because you run around at silver 1 overpowering alliances because you don’t play where your roster suggests you should (after all roster is such a big deal, definitely not skill) doesn’t mean everyone else gets easily steamrolled opponents.
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.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
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.
outline how you can make this system follow these 2 simple rules 1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating AND 2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
Using the current setup is fine providing a) it can never be manipulated by the off-season (which started this whole mess), and b) there are parameters which don't allow a variation in what Alliances are using. It's a simple less than/greater than, rather than a complete match criteria. Natural limitations with a reasonable variance, not solely a narrow window within Prestige.
You addressed the first rule, you never even attempted to address the second.
You keep asserting that, but what are you defining as less skilled?
This has been addressed over and over again. If my alliance cannot beat your alliance then I should not get better rewards, because your alliance is better than my alliance. That is how war was designed to be.
Better is within the Wsr scoring on an even playing field, at the very least within reasonable limits. When you outrank the Defense to the point that it gives an unfair advantage, you remove the skill factor.
you are still intentionally skipping rule number two. How do you make it so that rewards are distributed based on a system in which the better alliances get the better rewards in your system. I mean at this point just admit you dont care about the fairness in the system itself as long as YOU get easy wins.
No. You just dodged my response. I countered your view on skill, and now you're double-speaking. Ever hear the expression bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's exactly what these smaller Alliances are doing. Only, they don't have a choice in the matter. They enter Matchmaking, and the system is failing to find them an actual fair Match.
Isn't that the entire argument? Alliances are earning greater Rewards? Bit of a contradiction to argue for the same allowance.
This is like saying that the only problem with a blind person declaring the winners of the 100 meter dash in the Olympics is just that some people are getting a better medal than others.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
You mean like making the results at the end of the Season cheap Wins and overpowered Losses? Hmm...
The only way to get a cheap win or an overpowered loss is if an alliance is at the wrong rating. Which cheap wins and overpowered losses correct over time. Every cheap win and overpowered loss is an alliance that drops in rating towards their correct rating, where they will not be getting overpowered losses or giving out cheap wins.
What is infinitely worse than an overpowered loss is an undeserved win. Because every undeserved win is also an undeserved loss. Overpowered losses are not fun, but they are deserved losses, because if you're facing opponents way stronger than you are, you're in the wrong place to begin with.
In my opinion. And in the opinion of those that care about the integrity of competition, where a million overpowered losses is better than one undeserved win.
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.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Not to mention it’s people like abomb and grounded that are causing these “mismatches” by playing casually at these low levels. So as much as they try to fight for the little guys, it doesn’t mean much when they’re the ones pummelling the little guys with their 1mil summoner rating accounts.
Ad hominum much?
Just pointing out that you’re fighting the guys you’re fighting to protect. Not my fault you’ve got a 1mil account in a 15mil alliance.
You think I have control over that? I've already said in this Thread we fought a couple and it was horrible. You couldn't call it a real Win, and all you could think was you felt bad for them.
Yes, you do. You could move up and play with 29 other 1mil+ accounts.
And as someone at that level, I can tell you now that pretty much every war is a tough fight to the end. They’ll be significant differences in alliance rating at times, but look deeper and you’ll find that alliance you’re up against that has 10mil less rating than you actually has more players (that are also closer to 500k than 1mil rating) that have done a path of abyss than your alliance.
And no I’m not making that up, I did come across an alliance just like that, we just happened to play better on the day and won by 5 attack bonus, they were leading at the halfway point though.
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.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Not to mention it’s people like abomb and grounded that are causing these “mismatches” by playing casually at these low levels. So as much as they try to fight for the little guys, it doesn’t mean much when they’re the ones pummelling the little guys with their 1mil summoner rating accounts.
Ad hominum much?
I guess we can add ad hominum to the list of named fallacies you do not know what they are. It is not an ad homonum if 'attack" is part of a logical argument. It is only an attack if it is outside of the scope of a logical argument.
When you're directing my argument to me, where I'm at, and my Rating, which has nothing to do with what I'm discussing, it's ad hominum. Keep spinning. I'd suggest taking a Dramamine.
It has everything to do with what you are discussing. You are claiming that people are attempting to trample lower rated alliances to get easy wins, while fitting directly into the group you are claiming are doing based on your own rating and staying intentionally in those tiers.
What intentionally? I'm in an Alliance with some guys I think are pretty amazing. Not everyone fights tooth and nail to get in the highest Alliance for the sake of it. I play with people I respect and enjoy. We get along outside of the game, and that's a priority to me and how I play. Nothing intentional about taking advantage of anyone.
So you are not intentionally staying in that alliance? Someone is forcing you to stay in an alliance that does not match your rating so that those poor small developing rosters of the opponents can run up against your impossibly high rated team? Sounds intentional to me.
No, I'm intentionally playing with people I like. What I'm not intentionally doing is taking out the little guys because I have no control over that. The system places the Matches.
except you are. YUou have stated rating is the only thing that matters, well rating is just the total of all players ratings. If a 15m (average rating of 500k) rated guild cannot beat a 30m (average rating of 1m) then being in an alliance fighting other 15m rated alliances should create an environment where you trample over the other alliance every time, and they cannot beat your defense, because this has been your argument the entire time.
Isn't that the entire argument? Alliances are earning greater Rewards? Bit of a contradiction to argue for the same allowance.
This is like saying that the only problem with a blind person declaring the winners of the 100 meter dash in the Olympics is just that some people are getting a better medal than others.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
You mean like making the results at the end of the Season cheap Wins and overpowered Losses? Hmm...
The only way to get a cheap win or an overpowered loss is if an alliance is at the wrong rating. Which cheap wins and overpowered losses correct over time. Every cheap win and overpowered loss is an alliance that drops in rating towards their correct rating, where they will not be getting overpowered losses or giving out cheap wins.
What is infinitely worse than an overpowered loss is an undeserved win. Because every undeserved win is also an undeserved loss. Overpowered losses are not fun, but they are deserved losses, because if you're facing opponents way stronger than you are, you're in the wrong place to begin with.
In my opinion. And in the opinion of those that care about the integrity of competition, where a million overpowered losses is better than one undeserved win.
Which is precisely the mentality that got us here. Win those Rewards no matter whose expense it is. That greed fueled Tanking, which led to the need to intervene with Prestige, which was left for so long that the Rewards were out of sync. That mentality is the heart of the problem. The outcome is more important that the reasoning or fairness to get to it. Only now, there is a system, at the request of the Players, that legitimizes it. It's recreating the exact same problem that got us to where we were. You can say a million mismatches are more preferable, but that's just ignorant. Ignore one problem to prevent the one you feel is more dire.
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.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Not to mention it’s people like abomb and grounded that are causing these “mismatches” by playing casually at these low levels. So as much as they try to fight for the little guys, it doesn’t mean much when they’re the ones pummelling the little guys with their 1mil summoner rating accounts.
Ad hominum much?
I guess we can add ad hominum to the list of named fallacies you do not know what they are. It is not an ad homonum if 'attack" is part of a logical argument. It is only an attack if it is outside of the scope of a logical argument.
When you're directing my argument to me, where I'm at, and my Rating, which has nothing to do with what I'm discussing, it's ad hominum. Keep spinning. I'd suggest taking a Dramamine.
It has everything to do with what you are discussing. You are claiming that people are attempting to trample lower rated alliances to get easy wins, while fitting directly into the group you are claiming are doing based on your own rating and staying intentionally in those tiers.
What intentionally? I'm in an Alliance with some guys I think are pretty amazing. Not everyone fights tooth and nail to get in the highest Alliance for the sake of it. I play with people I respect and enjoy. We get along outside of the game, and that's a priority to me and how I play. Nothing intentional about taking advantage of anyone.
So you are not intentionally staying in that alliance? Someone is forcing you to stay in an alliance that does not match your rating so that those poor small developing rosters of the opponents can run up against your impossibly high rated team? Sounds intentional to me.
No, I'm intentionally playing with people I like. What I'm not intentionally doing is taking out the little guys because I have no control over that. The system places the Matches.
You realise that no matter what system is used, you will always be “trampling on the little guys”?
Prestige - 1 high prestige hidden among 29 low, will barely raise the difficulty of your opponents.
Alliance rating - same as prestige.
War rating - well you know already that it leaves you trampling on opponents.
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.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Not to mention it’s people like abomb and grounded that are causing these “mismatches” by playing casually at these low levels. So as much as they try to fight for the little guys, it doesn’t mean much when they’re the ones pummelling the little guys with their 1mil summoner rating accounts.
Ad hominum much?
Just pointing out that you’re fighting the guys you’re fighting to protect.
Even this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Consider all of the 7k prestige alliances. In the old system they were beating each other up but seeing 5k alliances jump ahead of them. And the 5k alliances were seeing 3k alliances jump ahead of them. Or rather they would have been seeing that, if this were easy to see. It was hard to analyze what was happening except at the very top, because the game didn't present the information in an easy to see way.
Platinum alliances were getting bumped down to Gold because of the old system, but Gold 3 alliances were getting dropped to Silver 1, and Silver 3 alliances were getting bumped down to Bronze. It is just that most of them didn't know this was happening. So which little guys was the previous system protecting? The participation tier alliances were the only ones who couldn't be bumped down, so they were the only ones that were not impacted by the previous match rules. But *every* alliance helped by the old system hurt another one, because that's unavoidable when your season rewards are determined by rank. If you go up, other alliances go down.
This didn't just impact the highest alliances. It affected alliances at every tier. It was just more *obvious* in the Platinum and higher brackets. Every bracket has a fixed number of alliances in it, so every alliance that jumped into a higher bracket pushed another alliance out, and this happened in essentially every bracket.
The false narrative is that the new system lets strong alliances beat up weaker ones for easy rewards. But strong alliances can't keep beating up weaker ones in the current system, because you can't keep beating up the same alliances: you go up and they go down. Instead the old system let some alliances jump above others, pushing them down in the process. Every winner created at least one victim. I say at least one, because it was possible for one alliance to jump two brackets, which meant that one winner created two victims, one each from the brackets they jumped. Mathematically, then, the old system was guaranteed to create more victims than beneficiaries.
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.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Not to mention it’s people like abomb and grounded that are causing these “mismatches” by playing casually at these low levels. So as much as they try to fight for the little guys, it doesn’t mean much when they’re the ones pummelling the little guys with their 1mil summoner rating accounts.
Ad hominum much?
I guess we can add ad hominum to the list of named fallacies you do not know what they are. It is not an ad homonum if 'attack" is part of a logical argument. It is only an attack if it is outside of the scope of a logical argument.
When you're directing my argument to me, where I'm at, and my Rating, which has nothing to do with what I'm discussing, it's ad hominum. Keep spinning. I'd suggest taking a Dramamine.
It has everything to do with what you are discussing. You are claiming that people are attempting to trample lower rated alliances to get easy wins, while fitting directly into the group you are claiming are doing based on your own rating and staying intentionally in those tiers.
What intentionally? I'm in an Alliance with some guys I think are pretty amazing. Not everyone fights tooth and nail to get in the highest Alliance for the sake of it. I play with people I respect and enjoy. We get along outside of the game, and that's a priority to me and how I play. Nothing intentional about taking advantage of anyone.
So you are not intentionally staying in that alliance? Someone is forcing you to stay in an alliance that does not match your rating so that those poor small developing rosters of the opponents can run up against your impossibly high rated team? Sounds intentional to me.
No, I'm intentionally playing with people I like. What I'm not intentionally doing is taking out the little guys because I have no control over that. The system places the Matches.
You realise that no matter what system is used, you will always be “trampling on the little guys”?
Prestige - 1 high prestige hidden among 29 low, will barely raise the difficulty of your opponents.
Alliance rating - same as prestige.
War rating - well you know already that it leaves you trampling on opponents.
You can keep deflecting this to me, but I've made my point in spades. I'm not here for myself alone, and this isn't about me. This is about the system having nothing at all preventing the extremes. Not perfection. Not the odd Match now and then. Nothing at all. Whether it's the aftereffects of switching, or new Alliances starting out getting pummeled by larger ones starting out or otherwise camping on the lower end, there's nothing in place for protection.
you have not made your point at all, and now we find out that you ahve been accusing people of intentionally taken advantage of lower rating alliances, who have not been, while you yourself have been. So yes this is about you.
you are forcing people with 500k, 400k, 300k, and 200k or lower ratings to face off against your stacked account, while argueing that an average of 500k vs 1m is completely unwinnable
Isn't that the entire argument? Alliances are earning greater Rewards? Bit of a contradiction to argue for the same allowance.
This is like saying that the only problem with a blind person declaring the winners of the 100 meter dash in the Olympics is just that some people are getting a better medal than others.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
You mean like making the results at the end of the Season cheap Wins and overpowered Losses? Hmm...
The only way to get a cheap win or an overpowered loss is if an alliance is at the wrong rating. Which cheap wins and overpowered losses correct over time. Every cheap win and overpowered loss is an alliance that drops in rating towards their correct rating, where they will not be getting overpowered losses or giving out cheap wins.
What is infinitely worse than an overpowered loss is an undeserved win. Because every undeserved win is also an undeserved loss. Overpowered losses are not fun, but they are deserved losses, because if you're facing opponents way stronger than you are, you're in the wrong place to begin with.
In my opinion. And in the opinion of those that care about the integrity of competition, where a million overpowered losses is better than one undeserved win.
Which is precisely the mentality that got us here. Win those Rewards no matter whose expense it is. That greed fueled Tanking, which led to the need to intervene with Prestige, which was left for so long that the Rewards were out of sync. That mentality is the heart of the problem. The outcome is more important that the reasoning or fairness to get to it. Only now, there is a system, at the request of the Players, that legitimizes it. It's recreating the exact same problem that got us to where we were. You can say a million mismatches are more preferable, but that's just ignorant. Ignore one problem to prevent the one you feel is more dire.
I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. You're saying that the competition of war seasons is a nice to have, but not the most important thing to have. It is more important that people enjoy the activity than the competition actually give out fair rewards.
In a game mode that only exists to add a competitive element to the game.
I don't even know how to argue against that, except to simply state it, highlight it, draw a giant circle around it in crayon, stare at it, blink, stare at it some more, and then sigh.
Damn y’all are still on this. ABOMB gave a simple challenge for you all to show how skill is all that matters (according to y’all) and yet still....not one of you can back that up!!!!
And he got counter offered by a realistic challenge, and he cannot back that up!!!!
Notice how you said realistic, it’s interesting because your saying that a 3* incursion run challenge is not fair to you but a 4* challenge is... You just illustrated his point of how to him and less skilled, certain matchups are not fair or as you would say realistic. But yet your implying the same with your (realistic challenge). Think just maybe, to the less skilled, certain matchups aren’t realistic to them.
On a side note, none of y’all still have answered his challenge.lol
Yes, realistic. The argument the entire time is that realistically a 4* can beat 5*s and 6*s in war, there is nothing that mechanically prevents them from winning.. for anything less than a 4* it is impossible to win. So if we have been talking about realistic matchups this entire time why would I compete in a fight about something that has not been discussed, an unrealistic matchup. Common sense my dear Rosey. Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
And yes we answer his challenge with a realistic counter challenge which matches the discussion.
Damn y’all are still on this. ABOMB gave a simple challenge for you all to show how skill is all that matters (according to y’all) and yet still....not one of you can back that up!!!!
And he got counter offered by a realistic challenge, and he cannot back that up!!!!
Notice how you said realistic, it’s interesting because your saying that a 3* incursion run challenge is not fair to you but a 4* challenge is... You just illustrated his point of how to him and less skilled, certain matchups are not fair or as you would say realistic. But yet your implying the same with your (realistic challenge). Think just maybe, to the less skilled, certain matchups aren’t realistic to them.
On a side note, none of y’all still have answered his challenge.lol
Everyone should just concede the point that "skill is not the only thing that matters" because a) skill is not the only thing that matters and b) that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of match making fairness.
Fair does not mean equal. Just because someone has an advantage over someone else doesn't mean the competition is unfair. That perverts the meaning of fair competition to meaninglessness. Is the 100 meter dash only fair if all the competitors are equally fast? What does it mean if competitors are only allowed to race against other competitors exactly as fast as they are? Should basketball only be played against competitors of equal height?
In this game, roster advantage is something you earn as part of game progression. But if you aren't allowed to use that advantage anywhere, then the advantage is meaningless, and progression itself loses most of its gameplay meaning. Roster advantage is a fair advantage, just like player height is a fair advantage in basketball. If skill was the only thing that was *supposed* to matter in the game, we'd all be handed identical rosters.
We don't do that because a) the game is in large part about building roster, and b) that would make the game dumb and boring, and probably wouldn't still exist now.
Damn y’all are still on this. ABOMB gave a simple challenge for you all to show how skill is all that matters (according to y’all) and yet still....not one of you can back that up!!!!
And he got counter offered by a realistic challenge, and he cannot back that up!!!!
Notice how you said realistic, it’s interesting because your saying that a 3* incursion run challenge is not fair to you but a 4* challenge is... You just illustrated his point of how to him and less skilled, certain matchups are not fair or as you would say realistic. But yet your implying the same with your (realistic challenge). Think just maybe, to the less skilled, certain matchups aren’t realistic to them.
On a side note, none of y’all still have answered his challenge.lol
Everyone should just concede the point that "skill is not the only thing that matters" because a) skill is not the only thing that matters and b) that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of match making fairness.
Fair does not mean equal. Just because someone has an advantage over someone else doesn't mean the competition is unfair. That perverts the meaning of fair competition to meaninglessness. Is the 100 meter dash only fair if all the competitors are equally fast? What does it mean if competitors are only allowed to race against other competitors exactly as fast as they are? Should basketball only be played against competitors of equal height?
In this game, roster advantage is something you earn as part of game progression. But if you aren't allowed to use that advantage anywhere, then the advantage is meaningless, and progression itself loses most of its gameplay meaning. Roster advantage is a fair advantage, just like player height is a fair advantage in basketball. If skill was the only thing that was *supposed* to matter in the game, we'd all be handed identical rosters.
We don't do that because a) the game is in large part about building roster, and b) that would make the game dumb and boring, and probably wouldn't still exist now.
I agree with A. Your basketball reference isn't entirely accurate though because there are skill levels my man. College, Semi-pro, NBA..you get my point. Skill levels vary
Damn y’all are still on this. ABOMB gave a simple challenge for you all to show how skill is all that matters (according to y’all) and yet still....not one of you can back that up!!!!
And he got counter offered by a realistic challenge, and he cannot back that up!!!!
Notice how you said realistic, it’s interesting because your saying that a 3* incursion run challenge is not fair to you but a 4* challenge is... You just illustrated his point of how to him and less skilled, certain matchups are not fair or as you would say realistic. But yet your implying the same with your (realistic challenge). Think just maybe, to the less skilled, certain matchups aren’t realistic to them.
On a side note, none of y’all still have answered his challenge.lol
Everyone should just concede the point that "skill is not the only thing that matters" because a) skill is not the only thing that matters and b) that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of match making fairness.
Fair does not mean equal. Just because someone has an advantage over someone else doesn't mean the competition is unfair. That perverts the meaning of fair competition to meaninglessness. Is the 100 meter dash only fair if all the competitors are equally fast? What does it mean if competitors are only allowed to race against other competitors exactly as fast as they are? Should basketball only be played against competitors of equal height?
In this game, roster advantage is something you earn as part of game progression. But if you aren't allowed to use that advantage anywhere, then the advantage is meaningless, and progression itself loses most of its gameplay meaning. Roster advantage is a fair advantage, just like player height is a fair advantage in basketball. If skill was the only thing that was *supposed* to matter in the game, we'd all be handed identical rosters.
We don't do that because a) the game is in large part about building roster, and b) that would make the game dumb and boring, and probably wouldn't still exist now.
I dont think anyone stated it was the only thing that matters, that is just them tying to take the argument to the extreme. WE have been clear that it matters only when there is nothing in the mechanics of the game to prevent it. Also that large rosters can change the amount of skill required, overcoming a portion of skill. Both of those limit skill, but it is still the largest factors in the fight.
Comments
1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating
AND
2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
The strongest ideas don't win out because everyone else acknowledges them. They only need to be unable to be countered. The current system can be objected to, but no one has countered it with a better option that eliminates the primary problem with the previous system, which was that for a system with one job, to decide who should get which rewards in the season, it failed to do so. The fact that it avoiding giving people hard match ups is not a positive benefit, when it fails its one and only job.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Ever hear the expression bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's exactly what these smaller Alliances are doing. Only, they don't have a choice in the matter. They enter Matchmaking, and the system is failing to find them an actual fair Match.
What is infinitely worse than an overpowered loss is an undeserved win. Because every undeserved win is also an undeserved loss. Overpowered losses are not fun, but they are deserved losses, because if you're facing opponents way stronger than you are, you're in the wrong place to begin with.
In my opinion. And in the opinion of those that care about the integrity of competition, where a million overpowered losses is better than one undeserved win.
You could move up and play with 29 other 1mil+ accounts.
And as someone at that level, I can tell you now that pretty much every war is a tough fight to the end. They’ll be significant differences in alliance rating at times, but look deeper and you’ll find that alliance you’re up against that has 10mil less rating than you actually has more players (that are also closer to 500k than 1mil rating) that have done a path of abyss than your alliance.
And no I’m not making that up, I did come across an alliance just like that, we just happened to play better on the day and won by 5 attack bonus, they were leading at the halfway point though.
Prestige - 1 high prestige hidden among 29 low, will barely raise the difficulty of your opponents.
Alliance rating - same as prestige.
War rating - well you know already that it leaves you trampling on opponents.
Platinum alliances were getting bumped down to Gold because of the old system, but Gold 3 alliances were getting dropped to Silver 1, and Silver 3 alliances were getting bumped down to Bronze. It is just that most of them didn't know this was happening. So which little guys was the previous system protecting? The participation tier alliances were the only ones who couldn't be bumped down, so they were the only ones that were not impacted by the previous match rules. But *every* alliance helped by the old system hurt another one, because that's unavoidable when your season rewards are determined by rank. If you go up, other alliances go down.
This didn't just impact the highest alliances. It affected alliances at every tier. It was just more *obvious* in the Platinum and higher brackets. Every bracket has a fixed number of alliances in it, so every alliance that jumped into a higher bracket pushed another alliance out, and this happened in essentially every bracket.
The false narrative is that the new system lets strong alliances beat up weaker ones for easy rewards. But strong alliances can't keep beating up weaker ones in the current system, because you can't keep beating up the same alliances: you go up and they go down. Instead the old system let some alliances jump above others, pushing them down in the process. Every winner created at least one victim. I say at least one, because it was possible for one alliance to jump two brackets, which meant that one winner created two victims, one each from the brackets they jumped. Mathematically, then, the old system was guaranteed to create more victims than beneficiaries.
Just on that basis *alone* the system was wrong.
you are forcing people with 500k, 400k, 300k, and 200k or lower ratings to face off against your stacked account, while argueing that an average of 500k vs 1m is completely unwinnable
In a game mode that only exists to add a competitive element to the game.
I don't even know how to argue against that, except to simply state it, highlight it, draw a giant circle around it in crayon, stare at it, blink, stare at it some more, and then sigh.
And yes we answer his challenge with a realistic counter challenge which matches the discussion.
Fair does not mean equal. Just because someone has an advantage over someone else doesn't mean the competition is unfair. That perverts the meaning of fair competition to meaninglessness. Is the 100 meter dash only fair if all the competitors are equally fast? What does it mean if competitors are only allowed to race against other competitors exactly as fast as they are? Should basketball only be played against competitors of equal height?
In this game, roster advantage is something you earn as part of game progression. But if you aren't allowed to use that advantage anywhere, then the advantage is meaningless, and progression itself loses most of its gameplay meaning. Roster advantage is a fair advantage, just like player height is a fair advantage in basketball. If skill was the only thing that was *supposed* to matter in the game, we'd all be handed identical rosters.
We don't do that because a) the game is in large part about building roster, and b) that would make the game dumb and boring, and probably wouldn't still exist now.
Your basketball reference isn't entirely accurate though because there are skill levels my man. College, Semi-pro, NBA..you get my point. Skill levels vary