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.
Nice to have? It is not "nice to have" a system that doesn't set its participants up for failure before they even get to play. It's a necessity when you're talking about accuracy in terms of the final result. Not to mention motivation, trust, and altogether regard for Players outside the top demographic.
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
yea that muggsy bogues, may skill does not matter, just height, amrite?
No idea what that means, if that muggy is a player or what..dont follow bball
he was a 5'3 point guard who played in the NBA for 14 seasons. He had one of the highest vertical leaps, less than 4 inches from the record holder.
By all means, keep trying to sell me the idea that fairness doesn't matter in competition. It will be futile.
fairness does matter, but fairness in the entire system, again you keep ignoring thats because all you want to do is keep trampling low level players without being trampled yourself.
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
That would be relevant, if anyone was proposing skill-based war bracketing. But bracketing by prestige is like bracketing by height, not by experience level. People's rosters do get larger over time, but up to a point people grow taller over time as well, and more relevant here they become more physically capable. We don't put the tallest high school team up against the NBA even if they have the same height. We put them up against other high school teams, even if they have a tremendous height advantage. We don't assume that height is a proxy for playing strength in basketball.
And no high school player earns the same rewards for playing basketball as the lowest paid NBA player. Those brackets come with completely non-overlapping rewards. If you want to place all the low prestige alliances into a separate bracket from the high prestige alliances, and set the rewards so the best low prestige alliance gets less rewards than the worst high prestige alliance, I think even the low prestige alliances would have a problem with that. But that would be a fair way to allow them to play against each other, and never face the high prestige alliances. Just like no high school basketball team is forced to compete against the NBA, but neither do they get access to any of the rewards of the NBA, even if they have a higher winning percentage.
By all means, keep trying to sell me the idea that fairness doesn't matter in competition. It will be futile.
fairness does matter, but fairness in the entire system, again you keep ignoring thats because all you want to do is keep trampling low level players without being trampled yourself.
Fairness in the entire system is not what we have. We have what people call fair Rewards because lower Allies aren't hanging next to the big boys, and unfair Matches still very much a thing. As for that last bit, I'm not bothering with that quasi personal conjecture.
By all means, keep trying to sell me the idea that fairness doesn't matter in competition. It will be futile.
fairness does matter, but fairness in the entire system, again you keep ignoring thats because all you want to do is keep trampling low level players without being trampled yourself.
Fairness in the entire system is not what we have. We have what people call fair Rewards because lower Allies aren't hanging next to the big boys, and unfair Matches still very much a thing. As for that last bit, I'm not bothering with that quasi personal conjecture.
That is your opinion. Fairness in the entire system is typically a compromise to give the greatest fairness, which as I have pointed out is relative. And stop with the unfair matchups, since you are causing them youself. If it is impossible for an average 500k alliance to beat an average 1m alliance then it is impossible for a 200k to 500k player to beat a 1m player, which is what you are causing.
By all means, keep trying to sell me the idea that fairness doesn't matter in competition. It will be futile.
fairness does matter, but fairness in the entire system, again you keep ignoring thats because all you want to do is keep trampling low level players without being trampled yourself.
Fairness in the entire system is not what we have. We have what people call fair Rewards because lower Allies aren't hanging next to the big boys, and unfair Matches still very much a thing. As for that last bit, I'm not bothering with that quasi personal conjecture.
That is your opinion. Fairness in the entire system is typically a compromise to give the greatest fairness, which as I have pointed out is relative. And stop with the unfair matchups, since you are causing them youself. If it is impossible for an average 500k alliance to beat an average 1m alliance then it is impossible for a 200k to 500k player to beat a 1m player, which is what you are causing.
Easy to say when you're talking about sacrificing the experience of War for one demographic of Players to make the other happy.
By all means, keep trying to sell me the idea that fairness doesn't matter in competition. It will be futile.
fairness does matter, but fairness in the entire system, again you keep ignoring thats because all you want to do is keep trampling low level players without being trampled yourself.
Fairness in the entire system is not what we have. We have what people call fair Rewards because lower Allies aren't hanging next to the big boys, and unfair Matches still very much a thing. As for that last bit, I'm not bothering with that quasi personal conjecture.
That is your opinion. Fairness in the entire system is typically a compromise to give the greatest fairness, which as I have pointed out is relative. And stop with the unfair matchups, since you are causing them youself. If it is impossible for an average 500k alliance to beat an average 1m alliance then it is impossible for a 200k to 500k player to beat a 1m player, which is what you are causing.
Easy to say when you're talking about sacrificing the experience of War for one demographic of Players to make the other happy.
except that is exactly what you are asking the majority of the players to do for your minority. Why is it ok for you to ask the players to sacrifice the experience of the war rewards for a worse experience so you can have a better experience for yourself? I know the tradeoffs, you keep acting like there are none, and we should all give up our experiences jsut for yours and a few "unfair" matchups.
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
That would be relevant, if anyone was proposing skill-based war bracketing. But bracketing by prestige is like bracketing by height, not by experience level. People's rosters do get larger over time, but up to a point people grow taller over time as well, and more relevant here they become more physically capable. We don't put the tallest high school team up against the NBA even if they have the same height. We put them up against other high school teams, even if they have a tremendous height advantage. We don't assume that height is a proxy for playing strength in basketball.
And no high school player earns the same rewards for playing basketball as the lowest paid NBA player. Those brackets come with completely non-overlapping rewards. If you want to place all the low prestige alliances into a separate bracket from the high prestige alliances, and set the rewards so the best low prestige alliance gets less rewards than the worst high prestige alliance, I think even the low prestige alliances would have a problem with that. But that would be a fair way to allow them to play against each other, and never face the high prestige alliances. Just like no high school basketball team is forced to compete against the NBA, but neither do they get access to any of the rewards of the NBA, even if they have a higher winning percentage.
I'm pretty sure most of the guys on our ally would take the bracket system..too many lopsided wars for us this last season, the last 4 were just ridiculous. Then when were ready or meet certain criteria we could move up a bracket. Something like that would be welcome. By the time the last war came and it was the 4th in a row like that it just is demoralizing and I feel bad for my guys. Spoken to many on global about this when it comes up and those that have been dealt the same card feel the same way about it..
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
That would be relevant, if anyone was proposing skill-based war bracketing. But bracketing by prestige is like bracketing by height, not by experience level. People's rosters do get larger over time, but up to a point people grow taller over time as well, and more relevant here they become more physically capable. We don't put the tallest high school team up against the NBA even if they have the same height. We put them up against other high school teams, even if they have a tremendous height advantage. We don't assume that height is a proxy for playing strength in basketball.
And no high school player earns the same rewards for playing basketball as the lowest paid NBA player. Those brackets come with completely non-overlapping rewards. If you want to place all the low prestige alliances into a separate bracket from the high prestige alliances, and set the rewards so the best low prestige alliance gets less rewards than the worst high prestige alliance, I think even the low prestige alliances would have a problem with that. But that would be a fair way to allow them to play against each other, and never face the high prestige alliances. Just like no high school basketball team is forced to compete against the NBA, but neither do they get access to any of the rewards of the NBA, even if they have a higher winning percentage.
I'm pretty sure most of the guys on our ally would take the bracket system..too many lopsided wars for us this last season, the last 4 were just ridiculous. Then when were ready or meet certain criteria we could move up a bracket. Something like that would be welcome. By the time the last war came and it was the 4th in a row like that it just is demoralizing and I feel bad for my guys. Spoken to many on global about this when it comes up and those that have been dealt the same card feel the same way about it..
yours would, but you would be forcing that system on people who would not, and you are not serious about war.
How am I not serious about war?
you play in an alliance below your rating. in a bracket if your statement about unfair matchups were true would make you an exploiter of it.
Its my ally though, we were a 400K when started and we've slowly progressed, some faster than others. Just because my prestige is higher doesnt mean I should HAVE to play in better alliances. Was a 75K 3 months ago. Many of us were much lower actually.. The way we've been matched up this last season its a good thing my prestige was so high because almost every opponent was about 1K prestige better overall. And im not high skilled whatsoever but I am learning and developing.
By all means, keep trying to sell me the idea that fairness doesn't matter in competition. It will be futile.
fairness does matter, but fairness in the entire system, again you keep ignoring thats because all you want to do is keep trampling low level players without being trampled yourself.
Fairness in the entire system is not what we have. We have what people call fair Rewards because lower Allies aren't hanging next to the big boys, and unfair Matches still very much a thing. As for that last bit, I'm not bothering with that quasi personal conjecture.
That is your opinion. Fairness in the entire system is typically a compromise to give the greatest fairness, which as I have pointed out is relative. And stop with the unfair matchups, since you are causing them youself. If it is impossible for an average 500k alliance to beat an average 1m alliance then it is impossible for a 200k to 500k player to beat a 1m player, which is what you are causing.
Easy to say when you're talking about sacrificing the experience of War for one demographic of Players to make the other happy.
except that is exactly what you are asking the majority of the players to do for your minority. Why is it ok for you to ask the players to sacrifice the experience of the war rewards for a worse experience so you can have a better experience for yourself? I know the tradeoffs, you keep acting like there are none, and we should all give up our experiences jsut for yours and a few "unfair" matchups.
You keep mentioning the Rewards and not once have I said anything about them. The Matches themselves and the fairness therein of them is what I am discussing. Not the Rewards. No matter how many times you keep saying Rewards in that, "Won't somebody please think of the children?" fashion, that will not make the situation fair for the experience of these people playing. I'd call it more than a minority, considering the amount of times it's come up. Even more so because the higher you go up the ladder, the more of a minority you're speaking about. Rewards, which could and indeed can be addressed without unfair Wars, are not a justification for bamboozling people and telling them for 2 months there's nothing wrong at all.
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
That would be relevant, if anyone was proposing skill-based war bracketing. But bracketing by prestige is like bracketing by height, not by experience level. People's rosters do get larger over time, but up to a point people grow taller over time as well, and more relevant here they become more physically capable. We don't put the tallest high school team up against the NBA even if they have the same height. We put them up against other high school teams, even if they have a tremendous height advantage. We don't assume that height is a proxy for playing strength in basketball.
And no high school player earns the same rewards for playing basketball as the lowest paid NBA player. Those brackets come with completely non-overlapping rewards. If you want to place all the low prestige alliances into a separate bracket from the high prestige alliances, and set the rewards so the best low prestige alliance gets less rewards than the worst high prestige alliance, I think even the low prestige alliances would have a problem with that. But that would be a fair way to allow them to play against each other, and never face the high prestige alliances. Just like no high school basketball team is forced to compete against the NBA, but neither do they get access to any of the rewards of the NBA, even if they have a higher winning percentage.
I'm pretty sure most of the guys on our ally would take the bracket system..too many lopsided wars for us this last season, the last 4 were just ridiculous. Then when were ready or meet certain criteria we could move up a bracket. Something like that would be welcome. By the time the last war came and it was the 4th in a row like that it just is demoralizing and I feel bad for my guys. Spoken to many on global about this when it comes up and those that have been dealt the same card feel the same way about it..
yours would, but you would be forcing that system on people who would not, and you are not serious about war.
How am I not serious about war?
S1 is not serious about war.
Its the best we could do, that doesn't mean we're not serious.
I understand. But let's call the people who are serious for war, 'War Sweats' for now. War Sweats make tons of rank ups, have perfect diversity and have assigned paths and minis. Not sure that your ally does all of those things. I'm not a war sweat at all. I could be one, but being serious about war is VERY stressful.
Well if that's your definition then no definitely I'm not a war sweats. Infact just doing all this with line and all is enuff for me I'm actually leaving because dont want to lead anymore, too tiring need a break.
Comments
And no high school player earns the same rewards for playing basketball as the lowest paid NBA player. Those brackets come with completely non-overlapping rewards. If you want to place all the low prestige alliances into a separate bracket from the high prestige alliances, and set the rewards so the best low prestige alliance gets less rewards than the worst high prestige alliance, I think even the low prestige alliances would have a problem with that. But that would be a fair way to allow them to play against each other, and never face the high prestige alliances. Just like no high school basketball team is forced to compete against the NBA, but neither do they get access to any of the rewards of the NBA, even if they have a higher winning percentage.
Then when were ready or meet certain criteria we could move up a bracket. Something like that would be welcome.
By the time the last war came and it was the 4th in a row like that it just is demoralizing and I feel bad for my guys.
Spoken to many on global about this when it comes up and those that have been dealt the same card feel the same way about it..
The way we've been matched up this last season its a good thing my prestige was so high because almost every opponent was about 1K prestige better overall. And im not high skilled whatsoever but I am learning and developing.
Infact just doing all this with line and all is enuff for me I'm actually leaving because dont want to lead anymore, too tiring need a break.