Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
Whew. Okay, so your argument is still just telling people to get better at the game rather than focusing on anything constructive. You aren't being helpful, you're not even defending the current system. All YOU'RE doing is saying that people who are complaining about the game just aren't good enough to have real opinions on it.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
Whew. Okay, so your argument is still just telling people to get better at the game rather than focusing on anything constructive. You aren't being helpful, you're not even defending the current system. All YOU'RE doing is saying that people who are complaining about the game just aren't good enough to have real opinions on it.
The best argument is a massive strawman argument, and you are going to call someone elses post not constructive.
Anyone can have an opinion on it, that does not make that opinion valid, you can be a crappy player and still understand logic, or you can not understand it.
This system is based on skill, the other system was not. This system is fairest to the greatest amount of people.
To make a system that was fair to absolutely everyone the only thing kabam could do would be to give everyone the same exact list of champs at the exact same rank and level to use.
To make a system like you want they would have to limit the rewards you gained by your alliance rating or prestige to prevent people from manipulating their systems to have easier fights, that would not be fair to the smaller but more skilled alliances who can actually fight.
If you want to boil the argument down to "git gud", you probably could if you want to sacrifice your intellectual honesty.
^ This guy doesn't know how to objectively think what its like to be the other guy. So many high rated peeps huggies getting bunched up.🤣🤣
No, the issue is I know how to objectively think like all sides, where as you can only be outraged something not how you like it. I can point out where the pain points are in every part of the alliance war, and point out why they do or do not matter, who they hurt and how to weigh it vs the whole. That is something you are not capable of doing. I am also capable of understanding that mathematically prestige and alliance rating does not matter because it takes into account champs you are not using for war AND can be easily manipulated, these are objective things, not subjective.
Lmao bra, you have no idea how to objectively think like the other guy. Your so worried and offended that people voicing their concerns may pose a threat to your "easy war win matchmaking setup" is hilarious!🤣🤣
^ This guy doesn't know how to objectively think what its like to be the other guy. So many high rated peeps huggies getting bunched up.🤣🤣
No, the issue is I know how to objectively think like all sides, where as you can only be outraged something not how you like it. I can point out where the pain points are in every part of the alliance war, and point out why they do or do not matter, who they hurt and how to weigh it vs the whole. That is something you are not capable of doing. I am also capable of understanding that mathematically prestige and alliance rating does not matter because it takes into account champs you are not using for war AND can be easily manipulated, these are objective things, not subjective.
Lmao bra, you have no idea how to objectively think like the other guy. Your so worried and offended that people voicing their concerns may pose a threat to your "easy war win matchmaking setup" is hilarious!🤣🤣
Funny you claim someone cannot think objectively and all you use is logical fallacies. You dont know me, or where I am. I am fighting around plat, there is no "easy" matchmaking setups here. But hey keep thinking you know how to think objectively.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
Yet the pop Warner football team wants to be in the same playing field when it comes to rewards. Riddle me that.
No one is bent out of shape, except perhaps your misguided perception of fairness.
Misguided? So getting matched up against an alliance with 10 million more rating that yours because of war rating is fair and balanced? Clearly something is wrong if you don't have even a chance to win the war...you all keep talking about skill and how you don't belong in this tier or that tier if you can't win, but it's not us that doesn't belong in the tier...it's these monster allys with 800k average member rating sitting in silver 2 and 1. And even if they move up to the next rank, there are always more. You think WE have low skill in silver 1 or 2 when we're using not even max champs and can still get to almost gold 3? How about the people who have max five/six stars who can't even make it up past gold 3?
Point to the post where I said it's about skill. I love how the smaller alliances always bring up skill, as if the only difference between you and a master ally is the size of the accounts. Genuinely, I find comedy in it.
If you're so skilled, let's compare units spent on Act 6 exploration, or how you did in the Omega Boss rush, assuming you were able to complete epic. I did it itemless. No? Variant 5? And I'm not a top account by any stretch.
So now that we've gotten the skill argument out of the way, let me get one other thing out of the way. My alliance was inspired by DNAs idea and we now run 2 BG for the first 5 wars of every AW season, and 1 BG after that for the die hards in our group. So I have no real horse in this race.
I want to posit that I believe skill should be limited when it comes to AW. Skill isn't something that can really be objectively quantified. The problem with "skill" is that it is a goalpost that moves depending on your own capabilities and the perceived capabilities of others. In fact, I think AW is much more about capability than it is about "skill." And as long as there is a single scale for rewards, that's exactly what it should be about. If you are more capable than another alliance, your rewards are better. So "skill" (I guess that means more capable with all else being equal?) should only matter when talking about similar alliances. But if a smaller alliance wants to move up on the leaderboard, there is nothing wrong with saying they should have to play through bigger alloances to get there.
This system is not perfect, but it's MUCH better than the previous.
The only thing that "annoys" me is when you bring up skill as if you rhink you're more skilled than someone like @Mr_Platypus. I dont think you realize how ridiculous that is. If I'm not mistaken, he's offered to do a 4* challenge and match up his results vs some with a smaller account who believes they have more skill. I'll take that challenge as well. Won't hold my breath for a response though.
Are you REALLY going to deny that almost everyone in Platinum/Master Alliances regularly spend money on this game? You can't be serious. How do you think their accounts got that big? In any case, I never said I have more skill than anyone. You can look for a quote on that. And I'm not going to bother doing challenges posted by someone on a forum looking to show off their big boi skills. If you're incredible at this game, great! If you can do all of Omega boss rush itemless, that's really cool! It's actually really impressive, if you actually did it. And to be honest, it sounds like we agree at least a bit on the whole "skill" aspect of AW. I just don't understand why people think it's fair to say that if you aren't getting matched up against alliances similar in power to you, that you lost because of skill. This isn't a skill based game. It's literally pay to win. Big Alliances will always have access to revives and items and boosters because they put big money into the game. The only restriction on war is that people can only use 15 items. That's 15 team revives if you have money.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Who said I cant?
if you can then the entire issue of prestige and alliance rating goes completely bye bye.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Listen to this guy talking like he's Ben Shapiro lol "It is simply illogical to not beat a 6 star R3 with a R4 5 star. Get owned, libs."
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
Yet the pop Warner football team wants to be in the same playing field when it comes to rewards. Riddle me that.
No one is bent out of shape, except perhaps your misguided perception of fairness.
Misguided? So getting matched up against an alliance with 10 million more rating that yours because of war rating is fair and balanced? Clearly something is wrong if you don't have even a chance to win the war...you all keep talking about skill and how you don't belong in this tier or that tier if you can't win, but it's not us that doesn't belong in the tier...it's these monster allys with 800k average member rating sitting in silver 2 and 1. And even if they move up to the next rank, there are always more. You think WE have low skill in silver 1 or 2 when we're using not even max champs and can still get to almost gold 3? How about the people who have max five/six stars who can't even make it up past gold 3?
Point to the post where I said it's about skill. I love how the smaller alliances always bring up skill, as if the only difference between you and a master ally is the size of the accounts. Genuinely, I find comedy in it.
If you're so skilled, let's compare units spent on Act 6 exploration, or how you did in the Omega Boss rush, assuming you were able to complete epic. I did it itemless. No? Variant 5? And I'm not a top account by any stretch.
So now that we've gotten the skill argument out of the way, let me get one other thing out of the way. My alliance was inspired by DNAs idea and we now run 2 BG for the first 5 wars of every AW season, and 1 BG after that for the die hards in our group. So I have no real horse in this race.
I want to posit that I believe skill should be limited when it comes to AW. Skill isn't something that can really be objectively quantified. The problem with "skill" is that it is a goalpost that moves depending on your own capabilities and the perceived capabilities of others. In fact, I think AW is much more about capability than it is about "skill." And as long as there is a single scale for rewards, that's exactly what it should be about. If you are more capable than another alliance, your rewards are better. So "skill" (I guess that means more capable with all else being equal?) should only matter when talking about similar alliances. But if a smaller alliance wants to move up on the leaderboard, there is nothing wrong with saying they should have to play through bigger alloances to get there.
This system is not perfect, but it's MUCH better than the previous.
The only thing that "annoys" me is when you bring up skill as if you rhink you're more skilled than someone like @Mr_Platypus. I dont think you realize how ridiculous that is. If I'm not mistaken, he's offered to do a 4* challenge and match up his results vs some with a smaller account who believes they have more skill. I'll take that challenge as well. Won't hold my breath for a response though.
Are you REALLY going to deny that almost everyone in Platinum/Master Alliances regularly spend money on this game? You can't be serious. How do you think their accounts got that big? In any case, I never said I have more skill than anyone. You can look for a quote on that. And I'm not going to bother doing challenges posted by someone on a forum looking to show off their big boi skills. If you're incredible at this game, great! If you can do all of Omega boss rush itemless, that's really cool! It's actually really impressive, if you actually did it. And to be honest, it sounds like we agree at least a bit on the whole "skill" aspect of AW. I just don't understand why people think it's fair to say that if you aren't getting matched up against alliances similar in power to you, that you lost because of skill. This isn't a skill based game. It's literally pay to win. Big Alliances will always have access to revives and items and boosters because they put big money into the game. The only restriction on war is that people can only use 15 items. That's 15 team revives if you have money.
it is a skill based game. You do nto have to spend any money if you are skilled enough. You can go entire wars without spending anything, again with skill. Purchasing reives and potions is jsut a counter for skill and it is limited, it can only get you so far.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Listen to this guy talking like he's Ben Shapiro lol "It is simply illogical to not beat a 6 star R3 with a R4 5 star. Get owned, libs."
more ad homiems. It is not illogical, it is a matter of skill. You are arguing that skill does not matter going up against large opponents, I am saying skill matters more than anything else.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
@ABOMB Stop. Like, just stop. You and @Lormif 's argument is not going to go anywhere. Don't have to see the future to know that. Difference between you and him is that he's actually making logical comments. None of your comments are making sense in the slightest. So please, start making sense, or take a chill pill and a back seat and let people with logic do the debating.
Logical my a**, man. This guy is nothing but someone who knows how to use big words and likes to feel smart. He only ever makes the same argument, he just words it differently. It always boils down to "You're not good enough at the skill based game". That's not a good argument, because his standards for skill are ridiculous. You need to be able to beat max 6 stars with max 4 stars to be good at the game according to him. That's not just good, that's insane.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Who said I cant?
if you can then the entire issue of prestige and alliance rating goes completely bye bye.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Who said I cant?
if you can then the entire issue of prestige and alliance rating goes completely bye bye.
Just because some can don't mean all can
That's called the Skill gap. There's a floor and a ceiling. The floor is where the less skilled are closer to and the ceiling is where the best reside.
@ABOMB Stop. Like, just stop. You and @Lormif 's argument is not going to go anywhere. Don't have to see the future to know that. Difference between you and him is that he's actually making logical comments. None of your comments are making sense in the slightest. So please, start making sense, or take a chill pill and a back seat and let people with logic do the debating.
Logical my a**, man. This guy is nothing but someone who knows how to use big words and likes to feel smart. He only ever makes the same argument, he just words it differently. It always boils down to "You're not good enough at the skill based game". That's not a good argument, because his standards for skill are ridiculous. You need to be able to beat max 6 stars with max 4 stars to be good at the game according to him. That's not just good, that's insane.
except that is not my argument at all. I cannot be blamed if you can only come up with strawmen.
The problem is that to argue that size of alliances matters is to argue that there is some native reason why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*, the problem is there is no native reason to the game that you cannot, it is just a matter of skill, you either have it or you do not. My point is it is not a matter of size of the alliances because there is an upper limit, the largest defender they can place is a r3 6*. If there were no upper limit then you may have a point but there is, so it boils down to the question above, what is the native reason to the game that specific ranks cannot be used to defeat those defenders.
If there is a system built into the game that prevents it then it is impossible and not a matter of skill, if there is not then it is a matter of skill, not opponent size.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Who said I cant?
if you can then the entire issue of prestige and alliance rating goes completely bye bye.
Just because some can don't mean all can
That is the point. What you call an impossible matchup because of size is not an impossible match due to size but due to skill.
Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.
As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win. But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent? Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up. Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out. Have a great day of winning! Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
Comments
Whew. Okay, so your argument is still just telling people to get better at the game rather than focusing on anything constructive. You aren't being helpful, you're not even defending the current system. All YOU'RE doing is saying that people who are complaining about the game just aren't good enough to have real opinions on it.
Anyone can have an opinion on it, that does not make that opinion valid, you can be a crappy player and still understand logic, or you can not understand it.
This system is based on skill, the other system was not. This system is fairest to the greatest amount of people.
To make a system that was fair to absolutely everyone the only thing kabam could do would be to give everyone the same exact list of champs at the exact same rank and level to use.
To make a system like you want they would have to limit the rewards you gained by your alliance rating or prestige to prevent people from manipulating their systems to have easier fights, that would not be fair to the smaller but more skilled alliances who can actually fight.
If you want to boil the argument down to "git gud", you probably could if you want to sacrifice your intellectual honesty.
Your so worried and offended that people
voicing their concerns may pose a threat to your "easy war win matchmaking setup" is hilarious!🤣🤣
"It is simply illogical to not beat a 6 star R3 with a R4 5 star. Get owned, libs."
Having my popcorn and enjoyin 🤣
The problem is that to argue that size of alliances matters is to argue that there is some native reason why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*, the problem is there is no native reason to the game that you cannot, it is just a matter of skill, you either have it or you do not. My point is it is not a matter of size of the alliances because there is an upper limit, the largest defender they can place is a r3 6*. If there were no upper limit then you may have a point but there is, so it boils down to the question above, what is the native reason to the game that specific ranks cannot be used to defeat those defenders.
If there is a system built into the game that prevents it then it is impossible and not a matter of skill, if there is not then it is a matter of skill, not opponent size.