**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

War Matchmaking is busted

12357…19

Comments

  • Options
    ABOMBABOMB Posts: 564 ★★★
    Its very simple fellas..
    This war matchmaking may very well be better than previously, however the issues with such lopsided wars is real and don't seem to be going away anytime soon.
    Having an ally face an opponent with a prestige much much higher than theirs is NOT fair. Period.
    And mainly I'm referencing lower allys because their skill isn't quite there yet.
    So having a ally at 10 mill face and ally at 22 mill will have a prestige difference of about 3K or so.
    And this is fair to you?? Yeah keep sitting on your high horse of denial and don't put yourself in the shoes of the little guy.🤣
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
  • Options
    Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    They’re not losing over and over, otherwise the threads complaining about it would be constant.
    It’s clearly working, and I agree that kabam switching systems as abruptly as they did caused these ‘problems’, but the change to war rating based matchmaking was required for the longevity of the game mode whether people like it or not.
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.

    Battles in war do not take 3 minutes, and there is only a ~20-25%% difference in attack values, which does not even speak to the skills and other things. Most matches if played perfectly should take no more than a minute.

    yes it is not a piece of content that you can keep trying, but that goes to skill. And no I am not operating under that pretense, I am operating under the pretense that if there is nothing in the game mechanics that prevents something from happening then it is possible, if it is possible, but not happening then it is a matter of skill. If it is a matter of skill then no one is FORCING them to do anything, they can rise up and overcome, with skill. Again, it is very simple.

    The argument that you and the other people have is that you cannot do it and it is an automatic win because of roster size. The point I am making is it is not. That is just an excuse you are using to try and get battles that you see as easier instead of going in hoping to learn and fight.
  • Options
    ABOMBABOMB Posts: 564 ★★★
    Mr_Platypus said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    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
    Well done, you just proved the point that skill can overcome any roster disadvantage.
    Thank you for proving all us “tuff guys” right.
    If this is the case then, then why does the system keep placing less skilled against high skilled in war? You have no answer because all you care about is getting your easy wins.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
    SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
    Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    ABOMB said:

    Its very simple fellas..
    This war matchmaking may very well be better than previously, however the issues with such lopsided wars is real and don't seem to be going away anytime soon.
    Having an ally face an opponent with a prestige much much higher than theirs is NOT fair. Period.
    And mainly I'm referencing lower allys because their skill isn't quite there yet.
    So having a ally at 10 mill face and ally at 22 mill will have a prestige difference of about 3K or so.
    And this is fair to you?? Yeah keep sitting on your high horse of denial and don't put yourself in the shoes of the little guy.🤣

    you still have not stated why it is not fair in light of most people not using their high prestige champions. what does prestige matter if you dont use your high prestige champions that you may have ranked up for AQ bonuses? what does alliance rating matter if you cannot use your entire roster?
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
    SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
    Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
    It is applicable to everyone. Anyone can beat champ with skill. The question is not if it applies to everyone, but if you have the skill to do it.
  • Options
    DurzoDurzo Posts: 34 ★
    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.

    Battles in war do not take 3 minutes, and there is only a ~20-25%% difference in attack values, which does not even speak to the skills and other things. Most matches if played perfectly should take no more than a minute.

    yes it is not a piece of content that you can keep trying, but that goes to skill. And no I am not operating under that pretense, I am operating under the pretense that if there is nothing in the game mechanics that prevents something from happening then it is possible, if it is possible, but not happening then it is a matter of skill. If it is a matter of skill then no one is FORCING them to do anything, they can rise up and overcome, with skill. Again, it is very simple.

    The argument that you and the other people have is that you cannot do it and it is an automatic win because of roster size. The point I am making is it is not. That is just an excuse you are using to try and get battles that you see as easier instead of going in hoping to learn and fight.
    Most matches should be over in a minute IF PLAYED PERFECTLY...again with your assumption that everyone has the ability play perfect and so it's okay for 10 mil Alliances to get matched against 20 mil Alliances. No one is perfect, and no one should have to be held to those standards of yours constantly. You keep saying how simple it is to "rise up with skill" but the truth is it's NOT.
  • Options
    ABOMBABOMB Posts: 564 ★★★
    Your not going to get it man. Simple as that.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
    SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
    Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
    It is applicable to everyone. Anyone can beat champ with skill. The question is not if it applies to everyone, but if you have the skill to do it.
    No. That's taking one demographic's level of skill and expecting it of everyone from the start to the end. Nothing reasonable or fair about it at all. Not seeing past one's nose, really.
  • Options
    ABOMBABOMB Posts: 564 ★★★
    Have fun being "tuff guys". I'm out to blast down the dirt trails with my motorcycle. Peace
  • Options
    Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    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
    Well done, you just proved the point that skill can overcome any roster disadvantage.
    Thank you for proving all us “tuff guys” right.
    If this is the case then, then why does the system keep placing less skilled against high skilled in war? You have no answer because all you care about is getting your easy wins.
    Well,
    It could be that the more skilled alliance is new and needs to build up their war rating, this has always been the case since wars began and is the case in pretty much all similar systems in other games.
    Or,
    The higher skilled alliance could be coming off the back of a bad run of form, whilst the less skilled alliance is coming off a great run of form, unfortunate but again, it happens in majority of games that feature a similar system.
  • Options
    DurzoDurzo Posts: 34 ★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
    SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
    Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
    Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
    Great, so if everyone knows that this matchmaking system has flaws, why is no one trying to fix it? And why are YOU arguing that the new matchmaking is good?
  • Options
    DurzoDurzo Posts: 34 ★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    How about we all try to keep this thread constructive.

    Let's also try to agree on some things and try to come up with a solution to the new matchmaking. I'll start.

    I think we can all agree that war matchmaking should not be decided on alliance rating. Prestige is one thing. War rating is another. But I don't think that matchmaking should solely be decided on ally rating. Does everyone agree on that?

    Yeah actually, I do. I also think it should be taken into consideration, but it shouldn't be solely dependent on it. War rating is also necessary, but it falls short. If we find a way to use war rating AND alliance rating, that might be a step closer to better matchmaking.
  • Options
    DurzoDurzo Posts: 34 ★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    ABOMB said:

    Its very simple fellas..
    This war matchmaking may very well be better than previously, however the issues with such lopsided wars is real and don't seem to be going away anytime soon.
    Having an ally face an opponent with a prestige much much higher than theirs is NOT fair. Period.
    And mainly I'm referencing lower allys because their skill isn't quite there yet.
    So having a ally at 10 mill face and ally at 22 mill will have a prestige difference of about 3K or so.
    And this is fair to you?? Yeah keep sitting on your high horse of denial and don't put yourself in the shoes of the little guy.🤣

    A 10m ally can definitely beat a 22m ally.
    Who disagreed with this? Because this definitely can happen.
    Didn't you just say to focus on constructive stuff? Why are you trying to individually attack someone now?
  • Options
    PlinkoPlinko Posts: 173 ★★
    @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit this thread should probably be shut down. There’s a few here just slinging insults and acting like children.
  • Options
    DurzoDurzo Posts: 34 ★
    Alright, so we all agree that alliance rating shouldn't be the sole factor in matchmaking. Do we agree that there should be multiple factors in war matchmaking, not just war rating?
  • Options
    DurzoDurzo Posts: 34 ★
    Plinko said:

    @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit this thread should probably be shut down. There’s a few here just slinging insults and acting like children.

    Come on mate, we just got everything settled and we're trying to have an actual discussion now!
  • Options
    PlinkoPlinko Posts: 173 ★★
    Durzo said:

    Plinko said:

    @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit this thread should probably be shut down. There’s a few here just slinging insults and acting like children.

    Come on mate, we just got everything settled and we're trying to have an actual discussion now!
    Lol I’m all for conversation, but this is just arguing with no end in sight with insults being thrown.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Lormif said:

    ABOMB said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    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.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The_Sentry06 said:

    Rap said:

    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
    Rap said:

    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?
    WAR.
    It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus.
    It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition.
    You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
    SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
    Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
    Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
    Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
This discussion has been closed.