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?
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.
I’m now into gold 1 and have yet to have a single lopsided fight in the new structure.
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?
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.
I’m now into gold 1 and have yet to have a single lopsided fight in the new structure.
I've been in silver 2-1 and I've had several...I think part of it has to do with bigger alliances having an off season, and then losing rating. Then they come back in and they've moved down the ranks, so they get mismatched with much smaller allys than they should be. But if you consistently do war and make it up to higher ranks where off seasons are less common, you're less likely to run into mismatches. How does that sound as a theory?
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?
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.
I’m now into gold 1 and have yet to have a single lopsided fight in the new structure.
I've been in silver 2-1 and I've had several...I think part of it has to do with bigger alliances having an off season, and then losing rating. Then they come back in and they've moved down the ranks, so they get mismatched with much smaller allys than they should be.
Why would they want to risk losing points? That is a set back for when season begins and you are trying to move up. You’ll only match with whoever you are close to in war rankings. My team wouldn’t take that risk because we want to move into platinum now at some point.
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?
It would still need to prioritise war rating primarily to avoid the major issues of the old system. You could argue that it could make an effort to find an alliance similar in prestige after a losing streak, but then you could also argue that going on a winning streak should begin to relax the upper limit to the war rating difference it allows for matches
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?
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.
if you are not playing well then that is a matter of skill, not the game or the size of the roster. you keep saying it is not skill, but everything we are talking about is a matter of skill, not game mechanics.
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?
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.
I’m now into gold 1 and have yet to have a single lopsided fight in the new structure.
I've been in silver 2-1 and I've had several...I think part of it has to do with bigger alliances having an off season, and then losing rating. Then they come back in and they've moved down the ranks, so they get mismatched with much smaller allys than they should be.
Why would they want to losing points? That is a set back for when season begins and you are trying to move up. You’ll only match with whoever you are close to in war rankings. My team wouldn’t take that risk because we want to move into platinum now at some point.
You mean why would someone take an off season? Sometimes people have stuff going on outside the game, so they take a break from war. A lot of the time, people get stressed from constantly having to be on top of the game while dealing with a job or school. And they decide to prioritize their life over the game? Crazy, right? 😜
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?
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.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
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.
If you take it into consideration then it can be manipulated and that makes rewards unfair.
This whole concept of using Alliance Rating and Prestige just goes to show that so many don’t really understand those 2 metrics.
My main account is 10.4k Prestige. I have a total Base Hero Rating of 1.35m.
I have seen a 10.6k Prestige account with a Base Hero Rating of 600k.
In the eyes of the few that think things like this matter so very much- am I more skilful because my BHR is higher? Or is the other more skilful because his Prestige is slightly higher? You can’t have it both ways.
Prestige or BHR are NOT hampering you in aw when you come up against a bigger alliance. You’re being hampered by yourselves because as soon as you see these numbers, you automatically think “we can’t compete”. Half the battle is in the mind.
If you spent as much energy practicing your skills as you do complaining on the forum, you might actually see that you can beat these 6* rank 3’s with your roster.
Of course it’s so much easier to not do that and just endlessly regurgitate the same tired argument about how war isn’t fair and it’s all a big conspiracy designed to keep small alliances down 👍
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?
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.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
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?
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.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
Okay, very very VERY technically speaking, you always have a chance, regardless of how small it is. So while it's an exaggeration to say there are impossible matchups, it's still fair to say that there are ridiculously hard matchups that you have almost no chance of winning, right??
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?
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.
I’m now into gold 1 and have yet to have a single lopsided fight in the new structure.
I've been in silver 2-1 and I've had several...I think part of it has to do with bigger alliances having an off season, and then losing rating. Then they come back in and they've moved down the ranks, so they get mismatched with much smaller allys than they should be.
Why would they want to losing points? That is a set back for when season begins and you are trying to move up. You’ll only match with whoever you are close to in war rankings. My team wouldn’t take that risk because we want to move into platinum now at some point.
You mean why would someone take an off season? Sometimes people have stuff going on outside the game, so they take a break from war. A lot of the time, people get stressed from constantly having to be on top of the game while dealing with a job or school. And they decide to prioritize their life over the game? Crazy, right? 😜
Well I guess that they will get those points back when they come back and if they decide to. You don’t think they should stay in their current ranking while not playing do you? And when they come back should they not have the opportunity to play the teams near them in ranking to move up?
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Both of these are definitely options...but you're right on both accounts of it being unfair. But yeah, imagine if Kabam actually did that and opened up war to having every champion available...I guess that really would prove if skill was the real thing haha! I suppose they would need to maybe limit it to having only one of each champion on defense per BG, otherwise it would just be full of Things and Korgs
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
No matter what is done, there is only 1 guarantee...
Imagine loading up your BG for offense and it being a sea of Korgs lol
Well assuming everyone has access to all champs for offence as well, everyone would just select omega red, dr doom and whoever else easily counters Korg that I can’t think of atm
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Both of these are definitely options...but you're right on both accounts of it being unfair. But yeah, imagine if Kabam actually did that and opened up war to having every champion available...I guess that really would prove if skill was the real thing haha! I suppose they would need to maybe limit it to having only one of each champion on defense per BG, otherwise it would just be full of Things and Korgs
This kinda ignores my question though. How do you think a team that took a season off should be handled when coming back? Should they be allowed to keep their place in the rankings and take rewards while they didn’t play? Or do you think they should be treated as they are and fall in the rankings and have to compete and climb the rankings again?
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Both of these are definitely options...but you're right on both accounts of it being unfair. But yeah, imagine if Kabam actually did that and opened up war to having every champion available...I guess that really would prove if skill was the real thing haha! I suppose they would need to maybe limit it to having only one of each champion on defense per BG, otherwise it would just be full of Things and Korgs
This kinda ignores my question though. How do you think a team that took a season off should be handled when coming back? Should they be allowed to keep their place in the rankings and take rewards while they didn’t play? Or do you think they should be treated as they are and fall in the rankings and have to compete and climb the rankings again?
The way the system works now is you keep your war rating, but you get no rewards for the season you didnt play in. If you make them fall in the ratings then that would truthfully create an imbalance for lower tier alliances AND create a way to do shell alliances again.
Comments
You could argue that it could make an effort to find an alliance similar in prestige after a losing streak, but then you could also argue that going on a winning streak should begin to relax the upper limit to the war rating difference it allows for matches
My main account is 10.4k Prestige. I have a total Base Hero Rating of 1.35m.
I have seen a 10.6k Prestige account with a Base Hero Rating of 600k.
In the eyes of the few that think things like this matter so very much- am I more skilful because my BHR is higher? Or is the other more skilful because his Prestige is slightly higher? You can’t have it both ways.
Prestige or BHR are NOT hampering you in aw when you come up against a bigger alliance. You’re being hampered by yourselves because as soon as you see these numbers, you automatically think “we can’t compete”. Half the battle is in the mind.
If you spent as much energy practicing your skills as you do complaining on the forum, you might actually see that you can beat these 6* rank 3’s with your roster.
Of course it’s so much easier to not do that and just endlessly regurgitate the same tired argument about how war isn’t fair and it’s all a big conspiracy designed to keep small alliances down 👍
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Someone will always have a problem with it.