Wrong war matching which is not fair enough kabam!!!!

2»

Comments

  • ragnarok_947ragnarok_947 Posts: 380 ★★★

    Will3808 said:

    It doesn’t matter what your alliance rating is. If you both have the same war rating it’s completely fair

    Define fair.
    Looking from a moral perspective, it’s unfair i.e a strong alliance getting matched with a comparatively weaker alliance
    But from a technical standpoint, it’s totally fair i.e both alliances fall on the same bracket due to their war rating
    Hope it doesn’t need further explanation.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★

    Look around. The disinterest in War is growing. Not shrinking. That's after the change.

    It has started before the change though
    Oh, I know. It didn't make it any better. It was as I said it would be. It made a small amount of people happy at the expense of others. I can't ignore one issue because another is present. All this time, these Posts are coming from Players. I've been trying to point it out, but people who are for this system just ignore it. There are people on the other end of these Posts. Telling them it's all better this way doesn't make it any more fair to them, and all these Matches do is take the desire to even play because you have overpowered Matches, Season Rewards that don't add up to the work unless you're the top, and Maps that have been cranked up.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★

    Will3808 said:

    It doesn’t matter what your alliance rating is. If you both have the same war rating it’s completely fair

    Define fair.
    Looking from a moral perspective, it’s unfair i.e a strong alliance getting matched with a comparatively weaker alliance
    But from a technical standpoint, it’s totally fair i.e both alliances fall on the same bracket due to their war rating
    Hope it doesn’t need further explanation.
    It doesn't need explanation. I understood the assertion the first time. It's still not correct.
  • 1990Kingss91990Kingss9 Posts: 6
    Will3808 said:

    It doesn’t matter what your alliance rating is. If you both have the same war rating it’s completely fair

    Agreed!!
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,236 ★★★★★

    Look around. The disinterest in War is growing. Not shrinking. That's after the change.

    It has started before the change though
    Oh, I know. It didn't make it any better. It was as I said it would be. It made a small amount of people happy at the expense of others. I can't ignore one issue because another is present. All this time, these Posts are coming from Players. I've been trying to point it out, but people who are for this system just ignore it. There are people on the other end of these Posts. Telling them it's all better this way doesn't make it any more fair to them, and all these Matches do is take the desire to even play because you have overpowered Matches, Season Rewards that don't add up to the work unless you're the top, and Maps that have been cranked up.
    Yeah but at the same time, that description right there could be used word for word to describe the old system, unless you’re in denial.
    Kabam had a choice, current system or the old system. Whether you want the one that punishes high prestige alliances and lets lower prestige alliances skip a large chunk of the standard progression (through earning platinum rewards when they’re still rocking 4*s or low ranked 5*s) or the one that pits everyone against anyone at an equal war rating, is entirely up to you.
    I know I prefer the one that gives me balanced matches for rewards worth my time, and that wasn’t the old one.
  • phillgreenphillgreen Posts: 2,152 ★★★★

    I see these types of matchups how I see the NFL right now. These types of matchups are like playing against the New York Jets. The Jets are the lower rated team and then theres everyone else. The Jets CAN win each week but haven't. The thing is, the Jets are in the same league as my team the Chiefs.

    Everyone can win a matchup. Just some teams are better than others. Same brackets, same war ratings, different players.

    I've read a lot of your posts and disagree most of the time for various reasons (I don't hit the disagree, I just move on, not that it matters to either of us) but credit where it's due, this post is a winner.

    I once likened AW to Wimbledon, some schmuck has to face Nadal or Federer or any other top rated player in the first, second or maybe even the third if they are playing well, everyone starts equal but the best rise to the top eventually.

    Everyone loves an underdog but they are probably not going to the final, they will win when they are good enough but are owed nothing by the tournament other than a chance to compete.

    That post got deleted, probably because it was a reply to someone who thought the idea of rating alliances was unfair and isn't shy about posting it at every opportunity but the point I made is valid, just as yours here.
  • phillgreenphillgreen Posts: 2,152 ★★★★
    You know, it doesnt mean much but my 14yr old son does incursions with randoms, he will take 4/55's and the other guy with 5/65 or 6r2 minimum, in a high rated alliance and titles coming out their wazoo, sucks so bad that they end up leaving while the boy is still kicking butt.

    Prestige means nothing, total player rating even less. It has nothing to do with performance. War rating is pure, you win it goes up, you lose it goes down. More champs at higher rarity gives you an edge but does nothing for your thumbs.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★

    Look around. The disinterest in War is growing. Not shrinking. That's after the change.

    It has started before the change though
    Oh, I know. It didn't make it any better. It was as I said it would be. It made a small amount of people happy at the expense of others. I can't ignore one issue because another is present. All this time, these Posts are coming from Players. I've been trying to point it out, but people who are for this system just ignore it. There are people on the other end of these Posts. Telling them it's all better this way doesn't make it any more fair to them, and all these Matches do is take the desire to even play because you have overpowered Matches, Season Rewards that don't add up to the work unless you're the top, and Maps that have been cranked up.
    Yeah but at the same time, that description right there could be used word for word to describe the old system, unless you’re in denial.
    Kabam had a choice, current system or the old system. Whether you want the one that punishes high prestige alliances and lets lower prestige alliances skip a large chunk of the standard progression (through earning platinum rewards when they’re still rocking 4*s or low ranked 5*s) or the one that pits everyone against anyone at an equal war rating, is entirely up to you.
    I know I prefer the one that gives me balanced matches for rewards worth my time, and that wasn’t the old one.
    It's never been about the Rewards for me. I've given ideas on how the Rewards could have been resolved. One problem doesn't solve the other. The issue is the Matches, and how there's nothing regulating the variation in strengths of the two sides. War Rating doesn't determine that, the strength of what each side is working with does.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★
    People aren't complaining because they want Rewards above their pay grade. They're complaining because the system is placing them in Matches they can't compete with.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,236 ★★★★★
    edited November 2020
    You can’t put a system in place that hard caps how much stronger, in terms of roster, your opponent can be while also keeping it in this competitive system. It goes against the spirit of competition.

    You can maybe put your regulations in place, if you do it with a different scoring system, you’d need to include Something like prestige in the scoring multiplier, but then of course you’ll get other alliances complaining that they feel forced to make prestige rank ups to boost their multiplier.

    Or of course have a ‘casual war’ matchmaking system that will completely ignore war rating and just focus on alliance rating or prestige or whatever these people want, but you don’t get any points towards a war season.

    I’ve dealt with what you refer to as “unfair, un-winnable” wars in the past, I’ll deal with them in the future, you shrug and get on with it, you don’t whine like a child that’s just lost at a board game.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★
    Yes you can, actually. What you can't do is make the argument that the system needs to be changed because smaller Allies are getting higher Rewards, then turn around that argument and say people should be able to punch above their level. Regardless, no one said anything about dead-even Prestige only. With the current Reward setup, we've seen how that's a problem. It's still possible to do a number of things. Devise a better system, put reasonable limits on the different sizes, etc. There shouldn't be Matches of a certain extreme.
    As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.
  • TBuchanan24TBuchanan24 Posts: 72
    It's definitely unfair. That's like saying your a great boxer winning matches so they put you up from light weight to heavyweight. Your weight didn't change. But now your fighting bigger people with the same skill. How are you supposed to win? We fought alliances 10 million more in rating three times in a row. So many r3 6*s on defense and on their attack. Don't see how that's fair.
  • Agent_X_zzzAgent_X_zzz Posts: 3,153 ★★★★★

    Will3808 said:

    It doesn’t matter what your alliance rating is. If you both have the same war rating it’s completely fair

    Define fair.
    "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate." no alliance is "cheating" by matching an alliance of similar rating
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 5,954 ★★★★★

    It's definitely unfair. That's like saying your a great boxer winning matches so they put you up from light weight to heavyweight. Your weight didn't change. But now your fighting bigger people with the same skill. How are you supposed to win? We fought alliances 10 million more in rating three times in a row. So many r3 6*s on defense and on their attack. Don't see how that's fair.

    So you’re saying if they only fight equal opponents, they can be a champion without fighting a tough fight in their bracket? You have to go through everyone to move up, that is how competing works.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★

    Will3808 said:

    It doesn’t matter what your alliance rating is. If you both have the same war rating it’s completely fair

    Define fair.
    "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate." no alliance is "cheating" by matching an alliance of similar rating
    War Rating has nothing to do with what one side is working with versus the other. War Rating doesn't determine what's placed on the Map for Defense, which is what the much weaker side will have to compete with, while their Champs are cherry picks for the stronger side.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,346 ★★★★★

    Yes you can, actually. What you can't do is make the argument that the system needs to be changed because smaller Allies are getting higher Rewards, then turn around that argument and say people should be able to punch above their level. Regardless, no one said anything about dead-even Prestige only. With the current Reward setup, we've seen how that's a problem. It's still possible to do a number of things. Devise a better system, put reasonable limits on the different sizes, etc. There shouldn't be Matches of a certain extreme.
    As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.

    Ahh, so you are still misrepresenting what the problem was so you can keep peddling nonsense, while not understanding that fair is relative. I will repeat this one more time. The issue was not "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it was alliances that could not beat the alliances they were getting better rewards over. The size does not matter. If a 10m alliance full of pros got better rewards than a 30m alliance full of newbs no one would care, but you understanding that does not allow you to keep peddling your false narrative.

    if you restrict limits on size in matches it allows people to manipulate the system.
  • JragonMaster170JragonMaster170 Posts: 1,152 ★★★★
    The Matchmaker chooses alliance war matches based on War Rating, not Alliance Rating or Member Rating
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Yes you can, actually. What you can't do is make the argument that the system needs to be changed because smaller Allies are getting higher Rewards, then turn around that argument and say people should be able to punch above their level. Regardless, no one said anything about dead-even Prestige only. With the current Reward setup, we've seen how that's a problem. It's still possible to do a number of things. Devise a better system, put reasonable limits on the different sizes, etc. There shouldn't be Matches of a certain extreme.
    As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.

    Ahh, so you are still misrepresenting what the problem was so you can keep peddling nonsense, while not understanding that fair is relative. I will repeat this one more time. The issue was not "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it was alliances that could not beat the alliances they were getting better rewards over. The size does not matter. If a 10m alliance full of pros got better rewards than a 30m alliance full of newbs no one would care, but you understanding that does not allow you to keep peddling your false narrative.

    if you restrict limits on size in matches it allows people to manipulate the system.
    If you honestly believe the size doesn't matter, you can't possibly understand the problem. It DOES matter. By all means, keep pretending any Alliance can win against any Ally.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,346 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Yes you can, actually. What you can't do is make the argument that the system needs to be changed because smaller Allies are getting higher Rewards, then turn around that argument and say people should be able to punch above their level. Regardless, no one said anything about dead-even Prestige only. With the current Reward setup, we've seen how that's a problem. It's still possible to do a number of things. Devise a better system, put reasonable limits on the different sizes, etc. There shouldn't be Matches of a certain extreme.
    As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.

    Ahh, so you are still misrepresenting what the problem was so you can keep peddling nonsense, while not understanding that fair is relative. I will repeat this one more time. The issue was not "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it was alliances that could not beat the alliances they were getting better rewards over. The size does not matter. If a 10m alliance full of pros got better rewards than a 30m alliance full of newbs no one would care, but you understanding that does not allow you to keep peddling your false narrative.

    if you restrict limits on size in matches it allows people to manipulate the system.
    If you honestly believe the size doesn't matter, you can't possibly understand the problem. It DOES matter. By all means, keep pretending any Alliance can win against any Ally.
    Ahh now we are on with the strawman. I did not mention if size of the alliance matters in a match, it has a little bearing, but not the massive one you are making it out to be, because you are limited in the number of defenders and attackers you can have. If it was every one of the alliances champions involved then it would matter tremendously, but since it is only 8 out of each members roster size matters very little.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Yes you can, actually. What you can't do is make the argument that the system needs to be changed because smaller Allies are getting higher Rewards, then turn around that argument and say people should be able to punch above their level. Regardless, no one said anything about dead-even Prestige only. With the current Reward setup, we've seen how that's a problem. It's still possible to do a number of things. Devise a better system, put reasonable limits on the different sizes, etc. There shouldn't be Matches of a certain extreme.
    As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.

    Ahh, so you are still misrepresenting what the problem was so you can keep peddling nonsense, while not understanding that fair is relative. I will repeat this one more time. The issue was not "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it was alliances that could not beat the alliances they were getting better rewards over. The size does not matter. If a 10m alliance full of pros got better rewards than a 30m alliance full of newbs no one would care, but you understanding that does not allow you to keep peddling your false narrative.

    if you restrict limits on size in matches it allows people to manipulate the system.
    If you honestly believe the size doesn't matter, you can't possibly understand the problem. It DOES matter. By all means, keep pretending any Alliance can win against any Ally.
    Ahh now we are on with the strawman. I did not mention if size of the alliance matters in a match, it has a little bearing, but not the massive one you are making it out to be, because you are limited in the number of defenders and attackers you can have. If it was every one of the alliances champions involved then it would matter tremendously, but since it is only 8 out of each members roster size matters very little.
    Word soup is not going to change the issue presented.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,346 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Yes you can, actually. What you can't do is make the argument that the system needs to be changed because smaller Allies are getting higher Rewards, then turn around that argument and say people should be able to punch above their level. Regardless, no one said anything about dead-even Prestige only. With the current Reward setup, we've seen how that's a problem. It's still possible to do a number of things. Devise a better system, put reasonable limits on the different sizes, etc. There shouldn't be Matches of a certain extreme.
    As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.

    Ahh, so you are still misrepresenting what the problem was so you can keep peddling nonsense, while not understanding that fair is relative. I will repeat this one more time. The issue was not "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it was alliances that could not beat the alliances they were getting better rewards over. The size does not matter. If a 10m alliance full of pros got better rewards than a 30m alliance full of newbs no one would care, but you understanding that does not allow you to keep peddling your false narrative.

    if you restrict limits on size in matches it allows people to manipulate the system.
    If you honestly believe the size doesn't matter, you can't possibly understand the problem. It DOES matter. By all means, keep pretending any Alliance can win against any Ally.
    Ahh now we are on with the strawman. I did not mention if size of the alliance matters in a match, it has a little bearing, but not the massive one you are making it out to be, because you are limited in the number of defenders and attackers you can have. If it was every one of the alliances champions involved then it would matter tremendously, but since it is only 8 out of each members roster size matters very little.
    Word soup is not going to change the issue presented.
    logical fallacy number 2. You really dont like attacking the argument, but rather make up arguments, or attack the person, dont you?

    I have a 1.5m account, with 648 heroes. What do the other 640 heroes that provide pretty much all of that 1.5m have to do with if a war is fair or not?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,690 ★★★★★
    You're literally just talking in circles just to ignore what's been presented. People aren't posting because the Matches are fair or doable. They're not just whining because they want unfair Rewards. They're being placed in Matches that grossly overpower them beyond what they're capable of fairly competing with. That was a problem before they used Prestige, it was a problem when they switched back, and it's still the problem now.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,346 ★★★★★

    You're literally just talking in circles just to ignore what's been presented. People aren't posting because the Matches are fair or doable. They're not just whining because they want unfair Rewards. They're being placed in Matches that grossly overpower them beyond what they're capable of fairly competing with. That was a problem before they used Prestige, it was a problem when they switched back, and it's still the problem now.

    I have done neither. Again what does my 640 heroes out of my 648, which make up almost 1.4m points of my 1.5m account have to do with if a war is fair or not. If size matters than you should be able to answer that specifically.
Sign In or Register to comment.