Oh stop whining. My alliance had a pretty similar matchup (my 35mil alliance vs 55mil alliance, same war ratings) and won, alliance rating means nothing and neither that nor prestige should come anywhere near the matchmaking algorithm. Anyone that says otherwise wants higher rewards for less effort.
I'm in a 40m ally and we lost to a 12m ally recently - fair and square and I'll tell you why.
We always run just 1 bg of AW. That 12m ally only had 11 people in it, but they had more 6* R3 than our entire 30 person alliance. They were 1 bg of raw talent with stronger defense and offense.
We move routinely move between G2-S2 and are currently just S2 at the moment because a lot of people just don't want to make the commitment to press up as we're enjoying a stress free season and only playing for fun with random participants, no set paths, and no requirement to use items.
The other ally not only had better ranked defense and better attackers, but they outclassed us in every way with only a single death.
Our ally rating meant nothing.
Basing matchups off war rating is much more fair than it was before and we aren't mad for that loss. In fact, we were all pretty damn impressed. That ally deserved the win and did everything right to secure it.
No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. War Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting War Rating is all that makes a difference.
I understand the feeling when you open the game, look at enemy defenders and everything you can see is max 5* or even rank 3 6* Doom, Thing, NF ex, even if they don't try to win, to get through all that defenders to reach the final boss and beat him to secure the necessary points for your team are a torture and expensive.
There is no perfect matchmaking system as far as I know. Kabam has tried many and every system has its holes. It's a reality that we need to accept and move on.
How about we flip the script here. How would those who disagree with the current matchmaking system suggest it be based? If based off prestige or pi how would you determine brackets since the top alliance of each prestige or pi bracket would never face each other? War rating takes into account only your points from wins and losses in a season. If you match based off pi and or prestige you would have multiple alliances tied in many brackets.
Now to rewards. If a 3 mil alliance dominates their bracket do they deserve the same rewards as the 60 mil alliance that had much harder matchups? Will you be content to see a much smaller 3mil alliance ranking 6* rank 3 champs while you are ranked silver in your particular bracket.
Set rewards aside. How do you break down the alliance brackets using pi or prestige? No matter how you choose to break them up someone will eventually be the low end of the bracket vs the higher end and you are right back to arguing that it isn't fair because the other alliance is bigger.
People still justifying forcing others to bring a knife to a gun fight. Lol. Never ends.
And then there's that one guy, who, the one time in his life doesn't agree with something Kabam does, brings...
Oh, I'm not whining. I'm just dumbfounded at the lack of logic behind the argument. "It's fair cuz fair is unfair cuz War Rating says so." Mkay.
I literally gave you a real world scenario of a 12m ally who beat my 40m ally.
But, I too am dumb founded that you still think it was ok for 40m allies to never be able to move up in the old system, and be behind 10m allies who were getting much better rewards when they didn't deserve it.
Of the 2 options, this is by far the better scrnario. Scrubs shouldn't get better rewards just because they're scrubs and giants shouldn't lose out on rewards just for being giants. That was the case all the time under the old ranking. The lopsided alliance rating that happens occasionally now is because people can move up and down, but doesn't mean that just because an ally is smaller, they have no chance of winning.
I have a friend in PIMP, he says that they are terrible in war. As long as you guys are organized, plan, and don't choke you should be able to get the W.
People still justifying forcing others to bring a knife to a gun fight. Lol. Never ends.
Well can’t be that hard when my alliance pulled it off. The big scary 55mil alliance were trash and had 5 deaths within their first 10 fights, they also didn’t even try to explore lanes 4-9 and still ended up with more deaths than us.If anything it was unfair for them, because we steamrolled them despite the 20mil rating difference.
No one is suggesting it returns to the Prestige-only system. Not with the current Rewards structure. That was a temporary suggestion to prevent Tanking damage. What there should be, is a reasonable range that Matches can occur. Not a primary parameter. Meaning, if the two sides are vastly different, that shouldn't take place. It's not that hard to implement. You have War Rating as the first condition, then within X and Y of the other.
People still justifying forcing others to bring a knife to a gun fight. Lol. Never ends.
Well can’t be that hard when my alliance pulled it off. The big scary 55mil alliance were trash and had 5 deaths within their first 10 fights, they also didn’t even try to explore lanes 4-9 and still ended up with more deaths than us.If anything it was unfair for them, because we steamrolled them despite the 20mil rating difference.
A few rare instances that people pull off a Win, do not negate the fact that people have been saying since the revert that these Matches are insane. There's nothing stopping them at all. 2, 3, 4 times the size. I've seen 1 Mil vs. 20 Mil. It's not a testament to it not being a problem.
No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. War Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting War Rating is all that makes a difference.
Now let's replace War Rating with Alliance Rating in your post.
"No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. Alliance Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting Alliance Rating is all that makes a difference."
Hell you can replace that with Prestige. I could Rank up a bunch of high prestige champs (Sig 20 R3 Gambit has huge prestige all things considered) and still have no good champs for attack or defense.
Every other variable in the game can be manipulated to benefit the player and alliances. The WAR rating is the only thing that should matter in WAR, as much as PRESTIGE only really matters for AQ.
People still justifying forcing others to bring a knife to a gun fight. Lol. Never ends.
Well can’t be that hard when my alliance pulled it off. The big scary 55mil alliance were trash and had 5 deaths within their first 10 fights, they also didn’t even try to explore lanes 4-9 and still ended up with more deaths than us.If anything it was unfair for them, because we steamrolled them despite the 20mil rating difference.
A few rare instances that people pull off a Win, do not negate the fact that people have been saying since the revert that these Matches are insane. There's nothing stopping them at all. 2, 3, 4 times the size. I've seen 1 Mil vs. 20 Mil. It's not a testament to it not being a problem.
It’s not rare that a win occurs though, this is just the example from this season. It’s just people wanting to blame their poor planning and skills on anything but themselves and you just encourage it because that’s the unpopular opinion.
No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. War Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting War Rating is all that makes a difference.
Now let's replace War Rating with Alliance Rating in your post.
"No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. Alliance Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting Alliance Rating is all that makes a difference."
Hell you can replace that with Prestige. I could Rank up a bunch of high prestige champs (Sig 20 R3 Gambit has huge prestige all things considered) and still have no good champs for attack or defense.
Every other variable in the game can be manipulated to benefit the player and alliances. The WAR rating is the only thing that should matter in WAR, as much as PRESTIGE only really matters for AQ.
That's just an attempt to divert the issue. You think if a 5 Mil comes up against a 30 Mil, the Alliance Ratings don't matter? Seriously. What game are people playing, and from what perspective? Just because some people can navigate the board like a Zipper Ride doesn't mean that's an expectation that applies to Players at other points in the game.
Alliance Rating is a terrible thing to base matchmaking on. You are vastly underestimating the amount of beached whales in this game. I've seen someone with 13k+ prestige triple KO in section 1 of map 6 with 3 R3 champs (domino, aegon, corvus).
Alliance Rating is a terrible thing to base matchmaking on. You are vastly underestimating the amount of beached whales in this game. I've seen someone with 13k+ prestige triple KO in section 1 of map 6 with 3 R3 champs (domino, aegon, corvus).
Pretty much, the highest rated player in my alliance is just a massive whale that uses 5+ revives on single uncollected EQ lanes at times with full 6* r2/maxed 5* teams. Genuinely a good day when that person is capable of clearing their 3-4 AW fights with less than 2 deaths.
No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. War Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting War Rating is all that makes a difference.
Now let's replace War Rating with Alliance Rating in your post.
"No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. Alliance Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting Alliance Rating is all that makes a difference."
Hell you can replace that with Prestige. I could Rank up a bunch of high prestige champs (Sig 20 R3 Gambit has huge prestige all things considered) and still have no good champs for attack or defense.
Every other variable in the game can be manipulated to benefit the player and alliances. The WAR rating is the only thing that should matter in WAR, as much as PRESTIGE only really matters for AQ.
That's just an attempt to divert the issue. You think if a 5 Mil comes up against a 30 Mil, the Alliance Ratings don't matter? Seriously. What game are people playing, and from what perspective? Just because some people can navigate the board like a Zipper Ride doesn't mean that's an expectation that applies to Players at other points in the game.
It doesn't divert the issue, you just don't want to admit that having specific ratings determine how a game mode functions is the best and fairest way to ensure that things run as they should.
Alliance ratings don't matter. I could rank up every 1, 2, 3 and 4* I have and have a massive ratings, as could my entire alliance. We could only R3 all our 5*s and not level up any of our 6* and STILL have a massive rating. What does that reflect in war? Absolutely nothing.
No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. War Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting War Rating is all that makes a difference.
Now let's replace War Rating with Alliance Rating in your post.
"No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. Alliance Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting Alliance Rating is all that makes a difference."
Hell you can replace that with Prestige. I could Rank up a bunch of high prestige champs (Sig 20 R3 Gambit has huge prestige all things considered) and still have no good champs for attack or defense.
Every other variable in the game can be manipulated to benefit the player and alliances. The WAR rating is the only thing that should matter in WAR, as much as PRESTIGE only really matters for AQ.
That's just an attempt to divert the issue. You think if a 5 Mil comes up against a 30 Mil, the Alliance Ratings don't matter? Seriously. What game are people playing, and from what perspective? Just because some people can navigate the board like a Zipper Ride doesn't mean that's an expectation that applies to Players at other points in the game.
No, not in 1-2 bg wars. Lots of allies have stacked players in their top 10 and have baby accounts rounding them out. If they are fighting 1 bg war with stacked accounts, then they can take advantage of the system under what you perceive to be a fair matching system.
And as others stated, why should that 5m ally get an easier time and better rewards than two 40m allies who are duking it out against harder opponents with more developed rosters?
You are fixated on one aspect of many and that's why your argument falls to pieces.
People still justifying forcing others to bring a knife to a gun fight. Lol. Never ends.
And then there's that one guy, who, the one time in his life doesn't agree with something Kabam does, brings...
Oh, I'm not whining. I'm just dumbfounded at the lack of logic behind the argument. "It's fair cuz fair is unfair cuz War Rating says so." Mkay.
I literally gave you a real world scenario of a 12m ally who beat my 40m ally.
But, I too am dumb founded that you still think it was ok for 40m allies to never be able to move up in the old system, and be behind 10m allies who were getting much better rewards when they didn't deserve it.
Of the 2 options, this is by far the better scrnario. Scrubs shouldn't get better rewards just because they're scrubs and giants shouldn't lose out on rewards just for being giants. That was the case all the time under the old ranking. The lopsided alliance rating that happens occasionally now is because people can move up and down, but doesn't mean that just because an ally is smaller, they have no chance of winning.
You’re using facts and logic against those who are immune to things like that. Stop it.
Comments
My alliance had a pretty similar matchup (my 35mil alliance vs 55mil alliance, same war ratings) and won, alliance rating means nothing and neither that nor prestige should come anywhere near the matchmaking algorithm.
Anyone that says otherwise wants higher rewards for less effort.
We always run just 1 bg of AW. That 12m ally only had 11 people in it, but they had more 6* R3 than our entire 30 person alliance. They were 1 bg of raw talent with stronger defense and offense.
We move routinely move between G2-S2 and are currently just S2 at the moment because a lot of people just don't want to make the commitment to press up as we're enjoying a stress free season and only playing for fun with random participants, no set paths, and no requirement to use items.
The other ally not only had better ranked defense and better attackers, but they outclassed us in every way with only a single death.
Our ally rating meant nothing.
Basing matchups off war rating is much more fair than it was before and we aren't mad for that loss. In fact, we were all pretty damn impressed. That ally deserved the win and did everything right to secure it.
Mkay.
There is no perfect matchmaking system as far as I know. Kabam has tried many and every system has its holes. It's a reality that we need to accept and move on.
If based off prestige or pi how would you determine brackets since the top alliance of each prestige or pi bracket would never face each other?
War rating takes into account only your points from wins and losses in a season. If you match based off pi and or prestige you would have multiple alliances tied in many brackets.
Now to rewards. If a 3 mil alliance dominates their bracket do they deserve the same rewards as the 60 mil alliance that had much harder matchups? Will you be content to see a much smaller 3mil alliance ranking 6* rank 3 champs while you are ranked silver in your particular bracket.
Set rewards aside. How do you break down the alliance brackets using pi or prestige? No matter how you choose to break them up someone will eventually be the low end of the bracket vs the higher end and you are right back to arguing that it isn't fair because the other alliance is bigger.
But, I too am dumb founded that you still think it was ok for 40m allies to never be able to move up in the old system, and be behind 10m allies who were getting much better rewards when they didn't deserve it.
Of the 2 options, this is by far the better scrnario. Scrubs shouldn't get better rewards just because they're scrubs and giants shouldn't lose out on rewards just for being giants. That was the case all the time under the old ranking. The lopsided alliance rating that happens occasionally now is because people can move up and down, but doesn't mean that just because an ally is smaller, they have no chance of winning.
The big scary 55mil alliance were trash and had 5 deaths within their first 10 fights, they also didn’t even try to explore lanes 4-9 and still ended up with more deaths than us.If anything it was unfair for them, because we steamrolled them despite the 20mil rating difference.
"No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. Alliance Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting Alliance Rating is all that makes a difference."
Hell you can replace that with Prestige. I could Rank up a bunch of high prestige champs (Sig 20 R3 Gambit has huge prestige all things considered) and still have no good champs for attack or defense.
Every other variable in the game can be manipulated to benefit the player and alliances. The WAR rating is the only thing that should matter in WAR, as much as PRESTIGE only really matters for AQ.
It’s just people wanting to blame their poor planning and skills on anything but themselves and you just encourage it because that’s the unpopular opinion.
Genuinely a good day when that person is capable of clearing their 3-4 AW fights with less than 2 deaths.
Alliance ratings don't matter. I could rank up every 1, 2, 3 and 4* I have and have a massive ratings, as could my entire alliance. We could only R3 all our 5*s and not level up any of our 6* and STILL have a massive rating. What does that reflect in war? Absolutely nothing.
And as others stated, why should that 5m ally get an easier time and better rewards than two 40m allies who are duking it out against harder opponents with more developed rosters?
You are fixated on one aspect of many and that's why your argument falls to pieces.