Still baffles me some people dont get how war works. A 13mil ally shouldnt have that high war rating. Means you beat up on weaker alliances. At some point you run into a "big bad wolf" to knock you in your place. If you always match 10-15 mil alliances and always win, you get to tier1, master rewards. That was old system and it was the worst. 20mil alliances, members who havent even completed act5, getting master rewards.
No one is saying bring back the old system. There should at least be limits on the variation between Alliances. You can't have that argument both ways. 13 Mil in Silver 2 is not out of place. Seems to me that the argument is that lower Alliances shouldn't get higher Rewards, but Alliances don't mind higher Alliances taking advantage of lower ones. Which is it? Either there's a "should" or there isn't. For that matter, the Rewards aren't the argument. It's the Matches and how weighted they are. Rewards arent a justification for a system that allows people to be overmatched to the point that their chances are so low. "Who cares about fairness? Rewards are fair." That mentality is what has ruined War for everyone who isn't at the top.
Your point of view as to what is a fair match is, in my opinion too narrow-minded. You look at alliance size as if it is the primary indicator of who will win, and make everything else secondary. I completely disagree with that for reasons we have discussed in the past. I have no interest in having that discussion again because historically it really doesn't go anywhere. We both know where we stand on this, and I just honestly completely disagree with you on this.
Which is fine. But I do think this system is as fair as it gets except for in the case of a new alliance, which is certainly an issue. But that does not seem to be the case here.
Ah. So you're still under the impression that the two strengths have nothing to do with it. Speaking of narrow-minded, everyone is at the same level, right? All Players can take a 3* into AoL and the strengths of the Champs they come up against has no bearing at all on what they're using. Yes, this is all just a dream. Uber eye roll.
@GroundedWisdom you're still not looking at the big picture.
Lolz. I can't believe I still respond to these threads, but here we are again. I've never seen you respond to other scenarios like this one and am genuinely interested to get your take.
You can literally have a 10m ally with 10 guys that all have 6* R3 who dominate a 10m ally with 30 guys that have 5* R4 as their top champs. So, by your logic, that's ok because the ally rating is the same, even though one ally has no chance of winning with the variation in roster size?
Alliance rating means nothing when doing 1 and 2 bg wars. Some allies even require people (when it was possible) to sell off champs just to keep their ally rating lower, in an effort to take advantage of "weaker" allies who actually have a higher ally rating than them.
It's never going to be perfect, but ally rating is no better than war rating, yet war rating helps ensure that small allies just don't get better rewards than big allies for being small. Skill is the equalizer with war ratings. If you're matched, you're in the same war rating and similar tier and competing at the same level. May the best team win at the end of the day.
Our opponent over their 10 defenders was able to deploy R5 5*, R1, R2 & R3 6* defenders We’re able to deploy half of what they have been able to do.
Their attackers at min were all R5 5* but most had 2 R2 6* attackers
So? Have you not fought in Act 6? Have you not beat winter solider in RoL with 500k health? If you've done anything in either of those pieces of content, you shouldn't have any issue fighting those defenders. It sounds like you are doing a 1 BG war correct? This match is fair.
Our opponent over their 10 defenders was able to deploy R5 5*, R1, R2 & R3 6* defenders We’re able to deploy half of what they have been able to do.
Their attackers at min were all R5 5* but most had 2 R2 6* attackers
So? Have you not fought in Act 6? Have you not beat winter solider in RoL with 500k health? If you've done anything in either of those pieces of content, you shouldn't have any issue fighting those defenders. It sounds like you are doing a 1 BG war correct? This match is fair.
This is not boxing or MMA, it’s MCOC. People mainly get rewarded for developing their rosters, not being the pound for pound best or the undisputed champion of 4* heroes
It makes sense for larger alliances to dominate the more rewarding tiers. And it makes sense that smaller alliances to end up in less rewarding tiers. But the game also allows alliances to punch above their weight thanks to skill, commitment and organisation. And it allows large alliances to sink when they’re not focused.
All’s fair in love and war. Imagine if the Romans were only allowed to fight armies with a similar hero rating…we wouldn’t have our lovely roads and sewers.
It’s reasonable to fight opponents with higher ratings. But at some point you end up fighting opponents 2 or 3x stronger.
So why should stronger alliances be allowed to battle weaker ones?
If they are in silver 2 with that rating, they are either a new alliance trying to climb tiers or a bunch of beached whales that can't keep up in higher tier war. If you organize yourselves, boost up, and play smart you can get the W.
I wasn’t complaining about our performance. We run 2 BG teams and we’re at G3 My point is the game throws at us an opponent who is 3x our size and I think that’s unfair.
This is not boxing or MMA, it’s MCOC. People mainly get rewarded for developing their rosters, not being the pound for pound best or the undisputed champion of 4* heroes
It makes sense for larger alliances to dominate the more rewarding tiers. And it makes sense that smaller alliances to end up in less rewarding tiers. But the game also allows alliances to punch above their weight thanks to skill, commitment and organisation. And it allows large alliances to sink when they’re not focused.
All’s fair in love and war. Imagine if the Romans were only allowed to fight armies with a similar hero rating…we wouldn’t have our lovely roads and sewers.
It’s reasonable to fight opponents with higher ratings. But at some point you end up fighting opponents 2 or 3x stronger.
So why should stronger alliances be allowed to battle weaker ones?
Our opponent over their 10 defenders was able to deploy R5 5*, R1, R2 & R3 6* defenders We’re able to deploy half of what they have been able to do.
Their attackers at min were all R5 5* but most had 2 R2 6* attackers
So? Have you not fought in Act 6? Have you not beat winter solider in RoL with 500k health? If you've done anything in either of those pieces of content, you shouldn't have any issue fighting those defenders. It sounds like you are doing a 1 BG war correct? This match is fair.
Our opponent over their 10 defenders was able to deploy R5 5*, R1, R2 & R3 6* defenders We’re able to deploy half of what they have been able to do.
Their attackers at min were all R5 5* but most had 2 R2 6* attackers
So? Have you not fought in Act 6? Have you not beat winter solider in RoL with 500k health? If you've done anything in either of those pieces of content, you shouldn't have any issue fighting those defenders. It sounds like you are doing a 1 BG war correct? This match is fair.
You both have the exact same war rating. Bout as fair as this can get.
The war rating is flawed. We’re still matched up against significantly stronger opponents.
Having a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight boxer would be a lopsided fight...this is what we currently have
Well if you don’t want to fight them then don’t be trying to fight for the same rewards as them.
What a stupid response.
I agree. Your response was stupid. There’s some nice silver 3/2 rewards if you don’t want to fight the big scary gold 3 alliance
You miss the whole point of my argument.
No, I understand your argument completely. You don't think you should have to face opponents bigger than your own alliance. How is an 6*R3 war defender different than the act 6 defenders?
You're in a low tier and don't have most of the nodes higher tier alliances face. You are only doing 1 BG wars right? Scout the map and plan accordingly.
You get these match ups because of allainces like mine.
40m+ but we are about aq nothing else. We run 1 bg and 8 out of 10 times it isn't full. We ran high end war and it just isn't fun. The added stress and item use to ensure noone dies is dumb imo. So it is just a game mode that is there when you feel like it.
Unfortunately when we feel like it for a season or 2 we destroy those other alliances but the other 3 or so seasons when no one care those low ones walk through a not full map.
Do we deserve more rewards for how little we care about it just cause our allaince is higher? Do you deserve less because your lower? Only fair way is war ranking. You get what you play for and the effort you put in. Nothing else effects that even steven brackets for all gives lower rated alliances a chance to punch above there weight. You win some you lose some.
My days of platinum alliances are well and truly dead. I'll do my way 0 deaths but we lose cause someone else dies on a different lane. It turns alliances toxic most of the time. So you'll match against us when we want to be there or you'll walk on through the map when we don't.
Comments
Uber eye roll.
Lolz. I can't believe I still respond to these threads, but here we are again. I've never seen you respond to other scenarios like this one and am genuinely interested to get your take.
You can literally have a 10m ally with 10 guys that all have 6* R3 who dominate a 10m ally with 30 guys that have 5* R4 as their top champs. So, by your logic, that's ok because the ally rating is the same, even though one ally has no chance of winning with the variation in roster size?
Alliance rating means nothing when doing 1 and 2 bg wars. Some allies even require people (when it was possible) to sell off champs just to keep their ally rating lower, in an effort to take advantage of "weaker" allies who actually have a higher ally rating than them.
It's never going to be perfect, but ally rating is no better than war rating, yet war rating helps ensure that small allies just don't get better rewards than big allies for being small. Skill is the equalizer with war ratings.
If you're matched, you're in the same war rating and similar tier and competing at the same level. May the best team win at the end of the day.
So why should stronger alliances be allowed to battle weaker ones?
My point is the game throws at us an opponent who is 3x our size and I think that’s unfair.
You're in a low tier and don't have most of the nodes higher tier alliances face. You are only doing 1 BG wars right? Scout the map and plan accordingly.
40m+ but we are about aq nothing else. We run 1 bg and 8 out of 10 times it isn't full. We ran high end war and it just isn't fun. The added stress and item use to ensure noone dies is dumb imo. So it is just a game mode that is there when you feel like it.
Unfortunately when we feel like it for a season or 2 we destroy those other alliances but the other 3 or so seasons when no one care those low ones walk through a not full map.
Do we deserve more rewards for how little we care about it just cause our allaince is higher? Do you deserve less because your lower? Only fair way is war ranking. You get what you play for and the effort you put in. Nothing else effects that even steven brackets for all gives lower rated alliances a chance to punch above there weight. You win some you lose some.
My days of platinum alliances are well and truly dead. I'll do my way 0 deaths but we lose cause someone else dies on a different lane. It turns alliances toxic most of the time. So you'll match against us when we want to be there or you'll walk on through the map when we don't.