So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
Losing itself is inevitable. In every tournament, one competitor wins. Everyone else loses. So in a tournament with sixty four competitors, sixty three of them are guaranteed to lose. We just don't know which sixty three.
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.
I understand that. I would prefer a system that ensures you start out with reasonable Matches that become increasingly difficult as you progress, as opposed to the possible extremity in Matching, but I suppose that's a bit eutopian.
Hmm. I don't know if anyone else cares in this way. In fact, I suspect not - I would guess the reverse: alliances care more about the match ups they face at the end of seasons more than the ones they face at the beginning, because psychologically speaking those wars matter more to their final standings (it doesn't, but that's just how people think).
*If* this was the actual issue, that is potentially something that could be remedied. However, I suspect the devs would not consider this worth the effort to change the match system, because as I said it would be unlikely to reduce complaints. It could increases them.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
Losing itself is inevitable. In every tournament, one competitor wins. Everyone else loses. So in a tournament with sixty four competitors, sixty three of them are guaranteed to lose. We just don't know which sixty three.
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.
I understand that. I would prefer a system that ensures you start out with reasonable Matches that become increasingly difficult as you progress, as opposed to the possible extremity in Matching, but I suppose that's a bit eutopian.
Hmm. I don't know if anyone else cares in this way. In fact, I suspect not - I would guess the reverse: alliances care more about the match ups they face at the end of seasons more than the ones they face at the beginning, because psychologically speaking those wars matter more to their final standings (it doesn't, but that's just how people think).
*If* this was the actual issue, that is potentially something that could be remedied. However, I suspect the devs would not consider this worth the effort to change the match system, because as I said it would be unlikely to reduce complaints. It could increases them.
I suppose you're right, but it's come up here and there and while it may not be a popular opinion, I still carry that cross. Albeit with less fervor. My concern is primarily for Alliances who are newer (as in Players), and starting out. Anything outside of that and I understand the system balances itself out.
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
Losing itself is inevitable. In every tournament, one competitor wins. Everyone else loses. So in a tournament with sixty four competitors, sixty three of them are guaranteed to lose. We just don't know which sixty three.
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.
I understand that. I would prefer a system that ensures you start out with reasonable Matches that become increasingly difficult as you progress, as opposed to the possible extremity in Matching, but I suppose that's a bit eutopian.
Hmm. I don't know if anyone else cares in this way. In fact, I suspect not - I would guess the reverse: alliances care more about the match ups they face at the end of seasons more than the ones they face at the beginning, because psychologically speaking those wars matter more to their final standings (it doesn't, but that's just how people think).
*If* this was the actual issue, that is potentially something that could be remedied. However, I suspect the devs would not consider this worth the effort to change the match system, because as I said it would be unlikely to reduce complaints. It could increases them.
I suppose you're right, but it's come up here and there and while it may not be a popular opinion, I still carry that cross. Albeit with less fervor. My concern is primarily for Alliances who are newer (as in Players), and starting out. Anything outside of that and I understand the system balances itself out.
The hardest part of protecting newer alliances is they would have to be thrown into the mix eventually. If it worked similar to how arenas for noobs worked where they had their own pool of noobs to go against, it still wouldn't fix the problem. Would a new alliance have to compete in a whole different area with much worse rewards than the main game? Eventually, after maybe a season or 2, they will have to be taken out of their pond and thrown into the ocean with everyone else. At that point, it still wouldn't matter.
The real menace of lower tier wars is that a lot of people are retiring after years of high tier AW and AQ and play relaxed. I spent 6 months in silver 1 war placing r4 6*s on defense because AQ had just taken too much of a toll on me. It also doesn't help that it is fun watching your r4 boss get 40+ kills in a war 🤣
So people starting out with limited Rosters should be able to take on Alliances that are primarily fully developed with years of experience? Interesting concept, but I don't call that a competition. I call it a slaughter.
How often does that happen though? If a fully developed alliance with years of experience is facing off against people starting out with limited rosters, the experience alliance either is starting off at a lower war rating and will surely move up soon or just doesn’t care about war at all to be stuck at the bottom of the barrel and may not even attack during attack phase.
It's the fact that it happens that is an issue for me. It's not very encouraging for Players to participate in the mode if they're faced with such situations. No matter what you do, you're losing.
Losing itself is inevitable. In every tournament, one competitor wins. Everyone else loses. So in a tournament with sixty four competitors, sixty three of them are guaranteed to lose. We just don't know which sixty three.
Every time you win, the game tries to find stronger competition for you to fight. So in effect, the game pretty much guarantees you're going to lose unless you are one of the absolute top alliances in alliance war. Everyone else has to accept the fact that the more they win, the more likely it is they will lose the next one. This is generally true for all competitions, in games and in life. The more you win, the more likely you are to face someone far better than you.
Sure, there are corner cases, but the bottom line is even if you eliminate all corner cases that are addressable in theory, you're still left with this one fact. You're going to lose. And when you do, there's no guarantee it will be close.
I understand that. I would prefer a system that ensures you start out with reasonable Matches that become increasingly difficult as you progress, as opposed to the possible extremity in Matching, but I suppose that's a bit eutopian.
Hmm. I don't know if anyone else cares in this way. In fact, I suspect not - I would guess the reverse: alliances care more about the match ups they face at the end of seasons more than the ones they face at the beginning, because psychologically speaking those wars matter more to their final standings (it doesn't, but that's just how people think).
*If* this was the actual issue, that is potentially something that could be remedied. However, I suspect the devs would not consider this worth the effort to change the match system, because as I said it would be unlikely to reduce complaints. It could increases them.
I suppose you're right, but it's come up here and there and while it may not be a popular opinion, I still carry that cross. Albeit with less fervor. My concern is primarily for Alliances who are newer (as in Players), and starting out. Anything outside of that and I understand the system balances itself out.
The hardest part of protecting newer alliances is they would have to be thrown into the mix eventually. If it worked similar to how arenas for noobs worked where they had their own pool of noobs to go against, it still wouldn't fix the problem. Would a new alliance have to compete in a whole different area with much worse rewards than the main game? Eventually, after maybe a season or 2, they will have to be taken out of their pond and thrown into the ocean with everyone else. At that point, it still wouldn't matter.
The real menace of lower tier wars is that a lot of people are retiring after years of high tier AW and AQ and play relaxed. I spent 6 months in silver 1 war placing r4 6*s on defense because AQ had just taken too much of a toll on me. It also doesn't help that it is fun watching your r4 boss get 40+ kills in a war 🤣
That's the problem I'm highlighting. Those newer Alliances aren't equipped to come up against that.
I joined a new alliance with an alt once. There was about 3 players who placed defence and 6 guys who ran attack and that was accross 3 battlegrounds. It wasn't really competitive or difficult down there in bronze/stone.
I don't agree that its a "new alliance/player" problem you are describing @GroundedWisdom , more likely some experienced players dabbling in AW seriously for the first time or a smaller alliance, which I was once a member of, coming up against one of those "we don't take AW serioulsy" groups that play AQ but have stacked rosters.
We are now like 28 mill gold3 we sometimes Mach 50-60mill gold 3 we sometimes beat them we sometimes lose but even when we are like 800k average and most the time there like 1.7mill average n above. lol it's not the factors of the size of alliance it is a case of how your multiplayer and win ratio is. so if u matching as high as u are it's because u are in the same league as them simply because your multiplayer and tier bracket so stop being so good if u don't want to Match 16mill rated alliance's supreme warlord. 😜👍
I actually had one idea that could assist in War Matchmaking, particularly for newer and/or smaller Alliances. Basically, turn War Rating for an Alliance into something much more similar to how Prestige works. Instead of an Alliance having a War Rating independent of it's members, every Summoner has their own War Rating. An Alliances War Rating then becomes the average War Rating of all it's members. I'm not entirely sure with how this would work when members don't participate in a war but it could even be as simple as their rating just doesn't get affected.
I think the best benefit of this would be that when a new Alliance is created, they are immediately placed in a Tier far closer to where they should be than starting with a War Rating of 0. A big problem is that some of these outlier matchups like OP is describing occur when a newer strong Alliance is still climbing to where they actually belong. It takes multiple seasons to get to Tier 5 even if you go undefeated. This system eliminates this immediately.
Furthermore, you can't really have Shell Alliances anymore if you tie War Rating to the players rather than the Alliance. Tier 1 only has about 50~ spots and some of them unfortunately belong to Shells that don't compete each season. having those Shells lose their Rating would open up the field to a few more Alliances to have a chance to compete for the top.
Finally, this system adds another benchmark for evaluating players you want to bring into the Alliance. Alliance War MVPs is the only in game metric and it is a pretty terrible metric so most people just see the roster of someone and then have to take their word for it.
I actually had one idea that could assist in War Matchmaking, particularly for newer and/or smaller Alliances.
Basically, turn War Rating for an Alliance into something much more similar to how Prestige works. Instead of an Alliance having a War Rating independent of it's members, every Summoner has their own War Rating. An Alliances War Rating then becomes the average War Rating of all it's members. I'm not entirely sure with how this would work when members don't participate in a war but it could even be as simple as their rating just doesn't get affected.
I think the best benefit of this would be that when a new Alliance is created, they are immediately placed in a Tier far closer to where they should be than starting with a War Rating of 0.
Furthermore, you can't really have Shell Alliances anymore if you tie War Rating to the players rather than the Alliance. Tier 1 only has about 50~ spots and some of them unfortunately belong to Shells that don't compete each season. having those Shells lose their Rating would open up the field to a few more Alliances to have a chance to compete for the top.
Has been suggested plenty before, and is still a GREAT IDEA.
You might have to start *new* alliances out at a certain fraction of what their Avg Player WR would be (ie, Ally WR is only 75% of peoples Player WR's). Just so they can’t immediately start out at the top. And gradually increases to use a higher and higher % of each of those newer Player's WR #’s over the course of their 1st Season (until eventually the Player's full WR # would get used when averaging towards the Ally WR)
Or instead, apply that for *anyone* switching Alliances. Someone new to an Alliance only gets 75% of their Player WR counting at first, and builds up to 100% over 4 weeks. That way they can’t *shell* a brand new alliance, or takeover an otherwise low-level Alliance, with just a token leader for 1 season (and thus get around the new rule if it only applied to actually New ally’s).
**Never considered the Shell alliance impact at higher end of WR. Having their WR drop without players would let others who are actually playing Wars get into higher Tiers. (Would have to be some amount of WR reduction for alliances who aren’t full, or don’t at least have 10 players in it. Can’t just use a dormant 1-person formerly high player as Leader and have that 1 person's WR be the actual Ally WR.)
I actually had one idea that could assist in War Matchmaking, particularly for newer and/or smaller Alliances.
Basically, turn War Rating for an Alliance into something much more similar to how Prestige works. Instead of an Alliance having a War Rating independent of it's members, every Summoner has their own War Rating. An Alliances War Rating then becomes the average War Rating of all it's members. I'm not entirely sure with how this would work when members don't participate in a war but it could even be as simple as their rating just doesn't get affected.
I think the best benefit of this would be that when a new Alliance is created, they are immediately placed in a Tier far closer to where they should be than starting with a War Rating of 0.
Furthermore, you can't really have Shell Alliances anymore if you tie War Rating to the players rather than the Alliance. Tier 1 only has about 50~ spots and some of them unfortunately belong to Shells that don't compete each season. having those Shells lose their Rating would open up the field to a few more Alliances to have a chance to compete for the top.
Has been suggested plenty before, and is still a GREAT IDEA.
By me, for example, and it is an idea that the devs are aware of. However, there are a lot of little complications that add up to something that would be tricky to implement, and that's probably what has held up the idea.
Consider this one stroll into the complexity forest. Imagine I form an alliance with 2500 war rating, and let's assume all the members thus have a 2500 individual war rating. Now we replace one player with a player with zero rating. The alliance's overall war rating drops from 2500 to 2417 (2500 * 29 /30). That's actually a pretty significant drop. Now we win our next war. Our war rating increases from 2417 to, say, 2460. What's my individual rating now? It was 2500. Does it go up? Does it go down? Should my individual rating increase by the same amount as the alliance, so it should now be 2543? If it does, then imagine I decide to leave the alliance and go to a new alliance with a bunch of weaker players. As they win, my rating will keep going up, even though I'm actually facing trivial competition. I could end up with 3000 rating if that alliance wins enough (which they will, if they have me as a ringer). If 30 people do this, they could pump their rating up and then all form one single alliance with an instant tier 1 rating, without ever having to fight tier 1 competition.
On the other hand, if my rating goes down even if the alliance wins, because it drops towards the alliance average, then that would mean all sorts of other strangeness could happen. My alliance could lose a member, bring on a weak member, win a war, have that weaker member decide to quit, and then our overall rating would be lower. Without actually losing. This could be bad, because we could drop tier inadvertently. On the other hand, this opens the door to all sorts of interesting rating manipulation possibilities.
It gets worse. So while it is a neat idea, one I myself put a ton of thought into at one time, and I still think it is an intrinsically good idea, it is also an idea that can jump the rails if it isn't implemented with a lot of care towards cornercases.
Comments
*If* this was the actual issue, that is potentially something that could be remedied. However, I suspect the devs would not consider this worth the effort to change the match system, because as I said it would be unlikely to reduce complaints. It could increases them.
The real menace of lower tier wars is that a lot of people are retiring after years of high tier AW and AQ and play relaxed. I spent 6 months in silver 1 war placing r4 6*s on defense because AQ had just taken too much of a toll on me. It also doesn't help that it is fun watching your r4 boss get 40+ kills in a war 🤣
I don't agree that its a "new alliance/player" problem you are describing @GroundedWisdom , more likely some experienced players dabbling in AW seriously for the first time or a smaller alliance, which I was once a member of, coming up against one of those "we don't take AW serioulsy" groups that play AQ but have stacked rosters.
I think the best benefit of this would be that when a new Alliance is created, they are immediately placed in a Tier far closer to where they should be than starting with a War Rating of 0. A big problem is that some of these outlier matchups like OP is describing occur when a newer strong Alliance is still climbing to where they actually belong. It takes multiple seasons to get to Tier 5 even if you go undefeated. This system eliminates this immediately.
Furthermore, you can't really have Shell Alliances anymore if you tie War Rating to the players rather than the Alliance. Tier 1 only has about 50~ spots and some of them unfortunately belong to Shells that don't compete each season. having those Shells lose their Rating would open up the field to a few more Alliances to have a chance to compete for the top.
Finally, this system adds another benchmark for evaluating players you want to bring into the Alliance. Alliance War MVPs is the only in game metric and it is a pretty terrible metric so most people just see the roster of someone and then have to take their word for it.
You might have to start *new* alliances out at a certain fraction of what their Avg Player WR would be (ie, Ally WR is only 75% of peoples Player WR's). Just so they can’t immediately start out at the top. And gradually increases to use a higher and higher % of each of those newer Player's WR #’s over the course of their 1st Season (until eventually the Player's full WR # would get used when averaging towards the Ally WR)
Or instead, apply that for *anyone* switching Alliances. Someone new to an Alliance only gets 75% of their Player WR counting at first, and builds up to 100% over 4 weeks. That way they can’t *shell* a brand new alliance, or takeover an otherwise low-level Alliance, with just a token leader for 1 season (and thus get around the new rule if it only applied to actually New ally’s).
**Never considered the Shell alliance impact at higher end of WR. Having their WR drop without players would let others who are actually playing Wars get into higher Tiers.
(Would have to be some amount of WR reduction for alliances who aren’t full, or don’t at least have 10 players in it. Can’t just use a dormant 1-person formerly high player as Leader and have that 1 person's WR be the actual Ally WR.)
@Kabam Miike , @Kabam Jax
Consider this one stroll into the complexity forest. Imagine I form an alliance with 2500 war rating, and let's assume all the members thus have a 2500 individual war rating. Now we replace one player with a player with zero rating. The alliance's overall war rating drops from 2500 to 2417 (2500 * 29 /30). That's actually a pretty significant drop. Now we win our next war. Our war rating increases from 2417 to, say, 2460. What's my individual rating now? It was 2500. Does it go up? Does it go down? Should my individual rating increase by the same amount as the alliance, so it should now be 2543? If it does, then imagine I decide to leave the alliance and go to a new alliance with a bunch of weaker players. As they win, my rating will keep going up, even though I'm actually facing trivial competition. I could end up with 3000 rating if that alliance wins enough (which they will, if they have me as a ringer). If 30 people do this, they could pump their rating up and then all form one single alliance with an instant tier 1 rating, without ever having to fight tier 1 competition.
On the other hand, if my rating goes down even if the alliance wins, because it drops towards the alliance average, then that would mean all sorts of other strangeness could happen. My alliance could lose a member, bring on a weak member, win a war, have that weaker member decide to quit, and then our overall rating would be lower. Without actually losing. This could be bad, because we could drop tier inadvertently. On the other hand, this opens the door to all sorts of interesting rating manipulation possibilities.
It gets worse. So while it is a neat idea, one I myself put a ton of thought into at one time, and I still think it is an intrinsically good idea, it is also an idea that can jump the rails if it isn't implemented with a lot of care towards cornercases.