Analysis of AW Season 1: Tier vs Bracket

123457»

Comments

  • It’s basically like sports leagues: lower rating teams (let’s call them the little leagues) are playing against other little leaguers... high school teams are playing against high school teams... and the majors against those in the majors... the only difference is that in MCoC, all players in all leagues are playing for the same salaries... so some little leaguers could get paid more than some major leaguers...
  • Speeds80Speeds80 Posts: 1,890 ★★★★
    The issue is that they are competing for the same salaries, grounded wisdom thinks its fair because they are doing the same job and doesn’t matter their rating, they should get paid the same, I understand his point from that side of things, it’s the fact that if the little leagues win more little league games they actually detract from the major leaguers earnings as in this world they are all competing for the same prize pool while never having to compete against each other. It needs to go back to war rating only like it once was, and yes a lot of these small alliances who have been in bubbles will suffer, but they shouldn’t be taking rewards unfairly off alliances who are in direct competition with them for rewards but can never compete against them
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,755 ★★★★★
    edited April 2018
    Speeds80 wrote: »
    The issue is that they are competing for the same salaries, grounded wisdom thinks its fair because they are doing the same job and doesn’t matter their rating, they should get paid the same, I understand his point from that side of things, it’s the fact that if the little leagues win more little league games they actually detract from the major leaguers earnings as in this world they are all competing for the same prize pool while never having to compete against each other. It needs to go back to war rating only like it once was, and yes a lot of these small alliances who have been in bubbles will suffer, but they shouldn’t be taking rewards unfairly off alliances who are in direct competition with them for rewards but can never compete against them

    It's not a salary among different pay grades. It's earnings based on progress. An Ally builds Wins, earns Rewards, and goes up in Tiers based on their own Wars. An Ally that can't beat another Ally of equal or approximate Rating isn't affected by an Ally that can with lower Rating. They are winning or losing based on ther own performance. There is no justification in being able to peck them off. If Allies are winning based on their own capabilities, that is fair. Honestly, there is too much Ego invested in the idea that Allies are winning the same Rewards. They're putting their own work in. Who's to say they aren't facing Allies of equal skill? You can't account for their validity in winning based on Rating. If that's the case, do away with War Rating and give Rewards based on Ally Rating. There may be a great many things worth complaining about, but people earning Rewards fairly is not one of them. People need to keep their eyes on their own plate because if they're not getting ahead, it's not because of Allies getting the same Rewards with less Rating.
  • Speeds80Speeds80 Posts: 1,890 ★★★★
    That depends because we don’t know gw, when war rating was the only matchmaking criteria I faced much lower alliances who had sold all their lower champs, and had higher prestige than mine, now I no longer see them, that means they are possibly at higher tiers than me but only fighting 6-8m alliances (probably easier matches than mine) but beating me or at least competing for me in war seasons rewards, it’s not the individual winning rewards I am concerned about, I could even say they do deserve those for winning wars. Though they are possibly slightly advantaged. it’s the war season rewards and how alliances are possibly artificially protected from competition from the teams they are competing with because of an exploitable system that concerns me more
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    @GroundedWisdom
    I thought you were done??? Yet here you are.....

    Secondly you are talking nonsensical mutterings....
    An alliance that finishes 1000 on the leaderboard affects the position and rewards of every single alliance below it.....
    We are saying that war rating is not accurate as it is affected by alliance rating and that is bad....
    Alliance rating should not influence war rating....
    And your counter is give rewards based on alliance rating....
    Lmfao....
    Just please stop....
    You have said your piece and are now not making sense anymore....

    The problem is each alliance is being matched up
    With an opponent that matches it evenly everywar.....
    allowing for some weaker and less skilled alliances to climb above those that are more skilled due to the fact the more skilled ones are also stronnger rating...

    Alliance rating should not be used in any of these calculations....
    Only war rating should.....
    Only war rating....
    War rating only
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,755 ★★★★★
    Speeds80 wrote: »
    That depends because we don’t know gw, when war rating was the only matchmaking criteria I faced much lower alliances who had sold all their lower champs, and had higher prestige than mine, now I no longer see them, that means they are possibly at higher tiers than me but only fighting 6-8m alliances (probably easier matches than mine) but beating me or at least competing for me in war seasons rewards, it’s not the individual winning rewards I am concerned about, I could even say they do deserve those for winning wars. Though they are possibly slightly advantaged. it’s the war season rewards and how alliances are possibly artificially protected from competition from the teams they are competing with because of an exploitable system that concerns me more

    See, I would consider it more exploitative if Allies were allowed to bulldoze others just to meet their quota for Points and potential Wars. The bottom line that matters for me is War Rating is still a factor. Seems consistently the deciding factor, and you can't feign that. It's based on Wins and Losses. Regardless of our opinions on the capabilities, they win they earn more. They lose, it goes down. That puts their Tier in direct result of their performance regardless of whether they are in proximity or not. Only this way, there's more of a chance for reasonable progress and rough estimation of capabilities.
  • Speeds80Speeds80 Posts: 1,890 ★★★★
    we are all completely for war rating beings the major factor it’s the other factors that are making it exploitable
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    But if war rating is the only considered factor it would not be normal for extremly unbalanced wars...
    It would happen on occasion...
    As a strong alliance rebuilds and climbs for example but for the majority people would fall along side other alliances that they could fairly compete with....
    What you say about climbing and eventually reaching a much stronger foe seems unlikey under the current system. I certainly have not seen it....
    And if and when it does happen it would not be until the alliance has climbed right to the top tiers amd there are no similar alliances available... and then it would only be for a war or two and he matchups would be the same.... they are getting huge points and high season ranking when they are only doing so due to an unfair system.

    Winning an individual war is about who performs on the day.
    But finishing high at the end of season is meant to be a show of strength. A show of who is the strongest amd the best.
    Not who sells the most champs....
    Or
    Who is the strongest weakling.....
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,755 ★★★★★
    Speeds80 wrote: »
    we are all completely for war rating beings the major factor it’s the other factors that are making it exploitable

    See, that's where I disagree. I think there's more fairness. Allies are fighting within their own range. I personally think this is the result of Rating being a part of the scoring metrics for so long. Now that it's not, people expect it to play a factor. The Tiers shouldn't necessarily align based on Rating. If an Ally earns their right to be in whatever Tier they're in, that's not wrong.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    edited April 2018
    Speeds80 wrote: »
    we are all completely for war rating beings the major factor it’s the other factors that are making it exploitable

    See, that's where I disagree. I think there's more fairness. Allies are fighting within their own range. I personally think this is the result of Rating being a part of the scoring metrics for so long. Now that it's not, people expect it to play a factor. The Tiers shouldn't necessarily align based on Rating. If an Ally earns their right to be in whatever Tier they're in, that's not wrong.

    I cant even fully follow what you are getting at here....

    An ally does deserve to be in whatever tier it falls into based on skill.....
    But if an ally cant beat 10000 other allies cus they are stronger and more skilled why should they be allowed to sit higher?????
    This is what is currently happening.....
    They are sitting higher cus they never fight these opponents.... these opponents are too strong and not considered for matchmaking.... they sit above 10000 stronger alliances cus they fight lower oponents....

    We are not just talking about one super skilled weak alliance here.
    We are talking about easily hundreds maybe thousands of weak alliances sitting above hundreds and maybe thousends of stronger and more skilled opponents simply cus they never fight each other
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,567 ★★★★★
    /facepalm
    Can lead a horse to water...no use arguing with it when it refuses to drink.

    @GroundedWisdom Do you understand that alliances are competing against each other for the same rewards in an alliance versus alliance mode of the game but are incapable of ever matching each other due to the strength of their alliances? And this allows lower rated alliances to surpass other higher rated alliances and deny them rewards with out the higher rated alliance being able to directly challenge the lower related alliance and defend their rewards?
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    The tier an alliance is in affects its season score drastically.....
    So a 3 mil ally fighting only other 2-5 mil allies has a huge impact on everyone.
    They may deserve to be in the tier they are in because they have won 75% of their rewards.
    But when due to alliance rating being included in the war matchups they climb to high tiers they earn alot of points and they will take spots on the leaderboard that realistically should belong to other allies.

    This is mostly about the war seasons..... and how this affects the war season.....
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    If i am a 6mil ally in tier 10 and wanna climb to tier 3 i should need to be better and stronger than all the allies between me and tier 3...
    Being better than all the allies betweeen 5 and 8 mil does not make me deserving.
    It means i have skipped over 10mil and 15 mil allies on the way.......
    If i get to tier 6 and can no longer beat many then that is where i deserve to be.....
    But once i get stronger i should be able to keep climbing.....
    But now i get stronger and grow to 8mil and then my competition gets harder evem though i have not moved so i now get pushed backwards..... only because i am facing a different subset of allies....
    and fall into tier 10.....
    So when i was weaker i got better rewards..... doesnt make sense

    This is exactly wat happened to me
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,755 ★★★★★
    edited April 2018
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    /facepalm
    Can lead a horse to water...no use arguing with it when it refuses to drink.

    @GroundedWisdom Do you understand that alliances are competing against each other for the same rewards in an alliance versus alliance mode of the game but are incapable of ever matching each other due to the strength of their alliances? And this allows lower rated alliances to surpass other higher rated alliances and deny them rewards with out the higher rated alliance being able to directly challenge the lower related alliance and defend their rewards?

    How are they denying them Rewards? If the higher-Rated Allies are facing equally-Matched Wars and advancing or falling based on how they do, the two shouldn't affect each other at all. For that matter, an Ally can only progress as fast as it's capable of doing. Eventually they will hit a wall. As for the Rating, that increases with progress. If they have no chance of being Matched with each other, which I'm not entirely convinced is the case, then no one is denying anyone anything. Higher Allies have the opportunity to advance in Tiers as well, if they win their Wars.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    Each tier only holds a certain amount of allies.....
    So each ally in a tier is denying another ally a spot....

    The tier determines war score for seasons.....
    Which places you on a leaderboard...
    Higher tiers get higher multiplier....
    More points per war
    More points over the season
    Ally finishes gold 2 #1500
    Means the prevented the person that finished gold 3 #1 from entering gold 2.....
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,567 ★★★★★
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    /facepalm
    Can lead a horse to water...no use arguing with it when it refuses to drink.

    @GroundedWisdom Do you understand that alliances are competing against each other for the same rewards in an alliance versus alliance mode of the game but are incapable of ever matching each other due to the strength of their alliances? And this allows lower rated alliances to surpass other higher rated alliances and deny them rewards with out the higher rated alliance being able to directly challenge the lower related alliance and defend their rewards?

    How are they denying them Rewards? If the higher-Rated Allies are facing equally-Matched Wars as advancing or falling based on how they do, the two shouldn't affect each other at all. For that matter, an Ally can only progress as fast as it's capable of doing. Eventually they will hit a wall. As for the Rating, that increases with progress. If they have no chance of being Matched with each other, which I'm not entirely convinced is the case, then no one is denying anyone anything. Higher Allies have the opportunity to advance in Tiers as well, if they win their Wars.
    You appear to be incapable of understanding what a competition is if you willfully deny that people competing for the same rewards should face each other to compete for them and defend their positions.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    edited April 2018
    And alot of evodence has been provided to show how matchmaking restricts who you fight due to ally rating.... not our fault you dont believe evidence.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,755 ★★★★★
    edited April 2018
    Just to summarize, I don't have enough information to form a full opinion either way. I don't know for a fact if anything was intentionally changed or this is the result of changes to War or Seasons in the past. Actually, I predicted Matches would balance out back when the iterations were taking place. What I'm saying is I have no issue with the idea of Matches being more evenly-Matched. I would support Tiers being an individual gauge for Rewards earned as opposed to a collective spot, especially since Seasons are now a competitive aspect similar, and I have no personal issue with a 3 Mil Ally being in the same Tier as an 8 Mil, if they've earned their way up to it, regardless of whether they fought Allies 8 Mil or not. In my opinion, both sides are fair fighting. Let's face it, we're talking about Tier 11-8, was it not? Not impossible for a 3 Mil to do. No one takes anyone's spot. You fight, you win, you go up. Had I known everyone would be worried about everyone else's behaviour so much, I probably would have reconsidered bringing up the suggestions on Seasons. That's about all I have to say. I'm not sure if anything has changed or not, but it's not impossible for a system to exist that gives Rewards based on performance, and still have varying Ally Ratings and War Ratings. War Rating can't be faked. It's based on Wins. All this equates to me is "Our Wins are worth more than their Wins.". A win is a win, and the difficulty is based on your capability.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    A win is a win..... yes....
    But people do take others spots....
    Only a certain amount of allies fit in a tier
    Or a season reward bracket...
    We have not yet collected enough data to know the full extent of just how big of an impact this has....
    Just how many tiers are affected....
    We have reports of a 6 mil ally in tier 4.... only fighting against 5-7.5 mil allies..... which means there are a bunch in a bubble up there.... and they also say they only ever seem to fight the same few allies over amd over again... so it is a bubble of say 30 allies fighting each other over and over again..... but getting top rewars.... cus they fight the same over and over they never drop they never climb win 50/50 never face tougher opponents....
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,704 ★★★
    Lets say by chance.....
    A 3mil ally won every war it fought in a season.... and placed one of the top season reward brackets.....
    Would you say it deserves to be rewarded same as and cost a 20 mil ally a spot????
    I say not cus it only
    Got there by fighting low allies.....
    It get rewards however that say it is as
    Good as a 20 mil ally....

    If it fought any of the alies it sits besides it would be demolished.....

    Not trying to say this has happned....
    But stating under this current matchmaking scenario it is possible
Sign In or Register to comment.