**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
A major league team has a tough season against the other major league teams and loses all/most of their games and finishes last.
A little league team has a hell of a season and crushes all the other little league teams.
Do you give the winning little league team major league salary’s because they won all their games and the major league team gets a pat on the back?
No because in almost all scenarios the major league team is gonna wipe the floor if the played that little league team.
And let’s just say there is a miracle and the little league team beats them. Well that’s a different story but how will we ever know if they never play each other??
That’s the way I see the current war system. It sucks because the end of season rewards are not accurately reflecting how good the alliances actually are in relation to all other alliances around them
Kabam seems to be doing this to solve for the complaints of shell alliances (which does the same thing as tanking, but utilizes 2+ alliances). I know you may not like giving a waiting period of one full AW season for large increases, but you can do it at the individual level for the person joining. Any new members need to wait one full season before being able to receive rewards. It would hurt jumpers mid-season, and gives mergers time to make adjust to the new players.
You do not have to collect rewards immediately when joining a new alliance, and years ago, this was the case. So, acting like this is stupid is quite dishonest. Kabam decreased the penalty when they allowed tanking. This inadvertently promoted shell alliances when the reduced the restrictions on rewards to new members.
It is not that I like the opinion, but it is needed to make sure things are fair. War Rating can be manipulated, so until you solve for that... penalizing new members is really the only option.
QuikPik does mean that if they are able to fight in the bracket, the lower prestige team should fight their opponents.
While the data QuikPik has given in the charts doesn’t show the low prestige teams are not fighting, I have a video on YouTube that shows we have not had a match with greater than a 500 Prestige all AW Season. We ended in Gold 2 and have 2000+ Prestige compared most alliances in the top 50 of our bracket. We were in this bracket for 7 matchups, and not one was more than 500 Prestige difference.
I am sorry, but the alliances are not fighting... Here are our most recent matches... one dropped in Prestige because they lost members:
I can understand a few outliers where they are very good at war but a 1/3 of each tier is taken up by lower level alliances. I doubt there are that many alliances that are great at war that can take down alliances 2k+ prestige or more on a consistent basis to maintain their high war rating.
Weak alliances never matches strong alliances it's becoming ridiculous.
Tanking never made much of a difference. Back when I played in alliances that actually cared about war, we always placed around the same regardless if we tanked or not. It's the same for just about everyone I know. Some seasons you got good and some you got bad matches regardless of what you did in offseason.
No one was placing master instead of P3 or Gold bc they tanked bc no one was tanking outside their normal tier anyway bc losing those points in the first war or two was never worth it.
So go back to matches based solely on war rating and be done with all this. When you start penalizing players for moving (not even they're decision or fault a lot of the time) all you do is make people want to be involved in the game mode less than they already do. Stop breaking things trying to fix things that don't actually have much affect on the game anyway
You will need to force Alliances to stop swapping alliances in order to place in lower brackets before an AW Season... the only thing that would de-incentivize them is loss of rewards for the season placement for the swap for one whole season. It may hurt a merger or a single player, but swaps should only be in the upmost needs when a player is frustrated with their old alliance and is willing to tough it out. It would also make the members more dedicated to and alliance and prevent jumping.
Top, skilled alliances don’t want to lose during a Season, which is why they use to tanked and now swap to a lower alliance during off season. You literally have to force them into playing in the tiers they ended up in from the previous season. They specifically do not want to face each other in the first few matches. I get using prestige prior to establishing the current Season’s rankings, but once rankings are established, then the algorithm should look at the tier/bracket first for matchmaking.
Only in the off chance that an alliance didn’t enter the matchmaking and there is an odd number, should the system look to a lower bracket/tier. It may allow for “mismatches”, but that is the nature of a tournament based system that uses rankings. What happens when a 7000 starts landing in Master. Kabam is only going to kill AW all together and top alliances will just stop aggressively ranking or playing, as their wins will become mute as skill at tackling tougher opponents no longer matters. You have alliances with 6000-7000 Prestige in tier 5 and up that are not facing tier 5 alliances that are in wildly higher Prestige. Why? It is only handicapping their score and by not allowing the lower prestige alliance the opportunity to play a stronger alliance, you are robbing them the opportunity to improve their game play at the sake of “protecting their feelings” from a loss.
At that rate, why don’t we just give everyone equal rewards for AW (much like participation trophies), as skill doesn’t matter. It is only the wins. Skill should always be a factor.
I already said in previous posts in thread that we need to go off War Rating, so you are speaking as if you are adding to the conversation with a fix that has already been discussed. However, the lower Prestige alliances will complain when they face higher Prestige ones, and that will happen with tanking and shell alliances. You need to address War Rating manipulation in order to minimize that happening unless an alliance places obtains a higher War Rating organically by removing manipulation.
I am sorry, but you will need still need to address shell alliances and tanking of War Rating if you go off of War Rating. It needs to be addressed.
Were plenty of people tanking for a very long time? Absolutely. I never saw it have any meaningful effect on anything though.
The reason I'm commenting on war threads when I could not care less about war anymore, is I'm tired of seeing the "fixes" in this game being worse than the issue people invent in their heads that needs to be addressed
We are not talking about master. The lower Platinum and top Gold are the most impacted by shell alliances (and previously tanking). A Platinum 1-2 Alliance would drop their War Rating (or now swap to an alliance with a lower one) as to start in low Gold 1 or high Gold 2. This would put them against Alliances that were less skilled (due to lower War Rating) for the first handful of matches and cost less in Pots and Revives. They can clear maps against inferior defenses and skill level with almost no deaths and rack up points for all wins for the first 5-6 matches. They would find themselves in Platinum 1-2 with a good chance at ending there, as they pad their wins earlier in the Season against inferior Alliances. This pushes normally Gold 1 teams to Gold 2 due shell/tanking alliances and solidifies the Platinum 1-2 for the team doing the shell/tanking. As the season continues, there is little movement in tiers in the later half as opposed to the first half. This makes tanking/shells advantageous in concreting your ranking at the end of the season by ensuring easier matches at the beginning.
Most of the shell/tanking is in middle tiers, and always has been. Kabam has acknowledged the issue and has been chasing a fix ever since. They locked War Rating, which gave birth to Shell Alliances. Now they are chasing Prestige matchmaking in order to compensate for Shells. However, this creates a disjointed leaderboard where teams that never face one another will achieve ranks within low Platinum and Gold because of matchmaking not allowing huge Prestige deficits. It is artificially raising War Rating of higher skilled alliances with low Prestige by preventing them from facing matches of higher Prestige Alliances in the same bracket.
This all came about because of Tanking, and later Shell Alliances... Kabam views this as an issue. Simply going to War Rating only promotes Shell Alliances and will allow the practice to continue. Instead, Kabam needs to look at penalties for swapping alliances. This can be on a player level or for the whole alliance. If on the whole alliance, it could be if there is greater than 60% change in a roster within the off season... if so, the alliance cannot gain AW rank rewards. If there is an honest merger, there is hardly above a 60% change in membership. If there is a greater than 60%, they can obviously merge the other way as to avoid the penalty. So, pointing to mergers as a problem is a intellectually lazy argument.
Or it could be on the Player level. That means the player is in a probation period. I personally like the Alliance one, as the biggest impacted would be those using Shell Alliances.
These actions would be so we can affix a proper War Rating to an Alliance and ensure fair match ups based on War Rating moving forward. There is an issue that some lesser skilled Alliances with low Prestige might get some mismatches for a couple of seasons until their War Rating adequately reflects their ability. This is an unfortunate byproduct of what seems to be a matchmaking algorithm that was heavily considering Prestige.
We can all agree that Prestige and Alliance Rating is not a sign of skill. We can all pretty much agree War Rating is supposed. How can War Rating be a factor of skill if:
1) It can be manipulated with no consequences.
2) Teams can fight teams with similar War Rating regardless of Prestige or Alliance Rating. If you are Tier 5 and up, the difficulty of the defense you face shouldn’t matter, as your War Rating states you are able to beat thOse odds despite having a smaller or less advanced roster.
Our Alliance is heavily focused on AW, and as QuikPik has shown... we do pay attention to the smaller details like the Alliance Rating and now Prestige of the top alliances in each Bracket. We have been noticing that we are only facing opponents with a 500 Prestige variance, despite being in Brackets that is filled with alliances with much less Prestige. The probability of at least facing one 7000 is pretty much proven to be null, as it has never happened within a bracket which 70-80% above the top alliances having much lower Prestige.
All of us are pretty much saying War Rating should be the ultimate factor, but we do have to acknowledge that Kabam views tanking/shell alliances are an issue. We need to preserve War Rating as a true indication of skill in order for it to be used as the sole factor for matchmaking (as it is being manipulated).
The match making algorithm searched across 2 tiers to find matches in their prestige range. Not once did they get matched against a larger alliance that has a similar war rating. All of their matches are within a narrow prestige band.
These are our last 10 wars.
We never got a match against an alliance with less than 9200 prestige even though there are a ton of smaller alliances with the same war rating as us. Look at all these large alliances sitting in Gold 1/2, all we ever do is beat up on another without ever having the chance to face any other alliance outside of our prestige range regardless of war rating.
In the old system, if you had a bad string of wars with a few consecutive losses eventually you'd get matched up against an over achieving smaller alliance because your war ratings were very close. In that scenario, if the smaller alliance won then more power to them. They deserve their war rating. However, if they lost it means they are not ready to play against the larger alliances.
I'd be interested to see other alliances matches at various prestige ranges.
Surely war is still about skill. Matchmaking is based on prestige but the most skilled alliances of their prestige banding reach the top.
If you take war seriously, have high prestige and are stuck in gold 2, that has little to do with matchmaking imo.
It means your ally has gold 2 war skills relative to your prestige.
That's not even how it works, if you dropped from T1 all the way down to like T4, you're not gonna end up finishing P1 at the end losing that many multiplier points trying to get back to the T1 rating. Not happening
We had one matchup with a sub 10k prestige. We finished Plat 3, rank 152. We had matchups with alliances 466 and 600 spots away from us(I didn't even look at that until I read this post). We had matchups from plat 1 to Gold 1. Had nothing to do with matching via war rating and fighting the allies around us on the leaderboard. Was all based on fighting allies based on prestige.
Like I said before. I think this system was created to stop shelling. I think that's absolutely amazing. But you need to turn that system off at a certain war rating. You can't allow a 9000 prestige alliance taking home master rewards if they never fought any alliance over 9300 prestige. That's just not fair.
There is no proof that low prestige alliances are fight, as it is not happening. How many alliances members have stated this in the thread? Quik now even offers proof to that... but you focus on the data he originally providing not support this theory.
You come across as arguing for the sake of arguing instead of politely discussing the matter by ignoring the multitude of claims. Quik has now given the last ten match, which I can attest to as he is my alliance leader. Another member of a different alliance provided there findings, and it concurs.
Another poster in this thread gave theirs, and it shows that alliances are within a very narrow prestige. It is happening regardless of the original post. Your claims that they are skilled enough to in Platinum or Gold is falling flat, as they are not openly competing for spots with others in the same brackets. Their War Ratings are putting them in bracket they most likely cannot compete against the higher prestige alliances.
The only other solution is to separate season based on Prestige, otherwise more Alliance are going to start walking away from Wars. It is not rewarding players who worked hard for there rosters and spent years working hard to get better at the game. It is better to make a F2P account with a 4 year veteran’s experience playing and do AW, as you can easily qualify for Platinum and Gold level rewards with minimal effort.
Meanwhile, beating content like LoL, Act 6, Variants, etc and having a good roster penalizes you to much harder schedules. Even if you semi-retire, you can just join a 7000 Prestige Alliance with a 10k account and make things super hard for other 7000 alliance and reap the benefits of Plat- Gold.
Simply having a great roster doesn’t mean the players are skilled either. They may have an advantage of a better defense, but what if they only focused on Offense? Their defense may be lacking. Regardless of prestige, we should be looking at War Rating and making that the basis of matchmaking. It is the only thing that can reflect skill, provide Kabam addresses the issue with Shells/Tanking.
Stop being so condescending (which you have been when you stated people were dumb) and be a little more intellectually honest.
And if tanking has done “nothing”, why did Kabam prevent it from T1 to T5... Kabam’s direct actions to prevent tanking contradict your conclusion. Nuff said.
Just bc they made a change to address an issue doesn't mean what they addressed was actually having an effect on anything. It's completely possible that just enough people made enough noise about it that they addressed it as it obviously didn't look good and wasn't "in the spirit of competition". That's far from proof that tanking was having any legitimate effect on final placements though. It's just an easy scapegoat for people to blame poor seasons on.
I also certainly never said shell alliances aren't happening as I'm more than aware they are. I just don't think they, or tanking for that matter, have near the actual impact that a lot of people claim. It's far more beneficial to have more wars at a higher multiplier than "easier" wars at a lower multiplier. Since that's the case, no one with any sense is going to tank much less than the bottom of the tier they would typically finish in anyway and worst case scenario spend one or two wars in one lower tier which is still risky as you have a lower multiplier even if you do win
One more technicality to go. When you prove that alliances are being matched by both war rating and alliance rating, if you assume that's true for all alliances you now have to say that's not fair, they should be matched against alliances regardless of alliance rating (or prestige) because that would be more fair as opposed to less fair.
And to be honest, this is something I thought @QuikPik and I were basically in agreement on. I don't know what bee got in your bonnet, but absent a statement from him, I'm going to assume this is entirely a you-thing, and not any misunderstanding between he and I.
I have no more proof that it didn't affect anything than anyone does that it did. All I have is anecdotal "evidence" that while playing in alliances that did both I personally saw no difference. From my experience you were no less likely to get some bad matches in a season you tanked in than one you didn't and more often than not our alliance would place around the same rankings barring an outlier here or there that worked to benefit the arguement for either side
Could you be two whole tiers lower and still earn more points? Theoretically it is possible: 200/175 ~= 1.14. So we're looking for two tiers that are two tiers apart and whose multipliers are closer together than 1.14. And there are tiers like that. Tier 6 and 8 are separated by 1.13. Tiers 13 and 15 are separated by 1.11. Tiers 7 and 9 are separated by precisely the same ratio: 1.14.
So the idea is if your "natural" tier is X, if you can tank yourself down to the very bottom of tier X+1, you would be more than one full tier away from your natural tier and thus more likely to get easier matches, and if you win them all you would score more points than normal. At certain tiers you could even tank two whole tiers lower and still get the same advantage.
There's one more advantage in the math: the number of wins matters, but the order of wins and losses matters also. Winning at the beginning and losing at the end generates more points than losing at the beginning and winning at the end (because you'd rather have your multiplier go up then down rather than the reverse). So even if the only thing tanking does is shift your wins to the beginning, that can be worth a material number of points.
Because winning changes rating (and thus tier) the mechanics of this are more complicated than described, but the math says if done correctly it is possible in some situations to generate a material advantage doing this.