There are many strong alliances that are at low levels due to sanctions, hacking and were now punished with this adjustment. Small alliances that are at their level are facing alliances that practically cheated and are getting easy matches to return to where they were easily. That is also unfair and that is why prestige was introduced to avoid that by removing it, strong alliances violate the system. It is necessary to improve and see options not only the war power since there is also this issue and strong alliances will exploit it as before ...
Alliance Wars are not solely based on any one factor, but you will be matched with Alliances near your War Rating. This is a performance-based rating that changes with your Alliance's wins and losses. Alliance Rating can be manipulated, so is not a good matchmaking comparison.
We are continuing to work to improve our matchmaking parameters with every Season and even in between. Some Wars will be more difficult than others, but if you want to climb to the top, you're going to have to earn your spot!
Yeah but in my case we have huge diffrence we are 7m and they are 27m and we have 100 pts diffrence in alliance rating there are 1000_2000 alliance are between our raring
@Doc_oc that happens, when one alliance is in tier 3 and the other is in tier 4 then the preference goes to the nodes from the higher tier. It’s because you’re on the treshold of being in tier 3
In the offseason, a lot of top alliances are switching in a low war rating Alliance, looks really fair @Kabam Miike , Not only alliance Rating can be manipulate. You guys should make a matchmaking System that make sense, but not changing stupid thinks in a running season
Man this is deja-vu. When aw first started long before seasons prestige was used and the same thing happened you had ally's that were in tier one and getting those rewards that didnt belong there. So kabam started basing fights on war rating and guess what? What we are seeing this week is what we saw years ago mismatches bad ones. It will straighten it self out and ally's will fall back where they are supposed to be. For those of you that benefited from this broke system good for you guys and be happy with those rewards you got trust me I was in an ally the first time that knew we shouldn't be getting the rewards we were getting at the time. We were grateful and took the L's until we settled where we should have been to begin with.
Alliance Wars are not solely based on any one factor, but you will be matched with Alliances near your War Rating. This is a performance-based rating that changes with your Alliance's wins and losses. Alliance Rating can be manipulated, so is not a good matchmaking comparison.
We are continuing to work to improve our matchmaking parameters with every Season and even in between. Some Wars will be more difficult than others, but if you want to climb to the top, you're going to have to earn your spot!
Yeah but in my case we have huge diffrence we are 7m and they are 27m and we have 100 pts diffrence in alliance rating there are 1000_2000 alliance are between our raring
Looks fine to me, war rating is pretty similar. You shouldn’t be at 1800 war rating anyways so just accept that you’ve benefitted from a broken system for far too long.
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
Man this is deja-vu. When aw first started long before seasons prestige was used and the same thing happened you had ally's that were in tier one and getting those rewards that didnt belong there. So kabam started basing fights on war rating and guess what? What we are seeing this week is what we saw years ago mismatches bad ones. It will straighten it self out and ally's will fall back where they are supposed to be. For those of you that benefited from this broke system good for you guys and be happy with those rewards you got trust me I was in an ally the first time that knew we shouldn't be getting the rewards we were getting at the time. We were grateful and took the L's until we settled where we should have been to begin with.
Alliance Wars are not solely based on any one factor, but you will be matched with Alliances near your War Rating. This is a performance-based rating that changes with your Alliance's wins and losses. Alliance Rating can be manipulated, so is not a good matchmaking comparison.
We are continuing to work to improve our matchmaking parameters with every Season and even in between. Some Wars will be more difficult than others, but if you want to climb to the top, you're going to have to earn your spot!
Yeah but in my case we have huge diffrence we are 7m and they are 27m and we have 100 pts diffrence in alliance rating there are 1000_2000 alliance are between our raring
Looks fine to me, war rating is pretty similar. You shouldn’t be at 1800 war rating anyways so just accept that you’ve benefitted from a broken system for far too long.
We were winning every single war match with exploring we use revives and hardwork and maintain that rating we grow at the bigning...lol it's not the luck or something we are winning by hardwork
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.
For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.
Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them. I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.
For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.
Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them. I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
Basically this. And I'm sure the lower strength alliances that have been ranking far higher than they "should" are solid players bc they've still had to win their wars to get to that rating. The fact they were never matching with similarly rated alliances wasn't remotely fair to the rest of people in those tiers though. We've got Los Mirm this war so we'll see how it goes. Had HOWK last war.
Alliance Wars are not solely based on any one factor, but you will be matched with Alliances near your War Rating. This is a performance-based rating that changes with your Alliance's wins and losses. Alliance Rating can be manipulated, so is not a good matchmaking comparison.
We are continuing to work to improve our matchmaking parameters with every Season and even in between. Some Wars will be more difficult than others, but if you want to climb to the top, you're going to have to earn your spot!
There’s over a 400 point differential in war rating here @Kabam Miike so please explain???? Opponent is 40m alliance vs us 28m also. We are being forced onto expert tier map instead of challenger and we only receive the multiplier for challenger which is tier 5 4x... all kinds of wrong here
Alliance Wars are not solely based on any one factor, but you will be matched with Alliances near your War Rating. This is a performance-based rating that changes with your Alliance's wins and losses. Alliance Rating can be manipulated, so is not a good matchmaking comparison.
We are continuing to work to improve our matchmaking parameters with every Season and even in between. Some Wars will be more difficult than others, but if you want to climb to the top, you're going to have to earn your spot!
You want to make a fair true test of who's the best? Then make the tournament 4* and under. Then we can see who got the best skills. What you're doing now is rewarding a bunch of Leon Spinks. Very mediocre heavy weights and punishing the middle weight mayweathers. How are we manipulating the system? It is, what it is. Most of the mid size alliance members are ftp and can't possibly grow and compete with their size. But since economics is always involved, it's simple. Do the largest 300 alliances spend more then the rest of us? Don't think so. So why are you catering to them? I'm boxing terms, Mayweather sold or any fight and made more money then any heavy weight. So either go back to fair match ups or truly make it a skill tournament and only allow the use of 4*. And don't make any changes mid season. Is that too much to ask?
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.
For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.
Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them. I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
Basically this. And I'm sure the lower strength alliances that have been ranking far higher than they "should" are solid players bc they've still had to win their wars to get to that rating. The fact they were never matching with similarly rated alliances wasn't remotely fair to the rest of people in those tiers though. We've got Los Mirm this war so we'll see how it goes. Had HOWK last war.
That's the problem. It's absolutely fair because those other Allies are Matching within their own capabilities as well. What people are saying is unfair is the higher Allies can't peck the weaker ones off. The fact that people see that as unfair highlights a longer-standing problem where people believe the Total Rating should show up in the Leaderboard. That may have been the case before Seasons, when Rating affected the scoring and Defender Kills won most Wars, but now people are judging Allies based on what they have and objecting to Prestige being a factor. It's a contradiction, really. They don't think Prestige is a measure of ability, but they're judging other Allies and where they should and shouldn't be based on what they have. War success is based on how you do within your own Wars. It's performance-based and tied into Points with Multipliers. You want to score higher? Do better in your own Wars. You can say it's easier for them, but they're being Matched working with what they're working with, and you're working with what you're working with. A 4* is easy to take down with an R4 5*, but a 4* against a 4* isn't as easy. There's a perspective that's missed. Should they get higher Rewards? If they play better, yes. Doesn't matter whether other Allies are playing stronger Champs. They're equipped to deal with them because their Rosters are larger as well.
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.
For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.
Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them. I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
Basically this. And I'm sure the lower strength alliances that have been ranking far higher than they "should" are solid players bc they've still had to win their wars to get to that rating. The fact they were never matching with similarly rated alliances wasn't remotely fair to the rest of people in those tiers though. We've got Los Mirm this war so we'll see how it goes. Had HOWK last war.
That's the problem. It's absolutely fair because those other Allies are Matching within their own capabilities as well. What people are saying is unfair is the higher Allies can't peck the weaker ones off. The fact that people see that as unfair highlights a longer-standing problem where people believe the Total Rating should show up in the Leaderboard. That may have been the case before Seasons, when Rating affected the scoring and Defender Kills won most Wars, but now people are judging Allies based on what they have and objecting to Prestige being a factor. It's a contradiction, really. They don't think Prestige is a measure of ability, but they're judging other Allies and where they should and shouldn't be based on what they have. War success is based on how you do within your own Wars. It's performance-based and tied into Points with Multipliers. You want to score higher? Do better in your own Wars. You can say it's easier for them, but they're being Matched working with what they're working with, and you're working with what you're working with. A 4* is easy to take down with an R4 5*, but a 4* against a 4* isn't as easy. There's a perspective that's missed. Should they get higher Rewards? If they play better, yes. Doesn't matter whether other Allies are playing stronger Champs. They're equipped to deal with them because their Rosters are larger as well.
That's like saying someone deserves act 6 rewards for finishing act 4 as a new player. It makes absolutely nonsense whatsoever. If you can't compete with the alliances in the same tier as you, you're in the wrong tier
I have no problems with KABAM changing the way they match teams in AW, but why do they have to do it during the season and not off-season. It is very obvious that they changed their matching algorithm during the last maintenance because after that, the matches were made based on War Rating (and from the looks of it, solely on War Rating).
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
What you are saying is what they used to do and made small alliances able to get into master and plat 1 without facing the top prestige alliances. They first looked at war rating and then matched them with alliances with same alliance rating so they didn’t face top prestige alliances.
For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.
Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them. I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
Basically this. And I'm sure the lower strength alliances that have been ranking far higher than they "should" are solid players bc they've still had to win their wars to get to that rating. The fact they were never matching with similarly rated alliances wasn't remotely fair to the rest of people in those tiers though. We've got Los Mirm this war so we'll see how it goes. Had HOWK last war.
That's the problem. It's absolutely fair because those other Allies are Matching within their own capabilities as well. What people are saying is unfair is the higher Allies can't peck the weaker ones off. The fact that people see that as unfair highlights a longer-standing problem where people believe the Total Rating should show up in the Leaderboard. That may have been the case before Seasons, when Rating affected the scoring and Defender Kills won most Wars, but now people are judging Allies based on what they have and objecting to Prestige being a factor. It's a contradiction, really. They don't think Prestige is a measure of ability, but they're judging other Allies and where they should and shouldn't be based on what they have. War success is based on how you do within your own Wars. It's performance-based and tied into Points with Multipliers. You want to score higher? Do better in your own Wars. You can say it's easier for them, but they're being Matched working with what they're working with, and you're working with what you're working with. A 4* is easy to take down with an R4 5*, but a 4* against a 4* isn't as easy. There's a perspective that's missed. Should they get higher Rewards? If they play better, yes. Doesn't matter whether other Allies are playing stronger Champs. They're equipped to deal with them because their Rosters are larger as well.
That's like saying someone deserves act 6 rewards for finishing act 4 as a new player. It makes absolutely nonsense whatsoever. If you can't compete with the alliances in the same tier as you, you're in the wrong tier
That's not the same at all. Not even close. Different game mode. Those Alliances aren't making it to T1-5 because they're not good. Unless there's some serious Mods taking place. It's based on performance. Not who took down the highest-rated Boss. Within the War schematic, there are metrics to judge performance.
If war season rewards were tied to the progression level of the alliance and not the tier they are in, that would make sense but since tier dictates multiplier and scoring then you absolutely should not be able to be in a high war tier and not actually compete against the other alliances in that same tier. Thinking otherwise is absurd
@Doc_oc that happens, when one alliance is in tier 3 and the other is in tier 4 then the preference goes to the nodes from the higher tier. It’s because you’re on the treshold of being in tier 3
That would great but in our case we're in tier 5 with tier 3 nodes... we have same nodes as in the pic, aegis intercept
See while I can try to understand the point being made and how you are doing well in wars calibrated to your current stats this pay out in other way. Should not be in season rank rewards above your current level or match rewards that above where you are at. In that hypothetical of r4 5* vs r4 5* while you do well you aren’t fighting the best and therefor do not deserve the best rewards in game.
Also this comparison ignores one fact. Those with the larger roster and more developed rosters typically have played this game much longer and as a result tend to have a fairly deep level of skill. Also they spend a lot more if they aren’t as highly skilled to stay in those alliances. I would say typically those alliances are better than the ones you are facing and even if you played a 4* war only they would beat you pretty handedly.
Now shuffling the affected alliance will still do good in there respective grouping but get rewards calibrated to there current level. That’s the crux of all of this. The rewards need to match where you are at in game. If you cant compete against the top tier alliances then you don’t deserve top tier rewards. This is regardless of how well you are doing against similar alliances.
You can be the best of your size and get better rewards than everyone of your size. That does not mean you should be in upper plat tiers getting those rewards. The rewards should match what would be good for your current place in the game with the best you can do against EVERY alliance. Not just those that are equal in rating.
This serves to make sure people aren’t taking broken paths to reward that are beyond where they are at in game and rewards that in reality they aren’t deserving of and other are.
And other item is while I hate it wars are intended to be competitive. There is nothing competitive about playing weaker alliances and placing above alliances that would destroy you.
It's not absurd at all. It's looking at performance and not ego-based lineage.
That's not how rewards are structured at any point in the game and ridiculous you they they should be here. You seriously think that an alliance that it's just finishing act 5 should be getting master season rewards from war while just facing other alliances at the same progression level?
That's like a local youth soccer team getting crowned Premier League champion in England bc they went undefeated against other youth teams.
Comments
@Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit @Kabam Vydious
I see a perfectly fine alliance 1 spot below us that would've been a better match.
You shouldn’t be at 1800 war rating anyways so just accept that you’ve benefitted from a broken system for far too long.
My alliance has lost 5 AWs in a row and yet we went up 1 level from last Season? While I am happy about that, something is definitely wrong with that logic.
What KABAM should have done is tested this during the offseason, so alliances have time to adjust and feel it out. I'm afraid what this will do to those who were matched "unfairly" is that they will feel being punk'd and quit AW and just focus on AQ.
I think that the best and most fair matches can be made by using the alliance prestige rating or a combination of the alliance prestige rating and its war rating. Of all the statistics that KABAM can use, the alliance prestige rating and its war rating are the only ones that is hard to "game" to get a favorable matchup in AW. This will also stop (or slow down) the practice of selling champs just to lower the alliance's rating to get a better matchup in AW, as prestige rating is not affected by that practice.
For example: Noname had 2nd highest war rating after kenob and they never ever faced them yet until 2 wars ago. Same goes for los mirmidones, howk, ghostwarriors and meet your makers company and they are in still in master right now and previous 2 seasons. That’s what the problem is.
Alliances like 4loki, nyc guardians, new nation, SAS, ASR, ISO-8 anonymous would all wipe the floor with them but they couldn’t cause they never faced them.
I can think of 50 alliances that deserve platinum 1 and master more than noname. And yes it isn’t their fault that they never faced them but complaining now that they finally do and think it’s unfair is ridiculous cause they never deserved to be in master and platinum 1 to begin with
Also this comparison ignores one fact. Those with the larger roster and more developed rosters typically have played this game much longer and as a result tend to have a fairly deep level of skill. Also they spend a lot more if they aren’t as highly skilled to stay in those alliances. I would say typically those alliances are better than the ones you are facing and even if you played a 4* war only they would beat you pretty handedly.
Now shuffling the affected alliance will still do good in there respective grouping but get rewards calibrated to there current level. That’s the crux of all of this. The rewards need to match where you are at in game. If you cant compete against the top tier alliances then you don’t deserve top tier rewards. This is regardless of how well you are doing against similar alliances.
You can be the best of your size and get better rewards than everyone of your size. That does not mean you should be in upper plat tiers getting those rewards. The rewards should match what would be good for your current place in the game with the best you can do against EVERY alliance. Not just those that are equal in rating.
This serves to make sure people aren’t taking broken paths to reward that are beyond where they are at in game and rewards that in reality they aren’t deserving of and other are.
And other item is while I hate it wars are intended to be competitive. There is nothing competitive about playing weaker alliances and placing above alliances that would destroy you.
That's like a local youth soccer team getting crowned Premier League champion in England bc they went undefeated against other youth teams.