That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Tiers award the same Multipliers for everyone. At the end of the day, it's a Points tally. Those Points are awarded based on the Wars you fight. Not based on how much bigger you are than the Allies adjacent.
Yo GW. That would be fine in theory however there’s probably something you might be missing. It used to be that it was possible to be matched with an ally in tier 4 with a 4.5x multiplier (I think that’s the one), and your own alliance would be tier 5 with 4x multiplier if you’re on the cusp of tier 4. Then be given the tier 4 map.
Now we’ve been given the tier 3 level map at expert level - and we’re tier 5, so two tiers below is a big discrepancy, against an opponent at that level where they can bring arguably a much stronger roster to bat with eg running Map 6/7 and still being able to have AWD of all R5 5* champs plus same for attack. And I see many members of the other alliance that have 6* R3 duped champs in their roster like Warlock. That doesn’t make war fun or fair. Especially when you throw in defence tactics to the mix which further boost their already OP defenders.
And both allys compete on same map but are given a different multiplier for doing the same map. Say we somehow do a David and beat these Goliaths (just need the right stone!) we’ll still only be awarded our multiplier of x4. Not begrudging that ally they prob deserve their multiplier but saying there’s a lot more inequity in matchmaking these days. The reason why we only do 2 BG wars is that may people have experienced similar disparity and don’t enjoy wars so have opted out entirely
Pretty obvious from the past 2 Season ranks + Tier that you guys do 2 BG wars, which limits the pool and hence a bigger disparity in matchups.
Yeah we do two BG wars. Usually though if a suitable opponent can’t be found - and let’s face it neither of us are - you get a bye. Not this season though it seems and I don’t think we have ever had one
The bye system works when alliances are unable to find a match within certain parameters. It seems as though you matched just within that parameter.
Imo the system should match downwards based on war ratings ranked, #1 v #2 etc. And if there’s an odd number of alliances, the last alliance on that list gets a “Bye” as that usually has the least impact on the leaderboard.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Tiers award the same Multipliers for everyone. At the end of the day, it's a Points tally. Those Points are awarded based on the Wars you fight. Not based on how much bigger you are than the Allies adjacent.
Yo GW. That would be fine in theory however there’s probably something you might be missing. It used to be that it was possible to be matched with an ally in tier 4 with a 4.5x multiplier (I think that’s the one), and your own alliance would be tier 5 with 4x multiplier if you’re on the cusp of tier 4. Then be given the tier 4 map.
Now we’ve been given the tier 3 level map at expert level - and we’re tier 5, so two tiers below is a big discrepancy, against an opponent at that level where they can bring arguably a much stronger roster to bat with eg running Map 6/7 and still being able to have AWD of all R5 5* champs plus same for attack. And I see many members of the other alliance that have 6* R3 duped champs in their roster like Warlock. That doesn’t make war fun or fair. Especially when you throw in defence tactics to the mix which further boost their already OP defenders.
And both allys compete on same map but are given a different multiplier for doing the same map. Say we somehow do a David and beat these Goliaths (just need the right stone!) we’ll still only be awarded our multiplier of x4. Not begrudging that ally they prob deserve their multiplier but saying there’s a lot more inequity in matchmaking these days. The reason why we only do 2 BG wars is that may people have experienced similar disparity and don’t enjoy wars so have opted out entirely
The Map is randomly selected between both Allies. The Multiplier is appropriate for where you're at. At least it should be. That's always been the case with War, that the Map is random between the two. It's essentially a coin toss. Points should be appropriate to the Tier you're in.
@GroundedWisdom you don’t get it at all. How should noname for instance be in master top 3? Screenshots were posted in another thread: they lost at least 60 AB to every opponent they ever fought and when they fought kenob (which has an easier defense than nyc, 4loki, ... because they go for max diversity) they died 90 times while they only got 3 kills.
While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s
Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket
@GroundedWisdom you don’t get it at all. How should noname for instance be in master top 3? Screenshots were posted in another thread: they lost at least 60 AB to every opponent they ever fought and when they fought kenob (which has an easier defense than nyc, 4loki, ... because they go for max diversity) they died 90 times while they only got 3 kills.
While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s
Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket
Why are you counting Kills? Outside of Attack Bonus, they don't mean anything. Once again, people are focusing on an old mentality. There have been many changes to War since Defender Kills counted and the same Allies occupied the Leaderboard because they were the highest in Rating.
Learn to read, I mention AB the whole time and I also mention diversity. Stop posting random reactions on people without ever reading it properly. I’m in a top prestige alliance and the only offers I ever bought were those from 4th of july and cyber monday and an occasional sig stone deal. All my content is done with earned units through quests, arena and battlechips.
Not all high prestige guys are there cause they are whales. You might be cause if I remember you’re in asgard and the 10 times we faced you in aw we always decimated you cause you actually are those high prestige players that aren’t as skilled as their rosters are developed. But that put aside you have no point at all, an alliance that wins should never have any overkills on a certain opponent. If we lose all 3 AB on even 1 opponent then we’ll lose this war so how is it fair that alliances like noname, howk, los mirmidones, ... can lose 60 AB against easier defenses (yes they also spend items and use boosts) while also using R5 5*’s that just aren’t max sig (which keeps their prestige low) while we face much better defense and mostly fight with R5 5*’s as well (some guys use a R3 6* but so what the defense we face has them as well). I’m certain all the guys in noname have around 10 - 15 R5’s, they just aren’t max sig
Everybody here has at least done 1 abyss path and 6.1-6.3 100% and are working on 100% act 6.4 (got 2 paths left myself) so how is it fair that an alliance of which most guys just got cavalier like a month ago are higher in aw rankings than us purely because they never face us (cause you claim it’s unfair)
Learn to read, I mention AB the whole time and I also mention diversity. Stop posting random reactions on people without ever reading it properly. I’m in a top prestige alliance and the only offers I ever bought were those from 4th of july and cyber monday and an occasional sig stone deal. All my content is done with earned units through quests, arena and battlechips.
Not all high prestige guys are there cause they are whales. You might be cause if I remember you’re in asgard and the 10 times we faced you in aw we always decimated you cause you actually are those high prestige players that aren’t as skilled as their rosters are developed. But that put aside you have no point at all, an alliance that wins should never have any overkills on a certain opponent. If we lose all 3 AB on even 1 opponent then we’ll lose this war so how is it fair that alliances like noname, howk, los mirmidones, ... can lose 60 AB against easier defenses (yes they also spend items and use boosts) while also using R5 5*’s that just aren’t max sig (which keeps their prestige low) while we face much better defense and mostly fight with R5 5*’s as well (some guys use a R3 6* but so what the defense we face has them as well). I’m certain all the guys in noname have around 10 - 15 R5’s, they just aren’t max sig
Everybody here has at least done 1 abyss path and 6.1-6.3 100% and are working on 100% act 6.4 (got 2 paths left myself) so how is it fair that an alliance of which most guys just got cavalier like a month ago are higher in aw rankings than us purely because they never face us (cause you claim it’s unfair)
Did you just accuse GW of being in Asgard? LOL. I can assure you thats never been the case.
If that was actually meant for me, which I don't know why bc I didn't even respond to your last post, I moved alliances before the season started bc I got bored with AQ and am currently in one of the master ranks.
@GroundedWisdom you don’t get it at all. How should noname for instance be in master top 3? Screenshots were posted in another thread: they lost at least 60 AB to every opponent they ever fought and when they fought kenob (which has an easier defense than nyc, 4loki, ... because they go for max diversity) they died 90 times while they only got 3 kills.
While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s
Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket
Why are you counting Kills? Outside of Attack Bonus, they don't mean anything. Once again, people are focusing on an old mentality. There have been many changes to War since Defender Kills counted and the same Allies occupied the Leaderboard because they were the highest in Rating.
Are you genuinely arguing that if Aliiance A (10,000 prestige, full R5 5* defence, 2400 war rating, platinum 3 #101) and alliance B (8000 prestige, 2-3 R4 5*s on defence per player, 2400 war rating, Platinum 3 #100) are both fighting for identical platinum 3 rewards its ok for alliance A and B to never be matched up with each other?
Because that’s a very silly argument isn’t it, they are fighting for the same rewards and they therefore should have the possibility to match each other. Alliance B shouldn’t just get an easier time just because their accounts aren’t as developed, they should work for the platinum 3 rewards and that means they should match ANYONE else that is close to them on war rating, not just those that are also at about 8000 prestige (which would likely expand the bracket in which they draw their opponents from to all the way down to plat 4, possibly even gold 1).
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!
Kudos to kabam for that. As long as we aiming the same rewards, the war rating must be the only way of matchmaking! Everyone eventually after some deathatches will take the position he deserves. Nice 👍🏽 job.
@synergy247 Wow. This is actuly not fair. Are wars back to prestige rating? Bc the prestige is the closest of all things. Or did you do 2 BG wars? Bc there are not so much alliances that do that I guess
Edit: Nvm. I just read you do 2 BGs. That explains it at least.
@synergy247 Wow. This is actuly not fair. Are wars back to prestige rating? Bc the prestige is the closest of all things. Or did you do 2 BG wars? Bc there are not so much alliances that do that I guess
Yeah two BG wars but still it shouldn’t be just because of two BG wars being the sole determining factor imo
We’ve done 2BG wars for the past few seasons now and never faced as many lopsided matches as we have this season so far. We don’t aim for Plat 4 or even Gold 1 nor do we even expect it to be possible with the max points and multiplier we get.
We’re just looking for balance between AQ and AW, AQ being Map 5 with a dash of Map 6 at times, so to keep getting these kind of match ups is a kick in the teeth. And not gonna encourage us to resume full 3 BG wars anytime soon, no guarantee that match ups would be any fairer with 3 BGs. We’re just gonna try the best we can without spending up big on items. We’re actually doing ok but not expecting to win and doubt the opponent will finish either tbh
@GroundedWisdom you don’t get it at all. How should noname for instance be in master top 3? Screenshots were posted in another thread: they lost at least 60 AB to every opponent they ever fought and when they fought kenob (which has an easier defense than nyc, 4loki, ... because they go for max diversity) they died 90 times while they only got 3 kills.
While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s
Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket
Why are you counting Kills? Outside of Attack Bonus, they don't mean anything. Once again, people are focusing on an old mentality. There have been many changes to War since Defender Kills counted and the same Allies occupied the Leaderboard because they were the highest in Rating.
Are you genuinely arguing that if Aliiance A (10,000 prestige, full R5 5* defence, 2400 war rating, platinum 3 #101) and alliance B (8000 prestige, 2-3 R4 5*s on defence per player, 2400 war rating, Platinum 3 #100) are both fighting for identical platinum 3 rewards its ok for alliance A and B to never be matched up with each other?
Because that’s a very silly argument isn’t it, they are fighting for the same rewards and they therefore should have the possibility to match each other. Alliance B shouldn’t just get an easier time just because their accounts aren’t as developed, they should work for the platinum 3 rewards and that means they should match ANYONE else that is close to them on war rating, not just those that are also at about 8000 prestige (which would likely expand the bracket in which they draw their opponents from to all the way down to plat 4, possibly even gold 1).
It's okay because they're not fighting each other for the same Rewards, they're fighting the Matches they get which are appropriate to them, and earning Points based on that. Can a lower Ally fight better than a higher one? Absolutely. Within War, the Points are very clear. It's all in the scoring. That's what you're working towards for placements, Points. Not fighting every other Ally close to you. Points. That's what determines say, Master 2 vs. Master 3. Master 2 is ahead because they put up more Points. Not because 3 coulda shoulda and woulda beat them.
I've made the Arena example several times, but it's literally like an Arena. You want the higher Multiplier, and the highest Streak possible to get the most Points you can. You're not doing a fight-to-the-finish against everyone in Ranks above you.
I have my stubborn moments, but not in this case. Quite the opposite actually. There's a whole idea that things "should" be a certain way, and that's not taking into account how the system actually works.
The arena comparison falls flat. Someone in the beginner bracket receiving their reward (in this case a champion) does not impact someone in veteran bracket from recieving the champ.
In war there are only one set of rewards distributed to everyone. Beginners DO impact veterans from recieving rewards.
The top teams should be facing very similar defenses for the same amount of points on the table. If Alliance A has a high war rating granting it a high multiplier, it should be facing the same defenses that Alliance B is facing.
I’m looking at your arena analogies and just shaking my head. The higher your PI, the higher your points. Same with AQ, the higher your prestige, the higher your score.
And with that higher prestige comes a harder map, which justifies the higher points. Now the way matchmaking was working was allowing some teams to get a higher multiplier while on an easier map for some alliances while others were fighting harder maps for less points.
Don’t even try to talk about “firepower”, everyone is bringing in their top attackers, and until recently that was capped to max 5* or R2 6*. Now there are a few bringing in R3 attackers, but they are also facing more R3 on defense as well.
There is just no world in which a team is considered a top team if they aren’t able to complete with teams below their artificially inflated rank. To be the best you have to beat the best. The sports world is the best example as so many have said before. LSU and Kansas City were both champions, but in no way could you say both teams deserved to have the same rewards or be ranked besides each other in a list of all teams playing.
I'd hardly call them Beginners Bracket. They don't get to higher Ranks because they can't play.
Call em whatever you like. You raised the arena comparison. Award distribution for arena is not the same as war award distribution therefore its not really an apt comparison. Whatever term you want to use to describe the players is irrelevant.
What you're saying is, because Allies would massacre them if they came up against them, they shouldn't be there, and that's just arrogant. Of course they would beat them if they're 3 times their size and Roster capabilities. That's not even a fair win. That's entirely ego-based. An Alliance with less couldn't possibly be better at War, or as good. Right? Wrong. They could. This is War progress. Same system for scoring for everyone. If they perform well enough, they can be better, no matter the strength of the Champs they're Matched with. Fight better=more Points=higher Ranking. The real argument here was started because a certain unnamed Ally wanted to bully another out of their Rank. When they couldn't Match them, they threatened to build a dummy Ally and bypass the system. Personally, I favor those playing by the rules, but the reality is exactly as I said. You place with Points, not by bullying the one above or below you. You want to get higher? Do better in your own Wars. Not manipulate the system.
Anyway, I made my points. I feel like this is getting cyclical, so I'll leave them for people to agree or disagree with. It's not the same as the Off-Season Leaderboard where Alliances used to fight to the death and take out others all the way to the top. Different system, different scoring.
I've made the Arena example several times, but it's literally like an Arena. You want the higher Multiplier, and the highest Streak possible to get the most Points you can. You're not doing a fight-to-the-finish against everyone in Ranks above you.
Your Arena example is a poor comparison... My roster of 155 5* and 62 6* makes it hard for most to compare with me with spending. Especially with the 4* pulling death squads. I can put up 9.2 million points on just my 5* and 6*.
9.2 x 6 = 55.2million + 3 @ 5.1 million = 70.5 million without spending on refreshes. Someone with 800k would never stand a chance in 5* featured. Not to mention it is all about who is willing to put in the time or spend as to who gets the champions.
You could be speaking about the 4* arena, but that is the problem. Wasting time on 4* which is not going to help advance your roster.
Now I am supposed to believe someone not dedicated to develop a 5* roster DESERVES similar chances at Gold, Platinum and Master awards without having to experience the toughness of the bracket others have to face. Sure the prestige wars are “fairer”, but what about the players who run 5*’s and have to spend on boosts and pots? How is it fair to them to have tougher and more costly matches only to rank in lower Gold because other teams never have to spend or face anything hard?
What of years the upper player put into their rosters? Where is the fairness there? You are completely wrong and off base with your responses.
If anything. Kabam should make divisions.... Elite 9000+, Veteran 6000-8999, Experienced 3000-5999, Beginner below 3000. Each can have its own brackets with appropriate rewards. This Prestige-based free for all will just mean AW will slowly die, as higher alliance will stop buying boost and pots for mediocre rewards.
Comments
Now we’ve been given the tier 3 level map at expert level - and we’re tier 5, so two tiers below is a big discrepancy, against an opponent at that level where they can bring arguably a much stronger roster to bat with eg running Map 6/7 and still being able to have AWD of all R5 5* champs plus same for attack. And I see many members of the other alliance that have 6* R3 duped champs in their roster like Warlock. That doesn’t make war fun or fair. Especially when you throw in defence tactics to the mix which further boost their already OP defenders.
And both allys compete on same map but are given a different multiplier for doing the same map. Say we somehow do a David and beat these Goliaths (just need the right stone!) we’ll still only be awarded our multiplier of x4. Not begrudging that ally they prob deserve their multiplier but saying there’s a lot more inequity in matchmaking these days. The reason why we only do 2 BG wars is that may people have experienced similar disparity and don’t enjoy wars so have opted out entirely
Imo the system should match downwards based on war ratings ranked, #1 v #2 etc. And if there’s an odd number of alliances, the last alliance on that list gets a “Bye” as that usually has the least impact on the leaderboard.
While we usually fight (like this war) guys like this and keep our death count around 40 attack bonus lost against defense 30 times stronger than noname’s
Yes you do not get the point at all cause what you propose is exactly like it was so we could never face any of the lower prestige alliances in our same bracket purely because you don’t think it’s fair. There’s 1 reward system so everybody should be able to face everybody in their own bracket
Not all high prestige guys are there cause they are whales. You might be cause if I remember you’re in asgard and the 10 times we faced you in aw we always decimated you cause you actually are those high prestige players that aren’t as skilled as their rosters are developed. But that put aside you have no point at all, an alliance that wins should never have any overkills on a certain opponent. If we lose all 3 AB on even 1 opponent then we’ll lose this war so how is it fair that alliances like noname, howk, los mirmidones, ... can lose 60 AB against easier defenses (yes they also spend items and use boosts) while also using R5 5*’s that just aren’t max sig (which keeps their prestige low) while we face much better defense and mostly fight with R5 5*’s as well (some guys use a R3 6* but so what the defense we face has them as well). I’m certain all the guys in noname have around 10 - 15 R5’s, they just aren’t max sig
Everybody here has at least done 1 abyss path and 6.1-6.3 100% and are working on 100% act 6.4 (got 2 paths left myself) so how is it fair that an alliance of which most guys just got cavalier like a month ago are higher in aw rankings than us purely because they never face us (cause you claim it’s unfair)
If that was actually meant for me, which I don't know why bc I didn't even respond to your last post, I moved alliances before the season started bc I got bored with AQ and am currently in one of the master ranks.
and alliance B (8000 prestige, 2-3 R4 5*s on defence per player, 2400 war rating, Platinum 3 #100)
are both fighting for identical platinum 3 rewards its ok for alliance A and B to never be matched up with each other?
Because that’s a very silly argument isn’t it, they are fighting for the same rewards and they therefore should have the possibility to match each other.
Alliance B shouldn’t just get an easier time just because their accounts aren’t as developed, they should work for the platinum 3 rewards and that means they should match ANYONE else that is close to them on war rating, not just those that are also at about 8000 prestige (which would likely expand the bracket in which they draw their opponents from to all the way down to plat 4, possibly even gold 1).
As long as we aiming the same rewards, the war rating must be the only way of matchmaking! Everyone eventually after some deathatches will take the position he deserves.
Nice 👍🏽 job.
Wow. This is actuly not fair.
Are wars back to prestige rating?
Bc the prestige is the closest of all things.
Or did you do 2 BG wars? Bc there are not so much alliances that do that I guess
Edit: Nvm. I just read you do 2 BGs. That explains it at least.
We’re just looking for balance between AQ and AW, AQ being Map 5 with a dash of Map 6 at times, so to keep getting these kind of match ups is a kick in the teeth. And not gonna encourage us to resume full 3 BG wars anytime soon, no guarantee that match ups would be any fairer with 3 BGs. We’re just gonna try the best we can without spending up big on items. We’re actually doing ok but not expecting to win and doubt the opponent will finish either tbh
Can a lower Ally fight better than a higher one? Absolutely. Within War, the Points are very clear. It's all in the scoring. That's what you're working towards for placements, Points. Not fighting every other Ally close to you. Points. That's what determines say, Master 2 vs. Master 3. Master 2 is ahead because they put up more Points. Not because 3 coulda shoulda and woulda beat them.
In war there are only one set of rewards distributed to everyone. Beginners DO impact veterans from recieving rewards.
Apples and oranges.
The top teams should be facing very similar defenses for the same amount of points on the table. If Alliance A has a high war rating granting it a high multiplier, it should be facing the same defenses that Alliance B is facing.
I’m looking at your arena analogies and just shaking my head. The higher your PI, the higher your points. Same with AQ, the higher your prestige, the higher your score.
And with that higher prestige comes a harder map, which justifies the higher points. Now the way matchmaking was working was allowing some teams to get a higher multiplier while on an easier map for some alliances while others were fighting harder maps for less points.
Don’t even try to talk about “firepower”, everyone is bringing in their top attackers, and until recently that was capped to max 5* or R2 6*. Now there are a few bringing in R3 attackers, but they are also facing more R3 on defense as well.
There is just no world in which a team is considered a top team if they aren’t able to complete with teams below their artificially inflated rank. To be the best you have to beat the best. The sports world is the best example as so many have said before. LSU and Kansas City were both champions, but in no way could you say both teams deserved to have the same rewards or be ranked besides each other in a list of all teams playing.
9.2 x 6 = 55.2million + 3 @ 5.1 million = 70.5 million without spending on refreshes. Someone with 800k would never stand a chance in 5* featured. Not to mention it is all about who is willing to put in the time or spend as to who gets the champions.
You could be speaking about the 4* arena, but that is the problem. Wasting time on 4* which is not going to help advance your roster.
Now I am supposed to believe someone not dedicated to develop a 5* roster DESERVES similar chances at Gold, Platinum and Master awards without having to experience the toughness of the bracket others have to face. Sure the prestige wars are “fairer”, but what about the players who run 5*’s and have to spend on boosts and pots? How is it fair to them to have tougher and more costly matches only to rank in lower Gold because other teams never have to spend or face anything hard?
What of years the upper player put into their rosters? Where is the fairness there? You are completely wrong and off base with your responses.