Alliance War Season 19: Updates to Path Identities and New Nodes! [ June 30]

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.

For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating

LeNoirFaineant

What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.
Yes. The best Little League team went undefeated against other little league teams and so they deserve World Series rings because they beat the opponents that they were given to face. The Yankees had to play the Red Sox a bunch of times and lost some games, so they don't deserve it. Makes sense.
Little League. Hmm...because they don't have the same Rating? Are they not playing in the same Tiers with the same Nodes?

Exactly. Little league uses the same ball. Some use wooden bats. At a certain age the bases are the same distance apart. They are playing the same game. But the teams and the competition is not close to equal. Thank you for making my point. Make it March Madness if you like. The 16 seeds all play other college teams who didn't make the tournament. The 1-4 seeds all play each other. It doesn't matter what the analogy is. You seem to be willfully refusing to see the point.

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating

Right. So because I haven't played all the way to the top, I've never played, and don't know what I'm talking about. I see. Interesting how you're forming such a judgment based on something like what Bracket I'm in. Know everything about me do you?

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating
Right. So because I haven't played all the way to the top, I've never played, and don't know what I'm talking about. I see. Interesting how you're forming such a judgment based on something like what Bracket I'm in. Know everything about me do you?

Don't need to know everything about you as this discussion isn't about you. This discussion is about war through the tiers. People playing in the upper tiers at some point played in lower tiers. You, well.... we'll just say have been low and slow like a brisket

What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.
Yes. The best Little League team went undefeated against other little league teams and so they deserve World Series rings because they beat the opponents that they were given to face. The Yankees had to play the Red Sox a bunch of times and lost some games, so they don't deserve it. Makes sense.
Little League. Hmm...because they don't have the same Rating? Are they not playing in the same Tiers with the same Nodes?
Exactly. Little league uses the same ball. Some use wooden bats. At a certain age the bases are the same distance apart. They are playing the same game. But the teams and the competition is not close to equal. Thank you for making my point.

It IS equal to them. The only difference is what they're working with. Same Tiers, same Nodes, both sides are weaker, yes. They're also in proportion. Same as the higher Alliances, or "Major Leagues". The Champs don't make someone skillful, and I have no doubt if the weaker Alliances could do it with what they had, they could do it if they traded places and Rosters with the higher Alliances.

Markjv81

You can’t have an opinion on sex if all you’ve done is masterbate.

The fact you've used absolutely absurd comparisons of war seasons to arena just shows you don't even remotely get it. It's competition against your peers. War isn't a grind where as long as you keep showing up you keep getting more. You actually have to get better and beat stronger matches.

What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.
Yes. The best Little League team went undefeated against other little league teams and so they deserve World Series rings because they beat the opponents that they were given to face. The Yankees had to play the Red Sox a bunch of times and lost some games, so they don't deserve it. Makes sense.
Little League. Hmm...because they don't have the same Rating? Are they not playing in the same Tiers with the same Nodes?
Exactly. Little league uses the same ball. Some use wooden bats. At a certain age the bases are the same distance apart. They are playing the same game. But the teams and the competition is not close to equal. Thank you for making my point.
It IS equal to them. The only difference is what they're working with. Same Tiers, same Nodes, both sides are weaker, yes. They're also in proportion. Same as the higher Alliances, or "Major Leagues". The Champs don't make someone skillful, and I have no doubt if the weaker Alliances could do it with what they had, they could do it if they traded places and Rosters with the higher Alliances.

So roster strength determines war ranking? Someone forgot to tell Asgard

LeNoirFaineant

What you're not acknowledging is they took the Rewards because they won Matches that were equal to what they had, and you lost them to Wars that were equal to what you have. For some reason, people keep ignoring the scale of the Matches and saying because they're working with less, it was easier for them.
Yes. The best Little League team went undefeated against other little league teams and so they deserve World Series rings because they beat the opponents that they were given to face. The Yankees had to play the Red Sox a bunch of times and lost some games, so they don't deserve it. Makes sense.
Little League. Hmm...because they don't have the same Rating? Are they not playing in the same Tiers with the same Nodes?
Exactly. Little league uses the same ball. Some use wooden bats. At a certain age the bases are the same distance apart. They are playing the same game. But the teams and the competition is not close to equal. Thank you for making my point.
It IS equal to them. The only difference is what they're working with. Same Tiers, same Nodes, both sides are weaker, yes. They're also in proportion. Same as the higher Alliances, or "Major Leagues". The Champs don't make someone skillful, and I have no doubt if the weaker Alliances could do it with what they had, they could do it if they traded places and Rosters with the higher Alliances.

What they are working with makes all the difference. If you have one low team who have skilled players they may be better than every other low team. They still can't beat one of the top teams with all R3 defenders. They shouldn't be competing at the same level with them without having to face them. Both sides are weaker in the little league game. Same ball, same number of strikes and balls. 3 outs per inning. One little league team may be the best in the whole world. But they don't have the team to play at a higher level so they can't win the world series. This is exactly what Central Florida did a few years ago when they tried to claim the National Championship. They were a division 1 school just like Alabama and they went undefeated. But they played a group of 5 schedule. They were the best group of 5 school in the country and could mop up the floor with other group of 5 schools. But you can't be number 1 if you don't play Alabama and Clemson.

In the current system, the standings look like

Yankees 12 - 0
Pawtucket Frying Pans 11 - 1
Red Sox 10 - 2

Who are the Frying Pans? Oh they're the best 10 year old little league team, they have a better record than the Red Sox and so should be in second place. But they've never played the Yankees or Red Sox, heck they've never played the Orioles. So what's your point...they have the second best record in baseball.

unknown

This content has been removed.

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating
Right. So because I haven't played all the way to the top, I've never played, and don't know what I'm talking about. I see. Interesting how you're forming such a judgment based on something like what Bracket I'm in. Know everything about me do you?
Don't need to know everything about you as this discussion isn't about you. This discussion is about war through the tiers. People playing in the upper tiers at some point played in lower tiers. You, well.... we'll just say have been low and slow like a brisket

I did the best I could with what I had. I spent years organizing Win after Win with what I was working with, but I was also dedicated to an Alliance full of people who weren't the best Players, but had been with me for years. It was loyalty first, Rewards later. Don't mistake where I was at for a lack of knowledge. It was a choice to stay there because we were there for each other first, through marriages, divorces, deaths, children, all of it. You can only do so much with what you have to work with, and I don't regret it. I'm in a different Ally now, but that experience is why I understand that Players are hard-working for where they're at. They're not collateral damage. They're doing the best they can with what they have, and when you place your Champs, wait 24 hours, and see a Match you know you can't win, it's demotivating. Add Seasons to that, and try an entire Season of those Matches. What kind of experience does that make for people doing their best?

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating
Right. So because I haven't played all the way to the top, I've never played, and don't know what I'm talking about. I see. Interesting how you're forming such a judgment based on something like what Bracket I'm in. Know everything about me do you?
Don't need to know everything about you as this discussion isn't about you. This discussion is about war through the tiers. People playing in the upper tiers at some point played in lower tiers. You, well.... we'll just say have been low and slow like a brisket
I did the best I could with what I had. I spent years organizing Win after Win with what I was working with, but I was also dedicated to an Alliance full of people who weren't the best Players, but had been with me for years. It was loyalty first, Rewards later. Don't mistake where I was at for a lack of knowledge. It was a choice to stay there because we were there for each other first, through marriages, divorces, deaths, children, all of it. You can only do so much with what you have to work with, and I don't regret it. I'm in a different Ally now, but that experience is why I understand that Players are hard-working for where they're at. They're not collateral damage. They're doing the best they can with what they have, and when you place your Champs, wait 24 hours, and see a Match you know you can't win, it's demotivating. Add Seasons to that, and try an entire Season of those Matches. What kind of experience does that make for people doing their best?

And yet Mr from the beginning still isn't even cavalier which is incredibly easy to pull off for someone that's even been playing for 2 years. That have to do with alliance loyalty too?

In the current system, the standings look like

Yankees 12 - 0
Pawtucket Frying Pans 11 - 1
Red Sox 10 - 2

Who are the Frying Pans? Oh they're the best 10 year old little league team, they have a better record than the Red Sox and so should be in second place. But they've never played the Yankees or Red Sox, heck they've never played the Orioles. So what's your point...they have the second best record in baseball.

Since we're set on using Sports analogies, in Boxing, there's a reason there are Weight Classes.

I've had plenty of wars in various alliances I knew I was going to lose. You choose to do one of two things, rush the boss through easy lanes or just say screw it and invest no items whatsoever in them until you get an easier match.

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating
Right. So because I haven't played all the way to the top, I've never played, and don't know what I'm talking about. I see. Interesting how you're forming such a judgment based on something like what Bracket I'm in. Know everything about me do you?
Don't need to know everything about you as this discussion isn't about you. This discussion is about war through the tiers. People playing in the upper tiers at some point played in lower tiers. You, well.... we'll just say have been low and slow like a brisket
I did the best I could with what I had. I spent years organizing Win after Win with what I was working with, but I was also dedicated to an Alliance full of people who weren't the best Players, but had been with me for years. It was loyalty first, Rewards later. Don't mistake where I was at for a lack of knowledge. It was a choice to stay there because we were there for each other first, through marriages, divorces, deaths, children, all of it. You can only do so much with what you have to work with, and I don't regret it. I'm in a different Ally now, but that experience is why I understand that Players are hard-working for where they're at. They're not collateral damage. They're doing the best they can with what they have, and when you place your Champs, wait 24 hours, and see a Match you know you can't win, it's demotivating. Add Seasons to that, and try an entire Season of those Matches. What kind of experience does that make for people doing their best?
And yet Mr from the beginning still isn't even cavalier which is incredibly easy to pull off for someone that's even been playing for 2 years. That have to do with alliance loyalty too?

No. Mr. Just Became Cavalier spent a great deal of time Grinding and doing EQ and took his time with Story.

@GroundedWisdom

The war ratings being cut by 50% actually reduces the duration of the ratings adjustment period to balance out the rankings.

Each war will still have the same +-, but because the change is from a lower rating, the % jump across alliances become bigger and more pronounced. This divides the alliances into the tiers much faster, as compared to keeping the old war ratings and having it balance out with the new matchmaking system.

If we were to keep the old war ratings, alliances who are much higher than their equilibrium rating (at where they have a 50% win/loss rate), will be in for a prolonged period of losses.

Generally, after 1-2 seasons, every alliance should be at their equilibrium war rating where they approximately win and lose half of their wars.

Stronger alliances switching to other shell alliances during the off season is another issue and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. I believe Kabam knows about this and will be working on something to prevent this.
After 1-2 Seasons. You think that's reasonable collateral damage? What about the people (30 per Ally) who do their best for a month just the same as anyone else playing? You see that as necessary? Intentionally making them lose so the system can balance itself is absolutely unreasonable and unfair. No altruism for the system as a whole will ignore this effect, and that's what I'm speaking out against. When I pressed for Prestige to be used, it was in response to the mess that was created by Tanking and punishment reductions. I didn't think it was an ideal system, so I'm not opposed to changing things in general. That was necessary then. My main issue is that people are putting all the effort in they can and trusting a system that's going to intentionally place them in Matches they are not capable of winning during the Season. Not okay in my books. Not at all. Not for any "greater good".
Yes it’s acceptable collateral damage for the past few seasons of rewards that they would have never gotten if prestige was never used as a parameter.

“... place them in matches they are not capable of winning during the Season.”

If they are good, they will still be able to win. Matches based on war ratings is as fair as it can be.

You supported prestige based matchmaking because of the tanking that was prevalent then, that’s the prerequisite. When war ratings were changed to stop tanking during the off season, this prestige based system should have went together with it because your condition of tanking during the off season no longer holds true.
No. If they're good has nothing to do with it. There is a point wherw they have no chance of winning. It is impossible given the differences in Ranks, CRs, increases in PI, Nodes, etc. They won't win if they're good because they are overpowered beyond what's possible.
As for collateral damage, that's a hard disagree from me. You'll acting like they should be punished just for playing their own Wars. Please.
Getting a reality check isn't getting punished. It's realizing you've been getting lucky for a long time.

I have? Lol. Don't think so, bud. I'm in Silver 1, with 2 BGs. You think I'm arguing for myself? I'm talking about what's right and what isn't, and the people who will be set up by this. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong.
You think I'm talking about you specifically? I'm well aware you barely even participate in war and never have at any remotely competitive level which is why I've continued to state you have no business even talking about this issue
Barely even participate in War, hmm? Yes. I just picked the game up. Never played it at all. Especially haven't been playing it since the beginning, and definitely haven't contributed to War ideas in general. Nope. Never suggested the concept of having Seasons that ended up being a mode you're playing right now. Nope. Totally new to the game.
Sure thing buds. Gonna discuss it whether you want to try and outrank me or not. Thanks.
For someone "that's been playing since the beginning", playing 2 bgs in Silver is absolutely barely participating
Right. So because I haven't played all the way to the top, I've never played, and don't know what I'm talking about. I see. Interesting how you're forming such a judgment based on something like what Bracket I'm in. Know everything about me do you?
Don't need to know everything about you as this discussion isn't about you. This discussion is about war through the tiers. People playing in the upper tiers at some point played in lower tiers. You, well.... we'll just say have been low and slow like a brisket
I did the best I could with what I had. I spent years organizing Win after Win with what I was working with, but I was also dedicated to an Alliance full of people who weren't the best Players, but had been with me for years. It was loyalty first, Rewards later. Don't mistake where I was at for a lack of knowledge. It was a choice to stay there because we were there for each other first, through marriages, divorces, deaths, children, all of it. You can only do so much with what you have to work with, and I don't regret it. I'm in a different Ally now, but that experience is why I understand that Players are hard-working for where they're at. They're not collateral damage. They're doing the best they can with what they have, and when you place your Champs, wait 24 hours, and see a Match you know you can't win, it's demotivating. Add Seasons to that, and try an entire Season of those Matches. What kind of experience does that make for people doing their best?
And yet Mr from the beginning still isn't even cavalier which is incredibly easy to pull off for someone that's even been playing for 2 years. That have to do with alliance loyalty too?
No. Mr. Just Became Cavalier spent a great deal of time Grinding and doing EQ and took his time with Story.

*Confetti bear*

In the current system, the standings look like

Yankees 12 - 0
Pawtucket Frying Pans 11 - 1
Red Sox 10 - 2

Who are the Frying Pans? Oh they're the best 10 year old little league team, they have a better record than the Red Sox and so should be in second place. But they've never played the Yankees or Red Sox, heck they've never played the Orioles. So what's your point...they have the second best record in baseball.
Since we're set on using Sports analogies, in Boxing, there's a reason there are Weight Classes.

And that would be fine if we had weight classes in war but we don't.

LeNoirFaineant

In the current system, the standings look like

Yankees 12 - 0
Pawtucket Frying Pans 11 - 1
Red Sox 10 - 2

Who are the Frying Pans? Oh they're the best 10 year old little league team, they have a better record than the Red Sox and so should be in second place. But they've never played the Yankees or Red Sox, heck they've never played the Orioles. So what's your point...they have the second best record in baseball.
Since we're set on using Sports analogies, in Boxing, there's a reason there are Weight Classes.

That's true. The current system would be like putting a heavyweight in the welterweight bracket and telling him he can advance out of it after he consistently has a winning record against other heavyweights, but the champion welterweight is allowed to claim the heavyweight title by facing other welterweights.

In the current system, the standings look like

Yankees 12 - 0
Pawtucket Frying Pans 11 - 1
Red Sox 10 - 2

Who are the Frying Pans? Oh they're the best 10 year old little league team, they have a better record than the Red Sox and so should be in second place. But they've never played the Yankees or Red Sox, heck they've never played the Orioles. So what's your point...they have the second best record in baseball.
Since we're set on using Sports analogies, in Boxing, there's a reason there are Weight Classes.
And that would be fine if we had weight classes in war but we don't.

This is just it. Argue for bracketing everyone apart from each other all day and it makes sense but that's not the system we have currently. Even then, all that does is make AQ 2.0 which is probably why war is setup differently.

Arguing to leave matchmaking as it was is just ridiculous though

I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.

I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.

I hope Kabam has the foresight to adjust the +/- modifiers for winning and losing. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time for things to normalize if alliances just lose 2 war rating.

I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.
I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.

That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate

I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.
I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate

That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.

I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.
I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.

If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map

Prestige is used in AQ to sell sig stones and that's it

I agree bracketing war would be bad and also hard to implement. Kabam could place a prestige limiter on match making once all the dust settles. Search based on war rating first, then see if prestige is within 1000. But they'd also have to limit how far the search will go to find a suitable match otherwise we'd be right back where we are. Alliances getting matched with alliances thousands of places below them.
I simply suggested they could limit the Points earned based on Prestige Brackets, which would keep the Matches fair and still appropriate the Rewards because Allies would earn Points based on what they were using. I suggested that mostly as a solution that wouldn't result in what we have now. I'm not vehemently opposed to using War Rating alone, albeit I would like to see all Ratings frozen in the interim. My largest concern is what's going to take place this Season. It's just something I cannot support.
That's just AQ though. There's a reason they're separate
That's not just AQ. There's also a reason Prestige is used in AQ.
If you control scoring based on prestige, that's AQ regardless of whether kabam or other players set the map

You don't just set the scoring. You make a maximum base of Points Alliances can earn depending on their Prestige Brackets. That number is multiplied by the Multipliers they earn through Tiers. So Alliances that are higher are capable of earning slightly more Points. Which means the final standings won't result in Alliances much lower than others in the same Brackets.