A system that ended up placing 30m alliances in tiers that saw them squabbling over 3 * shards while 3* alliances could manipulate the system and win 6* shards and t5b resources was just as sadistic from my side of the fence, still have to agree with you the rollout was terrible At the start of a season, and surely they could have created a match making system within 30% of prestige for a while to avoid these crazy matchups. The issue was the last system was actually falling apart at the seams, 3* alliance tier 4 wars, need I say more
@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.
What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?
What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?
What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?
In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.
Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone. Double standard, really. Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.
Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.
No matter how you try to spin it, placing Alliances in Matches they have no possible way of winning is wrong. Doesn't matter how justified you think it is. It's just a Season of sadistically watching people fail.
Actually there’s no spin to it. The better teams will win and place where they belong. You’ve used almost every logical fallacy in these threads and have been quite honestly insulting to players who have spent a lot of time building their rosters. And I’ve watched you do the same thing in other threads too. You never make any real points and come off as just being a nuisance on purpose.
That is a crock "true war rating". You don't find the true war rating by pitting a map full of 2000 plus hp 4 stars against a map full of rank 4 5 stars! How exactly is that going to truely represent my alliances capabilities? Or establish any sort of true messure of our "true war rating"??? So for the next 29 days we are just supposed to accept that we are probably beaten before we even start?
War rating isn't supposed to measure your alliance's capabilities. It is only meant to predict whether you will win or not. If you lose 29 days in a row, your rating drops because the system is predicting you're going to lose a lot, because you are losing a lot. The system is trying to figure out who you *don't* lose all the time against, and it does that by matching you against weaker and weaker opponents until you stop losing. That correctly represents your alliance's ability to win.
An alliance's "true rating" is the rating we should assign to all alliances such that if we did, then for all alliances of rating X, all of them would win about 50% of the fights against all other alliances of rating X. We can never know this number, because it would take too many wars to do this experiment. And alliances change composition all the time. So this idealized magical rating value can never be precisely set by the game. But it exists in theory, and the rating system attempts to converge towards it all the time, by altering alliance ratings as they win or lose. And it is critical that all alliances theoretically match against all other alliances of similar rating, because your rating is supposed to be a measure of your strength against *all other* alliances of similar rating. It is not a measure of your ability to beat all other alliances that look exactly like you.
And why do we need to know this? Because there's only one set of rewards, one set of tiers, one set of point multipliers. When we give two different alliances a 2500 rating, they are getting the same point multiplier. They are very likely to end up in similar season brackets due to that similarity in point multiplier. If they essentially come from two completely different disconnected subsets of the alliances that have never crossed fought each other, there's no way to know if they actually are the same strength and actually deserve those same multipliers, points, and rewards. If two different alliances have the same war rating, but that war rating is meaningless because it is incomparable, that makes the entire exercise of assigning ratings and tiers, and ultimately points and brackets, completely meaningless.
Quite simple really. the old matchmaking system turned out to give an advantage to players with lower prestige, which is to say that it disadvantaged players with higher prestige, which is also to say that it was unfair. The new matchmaking system is fair. The people that have been benefiting from the unfairness are going to be annoyed. Because they no longer have that advantage, spin it how you want but if you are saying “it’s not fair that the team that has had great rewards because of that unfair advantage, now won’t get those advantages’ I just can’t sympathise. I can sympathise with the rollout and season timing, but from my viewpoint this was long overdue and it’s only so abrupt because it’s been broken for so long. Alliances with 4/40s as defenders shouldn’t really be competing for 6* and t5c level resources from the get go, the broken system has given them an inflated idea of what they deserve from war as it left us veterans who don’t compete with our wallets and play a mid level game churning in the silo, let me say I have explored act 6, I have beaten lol, I have 5 5/65 ranked specialty defenders and 4.5 years in the game organising mid to high level players in an alliance, we had absolutely felt left out to dry by the previous matchmaking system and I saw many burnout and leave the game from the silo grind of silver war rewards. We are sorry it happened like this but the end result is going to be much fairer than the previous highly exploitable system
What the??? We are on our second war. The last one we got "participation". So for you jerks up top to "find your true war rating" a bunch of new alliances and players have to accept being trounced over and over for a season???
Well yes our rating should be lower than theirs! And it is kinda hard for new players with incomplete mastery builds and nothing over max r4 4 stars to drop a r5 5 star doom! Anybody suprised about that??? I am not arguing that. My question is why can't the match making engine figure it out without making people not want to even play?
If it was possible to do this, we wouldn't need to do the wars at all. The computer could just figure out what everyone's rating should be, and using that it should be able to calculate the average number of wars and points each alliance should receive, and then generate the rewards for the season. There would only be a small margin for error when it came to how close to the optimal number of points each alliance generated per war, but honestly that would be a small price to pay for everyone to just sit back and collect war rewards.
We can't know who will win and who will lose except by letting them fight. And the winners and the losers decide who was the stronger and who was the weaker at that time, and their ratings evolve to reflect that. There's no other way to know whether an alliance should move up or down on any particular week, and which alliances should have higher ratings and which should have lower rating.
And unfortunately, there was no way I could see to do this outside of season as well. The problem is the adjustments only happen when everyone actually fights. You can't force people to fight outside of seasons. Or rather, you can, but that's actually worse. Forcing everyone to go through four weeks of wars to let the ratings settle down before actually going into the next season would be no different from just taking the rewards away from *this* season and still forcing people to fight. Exactly the same thing would be happening, except everyone would lose the season rewards. That isn't really better. Your choice was potentially "incorrect" rewards, or no rewards, but still fighting for real as if there *were* rewards. Because if everyone just pretends to fight and doesn't actually put in normal effort, then the entire exercise would do nothing but make the ratings even weirder, and then the following season would be just as bad.
The problem goes away after enough wars are fought with everyone putting out the same effort as normal for a season. How do you do that, without giving season rewards?
What is normal effort for a new alliance? Have you checked lately? The ghost alliances in the thousands??? I'm trying to pull in and keep new players playing and this is not gonna help and neither are all of your well puncutated arguments! We have knives at a gun fight! And i believe the issue could be resolved by matching alliances after placement. And based on placement...this isn't gonna give a true measure of "war rating" it is just going to significantly reduce the number of alliances participating and the number of players who stick around to play the game at all.
What losing is gonna do is make all the starting players in my allaince quit. And the same for many others. So if this was an attempt to kill war so only the top tiers will play it's gonna work! We are already enlisted for the next war but if it is another matchup like this one we are done for the season.
So scratch the season, still match but don't bother trying up any good champs you need on defense or attack, let your rating drop until you start getting more similar strength matches. It doesn't cost you anything but time in that case
I’ve been trying to keep people in my 30m alliance who keep dropping out after crappy season placings and rewards after Lot of effort so if anything I feel your pain man. I actually think if it had happened pre season alliances like mine would have taken the opportunity to start in a higher tier, and kept winning and alliances that were worried about what was going to happen/ normally don’t participate could have done zero item wars for loyalty shards and it would have helped the levelling a little, in saying that we won most of our wars off season anyway so we are already much higher than when we finished, but imo the halving rating plan could have happened at the end of last season, would have just accelerated the process a little without so much season impact, thing is DNA trumps me (is that term still acceptable lol) in terms of any mathematic and probability processing so I would defer to him on this one, don’t drop the season, just do zero item and participation against the tough opponents so that you do drop, But still get free loyalty and shards. soon you will start seeing some even matches and when you do, fight properly in them
We are thinking of focusing on aq aw is so mismatched why can't we fight alliances that are closer to are rating that would be the fair and more enjoyable thing to do !!
Granted, what I proposed has a secondary problem in inflating points of the people you match. This season as a whole is going to be a complete mess regardless of what anyone does though honestly. You'll probably see far less effect in the very top in say T1 and more than likely T2. Outside of that, it's going to be a mess I think
Nobody in my alliance is a level 60 summoner but me! And everyone of our opponents is a level 60 summoner??? Again, i fail to see how this is supposed to determine anyones "true war rating." So an alliance with level 60 summoners with ranked awakened 5 stars against level 45 summoners with unawakened r4 four stars proves what???? And 45 is one of the higher level summoners, i have them in the 30's...what are you disagreeing with idiot? I know the levels of my team and our opponent!
@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.
What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?
What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?
What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?
In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.
Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone. Double standard, really. Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.
Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.
No matter how you try to spin it, placing Alliances in Matches they have no possible way of winning is wrong. Doesn't matter how justified you think it is. It's just a Season of sadistically watching people fail.
The things you need to not lose at least are very simple actually. 1 - diversity maxed 2 - explore every map without deaths That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.
What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?
What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?
What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?
In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.
Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone. Double standard, really. Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.
Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.
No matter how you try to spin it, placing Alliances in Matches they have no possible way of winning is wrong. Doesn't matter how justified you think it is. It's just a Season of sadistically watching people fail.
The things you need to not lose at least are very simple actually. 1 - diversity maxed 2 - explore every map without deaths That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
The rating cut wasn't meant to make matches more fair nor did it. It was made to make the transition period between alliances with artificially high ratings getting to a base point shorter
If all they did was change the match system, alliances with ratings higher than they probably should have achieved would have spent much longer getting massive mismatches before they started matching with alliances more their own strength
The fix is easy, give the higher ranked tiers something to differentiate them from others I.e. G-512 wouldn’t be matched against a B-512 with G being gold and B being bronze
Lets look at it in a different context and use football to compare a tier based system. If you are the best division 3 team do you get the same financial compensation as teams in the EPL. No you dont. Why,because your team is nowhere near as good as any team in the EPL (ignoring some very rare upsets). This is exactly what happened with lower prestige alliances getting platinum rewards. You didnt play any hard teams, you only played teams with similar rosters. This is how it should be for a season based rewards system. Yes some alliances are going to smoke others but if you cant beat them why should you get the same rewards. The first few wars will suck, after that it will balance out
Nobody in my alliance is a level 60 summoner but me! And everyone of our opponents is a level 60 summoner??? Again, i fail to see how this is supposed to determine anyones "true war rating." So an alliance with level 60 summoners with ranked awakened 5 stars against level 45 summoners with unawakened r4 four stars proves what???? And 45 is one of the higher level summoners, i have them in the 30's...what are you disagreeing with idiot? I know the levels of my team and our opponent!
You will lose until you face equally strong enemy. Equally not in terms of prestige, but in skill, firepower and organisation - it takes a lot of will power to sort out diversity. I actually have a 45lvl baby account besides my main, and it's already close to first 6*. So I wouldn't base als comparison on players levels - there are a lot of lvl 60 players without any 6* or not very skilled ones. Kabam could count first couple of weeks of current season with some lower coefficients probably, so that that rating reset didn't influence season ratings, but work long enough seasons it doesn't really matter
@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.
What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?
What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?
What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?
In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.
Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone. Double standard, really. Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.
Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.
No matter how you try to spin it, placing Alliances in Matches they have no possible way of winning is wrong. Doesn't matter how justified you think it is. It's just a Season of sadistically watching people fail.
The things you need to not lose at least are very simple actually. 1 - diversity maxed 2 - explore every map without deaths That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
You're kidding me with that right? Just explore the Map and they'll win. They can't win. The difference in what they're using alone, differences in CR, Node increases, Nodes, etc. They can't win these Wars. Let's not be glib.
I wasted an hour of my life reading through the insanely misguided posts from people in this thread. Fact remains, Kabam finally fixed their mistakes. Sorry to the "little guys" that now have to actually fight real plat and high gold alliances. I know it sucks to catch these pending beat downs, and you'll have about two full weeks of complaining before it starts to level out. We've been complaining for a year or more that "small" alliances are taking top spots from "big" alliances that would smash them. And yes, we would smash you because as some of you have argued, we have larger accounts, more diverse rosters. Therefore, we are stronger alliances. If you beat us head to head, props to ya! But the old system would never allow that. Now it will. If you don't like the new system.....win baby win. If you can't, sit your butt down and shut up. Take your whoopin like a champ!
@GroundedWisdom go back to the sports analogies. You brought up weight classes in boxing. Do you want lower groups to essentially only be allowed to play Heroic War with Heroic rewards? If that's the case, it makes sense to use prestige and have them only match other low groups. In this scenario, the best lower groups could climb to the top, and get the best Heroic rewards. They would not have the option of getting UC rewards or Master rewards no matter how many wars they win until they gain weight. Similarly, a welterweight boxer can be undefeated and hold the welterweight belt, but he can't compete for the Heavyweight belt. Our previous system allowed Heroic/Welterweight alliances who were the best in that group to win Uncollected/Heavyweight rewards by beating other lower groups. This forced other heavyweights to fight each other for Heroic rewards. The best Little League team in the world might never lose a single game ever to other Little League teams. That's awesome. They should get credit as the best in their level. They don't push higher level teams to lower levels as a result. If you don't want segregation and you want everyone to compete for the same rewards, that same best of the Heroic level war alliances will rise to the top of that level and beat some of the less skilled Master groups, but they will hit a wall and won't get to Uncollected until they get stronger.That's what's happening now. Every alliance will win or lose until they get to where they are getting fairly rewarded for the level they can attain. The truth is the very top was fine in either scenario because they can outspend everyone. This was never about them, contrary to your belief. Previously lower groups were getting rewards they didn't earn as they were getting Master and Uncollected rewards by beating the Heroic level. Now it's being fixed and you say it's unfair lol.
Did I not just say that the Rewards could have been addressed? That was an option. So was easing the adjustment so that the Season wasn't filled with Matches like the ones we're seeing. Now all we have is a mess.
Oh no. War is going to be a mess for one season while the system corrects itself to how it should have been from the start.
What's that? War seasons have always been unfair and unbalanced?
What's that? Alliances that have gained an advantage because they were only matching lower rated opponents to climb up through the ladders without ever having to face a legitimate ranked opponent?
What's that? You're telling me that no damn game with a ranked ladder and an actual functioning MMR system would implement a broken flawed system where someone could play way about their station like the old system did?
In one season, all alliances will be in their proper places and getting appropriate rewards for the amount of effort they put in. There is no way that some of these lower prestige, and lower overall combined hero rating alliances should be at the rank they achieved by fighting much easier opponents. That was a fundamentally flawed system.
Oh no. Right. Tell me this. Did people not argue for weeks when one War was discounted? "End the Season! Do the right thing Kabam!". That argument was valid, but an entire Season that's going to be a mess for many, many people....oh, that's just for the betterment of everyone. Double standard, really. Bottom line is everyone's Season matters. Everyone's effort is worth something. Not just the Top.
Exactly! Everybody’s season matters! Which is why we are now matched by war ratings instead of prestige. And those top teams that have been held down unfairly by smaller teams will rise in the rankings to reflect that they are better. No more free rides.
No matter how you try to spin it, placing Alliances in Matches they have no possible way of winning is wrong. Doesn't matter how justified you think it is. It's just a Season of sadistically watching people fail.
The things you need to not lose at least are very simple actually. 1 - diversity maxed 2 - explore every map without deaths That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
The rating cut wasn't meant to make matches more fair nor did it. It was made to make the transition period between alliances with artificially high ratings getting to a base point shorter
I was thinking about how it's better to half ratings rather then resetting every alliance rating to 0, with wich top alliance of prev season could've probably have some new alliance of beginners. Yes, surely half ratings should make the transition faster
I love how weak alliances were fine with a system that gave them war ratings higher than alliances they couldn't compete with if their lives depended on it. Now that you have to prove your war rating it's unfair!? Lol! I hate war with a passion, but this is actually a step in the right direction. You want top rewards, prove you're good enough or go to the properly placed tier.
And let me add....the ONLY people on here complaining are in low rated, low prestige alliances that have consistently achieved higher level AW rewards than they deserve (unfairly). This just further reinforces that this was broken AF for so long. And now that Kabam has fixed it, the little ones are crying their eyes out. KUDOS KABAM for a much needed and long over due fix!!
Comments
An alliance's "true rating" is the rating we should assign to all alliances such that if we did, then for all alliances of rating X, all of them would win about 50% of the fights against all other alliances of rating X. We can never know this number, because it would take too many wars to do this experiment. And alliances change composition all the time. So this idealized magical rating value can never be precisely set by the game. But it exists in theory, and the rating system attempts to converge towards it all the time, by altering alliance ratings as they win or lose. And it is critical that all alliances theoretically match against all other alliances of similar rating, because your rating is supposed to be a measure of your strength against *all other* alliances of similar rating. It is not a measure of your ability to beat all other alliances that look exactly like you.
And why do we need to know this? Because there's only one set of rewards, one set of tiers, one set of point multipliers. When we give two different alliances a 2500 rating, they are getting the same point multiplier. They are very likely to end up in similar season brackets due to that similarity in point multiplier. If they essentially come from two completely different disconnected subsets of the alliances that have never crossed fought each other, there's no way to know if they actually are the same strength and actually deserve those same multipliers, points, and rewards. If two different alliances have the same war rating, but that war rating is meaningless because it is incomparable, that makes the entire exercise of assigning ratings and tiers, and ultimately points and brackets, completely meaningless.
Alliances with 4/40s as defenders shouldn’t really be competing for 6* and t5c level resources from the get go, the broken system has given them an inflated idea of what they deserve from war as it left us veterans who don’t compete with our wallets and play a mid level game churning in the silo, let me say I have explored act 6, I have beaten lol, I have 5 5/65 ranked specialty defenders and 4.5 years in the game organising mid to high level players in an alliance, we had absolutely felt left out to dry by the previous matchmaking system and I saw many burnout and leave the game from the silo grind of silver war rewards.
We are sorry it happened like this but the end result is going to be much fairer than the previous highly exploitable system
(Faces 5 star alliance rated below them) “This isn’t fair! I’m gonna quit!”
We can't know who will win and who will lose except by letting them fight. And the winners and the losers decide who was the stronger and who was the weaker at that time, and their ratings evolve to reflect that. There's no other way to know whether an alliance should move up or down on any particular week, and which alliances should have higher ratings and which should have lower rating.
And unfortunately, there was no way I could see to do this outside of season as well. The problem is the adjustments only happen when everyone actually fights. You can't force people to fight outside of seasons. Or rather, you can, but that's actually worse. Forcing everyone to go through four weeks of wars to let the ratings settle down before actually going into the next season would be no different from just taking the rewards away from *this* season and still forcing people to fight. Exactly the same thing would be happening, except everyone would lose the season rewards. That isn't really better. Your choice was potentially "incorrect" rewards, or no rewards, but still fighting for real as if there *were* rewards. Because if everyone just pretends to fight and doesn't actually put in normal effort, then the entire exercise would do nothing but make the ratings even weirder, and then the following season would be just as bad.
The problem goes away after enough wars are fought with everyone putting out the same effort as normal for a season. How do you do that, without giving season rewards?
We have knives at a gun fight! And i believe the issue could be resolved by matching alliances after placement. And based on placement...this isn't gonna give a true measure of "war rating" it is just going to significantly reduce the number of alliances participating and the number of players who stick around to play the game at all.
And 45 is one of the higher level summoners, i have them in the 30's...what are you disagreeing with idiot? I know the levels of my team and our opponent!
1 - diversity maxed
2 - explore every map without deaths
That's it! All it takes basically is an attack team capable of finishing fights within time limit and skill to do that. And if your attack team has no chance of doing that, why should you get more rewards then your opponent? Wich they did for years. They did cut aw ratings to make those matches more fair probably, yet save some order to avoid more frustration of top alliances fighting lower alliances. They could've make the transition smoother, but it would've take much more time and probably be worse for those low pi alliances with high war rates. And now it's like some shock therapy. It will take only couple of weeks probably to sort most of alliances, and then most people will be back to almost equal number of wins and losses, and alliances will get rewards they should.
The first few wars will suck, after that it will balance out
Kabam could count first couple of weeks of current season with some lower coefficients probably, so that that rating reset didn't influence season ratings, but work long enough seasons it doesn't really matter
Yes, surely half ratings should make the transition faster