Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Manoj259

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

Seriously. Page after page of people telling others this is fair because the War Rating is even. How about you stop rubbing it in and acknowledge why people are upset?
Literally everyone in this thread understands that these wars are unwinnable for many of the alliances. That's a result of swapping the systems. the war ratings are even, but they shouldn't be. The old system allowed alliances to face wweaker opponents and increase their war rating while not being forced to actually beat the alliances in that tier. The new system is correcting the ratings so they are fair.
I just want to say personally that I love these changes. I was in a 42 million alliance and stuck in gold 2 because I would get matched up with opponents who have the same rating as me yet 20 million alliances got plat 4 and plat 3 rewards. It was laughable.
You were in Gold 2 because you couldn't beat Allies with the same Rating as you, so now you're glad Allies are being outmatched?
If they're stuck in gold2, obviously they won half and lost half of their wars. You would think that this would mean that the system is perfect and nothing needs to be changed, because The Talents were at the "ideal" war rating for them that matched their skill. But the thing is that it didnt't work like that. Other alliances that would have almost certainly lost to them never had to face them and abused the broken system so they never actually had any hard matchups. Im confused why you can't understand why people were stuck because of the old system, and I've yet to see you give an alternative that would actually result in all alliances having fair matchups in the transition phase while also allowing all alliances to be in their correct tier
If they're stuck in Gold 2, that's the result of not winning enough Wars to get out of it. That's how the system works. You advance by winning. Which means they were in their correct Tier.
You know this isn't true. It feels like you are arguing dishonestly or you wouldn't be able to say this after all the discussion that has taken place. If they were matching other groups in gold 2 with similar war ratings regardless of prestige, your statement would be true. But you know that this wasn't the case. The reason low alliances are now getting mismatched is precisely because groups were not in their correct tier.

Also, it is important to remember that wars are a zero sum game in more ways than one. One alliance wins and one alliance loses (barring the occasional tie). But also, no one "works their way" into tier 5. No one "works their way" into Gold 2. You enter tier 5 by displacing someone else. You enter Gold 2 by pushing another alliance into Gold 3. Alliances don't end up in a particular tier by *only* their own actions, but by the relative effects of everyone else as well. When the game preferentially hands one alliance easier fights than another alliance of identical rating, even if both alliances win that's still potentially penalizing the second alliance, because the first alliance could end up higher and push them downward in tier, multiplier, and season bracket.

Your fate is not only in your hands. It is also affected by what everyone else does. Any alliance with an easier path upward is automatically pushing everyone else downward. It just happens invisibly, and alliances concerned about being pushed downward now by the new match making system have to understand that if they are being pushed downward now, that means they were invisibly being pushed upwards before, and other alliances were invisibly pushed downward just as much as they are now. And there's not much anyone can do about it, because of the zero-sum nature of war. The only way to neutralize that pain is by giving it to someone else. Any reward you get is a reward someone else is not getting.

So when an alliance says a war is "unfair" the only way to take away that unfair loss is to hand it to someone else. The only way to hand them back the season rewards they think they are losing is to take them away from someone else. If an alliance was in Gold 1 last season and they think they will end up in Gold 2 this season and they think that's unfair, if I wave a magic wand and put them back into Gold 1, I am pushing someone else down into Gold 2. No matter how the magic wand does it, that's just the nature of how rewards work.

So I wouldn't, even if it was magically possible to do.

mum_m2

I feel like this should settle this discussion. This alliance finished plat 4 last season. We’ve been stuck in gold 1 for many seasons. Their war rating was higher than ours. They couldn’t even complete the map. It took 10 deaths for them to get through one defender. By the time it was over they had 122 deaths and hadn’t even 100% the map. I think it’s funny that people on this chat are saying this allys like this deserve to be higher, etc. Now that they are playing head to head based on war rating (which why wouldn’t you use war rating as a matching metric since it is created by alliance war win/loss?) They couldn’t hang. We should be thrilled that the contest has addressed this unfair imbalance.

We ended gold 2 first time ever that low last season. We fought another gold 2 alliance they could not even get into section 2 in all bg’s.

one can easily reverse engineer this to determine your diversity. assuming you 100% their board. it's 142 & 4260. just saying.

Seraphion

In War, yes. It's all about how they perform in War. If they win more of their Wars, and it's fair Matches, then yes. People keep saying it's more work for higher Prestige, but it isn't really. They're working with stronger Champs. So it's pretty much the same. Ego-bending, I know.
War isn’t all about how you perform, like the real war, it’s more about firepower.
Whether you like it or not higher prestige players have worked harder than lower ones. That’s a fact. They are working with stronger champs because grind/paid a lot for them. Do the same if you can.
If it is a war, no alliance will fight a war that is bound to fail. It should not draw lots to decide the opponent.
If it's a game, it's fair to compete.
Then take the loss... stop acting like you’ll always get a never ending stream of bad matchups.
IT WILL BECOME FAIR EVENTUALLY.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND.

Bc they dont want to listen to:

"You guys got too high rewards for seasons."

The mentality is not that they got more than they should for a long time. No no.

"They are being robbed their hard earned rewards from kabam." Its just easier to belive this fake story. Its delusional ofc.

But its a hard pill to swallow that you actuly didnt earn your rewards.

Im in the same boat btw. We finished 2 x P1 with ~30 million alliance. We will prob get blasted in some of the coming matches. But its fair that way.

Mu7z

Imagine a allaince newly formed with 0 war rating with all big players of around of 9k -10k pi.

And on the other side a lower allaince with 1k- 2k pi players

Well below is our alliance results.

MichaelW92

Imagine a allaince newly formed with 0 war rating with all big players of around of 9k -10k pi.

And on the other side a lower allaince with 1k- 2k pi players

Well below is our alliance results.

The sad part is that the alliance with a 20 million alliance rating has absolutely no business being in platinum 4

TyEdge

The world makes so much more sense now that I understand the BS that was pulled with the old system. It’s bizarre that more experienced players stood by while players with thin rosters skated to big rewards against inferior competition.

We’re a 30m top500 AQ alliance. What’s the worst we could possibly be in war? Top 1500? 3000? From the last few seasons, I would’ve sworn the entire pool of alliances was 25m rating groups coasting at low tiers.

LeNoirFaineant

See, I disagree. They have. The same Tiers had the same Nodes, right up to Tier 1.
An alliance with a low prestige does not deserve the same rewards as an alliance with double the prestige (and vice versa).
You think there's fairness in high prestige alliances fighting other high prestige alliances to get lesser rewards than a low prestige alliance fighting other low prestige alliances?
Are you slow in the head? Are you triggered? What's your deal?
In War, yes. It's all about how they perform in War. If they win more of their Wars, and it's fair Matches, then yes. People keep saying it's more work for higher Prestige, but it isn't really. They're working with stronger Champs. So it's pretty much the same. Ego-bending, I know.
You have clearly never faced a R3 opponent in tier 5 and up, and top alliances have every champ at R5 or R2 or R3. All the hardest and most annoying champs on the hardest node combinations that you've never even dreamt of. It's not the same thing. Just quit because you have no clue.

I'm facing an alliance right now, who has a higher war rating, and they're placing some maxed out 4* and R4 5* and a few R1 6*. We're loaded with R5's everywhere and they can't even complete the map in teir 5. They should have never be sniffing teir 5 and up wars.
I'm going to say this one more time because I think the mic has been off.
YOU HAVE BEEN FIGHTING STRONGER CHAMPS WITH STRONGER CHAMPS.
Your opponent is stronger, but so is what you're working with. Which means the Wars are the same as someone with weaker Champs facing weaker opponents.
They also fought the same Node combinations. With opponents equally as hard for them.

The mic hasn't been off, you're just still wrong. We've been over this with the little league analogy. Facing similar competition doesn't equate to equal difficulty, and if you are only facing opponents of similar strength you shouldn't be able to advance above higher teams. Even if we grant that the relative difficulty is the same, running Master with 2*s doesn't get you uncollected rewards.

Tamamort

Your war rating is the same. Fair as it gets.

Speeds80

@GroundedWisdom answer one question. do you Actually think the system that can get a < 4K prestige Alliance, @QuikPik (s joke alliance- formed to specifically show the manipulation capability’s of the old system) running one bg in war with experienced players and basically 3* defense. Into tier 4 and gold 2 rewards. (They won their wars because the matchmaking would select the nearest prestige alliance from often multiple tiers down) tiers were ignored and low prestige was rewarded.) was that A fairer system than what is in place now, clearly this new system is less exploitable and more balanced. If you win you meet harder alliances, if you lose you face easier matchups, problem solved, the ability to jump the queue by being low prestige has been taken away

Speeds80

If you are campaigning for that broken system to be brought back by saying that all the matches were fair and that my 30m alliance belonged in silver 1 receiving 3 * shards because we couldn’t win as many matches as those 3* alliances exploiting that system And displacing us from rewards we clearly are capable of competing for. then you may as well save your breath just like we may as well save our breath in Responding to you, you continue to antagonise, you don’t bring any solution. But guess what we don’t need a solution, it’s here, all we as a community need is the Entitled 4* alliances who think they deserve gold Rewards to be ignored long enough for The system to right itself, back to the fairest system that was ever in place and clearly didn’t need replacing

Speeds80

But please enjoy silver 1, and it’s rewards, my alliance will no longer be stuck there and we will miss those rewards about as much as the revolving door after every season and soulless grind for recruiting a silver 1 30m
Alliance

CaptainGame

Now two 6* teams can compete with each other to see who is really the best without a 4* team sitting in a ranking over them without having to face them for it. I love it!

unknown

This content has been removed.

CaptainGame

Now two 6* teams can compete with each other to see who is really the best without a 4* team sitting in a ranking over them without having to face them for it. I love it!
And IF the 4* ally manages it, wow!

Lol yeah for sure! I mean I do hear a lot of talk about “skillz”. Just nobody backing up that talk. Or acknowledging that the 6* team became a 6* team through these “skillz” lol

GroundedWisdom

If you are campaigning for that broken system to be brought back by saying that all the matches were fair and that my 30m alliance belonged in silver 1 receiving 3 * shards because we couldn’t win as many matches as those 3* alliances exploiting that system And displacing us from rewards we clearly are capable of competing for. then you may as well save your breath just like we may as well save our breath in Responding to you, you continue to antagonise, you don’t bring any solution. But guess what we don’t need a solution, it’s here, all we as a community need is the Entitled 4* alliances who think they deserve gold Rewards to be ignored long enough for The system to right itself, back to the fairest system that was ever in place and clearly didn’t need replacing

I'm not campaigning for anything. Had the system stayed the way it was, I provided a way to accommodate the Rewards so that Alliances would received Rewards appropriate to what they were working with, but that was overlooked. What I want is for people to stop pretending that the complaints aren't warranted because what people are facing during their Season efforts is Matches they have no chance of winning at all. It should have been handled differently and now people are being forced into Losses just to fix the system. With encouragement no less, by a Special Event. Did I think the Matches were fair before? Absolutely. That's why I said so in this Thread. I don't really care who agrees with me or not. I know what I'm saying. As much as people think Alliances using lower Champs weren't working as hard, that's not the case. They were fighting equal strength Matches in the same Tiers with the same Nodes. I still think that, no matter what anyone's Ego says. Regardless, my real issue is what we're dealing with now, and it's disrespectful for people to keep telling others everything is as it should be. These Matches are ridiculous, so let them complain.

Thicco_Mode

If you are campaigning for that broken system to be brought back by saying that all the matches were fair and that my 30m alliance belonged in silver 1 receiving 3 * shards because we couldn’t win as many matches as those 3* alliances exploiting that system And displacing us from rewards we clearly are capable of competing for. then you may as well save your breath just like we may as well save our breath in Responding to you, you continue to antagonise, you don’t bring any solution. But guess what we don’t need a solution, it’s here, all we as a community need is the Entitled 4* alliances who think they deserve gold Rewards to be ignored long enough for The system to right itself, back to the fairest system that was ever in place and clearly didn’t need replacing
I'm not campaigning for anything. Had the system stayed the way it was, I provided a way to accommodate the Rewards so that Alliances would received Rewards appropriate to what they were working with, but that was overlooked. What I want is for people to stop pretending that the complaints aren't warranted because what people are facing during their Season efforts is Matches they have no chance of winning at all. It should have been handled differently and now people are being forced into Losses just to fix the system. With encouragement no less, by a Special Event. Did I think the Matches were fair before? Absolutely. That's why I said so in this Thread. I don't really care who agrees with me or not. I know what I'm saying. As much as people think Alliances using lower Champs weren't working as hard, that's not the case. They were fighting equal strength Matches in the same Tiers with the same Nodes. I still think that, no matter what anyone's Ego says. Regardless, my real issue is what we're dealing with now, and it's disrespectful for people to keep telling others everything is as it should be. These Matches are ridiculous, so let them complain.

I don't think anyone is claiming these new matchups are fair. We all know they're next to unwinnable in many cases. I think, and I'm guessing that most people would tend to agree, that the old system was far from fair, but I'd rather not go into it again. Obviously, both sides have made up their minds and there's no changing of opinions that'll happen. But again, no one is trying to silence those who are complaining. They're not fair, and it's plain as that. But the new system is in place already and kabam are probably sticking with it.

On a side note, if you said the old system was fair, would you say the new one is unfair for lower players when the war ratings are relatively stable? Let's say if the season is over and everyone is "where they should be' according to the war rating rankings, which system do you think is better for all players, especially the non-whales who are progressing? If both systems were at a balance, or as balanced as each system could be, which do you think would be better for the game. I genuinely want to know what you think, and I apologize in advance if i sound snide or anything like that. I just want to know where your problems are with the system, whether it's this transition phase or how matchmaking is based off war rating.

GroundedWisdom

You literally went on to say the old matchups were fairer. Like everyone has said we don’t agree that the current matchups are fair for the lower alliance, but they are justified after 8 seasons where they were given unjustifiable advantage at the direct detriment of any alliance with higher prestige than them

I said even Matches are fair. Yes. I did. If people can't win a fair fight, or only win some and lose some, then how can they judge others winning more fair fights? I don't get how people can't see how an even Match is fair. Whether it's pride based on the fact that their Champs are higher, or entitlement because they're used to dominating the board, or just plain bitterness because they're only winning so many of their own Matches, i don't get it.
Forget the fact that the bigger guys could crush the smaller guys. That is a comparison that shouldn't have come into the situation. Look at one side fighting Opponents equal to what THEY are bringing to the table. That is fair. It's fair for the little guys and it's fair for the bigger guys. The Matches themselves were fair. I'm sorry, but no argument to the contrary is going to convince me the bigger guys are working harder because what they're working with is also stronger.

CaptainGame

You literally went on to say the old matchups were fairer. Like everyone has said we don’t agree that the current matchups are fair for the lower alliance, but they are justified after 8 seasons where they were given unjustifiable advantage at the direct detriment of any alliance with higher prestige than them
I said even Matches are fair. Yes. I did. If people can't win a fair fight, or only win some and lose some, then how can they judge others winning more fair fights? I don't get how people can't see how an even Match is fair. Whether it's pride based on the fact that their Champs are higher, or entitlement because they're used to dominating the board, or just plain bitterness because they're only winning so many of their own Matches, i don't get it.
Forget the fact that the bigger guys could crush the smaller guys. That is a comparison that shouldn't have come into the situation. Look at one side fighting Opponents equal to what THEY are bringing to the table. That is fair. It's fair for the little guys and it's fair for the bigger guys. The Matches themselves were fair. I'm sorry, but no argument to the contrary is going to convince me the bigger guys are working harder because what they're working with is also stronger.

Ok then they should be ranked higher than the even teams they beat. They shouldn’t be ranked higher than the clearly bigger teams that they didn’t. What aren’t you understanding?

GroundedWisdom

Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?

The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.

Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here?
We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.

Patchie93

Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?

The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here?
We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.

It's always been about rewards.
Why should a 20 mill alliance get master rewards well dying 40x a war. Well a 40 mill alliance gets plat 3 rewards dying only 5-10x.
When in all reality if the 20 mil were to fight the 40 mil. The 40 mil would easily walk through the defense with 0 deaths.

-sixate-

Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?

The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here?
We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.

Of course it's about rewards. It's about alliances getting what they deserve. A fair system that doesn't place alliances above ones they can't compete with. Am I happy about how this season will be? No, because it sucks big time for those who are going to fall hard. But am I happy about being in a lower tier than alliances who can't beat mine for the past 10 seasons? No, and it should have been corrected a long time ago. Although I do pray that your alliance gets wacked for the next 10 seasons. That sounds fair to me. I didn't hear you complaining about getting better rewards than you should have.

There is no good way to correct this. Time is the only thing that can fix this.

Speeds80

The issue is the war ratings are so broken from the previous failed system, that was basically ignoring war rating and tier in place of predominantly prestige based matchups, evident from the examples. War ratings have been broken, these
Matchups are a result of the war ratings being so out of whack For so long. you can only focus on a few crazy results which are unfair but completely justified now that we see how broken the previous system was, and we all know they will be fixed soon. Every one of these pictures will be less likely in one war, because the losers are going to drop and the winners are going to climb. Problem Is you are trying to say my alliance which has suffered from
The broken system doesn’t deserve to get the rewards we did before the broken system was put in place, and will get now it has been gone, focusing on the fix as it happens and before it’s been finished is always going to be problematic, failing to acknowledge
Something was wrong which lead to this fix being needed is obtuse and close minded

Speeds80

8 seasons of broken system requiring 5-6 wars to fix, absolutely justifiable, please take into account those 8 seasons of brokenness before you freak out to defend a few outliers caused by the broken war ratings system

DooM62

@GroundedWisdom let me ask you a qestion; you have said many tines throughout this thread that previously the matchups were fair and if the low level alliance, which placed against another low level alliance, were winning more of it's matchups then it deserved to be ranked higher than a strong level alliance that was winning say only 50% of its matches against other strong level alliances.

You say they were both fair matchups as the strong level alliance had the same nodes and all that as the low level alliance and that when it came to the defenders... well they had stronger attackers to deal with them and that made it fair.

Now seems fair to you, low level alliance vs low level alliance with appropriate attackers and defenders for that level of alliance is the same as strong alliance vs strong alliance with attacker and defenders for that level of alliance. Both are fair and whoever has a higher percentage of wins over a season of these matchups should be higher in your opinion. Correct?

However I don't think you are fully grasping what the strong level alliance actually faces and how compared to the low level alliance it actually isn't equal to what they face.

A low level alliance can have a 5* r4 Thing (sig20) as a boss (completely possible with how fast players can advance now and pick up a handful of 5* coupled with calendar or event awakening gems). Someone on the attacking side could have a 5* r3-4 stealth spidy as their top champ and have good chance of soloing that Thing boss (even without stealthy) in the 3 minute time limit.

Now compare that to what a strong alliance might face, they can come up against a 6* r2-3 thing with a high signature. There will probably be someone in the alliance with a 5* r5 stealth spidy or possibly a 6* r2 version.

The 5* r3-4 stealth vs a 5* r4 Thing (low sig) is in no way the same as 5* r5 (or 6*r2) stealth vs a 6* r2-3 Thing (hig sig) in the same time limit.

Just because the stronger alliance has stronger champs that does not mean dealing with the stronger defenders is equal to a low level alliance attacker dealing with an equally lower defender on the same exact node. Factor in sig levels, time limits and the stronger alliance has a much more difficult task ahead of them.

Your argument that these stronger alliances simply aren't winning enough compared to these lower level alliances, to which you believe have equally corresponding difficulties in opponents, and thus don't deserve to be moving up the ranks is actually insulting, inconsiderate and plain selfish.

CLF

Our prestige is 10800, we finish top-90 in AQ. Everyone in our alliance has gotten completion on Act 6. At least half of our alliance has done an AoL pass, and the rest are working on it. Yet we've been able to get into P4 one time in the last 12 months because we never match up against the P1-P4 alliances ahead of us whose prestige is 2k lower than ours. We were fighting the same 3-4 alliances every AW season, and our members got so disillusioned with AW because the matchmaking system effectively penalized us for having a high prestige.

The whinging in this thread is very entertaining. The bottom line is that those of us that have had our war rankings suppressed are now ecstatic that we get a chance to compete with the weaker alliances that have been protected and not defending their rankings against stronger alliances.

I could not care less about 8k P1 alliances getting steamrolled - I don't take any special pleasure in seeing people have to fight an unwinnable AW, but I am glad we will finally get a chance to see how our alliance truly stacks up against the rest of the competition. We didn't get the unbalanced matchup that some of the others here posted about, but we still won our first war pretty handily. The only thing that made me "happy" about that was the fact that we got extra points from our obviously weaker adversary leaving 35 defenders up. A few more wars like that and we should get a big boost in the standings - then we'll go up against balanced competition for fair rewards and everyone will be happy.

Except for the 8K alliances that were getting P1 rewards that will now be scuffling for G1. I suppose they won't be happy. But they can invest the same amount of time and resources into the game that the rest of us have, build a deep roster of 5/65 and get some 6* R3 from AoL or Act 6 and then start competing again for the rewards they've been earning at the expense of stronger alliances who were unfairly penalized by matchmaking heavily weighting prestige ratings.

BuGi

6M VS 44M

Kabam Ahab

This is a reminder, please stay on topic. Personal attacks and trolling are not allowed. Thanks!

LeNoirFaineant

Two 12 year olds are in a scrap on the playground and the 16 year old jumps in and says they can beat the 12 year old, so they aren't earning the win. That's all I see.
So the 12 year olds should win prizes for fighting and the 16 year old can’t fight them so he’s clearly inferior and deserves less? Once again, do you realize how stupid that sounds?

The fact is that you got an unfair advantage and it went away. There are thousands of teams all competing for the same prizes. You can’t beat better stronger teams so you are whining to change it back so you can beat weaker teams to get ahead of stronger teams that you can’t beat.
Tell me this. If this was about the Rewards, why wasn't that the complaint? Why wasn't that addressed instead of the situation we have here?
We all know what this was about. The Top wanted to watch them fall, and here we are with an open season of slaughter. That's what this has always been about. The Rewards could have been resolved differently. It's not about that. Some people think these Alliances owe them the pleasure of watching them fail.

The top couldn't care less whether the little guy succeeds or fails. If anything I'm sure many at the top want the game to succeed and so they want the little guy to succeed. The idea that this is about accommodating the top is absurd. Kabam can see in their data that the previous system was failing to produce legitimate results across the whole spectrum. You think the whales were up there shaking their fists trying to figure out how to screw the little guy and Kabam is playing the shill?

GOTG

After one or two season small alliances will be pushed back to where they belong and there will be no more complaints as such.