Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

This content has been removed.

Thanks_D19

Alright in the first war of the season my 20 million alliance went against a 1Million alliance, this time it was a 10 million alliance, not as bad but still

Tamamort

Well so it’s the lower opposition who would suffer and higher alliances like yours will cakewalk with weaker oppositions. Great going.

Higher ally’s have suffered with the old system for way too long. If your as good as your previous war position suggests you are what’s the problem?

Speeds80

Wade into the other convo man, alliances like my 30m alliance have slowly been shattered and stuck in silver 1, this is a correction, first few wars will be ugly for inflated war rating alliances like yourself

This content has been removed.

Tamamort

I just feel it is fair to keep an alliance rating variable in the equation. What if last season they weren’t playing all out and now they have drafted new members to play? Why should some lower rated alliances get the blunt of this?

You eve been getting ranked rewards which should have been impossible for too long.

Speeds80

Well I don't think this is a fair match up

The 5m alliance has a similar war rating to what my 30m alliance dropped to last season, this matchup maybe unfair but my last 9 seasons of systemised matchups have been unfair too, this is a correction phase

Demonzfyre

Ok just get my point.

Last war an alliance didn’t do well in war for whatever reasons and drafted high rated players for the new season. So their war rating doesn’t truly represent the alliance strength in this season. And we get paired with them because war rating matches.

So I feel alliance rating should also be a part of the matchmaking equation.

War rating represents your efforts in the season. If they are a larger PI, they are trying as hard as you.

This content has been removed.

Demonzfyre

It won't always be like that. Right now, there's going to be a period of wars will seem unfair. Then the system will have done its job and you'll be matched with alliances similar to yours.

The problem is the previous system allowed you to get a 2k+ war rating by only matching you up against similar prestige groups. The first few wars this season you are far more likely to get matched against stronger groups with similar war ratings, but after a few wars there will be separation and the matches will be more even. After that your war rating will go up and down naturally and you will be where your alliance strength allows you to be.

ccrider474

Could be worse. This war my alliance 28m. Our opponents 4m.

Could be worse. This war my alliance 28m. Our opponents 4m.

tbh you should be annoyed that those guys were in the same tier as you guys.

This content has been removed.

@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.

@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.
GW, would you like to join my alliance ? I noticed we had similar war ratings. I’m being serious too. I would like to offer you the chance to see things from another perspective.

I think if you spent a season in a 10k prestige alliance fighting 10k prestige alliances and dealing with the stress and expenses involved, you might change your mind about the fix they are pushing.

You would realize that the system was flawed, as our ratings were similar but we would n vet have faced off before previously.

You may think you are the protector of the people, but really you’re just seeing one side of the issue and not really understanding what was happening. Ratings were being misrepresented, allowing weaker teams to earn better rewards simply because it was easier for them to get a higher multiplier. There are some very skilled lower prestige alliances who could crush anyone in their prestige range, but would be crushed if they were fighting based on rating which was always Kabams stated mission on war; to be the best you have to beat the best.

So take me up on the offer, join us and see what higher prestige wars are like. After a few wars the system will be rebalanced and you’ll see the increased difficulty.

Being 10k Prestige against a 10k Prestige is about as fair as it gets. Saying it would be harder for me at 8k is just redundant.

They WERE fighting people that were actually in that Tier. Quite fairly.
Did you miss quickpiks example, he made it to tier 6 with a 3* alliance, he wasnt fighting anyone in tier 6, they would have to pull low rated opponents from as far away as tier 9 (if I recall the numbers correctly) one bg wars reaching gold 2. I think locking ratings may work long term. But This preseason I think maybe not. i think the smart (non platinum) alliances were climbing anyway, instead Of tanking, they knew things were about to start evening out and alliances like mine who are placed way out of where we should be tried to get to a better multiplier to start the season

So the Matches were even. Fair fights. God forbid people be measured by having an even playing field.

Speeds80

God forbid that you war rating after multiple wins actually gets you opponents with higher prestige

They WERE fighting people that were actually in that Tier. Quite fairly.
Did you miss quickpiks example, he made it to tier 6 with a 3* alliance, he wasnt fighting anyone in tier 6, they would have to pull low rated opponents from as far away as tier 9 (if I recall the numbers correctly) one bg wars reaching gold 2. I think locking ratings may work long term. But This preseason I think maybe not. i think the smart (non platinum) alliances were climbing anyway, instead Of tanking, they knew things were about to start evening out and alliances like mine who are placed way out of where we should be tried to get to a better multiplier to start the season
So the Matches were even. Fair fights. God forbid people be measured by having an even playing field.

I somehow think the little tier 9 alliance didn’t find anything even remotely fair about that matchup tbh.

KnightZero

@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.

@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.
GW, would you like to join my alliance ? I noticed we had similar war ratings. I’m being serious too. I would like to offer you the chance to see things from another perspective.

I think if you spent a season in a 10k prestige alliance fighting 10k prestige alliances and dealing with the stress and expenses involved, you might change your mind about the fix they are pushing.

You would realize that the system was flawed, as our ratings were similar but we would n vet have faced off before previously.

You may think you are the protector of the people, but really you’re just seeing one side of the issue and not really understanding what was happening. Ratings were being misrepresented, allowing weaker teams to earn better rewards simply because it was easier for them to get a higher multiplier. There are some very skilled lower prestige alliances who could crush anyone in their prestige range, but would be crushed if they were fighting based on rating which was always Kabams stated mission on war; to be the best you have to beat the best.

So take me up on the offer, join us and see what higher prestige wars are like. After a few wars the system will be rebalanced and you’ll see the increased difficulty.
Being 10k Prestige against a 10k Prestige is about as fair as it gets. Saying it would be harder for me at 8k is just redundant.

That's only if rewards aren't the same. If you want 10k vs 10k, 8k vs 8k etc, then keep the rewards separate. If that is done, you'll have the alliances angry again. Can't take the rewards without facing ALL types of alliances in the bracket.
I know that this sucks currently, but it's the only way without splitting rewards. Because the previous one wasn't good for any higher prestige alliance.
When it's supposed to be FAIR, you're supposed to be able to fight any alliance in your tier for the rewards. Whether it's those stronger or weaker than you. That's how a knockout competition works. Or a group stage in a tournament. It's random matchup. The best teams aren't all stuck together.

@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.

@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.
GW, would you like to join my alliance ? I noticed we had similar war ratings. I’m being serious too. I would like to offer you the chance to see things from another perspective.

I think if you spent a season in a 10k prestige alliance fighting 10k prestige alliances and dealing with the stress and expenses involved, you might change your mind about the fix they are pushing.

You would realize that the system was flawed, as our ratings were similar but we would n vet have faced off before previously.

You may think you are the protector of the people, but really you’re just seeing one side of the issue and not really understanding what was happening. Ratings were being misrepresented, allowing weaker teams to earn better rewards simply because it was easier for them to get a higher multiplier. There are some very skilled lower prestige alliances who could crush anyone in their prestige range, but would be crushed if they were fighting based on rating which was always Kabams stated mission on war; to be the best you have to beat the best.

So take me up on the offer, join us and see what higher prestige wars are like. After a few wars the system will be rebalanced and you’ll see the increased difficulty.
Being 10k Prestige against a 10k Prestige is about as fair as it gets. Saying it would be harder for me at 8k is just redundant.
That's only if rewards aren't the same. If you want 10k vs 10k, 8k vs 8k etc, then keep the rewards separate. If that is done, you'll have the alliances angry again. Can't take the rewards without facing ALL types of alliances in the bracket.
I know that this sucks currently, but it's the only way without splitting rewards. Because the previous one wasn't good for any higher prestige alliance.
When it's supposed to be FAIR, you're supposed to be able to fight any alliance in your tier for the rewards. Whether it's those stronger or weaker than you. That's how a knockout competition works. Or a group stage in a tournament. It's random matchup. The best teams aren't all stuck together.

I wasn't opposed to resolving the Rewards. I even suggested a system that would keep even Matches and award Rewards based on what people were working with.
No, it's not FAIR to place Alliances in Wars they have no chance in hell of winning. Not at all. That was the issue when War Rating was manipulated, and it's still the issue now.

It negates any efforts they make because there's no possible way of winning. It's waiting for 24 hours for a system that's sabotaged their efforts before they even get a chance to fight.

They WERE fighting people that were actually in that Tier. Quite fairly.
Did you miss quickpiks example, he made it to tier 6 with a 3* alliance, he wasnt fighting anyone in tier 6, they would have to pull low rated opponents from as far away as tier 9 (if I recall the numbers correctly) one bg wars reaching gold 2. I think locking ratings may work long term. But This preseason I think maybe not. i think the smart (non platinum) alliances were climbing anyway, instead Of tanking, they knew things were about to start evening out and alliances like mine who are placed way out of where we should be tried to get to a better multiplier to start the season
So the Matches were even. Fair fights. God forbid people be measured by having an even playing field.

Stop it. Skilled vets running 3*s vs actual 3* alliances is no more fair than the 40 million alliance beating up on the 20 million alliance. Letting a 3* group waltz into a higher tier fighting nubes at the expense of larger alliances fighting real wars is rubbish. Your whole argument is rubbish. You keep arguing that the matches were fair. The reason some low alliances were able to just keep winning against ostensibly similar groups is that the matches weren't fair. There is a much larger gap in skill level among lower alliances depending on how many of their players are newer to the game vs how many are skilled vets running second accounts. A small alliance full of skilled players is miles ahead of most of the groups they are likely to face in the prestige system. So, contrary to your narrative, the old system allowed a some smaller alliances to get a steady diet of objectively easy wars while larger groups had to play actually even wars and win about 50% of the time, causing them to drop. The entire foundation of your main argument is just wrong.

So as I mentioned earlier, my alliance is currently against an alliance that is 11mil rating above us. According to Grounded here, that’s an unfair matchup that we stand no chance of winning.
As of right now, both alliances have taken out 40 defenders with 9 and 10 deaths respectively, that to me implies that this supposedly unfair matchup is actually rather fair as we are competing with this alliance despite the alliance rating disadvantage.

We DOOOMED this season. We are a bunch of under level 40s on silver 2 with a war rating 852 (was 923 at beginning) or something like that, and have faced countless 6 star rank 2s and 3s. WE CANNOT EVEN BEAT THE FIRST ROW! Our top champs are mostly like 4 star rank 3s. THANKS KABAM, NOMINATE ME FOR MOST LIKELY TO QUIT THIS TRASHCAN GAME.

I mean, quite simply a bunch of level 40s should never have reached 1800 war rating under the old system anyways.

They WERE fighting people that were actually in that Tier. Quite fairly.
Did you miss quickpiks example, he made it to tier 6 with a 3* alliance, he wasnt fighting anyone in tier 6, they would have to pull low rated opponents from as far away as tier 9 (if I recall the numbers correctly) one bg wars reaching gold 2. I think locking ratings may work long term. But This preseason I think maybe not. i think the smart (non platinum) alliances were climbing anyway, instead Of tanking, they knew things were about to start evening out and alliances like mine who are placed way out of where we should be tried to get to a better multiplier to start the season
So the Matches were even. Fair fights. God forbid people be measured by having an even playing field.
Stop it. Skilled vets running 3*s vs actual 3* alliances is no more fair than the 40 million alliance beating up on the 20 million alliance. Letting a 3* group waltz into a higher tier fighting nubes at the expense of larger alliances fighting real wars is rubbish. Your whole argument is rubbish. You keep arguing that the matches were fair. The reason some low alliances were able to just keep winning against ostensibly similar groups is that the matches weren't fair. There is a much larger gap in skill level among lower alliances depending on how many of their players are newer to the game vs how many are skilled vets running second accounts. A small alliance full of skilled players is miles ahead of most of the groups they are likely to face in the prestige system. So, contrary to your narrative, the old system allowed a some smaller alliances to get a steady diet of objectively easy wars while larger groups had to play actually even wars and win about 50% of the time, causing them to drop. The entire foundation of your main argument is just wrong.

Easy for who? A Vet with a Vet's experience creating a dummy Ally? Like that's a testimony to what's easy for people who are legit at that point. Please.

That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, and whether they have the right to complain about their own Matches. It's just a joke. Might as well stop playing. Someone else is going to determine what you deserve because they're only winning half their Wars. Like that isn't logical to begin with. Of course you're going to be stuck if you're only breaking even.

QuikPik

You seem to be the one that can't see beyond your own nose. My dummy alliance would get matches against other alliances thousands of places apart. We even got a few matches against stone level alliances just because our prestige matched. That type of war isn't fair at all regardless if it's vet alts or not. And there are plenty of low prestige alliances that consist of mains that have elevated war ratings because prestige based match making would search far and wide to find an alliance closest to your prestige.

I have a friend in plat 4 and their prestige is 8k. The old system would match them against alliances from plat 3 to gol d 2. At no point should any match making system span thousands of alliances.

That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, and whether they have the right to complain about their own Matches. It's just a joke. Might as well stop playing. Someone else is going to determine what you deserve because they're only winning half their Wars. Like that isn't logical to begin with. Of course you're going to be stuck if you're only breaking even.

The whole war system is designed for you to get to the point where you break even. The point of the multipliers is that when that is at a higher level your losses are still worth more than wins at lower tiers. Skilled lower groups break even playing against higher groups with less skill or who don't push as hard. The reward system was designed around this principle. The prestige system turned it on its head and made it possible for skilled lower groups to just keep on winning against the same competition level forever. Every time I think you are as wrong as it is possible to be, you surprise me with an extra gear.

That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, and whether they have the right to complain about their own Matches. It's just a joke. Might as well stop playing. Someone else is going to determine what you deserve because they're only winning half their Wars. Like that isn't logical to begin with. Of course you're going to be stuck if you're only breaking even.

Judge jury and executioner? We went back to a system that basically says your position in the ranking will be based entirely on what level you are able to win at. Any alliance can get to any level if they can win wars there. If you win you will move up in ranking and fight those alliances. If you lose you move down and are matched accordingly. How is this judge, jury and execution lol? No one is determining where anyone should be. Finally their ability to win or lose will determine that. People are making arguments based on their own experience. My low account was winning all its wars. My high account was 50/50. But it's also based on knowledge of the game, seeing what was actually happening in the tiers, and the experience of many other players. You are basing your conclusions on false premises lol.