**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

1…3233353738…62

Comments

  • QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 806 ★★★★
    @Posthumousdeath correction....10 seasons. Season 1-8 was war rating matching. 9-18 was prestige based.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    edited July 2020
    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    All you're doing is trying to make it personal, and I'm not getting wrapped up in that. The only point you have is I haven't beat The Champion yet. I also don't care, and it's not what we're discussing here, so Imma leave the insults to you, and let the conversation move on.

    You made it personal when you started insulting every stronger team saying that they weren’t skilled and paid to win. So don’t back down now.
    Mind citing where I said that? Go ahead, I'll wait.
  • QuikPikQuikPik Posts: 806 ★★★★
    @Ya_Boi_28 without seeing the rest of your roster ; Silver 1...maybe Gold 3 if you have skills. One thing against you is you are going to to place a terrible defense.
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    I have a question for higher level players regarding which tier I should be in.

    My alliance has decided to start running 2 bgs from now on, but if my roster is strong enough to place well, then I may have to move after this season.

    I currently have:
    1x r5 (soon to be 2)
    3x 6-stars
    6x r4s
    1x r3
    13x Maxed 4-Stars

    Where should I realistically be placing?

    It really comes down to who your team can beat. GW just wants to be ranked above teams that are stronger than his. Some teams aren’t as strong but are highly skilled and rank above some bigger teams. It’s unrealistic to think I could take down a defense that is all 6* r3s without them taking out my defenses with more ease. But that’s the point of rankings. We try to grow our skills AND our rosters to take down those obstacles. There’s no shame in losing or not being the best. That gives incentive to play and grow a stronger team.
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Everyone keeps talking about the Rewards and here they are proud as peacocks that the Matches are uneven. The Rewards could have been dealt with. No, no. It's about watching the Allies with weaker Champs fail. 100% sport loss.

    Here’s another where you claim stronger alliances don’t want to win and rank higher but want to watch smaller alliances fail.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The difference is, when you take away someone's ability to earn a Win, no matter what they do, it's called a setup.

    Here’s one. You want to win and rank higher in your current tier but not face the stronger teams that are in that tier.
    That's nothing like what you implied I said. I said when you place people in Matches that are so far that one side has NO chance to win at all, it's a setup. The system sets them up to fail before they even try.
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.

    Here’s another one where you compare the matches of 4 stars vs 4 stars to 6 vs 6. While ignoring the efforts of those who worked to grow those rosters yet insulting them as unskilled.
  • Lvernon15Lvernon15 Posts: 11,596 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    The difference is, when you take away someone's ability to earn a Win, no matter what they do, it's called a setup.

    Here’s one. You want to win and rank higher in your current tier but not face the stronger teams that are in that tier.
    That's nothing like what you implied I said. I said when you place people in Matches that are so far that one side has NO chance to win at all, it's a setup. The system sets them up to fail before they even try.
    These massive mismatches are a growing pain of the new system, until alliances find their true place they will happen a lot, but in the long term this prevents alliances from being held back because of extremely high rating or able to go far higher than they should, I know you’re one of the people who is a huge advocate of slowing down progress of lower players so they don’t immediately get endgame rewards, and that’s exactly what this system will do once the growing pains are over, but unlike hard gates, skill can still allow weaker alliances to grow higher and hold back really strong alliances if they aren’t good players or put little effort in. Yes I think they could’ve mitigated mismatches by having the ratings change in pre season, but then you have tanking again, there’s no true solution, but for the long term this system is far better than the previous one
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    How about the Alliances in the last few Seasons that decided to take a dive and avoid Defense Tactics, or protest Wars altogether. Does that factor in?

    Who cares??? War ranking goes in order from who is the best. Not who won the most fights against the team with prestige closest to them. That’s the issue.
    If people are getting to the "best" by beating Alliances that have no chance of winning, then they didn't earn that spot, as far as I'm concerned.
    Here’s another where you say that the alliance that took a lot of time building their team didn’t deserve to win against a team that hasn’t put as much work in yet. But that small team is somehow in the same rewards bracket.
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    I could go on but honestly I don’t feel like going through a thousand comments. And you never even respond to some of these guys who ask you simple questions for you to support your ridiculous claims.
  • SwarmOfRavensSwarmOfRavens Posts: 1,264 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    I have a question for higher level players regarding which tier I should be in.

    My alliance has decided to start running 2 bgs from now on, but if my roster is strong enough to place well, then I may have to move after this season.

    I currently have:
    1x r5 (soon to be 2)
    3x 6-stars
    6x r4s
    1x r3
    13x Maxed 4-Stars

    Where should I realistically be placing?

    There are too many factors left unaccounted for.
    Before flow wars and the new aw map I would have said skill matters more than your champs but the new node combinations are quite punishing for people with smaller rosters.
    If you're a good player with high tier r5 and r4 champs you could settle in gold 2

  • PosthumousdeathPosthumousdeath Posts: 14 ★
    Haha. Not sure actually. But the only case I could think of offhand would be a case relating to double jeopardy. Or maybe a faked death followed by the real deal.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    How about the Alliances in the last few Seasons that decided to take a dive and avoid Defense Tactics, or protest Wars altogether. Does that factor in?

    Who cares??? War ranking goes in order from who is the best. Not who won the most fights against the team with prestige closest to them. That’s the issue.
    If people are getting to the "best" by beating Alliances that have no chance of winning, then they didn't earn that spot, as far as I'm concerned.
    Here’s another where you say that the alliance that took a lot of time building their team didn’t deserve to win against a team that hasn’t put as much work in yet. But that small team is somehow in the same rewards bracket.
    Yes, I said that. If you're beating people who have no chance of winning no matter how hard they try because you're overpowering them beyond any effort, that's not a fair win.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.

    Here’s another one where you compare the matches of 4 stars vs 4 stars to 6 vs 6. While ignoring the efforts of those who worked to grow those rosters yet insulting them as unskilled.
    I also said that, and that applies to anyone. You can't get ahead by winning only half your Wars. What you're saying is people deserve more for having bigger Champs and that's not a given. It's based on performance.
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    edited July 2020
    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.

    Here’s another one where you compare the matches of 4 stars vs 4 stars to 6 vs 6. While ignoring the efforts of those who worked to grow those rosters yet insulting them as unskilled.
    I also said that, and that applies to anyone. You can't get ahead by winning only half your Wars. What you're saying is people deserve more for having bigger Champs and that's not a given. It's based on performance.
    No I didn’t say that. Unsurprisingly, you’re making things up again. I said you should have to beat the team above you. Not whatever team has a similar prestige. That’s stupid and unfair to teams playing actual hard teams that took the time to develop their teams and skills.
  • CaptainGameCaptainGame Posts: 369 ★★★
    Speeds80 said:

    On a side not they probably do need to lock war ratings off season, don’t wanna go back to having to tank

    I agree with that.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.

    Here’s another one where you compare the matches of 4 stars vs 4 stars to 6 vs 6. While ignoring the efforts of those who worked to grow those rosters yet insulting them as unskilled.
    I also said that, and that applies to anyone. You can't get ahead by winning only half your Wars. What you're saying is people deserve more for having bigger Champs and that's not a given. It's based on performance.
    No I didn’t say that. Unsurprisingly, you’re making things up again. I said you should have to beat the team above you. Not whatever team has a similar prestige. That’s stupid and unfair to teams playing actual hard teams that took the time to develop their teams and skills.
    Having the Champs doesn't award anything. Using them in War does. People earned their Rewards based on the Points they put up. Not just because their Champs were higher than others on the board. You don't need to beat weaker Alliances above you. You have to beat more of your own Wars so you can get more Points. Not really hard to understand. People don't take someone's spot because they don't own it. They earn it with what Points they put up.
  • danielmathdanielmath Posts: 4,043 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    CaptainGame said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    That's the whole point I'm making. If you're placed in even Matches and can only win half of them, that's not the fault of lower Alliances winning more of theirs. If you want to talk about skill, as far as I'm concerned, it starts with a fair fight. Not riding on the misfortunes of people who can never win.

    Here’s another one where you compare the matches of 4 stars vs 4 stars to 6 vs 6. While ignoring the efforts of those who worked to grow those rosters yet insulting them as unskilled.
    I also said that, and that applies to anyone. You can't get ahead by winning only half your Wars. What you're saying is people deserve more for having bigger Champs and that's not a given. It's based on performance.
    No I didn’t say that. Unsurprisingly, you’re making things up again. I said you should have to beat the team above you. Not whatever team has a similar prestige. That’s stupid and unfair to teams playing actual hard teams that took the time to develop their teams and skills.
    Having the Champs doesn't award anything. Using them in War does. People earned their Rewards based on the Points they put up. Not just because their Champs were higher than others on the board. You don't need to beat weaker Alliances above you. You have to beat more of your own Wars so you can get more Points. Not really hard to understand. People don't take someone's spot because they don't own it. They earn it with what Points they put up.
    I actually tend to agree with a decent portion of the stuff you say even when others don't, but you're just completely wrong with this matchmaking stuff, it's a bummer.
This discussion has been closed.