Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Manoj259

Comments

QuikPik

@Posthumousdeath correction....10 seasons. Season 1-8 was war rating matching. 9-18 was prestige based.

CaptainGame

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. The fact that they didn’t delete your comments and ban you is just as insulting to those of us who spent so much time and money in this game for you to insult in you crybaby temper tantrums because you can’t win against us. So don’t back down now.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

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.

QuikPik

@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.

CaptainGame

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.

CaptainGame

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.

CaptainGame

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.

GroundedWisdom

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

CaptainGame

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.

Lvernon15

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

CaptainGame

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.

Speeds80

@Skitard if you think act 6 doesn’t require skill, for a non spender, you are in for a rude awakening when you get to the champion. The circle in my picture was to highlight the fact I have over 200 war mvps, that means a level of skill, years in the game perfecting skill deserves rewards that aren’t silver. this season I will be fighting alliances that placed far higher than me and who’s war ratings were far higher than ours, who can’t clear half the map of 4/55 and 5/65 defenders. please tell me how easy it is to fight 5/65 dooms, things and korgs, I’ve been doing it for years, for 3* shards, I boss killed every war last season without one death. the system was broken af. You aren’t skilled because you have a weak roster. And you aren’t more skilled than me because you could beat half empty war teams. Welcome To the new tried tested and fairer system, sorry but it’s going to be ugly for a while because of how broken the previous system was
I suggested tiers at the start but quickly saw how exploitable that would be, if you are happy with lesser rewards than current, all you really are begging for is special cool sounding titles, we made platinum in war tier 3. (Under 6k prestige war) it has the same rewards as war tier 1 silver 1 rewards. How about you just change your attitude to grateful if you make silver 1, for a 5k alliance that’s a great achievement with applicable rewards, and these bigger alliances like mine won’t be at your level for long at all,

CaptainGame

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.

SwarmOfRavens

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

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Posthumousdeath

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.

GroundedWisdom

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.

GroundedWisdom

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.

CaptainGame

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.

Speeds80

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

SwarmOfRavens

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.

If they're competing for the same rewards they should be matched. After taking the L you'll fall to a lower bracket where you're more likely to fight an opponent on your level.

CaptainGame

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.

GroundedWisdom

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.

danielmath

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.

CaptainGame

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.

You can’t even make a point that makes sense. You can’t be 12th place because you beat up 1000th place. No matter how much you kick and scream. If you can’t beat the better team then you can’t have those rewards. You can compete with teams in your rank level. And I know you will try to spin this again so allow me to define “your rank level”. Your rank level isn’t what people tell you it is. It’s what you earn based on who you can beat. I know you don’t understand team building and progression and nothing I or anybody will say will hit the logical part of your entitled emotionally drive brain. But you will land in the rank that you EARN.

Speeds80

Everybody should know that grounded wisdom has already acknowledged in this thread that overall the new system isn’t less fair than the old one, the old one was clearly exploitable. he’s just focusing on stirring now, I’m not even bothering to engage the 50% wins nonsense, kabam aren’t going to change back because of 5 people’s complaints whilst we are in a crazy settling phase brought about by how broken war ratings have become from the old system. Weve got the old system back, it’s fantastic, no use arguing that the system they just realised was so bad they scrapped it needs to be brought back in. It’s gone and good riddance