The whole reason we're here is because people worried about what others have.
No we're here bc people were betting byes all the way through the tiers while never facing anyone in their own tier. Please try to keep up dear
No. They weren't getting byes. They were fighting Alliances with strengths in the same range as their own.
No one cares if they were the same "strength" if they had to span 6 tiers to find the match
They didn't just jump ahead. They earned their Tier based on their own Wars. You win, you go up. You lose, you go down. Same as anyone else. The fact that people keep holding on to this archaic view of how the system used to be and should be, but doesn't apply to Seasons, is ridonkeylous to me.
They did not earn their tier properly. They only fought a subset of the competition. It was not "same as everyone else." if the game was bugged and only matched my alliance against the same opponent over and over again, I could still say that I earned by war tier by winning, and the match was always fair because it was always against an alliance of the same "strength" so if we go undefeated we earned our season points. Except that's false.
You cannot only compete against a subset of the competition but claim to place higher than alliances you never face, and your competition never faces. There must exist a shared pool of competition that links all the competitors together. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the undefeated pee wee football team gets placed as a wild card in the NFL playoffs. They did face comparable competition and they did earn their wins, but the simple fact is none of those wins are comparable to NFL wins, because there's no shared competition.
It is interesting to me how many people are still attempting to claim that the system is "obviously" unfair. I posed a hypothetical that I haven't seen anyone attempting to justify segregrated match making respond to. I'll repeat it here:
Here's the thought experiment that decides the issue for me. You have four alliances, two have 30 million rating called them A and B, and two have 15 million rating call them C and D. You want to decide who's #1, who's #2, and so on. You decide to be nice about it and have A face B and C face D. A wins and C wins. Now, what happens next: who does A face in round 2.
Either you believe A should face C next, or you believe A should face B again. If you believe A should face C next, you believe that's the fair match up even though they have wildly different ratings, and even if you believe A has a significant advantage, so in some sense that is not "a fair fight" it is in a larger sense the fair requirement overall. Winners must face winners to decide who's the best.
If you believe no 30 million alliance should never face a 15 million alliance because that's "not fair" then you believe A should fight B again and C should face D again. And if they both win again, then A and C tie for first place with two wins.
. I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
I can’t believe this thread is still going on, because some spoiled kids fail to understand that AW rating ONLY matchmaking is the most efficient way of determining, who is and deserves better rewards or not. Stupidity and greed from 10 seasons of spoiled rewards at its finest.
So much regurgitation in this thread, tiers were being ignored, That’s why the system was broken, @Manup456 that matchup is bizarre, I wouldn’t have thought there aren’t a ton of closer war rating matchups than that, except maybe because no other plat 2 groups that are only running 2 bg At the moment? It’s really strange
@Seraphion he already said 2 bgs, so yeah 2bgs always were the outliers in this system, just wouldn’t have thought there were no closer 2bgs to the 1683 war rating alliance
@Mr_Platypus We running 2 BGs but that has nothing to do with AW based off war rating and not knowing what the difference in war rating is going to be between alliance. Can it be a 20 difference or 500? If this is the case it makes no sense and will never balance out. I’m all for the change but we should know what the difference in war rating is supposed be at least a ballpark number.
Ahh 2BGs has always had dodgy matchmaking because the pool is much smaller, never as bad as that but possible unfortunately
Yeah, that means before the halving RelaX would have had 3366 war rating. That's a monster rating for plat 3 I'd think. But the other ally was close to 2600 which is huge for gold2. There likely just aren't that many alliances running two groups during the season with ratings that high.
Why do you guys keep arguing with the same person? After 41 pages of these very repetitive arguments it’s pretty clear he’s not going to accept this change. Some people find it hard to let the gravy train go.
Why do you guys keep arguing with the same person? After 41 pages of these very repetitive arguments it’s pretty clear he’s not going to accept this change. Some people find it hard to let the gravy train go.
Gravy train. That's funny. I can assure you, my Alliance wasn't getting any gravy from the old system. The change is not the issue. Had it been introduced in a way that wasn't affecting peoples' Seasons, there would be little to dispute. The issue is placing people in Matches they have no way of winning seriously affects their Season, and the Season is a measurement of how people perform from start to finish. Making their performance moot is not a fair measurement.
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did. The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction. Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE? Is it the data that Quik presented, or is it because other people think they don't belong there? Both cases have been judged by using the metric Prestige as a determining factor. Which is comically ironic to me. People don't want Prestige to be used in Matchmaking, and they don't agree to limiting the Points based on Prestige Brackets, but they want final results that reflect greatest to least Prestige. The whole opposition just deemed itself the judge of who earned what and who didn't, who worked harder, who belongs where, who deserves what, and the basis of their proof is the very thing they're countering. Perhaps I overestimated the logic capabilities.
The whole reason we're here is because people worried about what others have.
No we're here bc people were betting byes all the way through the tiers while never facing anyone in their own tier. Please try to keep up dear
No. They weren't getting byes. They were fighting Alliances with strengths in the same range as their own.
No one cares if they were the same "strength" if they had to span 6 tiers to find the match
They didn't just jump ahead. They earned their Tier based on their own Wars. You win, you go up. You lose, you go down. Same as anyone else. The fact that people keep holding on to this archaic view of how the system used to be and should be, but doesn't apply to Seasons, is ridonkeylous to me.
They did not earn their tier properly. They only fought a subset of the competition. It was not "same as everyone else." if the game was bugged and only matched my alliance against the same opponent over and over again, I could still say that I earned by war tier by winning, and the match was always fair because it was always against an alliance of the same "strength" so if we go undefeated we earned our season points. Except that's false.
You cannot only compete against a subset of the competition but claim to place higher than alliances you never face, and your competition never faces. There must exist a shared pool of competition that links all the competitors together. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the undefeated pee wee football team gets placed as a wild card in the NFL playoffs. They did face comparable competition and they did earn their wins, but the simple fact is none of those wins are comparable to NFL wins, because there's no shared competition.
It is interesting to me how many people are still attempting to claim that the system is "obviously" unfair. I posed a hypothetical that I haven't seen anyone attempting to justify segregrated match making respond to. I'll repeat it here:
Here's the thought experiment that decides the issue for me. You have four alliances, two have 30 million rating called them A and B, and two have 15 million rating call them C and D. You want to decide who's #1, who's #2, and so on. You decide to be nice about it and have A face B and C face D. A wins and C wins. Now, what happens next: who does A face in round 2.
Either you believe A should face C next, or you believe A should face B again. If you believe A should face C next, you believe that's the fair match up even though they have wildly different ratings, and even if you believe A has a significant advantage, so in some sense that is not "a fair fight" it is in a larger sense the fair requirement overall. Winners must face winners to decide who's the best.
If you believe no 30 million alliance should never face a 15 million alliance because that's "not fair" then you believe A should fight B again and C should face D again. And if they both win again, then A and C tie for first place with two wins.
. I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
Way to restate your many times disproved point and not interact with his argument at all. You may as well have said "I disagree because I disagree" which probably isn't far from the truth.
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
Perhaps I overestimated the logic capabilities.
We’ve overestimated yours unfortunately, seeing how many others have said the same message repeatedly, yet you refuse to budge.
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did. The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction.
So you're saying the Peewee football team should go to the NFL playoffs and it's not disputable? They didn't earn their place in Platinum if they didn't face alliances in Platinum. What is indisputable is that the previous system put them there. Saying that it's indisputable that they earned it is nonsense. What happened to you quitting this thread btw?
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did. The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction.
So you're saying the Peewee football team should go to the NFL playoffs and it's not disputable? They didn't earn their place in Platinum if they didn't face alliances in Platinum. What is indisputable is that the previous system put them there. Saying that it's indisputable that they earned it is nonsense. What happened to you quitting this thread btw?
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
If "they won, they went up" is your definition of fairness, then yes, I can't argue against that. i also can't argue against someone who thinks fairness is grades are handed out to the students in alphabetical order, because every student had an equal chance of being named Alice.
We're talking about how they didn't earn their place. I'm saying undisputedly and categorically they did. The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction.
So you're saying the Peewee football team should go to the NFL playoffs and it's not disputable? They didn't earn their place in Platinum if they didn't face alliances in Platinum. What is indisputable is that the previous system put them there. Saying that it's indisputable that they earned it is nonsense. What happened to you quitting this thread btw?
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
You're tired of them because they expose the error in your reasoning and you are unable to argue against them, since you are wrong.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I agree, nobody cheated the system. But the fact that you can't admit the matchmaking was not fair for everyone is mind blowing to me. Seriously, do you think an 8m alliance with 5k prestige should be able to hit P1? How can you expect to get past 45m alliances with 11k prestige withought ever having the possibility of facing them? Yet it was happening. Not to the fault of the 5m alliance. At the fault of horrible matchmaking by Kabam.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I agree, nobody cheated the system. But the fact that you can't admit the matchmaking was not fair for everyone is mind blowing to me. Seriously, do you think an 8m alliance with 5k prestige should be able to hit P1? How can you expect to get past 45m alliances with 11k prestige withought ever having the possibility of facing them? Yet it was happening. Not to the fault of the 5m alliance. At the fault of horrible matchmaking by Kabam.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
The Matchmaking wasn't the problem. The Rewards were.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I agree, nobody cheated the system. But the fact that you can't admit the matchmaking was not fair for everyone is mind blowing to me. Seriously, do you think an 8m alliance with 5k prestige should be able to hit P1? How can you expect to get past 45m alliances with 11k prestige withought ever having the possibility of facing them? Yet it was happening. Not to the fault of the 5m alliance. At the fault of horrible matchmaking by Kabam.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
The Matchmaking wasn't the problem. The Rewards were.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I agree, nobody cheated the system. But the fact that you can't admit the matchmaking was not fair for everyone is mind blowing to me. Seriously, do you think an 8m alliance with 5k prestige should be able to hit P1? How can you expect to get past 45m alliances with 11k prestige withought ever having the possibility of facing them? Yet it was happening. Not to the fault of the 5m alliance. At the fault of horrible matchmaking by Kabam.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
The Matchmaking wasn't the problem. The Rewards were.
Wrong again.
Not at all. The whole argument was that lower Allies were getting higher Rewards.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I agree, nobody cheated the system. But the fact that you can't admit the matchmaking was not fair for everyone is mind blowing to me. Seriously, do you think an 8m alliance with 5k prestige should be able to hit P1? How can you expect to get past 45m alliances with 11k prestige withought ever having the possibility of facing them? Yet it was happening. Not to the fault of the 5m alliance. At the fault of horrible matchmaking by Kabam.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
The Matchmaking wasn't the problem. The Rewards were.
Just wow!
But in a sense you are right. Now way a 5m alliance should be capable of earning the same rewards as a 45m alliance. I at least have a realistic expectation of what my alliance can earn rewards wise, and it isn't P1 rewards.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
They got the rank based off wars fought at a lower difficulty that gave a higher multiplier than alliances who played a harder difficulty got.
There is no argument that 7k alliance fights are the same difficulty as 10k alliance fights. That’s why AQ gets harder and your points go up as your prestige increases.
Using your rationalization, everyone should get the same rewards in AQ since we all finish the maps. We can call them grounded wisdom crystals.
You spin it and get a champ that dexes when you want to charge a heavy, then when you think you have it figured out and charge heavy to dex, it does a medium and eats a combo. It’s completely irrational and unusable, but we should all get one because we played.
Kabam what is going on with War matchmaking. Currently my ally is taking a break from war due to this very unfair matchmaking. I’ve lost 6 members because of it. What are you guys doing to fix the issue pertaining to Alliance War Matchmaking?
You are not the ones... our alliance has fought itself high up to tier five g1, we almost reached p4 at the end of the last season with an overall alliance rating of 19m and war rating of 2300 and something... and now, we all developed defenders for flow and syphon globals, and adter two wars against alliances with a rating of 33-34m of course with two losses we are in tier 7, and the moral is so low we almost let the war season byfly. It is not worth it. This ruins the hard work of several seasons. Not a smart move guys, sorry to say that
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
They got the rank based off wars fought at a lower difficulty that gave a higher multiplier than alliances who played a harder difficulty got.
There is no argument that 7k alliance fights are the same difficulty as 10k alliance fights. That’s why AQ gets harder and your points go up as your prestige increases.
Using your rationalization, everyone should get the same rewards in AQ since we all finish the maps. We can call them grounded wisdom crystals.
You spin it and get a champ that dexes when you want to charge a heavy, then when you think you have it figured out and charge heavy to dex, it does a medium and eats a combo. It’s completely irrational and unusable, but we should all get one because we played.
I want my participation trophy too !
I'm not getting into that whole debate again. I've already gone over the even Matches perspective, and how you can't speak for what is easy for others and what isn't based on what's easy for you and what isn't. The Matches were appropriate to what either side was using, with the same Nodes and modifications. No matter how many times people keep judging the Matches of weaker Alliances, I'm not going to forget calculating that perspective, so we might as well move on.
I'm tired of Sports analogies. Periodt. They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets. This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
“Legitimately” through a shady, fixed matchmaking. And yes, they played the wars they matched. With a HUGE difference: they weren’t matched fairly.
Legitimately. Not through shady anything. They didn't cheat the system. They played their Wars and won. You don't get Ranked based on the Matches you don't get.
I agree, nobody cheated the system. But the fact that you can't admit the matchmaking was not fair for everyone is mind blowing to me. Seriously, do you think an 8m alliance with 5k prestige should be able to hit P1? How can you expect to get past 45m alliances with 11k prestige withought ever having the possibility of facing them? Yet it was happening. Not to the fault of the 5m alliance. At the fault of horrible matchmaking by Kabam.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
The Matchmaking wasn't the problem. The Rewards were.
Wrong again.
Not at all. The whole argument was that lower Allies were getting higher Rewards.
Kinda curious but by your logic act 4 should have the same rewards as act 6 according to you
Not at all. I said the argument was the Rewards, but people keep shifting their argument. The Matchmaking, no the Rewards, no the fact that they didn't earn what they did, no the Prestige, no..... What it all really boils down to is some lower Alliances earned their way up because the Matches were different, and now people want to watch them suffer.
Comments
I still want to see someone try to defend the second scenario, and claim that that "tie" is "fair."
Sorry, but I disagree. They earned their Tier based on their own Wins and Losses. They won, they went up. That's something that can't be argued. It can't be argued because that's exactly what happened.
The change is not the issue. Had it been introduced in a way that wasn't affecting peoples' Seasons, there would be little to dispute. The issue is placing people in Matches they have no way of winning seriously affects their Season, and the Season is a measurement of how people perform from start to finish. Making their performance moot is not a fair measurement.
The Rewards are a different subject, but the whole argument they don't belong is based on a contradiction. Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE? Is it the data that Quik presented, or is it because other people think they don't belong there? Both cases have been judged by using the metric Prestige as a determining factor. Which is comically ironic to me. People don't want Prestige to be used in Matchmaking, and they don't agree to limiting the Points based on Prestige Brackets, but they want final results that reflect greatest to least Prestige.
The whole opposition just deemed itself the judge of who earned what and who didn't, who worked harder, who belongs where, who deserves what, and the basis of their proof is the very thing they're countering.
Perhaps I overestimated the logic capabilities.
Way to restate your many times disproved point and not interact with his argument at all. You may as well have said "I disagree because I disagree" which probably isn't far from the truth.
They earned what they earned through the system they were playing. That was the final result. They played the Wars they were Matched fairly, and they went up. That's as simple as it gets.
This whole, "They didn't earn what they earned because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have.", is just a bitter double-negative, and ignorant to the progress that was made legitimately.
Can you admit that matchmaking will eventually balance out and be fair for everyone, and isn't that what everyone wants anyway? What is the problem with that? Unfortunately, after 10 plus seasons of bad matchmaking this can't be corrected overnight.
But in a sense you are right. Now way a 5m alliance should be capable of earning the same rewards as a 45m alliance. I at least have a realistic expectation of what my alliance can earn rewards wise, and it isn't P1 rewards.
There is no argument that 7k alliance fights are the same difficulty as 10k alliance fights. That’s why AQ gets harder and your points go up as your prestige increases.
Using your rationalization, everyone should get the same rewards in AQ since we all finish the maps. We can call them grounded wisdom crystals.
You spin it and get a champ that dexes when you want to charge a heavy, then when you think you have it figured out and charge heavy to dex, it does a medium and eats a combo. It’s completely irrational and unusable, but we should all get one because we played.
I want my participation trophy too !
What it all really boils down to is some lower Alliances earned their way up because the Matches were different, and now people want to watch them suffer.