Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Timone147 said:
@GroundedWisdom do you really think that the only difference between players in a 5000 prestige alliance and a 10000 prestige alliance is rosters size.

I would guarantee that a majority of the time a very large skill difference as well. Those players in a 10k prestige ally have grinded through content that forces people to evolve their skill even if they are big spenders. Also many players at that level are f2p or barely spend so they had to evolve their skills to overcome without spending.

The match ups in previous seasons are what they were given so ya not their fault. But can we stop pretending that the only difference between a 5000 prestige alliance and a 10000 prestige alliance is roster size. Can we stop pretending that a 10k alliance verse a 10k alliance is the same as a 5k vs a 5k. The time spent in game does more than just grow your roster.
Just as long as we can stop pretending this is about the Rewards and not just about getting even with them for winning.

It's 100% about the rewards for most people here lol
Is it really? Why was the Matchmaking changed and not the Rewards then?

I addressed earlier why I am cautious about your suggested tier system. I think that overall, most bigger alliances would accept your system. But in short, it gives more skilled alliances absolutely no chance at beating bigger alliances if they can climb that far, such as Mauled and Seraphion have been able to do. Those guys have straight up earned their rewards, and deserve to place higher than the opponents they beat based on performance.

So if there is going to be a single bracket with a single scale for who is better (and thereby earns better rewards), then you need to make it as objective as possible. The only way to achieve that is by making people in the same ranking fight each other. 1 and 2 fight for 1st, 50th and 51st fight for 50th, and it essentially becomes a series of battles to earn your place above the alliance whom you are fighting. So if an alliance is aiming for a spot in gold 2, they should have to he prepared to face every alliance vying for that same spot. Can't beat the competition you're fighting for placement? Then you probably aren't ready to place above them yet.

It actually aligns Rewards based on where Players are at, and their Rewards and Matches grow as their Accounts and Alliances do. It's not so much about limiting as it is creating a range for Points that doesn't allow Players to earn Rewards beyond what they're not working on. They'll still earn more Points for higher Tiers, but there will be an absolute limit based on the Prestige Bracket they're in. The higher the limit, the more Points they'll be capable of earning, maximized by their Tier 1 Wins respectively. As Players Rank their Champs and Allies grow, they will rise in Matches and the ability to earn more Points. It's not a total inhibitor, as growth always happens. Unless some Alliance isn't interested in Ranking anyone else, getting better Champs, Ranking them higher, or anything in between. In which case playing the game isn't advisable. Lol.

Addyos · July 2020

Seraphion said:
This is for everyone saying you cant beat big alliances.

If you want to keep your place EARN it

GroundedWisdom said:

QuikPik said:
So is winning half and losing half but continually dropping down. There are 2 sides to every argument yet you only see one.
I only see my own point of view because I'm not telling everyone else where I think they belong.

Well thank goodness Kabam isn’t taking on your myopic point of view on what you think is fair and is putting things right. You have spoken at length about how unfair the imbalanced matchups are for small alliances. Yet when presented with cold hard facts about how imbalanced the previous system was for players who took the time, effort and sometimes money to upgrade their rosters and prestige, you respond in an emotional, petulant manner devoid of any form of logic.

You wail about how the big boys want to trample on the little guys, when actually some of the big boys are more aggrieved that the previous matchmaking system denied them proper rewards for 10 whole AW seasons. Your myopic one-sided point of view however hinders you from acknowledging this fact, when other more sensible-minded players acknowledge that the changes are for the better. Even by some of those who are being negatively affected by said changes.

So continue to rant and rave about your perceived injustices against the new matchmaking system. I just hope and wish for continued guidance (and wisdom) to Kabam to ignore what you say and keep these changes to war matchmaking. It’s been a few seasons too late, but better late than never.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Timone147 said:
@GroundedWisdom do you really think that the only difference between players in a 5000 prestige alliance and a 10000 prestige alliance is rosters size.

I would guarantee that a majority of the time a very large skill difference as well. Those players in a 10k prestige ally have grinded through content that forces people to evolve their skill even if they are big spenders. Also many players at that level are f2p or barely spend so they had to evolve their skills to overcome without spending.

The match ups in previous seasons are what they were given so ya not their fault. But can we stop pretending that the only difference between a 5000 prestige alliance and a 10000 prestige alliance is roster size. Can we stop pretending that a 10k alliance verse a 10k alliance is the same as a 5k vs a 5k. The time spent in game does more than just grow your roster.
Just as long as we can stop pretending this is about the Rewards and not just about getting even with them for winning.

It's 100% about the rewards for most people here lol
Is it really? Why was the Matchmaking changed and not the Rewards then?

I addressed earlier why I am cautious about your suggested tier system. I think that overall, most bigger alliances would accept your system. But in short, it gives more skilled alliances absolutely no chance at beating bigger alliances if they can climb that far, such as Mauled and Seraphion have been able to do. Those guys have straight up earned their rewards, and deserve to place higher than the opponents they beat based on performance.

So if there is going to be a single bracket with a single scale for who is better (and thereby earns better rewards), then you need to make it as objective as possible. The only way to achieve that is by making people in the same ranking fight each other. 1 and 2 fight for 1st, 50th and 51st fight for 50th, and it essentially becomes a series of battles to earn your place above the alliance whom you are fighting. So if an alliance is aiming for a spot in gold 2, they should have to he prepared to face every alliance vying for that same spot. Can't beat the competition you're fighting for placement? Then you probably aren't ready to place above them yet.
It actually aligns Rewards based on where Players are at, and their Rewards and Matches grow as their Accounts and Alliances do. It's not so much about limiting as it is creating a range for Points that doesn't allow Players to earn Rewards beyond what they're not working on. They'll still earn more Points for higher Tiers, but there will be an absolute limit based on the Prestige Bracket they're in. The higher the limit, the more Points they'll be capable of earning, maximized by their Tier 1 Wins respectively. As Players Rank their Champs and Allies grow, they will rise in Matches and the ability to earn more Points. It's not a total inhibitor, as growth always happens. Unless some Alliance isn't interested in Ranking anyone else, getting better Champs, Ranking them higher, or anything in between. In which case playing the game isn't advisable. Lol.

But it would unequivocally lock a 9.5 qlliance out of the 10.5k league. If the current new mm does its job correctly once the dust settles, we should have more of a natural bracket system in place without Kabam needing to get involved. Only, it would not have to be up to Kabam where to parse the continuous variable of prestige into discrete categories. And there would be the added advantage that one could climb tiers mid-season.

I'm not entirely against your idea, but why is it fair to inhibit smaller alliances from testing their capabilities to hold their own against bigger alliances. The ones that can make it that far deserve a shot.

That entirely depends on the Brackets they create.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

I pretty much left the specifics up to them, but they could do it in increments of 3k, 4k, whatever.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Addyos said:

Seraphion said:
This is for everyone saying you cant beat big alliances.

If you want to keep your place EARN it

GroundedWisdom said:

QuikPik said:
So is winning half and losing half but continually dropping down. There are 2 sides to every argument yet you only see one.
I only see my own point of view because I'm not telling everyone else where I think they belong.
Well thank goodness Kabam isn’t taking on your myopic point of view on what you think is fair and is putting things right. You have spoken at length about how unfair the imbalanced matchups are for small alliances. Yet when presented with cold hard facts about how imbalanced the previous system was for players who took the time, effort and sometimes money to upgrade their rosters and prestige, you respond in an emotional, petulant manner devoid of any form of logic.

You wail about how the big boys want to trample on the little guys, when actually some of the big boys are more aggrieved that the previous matchmaking system denied them proper rewards for 10 whole AW seasons. Your myopic one-sided point of view however hinders you from acknowledging this fact, when other more sensible-minded players acknowledge that the changes are for the better. Even by some of those who are being negatively affected by said changes.

So continue to rant and rave about your perceived injustices against the new matchmaking system. I just hope and wish for continued guidance (and wisdom) to Kabam to ignore what you say and keep these changes to war matchmaking. It’s been a few seasons too late, but better late than never.

You mean about placing Alliances in Matches they'll never win during the most competitive time for War? Sure will.

xNig · July 2020

Some people need to keep to their words....

Addyos · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Addyos said:

Seraphion said:
This is for everyone saying you cant beat big alliances.

If you want to keep your place EARN it

GroundedWisdom said:

QuikPik said:
So is winning half and losing half but continually dropping down. There are 2 sides to every argument yet you only see one.
I only see my own point of view because I'm not telling everyone else where I think they belong.
Well thank goodness Kabam isn’t taking on your myopic point of view on what you think is fair and is putting things right. You have spoken at length about how unfair the imbalanced matchups are for small alliances. Yet when presented with cold hard facts about how imbalanced the previous system was for players who took the time, effort and sometimes money to upgrade their rosters and prestige, you respond in an emotional, petulant manner devoid of any form of logic.

You wail about how the big boys want to trample on the little guys, when actually some of the big boys are more aggrieved that the previous matchmaking system denied them proper rewards for 10 whole AW seasons. Your myopic one-sided point of view however hinders you from acknowledging this fact, when other more sensible-minded players acknowledge that the changes are for the better. Even by some of those who are being negatively affected by said changes.

So continue to rant and rave about your perceived injustices against the new matchmaking system. I just hope and wish for continued guidance (and wisdom) to Kabam to ignore what you say and keep these changes to war matchmaking. It’s been a few seasons too late, but better late than never.
You mean about placing Alliances in Matches they'll never win during the most competitive time for War? Sure will.

Focusing on only one thing again, while ignoring everything else. I rest my case.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Addyos said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Addyos said:

Seraphion said:
This is for everyone saying you cant beat big alliances.

If you want to keep your place EARN it

GroundedWisdom said:

QuikPik said:
So is winning half and losing half but continually dropping down. There are 2 sides to every argument yet you only see one.
I only see my own point of view because I'm not telling everyone else where I think they belong.
Well thank goodness Kabam isn’t taking on your myopic point of view on what you think is fair and is putting things right. You have spoken at length about how unfair the imbalanced matchups are for small alliances. Yet when presented with cold hard facts about how imbalanced the previous system was for players who took the time, effort and sometimes money to upgrade their rosters and prestige, you respond in an emotional, petulant manner devoid of any form of logic.

You wail about how the big boys want to trample on the little guys, when actually some of the big boys are more aggrieved that the previous matchmaking system denied them proper rewards for 10 whole AW seasons. Your myopic one-sided point of view however hinders you from acknowledging this fact, when other more sensible-minded players acknowledge that the changes are for the better. Even by some of those who are being negatively affected by said changes.

So continue to rant and rave about your perceived injustices against the new matchmaking system. I just hope and wish for continued guidance (and wisdom) to Kabam to ignore what you say and keep these changes to war matchmaking. It’s been a few seasons too late, but better late than never.
You mean about placing Alliances in Matches they'll never win during the most competitive time for War? Sure will.
Focusing on only one thing again, while ignoring everything else. I rest my case.

Your case ignores every point I made.

Skitard · July 2020

Speeds80 said:
@skitard yes these few wars are ugly now. I’m not sure you comprehend what the big picture is, soon you will be faced with similar strength alliances, the ability to go on 20/30 win streaks will be limited by your defensive roster and the unorganised and weaker alliances you were steamrolling over and over again won’t be your matchups because they don’t deserve to be on your level, until they organise and grow. Big picture is good for fairness, small picture yeah it’s bad because of how broken the war ratings have become from previous system, but saying we were less skilful when we couldn’t climb out of a tier by winning 7 or 8/12 in the season shows that you think winning over and over again over the same bad alliances should be the norm and never have been taken away from you, my alliance isn’t less skilled than yours, we were the victims of a broken system that has been dumped. So we are happy that we can return to the system we knew and flourished in and were fairly rewarded for (For our efforts) before that travesty was brought in. I dont feel too bad for the alliances I just steam
Rolled because for 9 seasons they Literally displaced me for their rewards while never having to face my alliance because they were protected By their low prestige. A very strange factor to reward

At no point have I said you were less skilled... this is probably the 5th time if said this...

Also at no point did we plow through a less skilled alliance... said that many times as well...

The wars we played were evenly matched enemies... they came down to one boss kill or a few hundred points max in difference...

Once again... my 4 year old would understand the simplicity of my posts... you guys are so full of rage from getting screwed over you think the right option is screw over someone else...

I'm stating an option that screws over no one...

You still get better rewards than us...

We just don't get the rewards at the bottom of the barrel...

You guys remind me of the BLM movement... you don't want fair and equal treatment... you want special treatment...

Kpatrix · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:
Let’s put it this way in terms of your arena analogy.

Player A has 6k prestige and grinds arena with 4*s. Using 4*s, he grinded 5m.

Player B has 10k prestige and grinds arena with 5/6*s. Using his champs, he grinded 65m.

The system then rewards Player A and Player B the exact same reward (eg the 5* featured champ) for their scores. Is this fair?

There’s a reason why arena is broken into 4* Basic, 4* Featured and 5* Featured. That’s the “tier” system you’re asking for in war.

And I can guarantee you, splitting the rewards into tiers will have no difference compared to the current system post-adjustment.
It doesn't matter what they're working with in the end. All that matters is the Points they put up. This entire situation is based on a judgment that these Allies don't deserve what they did based on the Wars they didn't have. Which is a perversion in and of itself.

You just don’t get it do you ? The lower prestige alliances are using their top champs for attack, but their defense is secondary. They don’t have the rosters to field the same defense as higher rated alliances do.

So they are using r5 5* atackers against r3 5* defenses on most paths and maybe some r1 6* and r4 and r5s on boss island.

Now the higher ranking alliances are facing all r5 and higher max sig defenses on paths and bosses. Their fights are much harder. You can’t compare the two as one earning their rewards for winning more wars. The wars they won were easier. They weren’t fighting stacked defenses that the rewards earned should have required.

Just as an example, post your attack and defense here, and compare it to others at same rating but higher ranks. It will be no question of who had easier wars. It has nothing to do with firepower as you call it, but everything to do with defense. Defense wins championships. Everyone who follows sports knows that, if you can’t stop the other team you have no chance at winning.

So let everything settle back to where it should be and quit trolling about being fair if you can’t see the issue from both sides. It wasn’t fair before, where was your crusade then ???! That’s right, it was beneficial to the players who didn’t have as strong of teams so that made it ok. Hypocrite much ??

Btw, the offer still stands. Join us for a season to see what it’s like at higher prestige. You can just be backup in one bg if you want.

Speeds80 · July 2020

Ebony_Naw said:

Skitard said:
Guess it's pointless to argue with them @GroundedWisdom... they don't agree with a bracketing reward system because they paid for all the upgrades they could get to increase their skills... only to find that skill wasn't included in the bundle... so they are all going to disagree with everything we say... since we didn't drop hundreds/thousands of dollars into the game, then we don't deserve to be rewarded for being able to win fights... but since they did they deserve tons of 5 and 6 star shards even if they lose every war...

For those of you who do agree with a bracketing system... kudos to you...

for those who don't... don't worry... kabam cares about you enough to reward you for your lack of skill...

Shall I leave this here then @Skitard
Because this was clearly aimed at those of us whose big alliances have been underfperforming in the broken old system. after sharing why the broken system destroyed my alliance you said this, not sure who else you were aiming this at

Speeds80 · July 2020

Shall I directly quote you @Skitard “my lack of skill” clearly cant be measured by that old broken system, and my alliances broken af war rating

xNig · July 2020

The alternative is to just accept that it’s going to be like this for awhile, take it easy for wars and clear other content that hasn’t been cleared yet to acquire rank up materials needed to level up your champs.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Kpatrix said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:
Let’s put it this way in terms of your arena analogy.

Player A has 6k prestige and grinds arena with 4*s. Using 4*s, he grinded 5m.

Player B has 10k prestige and grinds arena with 5/6*s. Using his champs, he grinded 65m.

The system then rewards Player A and Player B the exact same reward (eg the 5* featured champ) for their scores. Is this fair?

There’s a reason why arena is broken into 4* Basic, 4* Featured and 5* Featured. That’s the “tier” system you’re asking for in war.

And I can guarantee you, splitting the rewards into tiers will have no difference compared to the current system post-adjustment.
It doesn't matter what they're working with in the end. All that matters is the Points they put up. This entire situation is based on a judgment that these Allies don't deserve what they did based on the Wars they didn't have. Which is a perversion in and of itself.

You just don’t get it do you ? The lower prestige alliances are using their top champs for attack, but their defense is secondary. They don’t have the rosters to field the same defense as higher rated alliances do.

So they are using r5 5* atackers against r3 5* defenses on most paths and maybe some r1 6* and r4 and r5s on boss island.

Now the higher ranking alliances are facing all r5 and higher max sig defenses on paths and bosses. Their fights are much harder. You can’t compare the two as one earning their rewards for winning more wars. The wars they won were easier. They weren’t fighting stacked defenses that the rewards earned should have required.

Just as an example, post your attack and defense here, and compare it to others at same rating but higher ranks. It will be no question of who had easier wars. It has nothing to do with firepower as you call it, but everything to do with defense. Defense wins championships. Everyone who follows sports knows that, if you can’t stop the other team you have no chance at winning.

So let everything settle back to where it should be and quit trolling about being fair if you can’t see the issue from both sides. It wasn’t fair before, where was your crusade then ???! That’s right, it was beneficial to the players who didn’t have as strong of teams so that made it ok. Hypocrite much ??

Btw, the offer still stands. Join us for a season to see what it’s like at higher prestige. You can just be backup in one bg if you want.

I'm not joining your Alliance just to prove a point, and I just talked about how the Rewards could have been appropriated.
I'm not trolling. I'm speaking to these people who have to sacrifice their efforts as some kind of collateral damage. Their Season matters. Their Wars matter. The fact that they are being placed into Wars we all know they have no chance of winning for the system to get "better" matters. Their efforts are worth just as much as anyone else's. They work just the same, plan just the same, try as hard as they can with what they have just the same, and are a part of the game just the same as you or anyone else. It's not something that can just be brushed off or ignored. Had there been an approach that didn't cost them their efforts, there would be no argument to changing the system. What I cannot and absolutely will not do, is pretend they don't matter and they should just take the L and shut up because it's all for the best. It's not fair to them, and it won't be fair to them no matter what the future outcome is working towards.

Speeds80 · July 2020

Speaking of 4yo With the effort I’ve put into growing my roster my 4yo could have probably won against your alliance who probably displaced me in seasons ratings, your the entitled one here. By telling me I lack skill. No 9.5k alliance can win 29/30 and only a broken system was letting 4k alliances do that. Which was Exactly what broke the alliance rating system altogether

Skitard · July 2020

Once again... i did not directly say any of you individually lacked skill... I'm referring to the alliances who CAN NOT FOR THE LIFE OF THEM WIN AN EVENLY MATCHED WAR... if you feel I am attacking you directly as an individual... then I guess that's an issue you have with yourself... not with me... and the bracketing system could work...

let's try a sports reference... dear God help us all if you can't grasp it...

Boxing for one has Heavyweight, Welterweight, lightweight, etc...

These different weight classes (let's call them "BRACKETS") would receive better rewards based on their win/loss ratio...

In order for the best Welterweight to receive a grand prize should he have to defeat the Heavyweight champion?...

And to the 2nd grade vs 9th grade apples to oranges **** from earlier... this is how apples to apples is done...

Skitard · July 2020

I'm starting to believe that you have tunnel vision on this whole "lack of skill" that you keep telling us you possess...

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Arsoz said:

Skitard said:
Once again... i did not directly say any of you individually lacked skill... I'm referring to the alliances who CAN NOT FOR THE LIFE OF THEM WIN AN EVENLY MATCHED WAR... if you feel I am attacking you directly as an individual... then I guess that's an issue you have with yourself... not with me... and the bracketing system could work...

let's try a sports reference... dear God help us all if you can't grasp it...

Boxing for one has Heavyweight, Welterweight, lightweight, etc...

These different weight classes (let's call them "BRACKETS") would receive better rewards based on their win/loss ratio...

In order for the best Welterweight to receive a grand prize should he have to defeat the Heavyweight champion?...

And to the 2nd grade vs 9th grade apples to oranges **** from earlier... this is how apples to apples is done...
It doesnt matter if the alliance cant win the war because naturally the higher the rating the better the enemy would be so its just sbmm

Actually it does. When you have a competitive mode like Seasons where your progress over a month is weighed based on your cumulative performance, every Win or Loss affects your final outcome. When the system fails you by placing you in Matches you cannot win, that costs you without any doing of your own. It's no longer a measure of cumulative progress. Even when the system went down, that War was discounted. The Season however, continued. Which meant progress never counted the malfunctioning War. When the system makes people lose by placing them in Matches they cannot win, it manipulates the outcome beyond the control of people playing, beyond measurement of skill. It's no longer a competition of skill from the beginning of the Season to the end. It's gambling for opponents.

Skitard · July 2020

Arsoz said:

Skitard said:
Once again... i did not directly say any of you individually lacked skill... I'm referring to the alliances who CAN NOT FOR THE LIFE OF THEM WIN AN EVENLY MATCHED WAR... if you feel I am attacking you directly as an individual... then I guess that's an issue you have with yourself... not with me... and the bracketing system could work...

let's try a sports reference... dear God help us all if you can't grasp it...

Boxing for one has Heavyweight, Welterweight, lightweight, etc...

These different weight classes (let's call them "BRACKETS") would receive better rewards based on their win/loss ratio...

In order for the best Welterweight to receive a grand prize should he have to defeat the Heavyweight champion?...

And to the 2nd grade vs 9th grade apples to oranges **** from earlier... this is how apples to apples is done...
It doesnt matter if the alliance cant win the war because naturally the higher the rating the better the enemy would be so its just sbmm

That's why I've been stating that the bracket system is what should be done... these guys can't grasp that what I am saying is they deserve good rewards because they are strong... but at the same time just because my alliance is nowhere near as strong we don't deserve to get the rewards that silver offers... the rewards for silver at the end of the season are garbage and because we don't have a stacked alliance we can't possibly place as high as these guys... it's like I said... put the Welterweight, lightweight, and Heavyweight champs in a ring together and ring the bell... my money would be on the Heavyweight... the fact that getting stronger for alliances whose members average at a 300k rating shouldn't be subject to crappy rewards after winning 98% of their wars... they should be rewarded good... as should a strong alliance who does the same... but to get good rewards you have to be in the super high rated alliances... so while they grow stronger fast... we grow stronger extremely slow with no chance of catching up any time this decade... that's what I'm getting at... and even though I've repeatedly said I don't want them to get crappy rewards they can't comprehend that... a bracket system puts them in their own reward system... where they still get better rewards... but it makes it to where weaker alliances can grow at a faster speed than what they've been given...

Tamamort · July 2020

Jridenhour_3 said:

-sixate- said:

Jridenhour_3 said:

-sixate- said:

Jridenhour_3 said:

DL864 said:

Jridenhour_3 said:

DL864 said:

Jridenhour_3 said:

AvolA1987 said:
They should. Please wonder why they are "higher" alliances..maybe, just maybe.. because all the individual players have higher ratings? Play more, play longer and invested more (in whatever kind of way)?

I can turn this around: do you think its fair that people who have done LESS effort into progress should have the SAME rewards as ones who done MORE? You obviously don't understand the physics of a game.
You should get rewards based on skill not what roster you bought or how much you play. And if a lower alliance is beating everyone at there level it’s just like a higher alliance beating alliances of same rating. They deserve good rewards.
Wrong. Lower alliance is not facing anything like higher ones in difficulty. So you basically you want content tune to your roster and get the same rewards as someone with a much better roster who has to face much harder content that's basically what you're saying
Based on rosters yes they are. Because a lower tier might be easier for your roster someone else’s roster it may feel just as difficult as what you fight with your roster. I’m gonna end it with what I said before. Some of you guys think just because you bought a good roster or live on the game deserve better rewards then a ftp or a person with a life whether your good or not but expect lower alliances to be all super skilled to get rewards you don’t deserve.
You are so self entitled you don't want to play the game and work hard at it you don't want to spend on it but you want the same rewards as people who do. That happens nowhere in the world in competitive Sports or the work force.
I’m the entitled one lol.The guys that think they deserve good rewards when they can’t beat alliances at there own leve. Give me an f’n break I could care less. I think it’s just funny. All these high alliance people all excited bc they get to beat up on low alliances an get good rewards they don’t have the skill to earn by beating same rated alliances.
They aren't excited to beat up on smaller alliances. They're excited to get out of the tar they've been stuck in for 10 seasons with no chance of movement. Meanwhile small alliances have been shooting past them without having to face a hard war. If you can't beat the majority of alliances in your tier you shouldn't be there.
If they won there wars they wouldn’t have been stuck in same tier. Sounds like they just weren’t very skilled and couldn’t beat evenly matched opponents
So you're ok with an 8m alliance climbing the war rankings to plat 4 when a 40m alliance gets stuck in G2 facing the same 5 or 6 alliances because of prestige and they keep beating each up because they're so evenly matched. Meanwhile, that 8m alliance with 5k prestige gets wars against similar alliances and keeps winning, climbing in tier, raising their point totals to be higher than a 40m alliance that they couldn't beat if their lives depended on it. Just the fact that you can't understand that shows your ignorance and selfishness.

Should that same 8m alliance get better AQ rewards than the same 40m alliance they unfairly passed in war rating if they both run map 7 with master modifiers all 5 days too?
Yes because they have proven they are way more skilled then the other alliances there rating an earned good rewards

If you were truly skilled enough it shouldn’t matter who you face. The strongest biggest ally’s should get the best rewards. Do you think the people in them are less skilled than your lot?

Tamamort · July 2020

AVINASH_ASH7 said:
Worst war matchmaking for this season 19 wars please fix this as soon as possible see this match making

It will fix itself you’ll be fighting in fair wars soon enough

Skitard · July 2020

yes @Arsoz ... that way you still have a shot of getting great rewards even if you are a medium leveled alliance... like a small amount of 6 star shards... I'm talkin a few hundred not thousands... and i believe all placements in the high leveled alliances should receive 6 star shard rewards as well... hundreds for the lower thousands for the higher... I'm not saying ridiculously high rewards for the qeak and low rewards for the strong like these guys are hellbent on believing i said...

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Arsoz said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Arsoz said:

Skitard said:
Once again... i did not directly say any of you individually lacked skill... I'm referring to the alliances who CAN NOT FOR THE LIFE OF THEM WIN AN EVENLY MATCHED WAR... if you feel I am attacking you directly as an individual... then I guess that's an issue you have with yourself... not with me... and the bracketing system could work...

let's try a sports reference... dear God help us all if you can't grasp it...

Boxing for one has Heavyweight, Welterweight, lightweight, etc...

These different weight classes (let's call them "BRACKETS") would receive better rewards based on their win/loss ratio...

In order for the best Welterweight to receive a grand prize should he have to defeat the Heavyweight champion?...

And to the 2nd grade vs 9th grade apples to oranges **** from earlier... this is how apples to apples is done...
It doesnt matter if the alliance cant win the war because naturally the higher the rating the better the enemy would be so its just sbmm
Actually it does. When you have a competitive mode like Seasons where your progress over a month is weighed based on your cumulative performance, every Win or Loss affects your final outcome. When the system fails you by placing you in Matches you cannot win, that costs you without any doing of your own. It's no longer a measure of cumulative progress. Even when the system went down, that War was discounted. The Season however, continued. Which meant progress never counted the malfunctioning War. When the system makes people lose by placing them in Matches they cannot win, it manipulates the outcome beyond the control of people playing, beyond measurement of skill. It's no longer a competition of skill from the beginning of the Season to the end. It's gambling for opponents.
If you have a high war rating and you get matched with an alliance with about the same amount but they have stronger champions then it would be fair because it shows
Skitard said:

Arsoz said:

Skitard said:
Once again... i did not directly say any of you individually lacked skill... I'm referring to the alliances who CAN NOT FOR THE LIFE OF THEM WIN AN EVENLY MATCHED WAR... if you feel I am attacking you directly as an individual... then I guess that's an issue you have with yourself... not with me... and the bracketing system could work...

let's try a sports reference... dear God help us all if you can't grasp it...

Boxing for one has Heavyweight, Welterweight, lightweight, etc...

These different weight classes (let's call them "BRACKETS") would receive better rewards based on their win/loss ratio...

In order for the best Welterweight to receive a grand prize should he have to defeat the Heavyweight champion?...

And to the 2nd grade vs 9th grade apples to oranges **** from earlier... this is how apples to apples is done...
It doesnt matter if the alliance cant win the war because naturally the higher the rating the better the enemy would be so its just sbmm
That's why I've been stating that the bracket system is what should be done... these guys can't grasp that what I am saying is they deserve good rewards because they are strong... but at the same time just because my alliance is nowhere near as strong we don't deserve to get the rewards that silver offers... the rewards for silver at the end of the season are garbage and because we don't have a stacked alliance we can't possibly place as high as these guys... it's like I said... put the Welterweight, lightweight, and Heavyweight champs in a ring together and ring the bell... my money would be on the Heavyweight... the fact that getting stronger for alliances whose members average at a 300k rating shouldn't be subject to crappy rewards after winning 98% of their wars... they should be rewarded good... as should a strong alliance who does the same... but to get good rewards you have to be in the super high rated alliances... so while they grow stronger fast... we grow stronger extremely slow with no chance of catching up any time this decade... that's what I'm getting at... and even though I've repeatedly said I don't want them to get crappy rewards they can't comprehend that... a bracket system puts them in their own reward system... where they still get better rewards... but it makes it to where weaker alliances can grow at a faster speed than what they've been given...
So what you are saying is separate all divisions into one season buff the rewards and if you do good you pass to the next division and keep going

No, it's not the same as when War was played with just the Leaderboard, and you would make your way up until a bigger Ally knocked you down. I've pointed that out a number of times, but for some reason people don't register it.
Seasons are a measurement of what you do from the beginning to the end of the Season. In order for that measurement to be fair and accurate, you need to have Wars that are a fair opportunity on both sides to have a chance at a Win.

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Comments