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.
Well, we're fighting an obvious shell alliance today. Their profile says the last season they did was season 4, but everyone has done abyss and 100% act 6, and a.few have the title for finishing at the top of season 18. We are a 30mil group and they are 24mil ahead of us...with a prestige more than 2k our average. We started 2-0, but this one isn't worth the cost to even care. But their shell had a war rating on par w us....this system is a total dumpster fire.
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.
No no no you can’t go back tracking now you were saying the matchups were fair because they were fighting allies rated the same regardless of what other allies were in that tier and by that logic act 4 should have the same rewards as act 6
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.
No, this is all completely false. How can you claim people want prestige to determine where alliances end up placing when the current system ignores prestige? You're the one that wants prestige to influence where alliances place, because you want prestige to influence matches. The system should be *blind* to prestige, and only match alliances based on their rating, itself based on their win/loss record.
The reason why *no* alliance, not the highest, not the lowest, could claim they had the correct rating was because they were not allowed to face everyone of the same rating. Rating has one purpose, and that's to measure the strength of the alliance. Theoretically speaking if we sort all the alliances by war rating they should be sorted in approximately their ability to win wars. *How* they win those wars is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they win because they are the most gifted twitch tappers in the galaxy, or because they have eighty billion roster rating. It only matters *if* they win, not *how* they win. I don't care how they win, just like I don't care how the Pittsburgh Steelers win football games, or how Magnus Carlson wins chess games, or how Kyle Busch wins car races. I don't care, and neither should the match making system.
They didn't earn their rating because rating itself was meaningless. What does having a 2000 rating mean under the old system? Not much. It *sometimes* meant that facing another 2000 rating alliance was a fair fight and sometimes not. Because the 2000 rating alliances were all over the map in terms of their strength. Because they didn't have to face each other. *Some* alliances were facing a majority of the other alliances. *Some* alliances were facing a tiny minority of the other alliances.
The difference between the current system and the one you think is "fair" is we can eliminate prestige completely from the game, make it 100% invisible and incalculable, and the current system would march on. You *need* prestige to make your idea of fairness work, and yet you claim you don't want it to influence wars.
No one's prestige or alliance rating *determines* where they place in the current system. It might confer an advantage or a disadvantage, but if you keep winning you can end up anywhere. The system doesn't look at prestige or alliance rating, so it cannot possibly hold it against you. You want *preferential treatment* for alliances with lower prestige or alliance rating. That preferential treatment is antithetical to fairness.
And you still haven't responded to my explicit question about fairness. In the four alliance scenario, what match up is fair, and why? If you can't answer that question, your ideas about fairness don't work even in the most trivial of circumstances. They certainly shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than that.
Conversely, I'll answer your question, because it is an easy question to answer. "Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE?" That's easy. You should be surrounded by alliances that are equal in strength to you. That's where you BELONG. If all the alliances in and around your rating are about equal to you, and you to them, the competition has done its job. And one end result generates that situation: the one where all the alliances are sorted in order of their war fighting strength. And the only way for the competition to generate that result is to make sure the competition isn't artificially segmented, which creates disconnected competition networks.
This is not arbitrary or complicated. This is how most people define competition. Winners at the top, losers at the bottom, everyone else in the middle, roughly sorted by their relative strength of competition. The competitors near you are roughly like you. The current system migrates to that end. The previous system was an abject failure at doing that. And the people who say that it was "more fair" don't really have a leg to stand on. They want preferential treatment in matches, but then want to claim they did the same thing everyone else did. If they did do the same thing everyone else did they wouldn't need preferential treatment.
Competition sorts competitors into winners and losers, stronger and weaker. It isn't supposed to be "fair" in the sense of giving everyone an equal chance at winning. That's not a competition, that's a lottery. A war system in which every alliance always has a 50/50 chance of winning by virtue of the match system isn't running a competition, it is running a roulette wheel.
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.
First of all, you can say what's easier for certain lower tier alliances based on the level of champs th at they own vs the ones they face.
Second of all, alliances should earn the places with 'different' matchups. If your going to be in a bracket, you should be able to hold your ground against people in the same bracket. If you can't, your alliance doesn't need to be there.
That's what it's all about. Territorial ownership of the Brackets. That's not a competition. That's a monopoly.
They are similar...that's my point. War rating is easily manipulated...to base matchmaking on this more than say, Ave member rating or prestige or tier is the complete opposite of what any logical person would suggest.
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.
No, this is all completely false. How can you claim people want prestige to determine where alliances end up placing when the current system ignores prestige? You're the one that wants prestige to influence where alliances place, because you want prestige to influence matches. The system should be *blind* to prestige, and only match alliances based on their rating, itself based on their win/loss record.
The reason why *no* alliance, not the highest, not the lowest, could claim they had the correct rating was because they were not allowed to face everyone of the same rating. Rating has one purpose, and that's to measure the strength of the alliance. Theoretically speaking if we sort all the alliances by war rating they should be sorted in approximately their ability to win wars. *How* they win those wars is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they win because they are the most gifted twitch tappers in the galaxy, or because they have eighty billion roster rating. It only matters *if* they win, not *how* they win. I don't care how they win, just like I don't care how the Pittsburgh Steelers win football games, or how Magnus Carlson wins chess games, or how Kyle Busch wins car races. I don't care, and neither should the match making system.
They didn't earn their rating because rating itself was meaningless. What does having a 2000 rating mean under the old system? Not much. It *sometimes* meant that facing another 2000 rating alliance was a fair fight and sometimes not. Because the 2000 rating alliances were all over the map in terms of their strength. Because they didn't have to face each other. *Some* alliances were facing a majority of the other alliances. *Some* alliances were facing a tiny minority of the other alliances.
The difference between the current system and the one you think is "fair" is we can eliminate prestige completely from the game, make it 100% invisible and incalculable, and the current system would march on. You *need* prestige to make your idea of fairness work, and yet you claim you don't want it to influence wars.
No one's prestige or alliance rating *determines* where they place in the current system. It might confer an advantage or a disadvantage, but if you keep winning you can end up anywhere. The system doesn't look at prestige or alliance rating, so it cannot possibly hold it against you. You want *preferential treatment* for alliances with lower prestige or alliance rating. That preferential treatment is antithetical to fairness.
And you still haven't responded to my explicit question about fairness. In the four alliance scenario, what match up is fair, and why? If you can't answer that question, your ideas about fairness don't work even in the most trivial of circumstances. They certainly shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than that.
Conversely, I'll answer your question, because it is an easy question to answer. "Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE?" That's easy. You should be surrounded by alliances that are equal in strength to you. That's where you BELONG. If all the alliances in and around your rating are about equal to you, and you to them, the competition has done its job. And one end result generates that situation: the one where all the alliances are sorted in order of their war fighting strength. And the only way for the competition to generate that result is to make sure the competition isn't artificially segmented, which creates disconnected competition networks.
This is not arbitrary or complicated. This is how most people define competition. Winners at the top, losers at the bottom, everyone else in the middle, roughly sorted by their relative strength of competition. The competitors near you are roughly like you. The current system migrates to that end. The previous system was an abject failure at doing that. And the people who say that it was "more fair" don't really have a leg to stand on. They want preferential treatment in matches, but then want to claim they did the same thing everyone else did. If they did do the same thing everyone else did they wouldn't need preferential treatment.
Competition sorts competitors into winners and losers, stronger and weaker. It isn't supposed to be "fair" in the sense of giving everyone an equal chance at winning. That's not a competition, that's a lottery. A war system in which every alliance always has a 50/50 chance of winning by virtue of the match system isn't running a competition, it is running a roulette wheel.
No. What you have is a lottery now. You buy your ticket by placing your Champs, and you spin the wheel for a winning Match. The Season itself is a separate aspect of War. It's a month-long competition of Points. The Brackets literally had nothing to do with who you fought against directly. They were comprised of the Points you put up. War Rating was abused the second it started affecting Seasons progress. Even now there's only a partial solution to that. I don't know why people have this fundamentalist ideal that it's all that matters, but it is quite literally not the same system as it used to be before Seasons existed. You have a specific number of Wars which allow you to earn Points, and those Points are based on your performance. That performance hinges on the possibility of having a shot, and when that possibility is taken away by a mechanic that is meant to place you in appropriate Matches for your Alliance, that taints the entire result. Unfairly. We're going to have to agree to disagree because the system that people think works so well is affecting a separate competition, and it's not the same as it used to be. If you're going to sit there and tell me that it should allow people to lose without even fighting, I'm going to say this is one of the few times you're just wrong. Respectfully.
Comments
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.
The reason why *no* alliance, not the highest, not the lowest, could claim they had the correct rating was because they were not allowed to face everyone of the same rating. Rating has one purpose, and that's to measure the strength of the alliance. Theoretically speaking if we sort all the alliances by war rating they should be sorted in approximately their ability to win wars. *How* they win those wars is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they win because they are the most gifted twitch tappers in the galaxy, or because they have eighty billion roster rating. It only matters *if* they win, not *how* they win. I don't care how they win, just like I don't care how the Pittsburgh Steelers win football games, or how Magnus Carlson wins chess games, or how Kyle Busch wins car races. I don't care, and neither should the match making system.
They didn't earn their rating because rating itself was meaningless. What does having a 2000 rating mean under the old system? Not much. It *sometimes* meant that facing another 2000 rating alliance was a fair fight and sometimes not. Because the 2000 rating alliances were all over the map in terms of their strength. Because they didn't have to face each other. *Some* alliances were facing a majority of the other alliances. *Some* alliances were facing a tiny minority of the other alliances.
The difference between the current system and the one you think is "fair" is we can eliminate prestige completely from the game, make it 100% invisible and incalculable, and the current system would march on. You *need* prestige to make your idea of fairness work, and yet you claim you don't want it to influence wars.
No one's prestige or alliance rating *determines* where they place in the current system. It might confer an advantage or a disadvantage, but if you keep winning you can end up anywhere. The system doesn't look at prestige or alliance rating, so it cannot possibly hold it against you. You want *preferential treatment* for alliances with lower prestige or alliance rating. That preferential treatment is antithetical to fairness.
And you still haven't responded to my explicit question about fairness. In the four alliance scenario, what match up is fair, and why? If you can't answer that question, your ideas about fairness don't work even in the most trivial of circumstances. They certainly shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than that.
Conversely, I'll answer your question, because it is an easy question to answer. "Who or what determines where they SHOULD BE?" That's easy. You should be surrounded by alliances that are equal in strength to you. That's where you BELONG. If all the alliances in and around your rating are about equal to you, and you to them, the competition has done its job. And one end result generates that situation: the one where all the alliances are sorted in order of their war fighting strength. And the only way for the competition to generate that result is to make sure the competition isn't artificially segmented, which creates disconnected competition networks.
This is not arbitrary or complicated. This is how most people define competition. Winners at the top, losers at the bottom, everyone else in the middle, roughly sorted by their relative strength of competition. The competitors near you are roughly like you. The current system migrates to that end. The previous system was an abject failure at doing that. And the people who say that it was "more fair" don't really have a leg to stand on. They want preferential treatment in matches, but then want to claim they did the same thing everyone else did. If they did do the same thing everyone else did they wouldn't need preferential treatment.
Competition sorts competitors into winners and losers, stronger and weaker. It isn't supposed to be "fair" in the sense of giving everyone an equal chance at winning. That's not a competition, that's a lottery. A war system in which every alliance always has a 50/50 chance of winning by virtue of the match system isn't running a competition, it is running a roulette wheel.
War Rating was abused the second it started affecting Seasons progress. Even now there's only a partial solution to that. I don't know why people have this fundamentalist ideal that it's all that matters, but it is quite literally not the same system as it used to be before Seasons existed. You have a specific number of Wars which allow you to earn Points, and those Points are based on your performance. That performance hinges on the possibility of having a shot, and when that possibility is taken away by a mechanic that is meant to place you in appropriate Matches for your Alliance, that taints the entire result. Unfairly. We're going to have to agree to disagree because the system that people think works so well is affecting a separate competition, and it's not the same as it used to be. If you're going to sit there and tell me that it should allow people to lose without even fighting, I'm going to say this is one of the few times you're just wrong. Respectfully.