my silver 1 30m alliance fought a 14m the first war who had been gold 2, second war we fought a 20m gold 3 alliance both nowhere near completed the map, today we got a 25m alliance gold 2 war focussed alliance,and it’s quite even so far but we will probably win by the looks of things. Seems like 2 uneven matchups have quickly got us to reasonably fair fights after 9 seasons of alliance soul destruction, almost as if the fix seems to be working, in two wars we have jumped from t11 to t7, seems Like after just two gimmes I’m going to have a good fair season in a tier that suits our alliances roster
Ah yes. Let's come up with another analogy to justify screwing people over.
No one is getting screwed over. The alliances who are getting bad matches due to inflated war ratings are far better off with the rewards they have already banked. That doesn't mean the handful of rough matches they are facing don't suck. Sure they do. Run no items wars and see where you land. But they aren't getting screwed.
They're getting screwed. Being placed in Matches they have no chance of winning screws their Final Rankings in the Season. I called this the second they announced it. The only people benefitting from this are the ones high enough not to be affected, and the ones on the lower end of the mismatches are losing potential Wins through absolutely no control of their own. If they have no chance of winning, then the Season is not a fair competition. No one is truly earning anything in this. Not the larger ones or the lower ones. You can all say it's just the system fixing itself, but it's just a joke.
This new method of arguing you have without actually interacting with what the person you are arguing with said is interesting... You still haven't answered @DNA3000's question lol. They aren't getting screwed over because the aggregate rewards they got by being in the position to get bad matches for the start of this season far outweigh what they will lose. Congrats on calling it. Everyone did lol. Having a handful of unwinnable matches is certainly less than ideal. But they aren't getting screwed. The "benefit" to larger alliances getting a few easy wars is small. Certainly not game changing. The rewards a lot of smaller alliances got for them were. The joke was the previous system. The joke was months and months of garbage matchmaking and skewed season rewards and you can't get over one season in which some of the matches are bad in order to fix it. I'm starting to despair of you making good on your word and quitting this thread. You keep recycling the same nonsense.
Ah yes. Let's come up with another analogy to justify screwing people over.
No one is getting screwed over. The alliances who are getting bad matches due to inflated war ratings are far better off with the rewards they have already banked. That doesn't mean the handful of rough matches they are facing don't suck. Sure they do. Run no items wars and see where you land. But they aren't getting screwed.
They're getting screwed. Being placed in Matches they have no chance of winning screws their Final Rankings in the Season. I called this the second they announced it. The only people benefitting from this are the ones high enough not to be affected, and the ones on the lower end of the mismatches are losing potential Wins through absolutely no control of their own. If they have no chance of winning, then the Season is not a fair competition. No one is truly earning anything in this. Not the larger ones or the lower ones. You can all say it's just the system fixing itself, but it's just a joke.
I'm starting to despair of you making good on your word and quitting this thread. You keep recycling the same nonsense.
Ah yes. Let's come up with another analogy to justify screwing people over.
No one is getting screwed over. The alliances who are getting bad matches due to inflated war ratings are far better off with the rewards they have already banked. That doesn't mean the handful of rough matches they are facing don't suck. Sure they do. Run no items wars and see where you land. But they aren't getting screwed.
They're getting screwed. Being placed in Matches they have no chance of winning screws their Final Rankings in the Season. I called this the second they announced it. The only people benefitting from this are the ones high enough not to be affected, and the ones on the lower end of the mismatches are losing potential Wins through absolutely no control of their own. If they have no chance of winning, then the Season is not a fair competition. No one is truly earning anything in this. Not the larger ones or the lower ones. You can all say it's just the system fixing itself, but it's just a joke.
I'm starting to despair of you making good on your word and quitting this thread. You keep recycling the same nonsense.
Each reply makes you lose 15% temper?
That sounds about right. Diminishing returns might affect it but at the same time, I might get Sasquatch synergy.
Ah yes. Let's come up with another analogy to justify screwing people over.
No one is getting screwed over. The alliances who are getting bad matches due to inflated war ratings are far better off with the rewards they have already banked. That doesn't mean the handful of rough matches they are facing don't suck. Sure they do. Run no items wars and see where you land. But they aren't getting screwed.
They're getting screwed. Being placed in Matches they have no chance of winning screws their Final Rankings in the Season. I called this the second they announced it. The only people benefitting from this are the ones high enough not to be affected, and the ones on the lower end of the mismatches are losing potential Wins through absolutely no control of their own. If they have no chance of winning, then the Season is not a fair competition. No one is truly earning anything in this. Not the larger ones or the lower ones. You can all say it's just the system fixing itself, but it's just a joke.
I'm starting to despair of you making good on your word and quitting this thread. You keep recycling the same nonsense.
Each reply makes you lose 15% temper?
That sounds about right. Diminishing returns might affect it but at the same time, I might get Sasquatch synergy.
At least there’s a cap now. Too many might endanger your phone.
I didn't benefit AT ALL. The topic is about how it was "necessary" to do this, and it was absolutely not necessary. It was wanted. Only, it came at the expense of many people who keep posting and getting trolled that "Matches are fair. War Ratings are similar.". It's not just some unfortunate but necessary transition phase. It's ruining their Season efforts and rendering the final results inaccurate because they have no chance of winning these Wars. Saying they just want better Rewards for less work is just ignorant. Their argument isn't for the Rewards. It's the grossly unfair Matches. I'm speaking to their issue because I knew it was going to happen, and I'm not just going to pretend that they don't matter.
I think it was wanted by the high tier alliances and it was also necessary to some extent because it was screwing over some of the alliances. But, the way they went about it was too abrupt. Too many changes, the maps, the matchmaking, the defense tactics, rewards increase only in the top tiers.The maps and defense tactics should have been kept for one more season. They could have done what was suggested here with regards to prestige or alliance rating and used that as a metric, it would have resulted in uneven matches, but we are not going for a perfect system here. What's done is done and we need to figure out how to refine the system, not argue over who is more right at this point.
That's the problem. Each one of these Alliances that complain are made up of people. They're not just Accounts. They're Players, Players who are being told their efforts are worth setting up to fail because their time and effort isn't valuable. While that may not be the intention, that's the outcome. When you're intentionally placed in a competition you have no chance of winning and being told it's necessary, that makes you expendable. It makes your goals and your work, a month's worth no less, not valuable. Not important. Less important than making those Top Players happy. I'm not about to pretend that those Allies, those people, don't matter. They absolutely do. Just like any other Human Being that picks up the game.
What exactly is it that you want at this point mate? The system is in place. If you want people to apologize, its not going to happen. If you want the old system back, it may happen but even I don't want that at this point and I was against this decision of switching the matchmaking method that has resulted in uneven matches. At this point, it just feels like you are arguing for sympathy, which to be honest, none of the alliance that benefited from the system is going to get. As much as I hate to say it, the system is here to stay, so instead of arguing in circles as to how it should have been implemented, we are better off in thinking ways to improve this war rating based method so that all alliances have a best chance to get good matches and improve.
What I want is an acknowledgement for what these Players have had to go through just to make others happy. At the very least for people to respect the fact that they're not happy and they shouldn't have to be. It's not okay. Not at all.
Why? Nothing will come out of acknowledging that.People have acknowledged that these alliances are suffering but nothing can be done about it now. I think it is better to move forward.
So move forward and they face Match after Match they can't win, and nothing is done or said about it?
Wow. 46 pages of you not understanding that this is temporary, summed up in a short sentence. War ratings will change after every war. Lose a couple of wars and you will be matched against easier alliances who also lost their wars. It's like you're arguing against gravity and you think it's unfair that things fall if you drop them.
Hi Kabam I’m the leader of Wasteland(Wstea). We have read the information you guys shared mentioning that you're trying to improve the Alliance war experience with new changes.However war matchmaking based on just War Rating has been a pain the ass for alliance these days and seems just illogical. As sawgat mentioned we have been facing alliances who’s ratings and prestige are twice as much as ours. it's an issue that needs you guys take your time and resolve immediately. Even the alliance who are benefiting from this facing opponents they should have faced few years back are saying this is totally unfair to everyone
You don't speak for me or anybody else. Don't ever put that in there and pretend you do. You can use exact names of people that agree with you. Otherwise it's just made up garbage.
all i hear here is "i have had many many many many seasons of unfair advantage gifting me rewards well beyond what i deserve. i know that others have been getting well below what they deserve but i don't care. i want i want i want.... you can't take away from me. you cant put me lower where i belong, getting lesser rewards. ... cry cry cry i am entitled and want everything without effort and don't care that those who put effort are getting nothing..."
This isn’t true. We invested tousands of units in every damn season to get higher, ranked up the heros needed to get even higher. We always got alliances with the same or higher war and overall rating, we beet the **** out of them, end landed in g1 for two seasons continuisly. And that is I call investment. We did it with 5r4 and still some 4r5 defenders, maximal diversity, and so on. Now, everything is down in the dust bin, because after a while you cannot compete with the alliances, where every def hero is at least 5r5 or 6r2, and on attack they got 6r3 heroes. Okay, we should not be there like any analogy sais, but i think it is still unfair to get only such alliances es an opponent. Sorry!
War 3: Other alliance prestige is 200 more than us. Alliance rating is 5m more than us. It seems that is starting to even out already for us anyways but 3 wars is not enough to give a good guess. Currently this war could go either way. Will update in few days when war 4 happens.
War 1: Came up against a stronger alliance, Their Prestige was 1300 more, rated 10m more, We lost by 4000 points. War rating was 1070, went down to 1005.
War 2: Came up against a much weaker alliance: Our Prestige was 2300 more, we were rated 10m more. We won by 100,000 points excludes 50k bonus victory points. War rating back up to 1070.
This new matchmaking system is much fairer. At least now we will know how good we actually are. If we win 50% of our wars, I would guess we will finish just in Gold 1 but will be interesting to see if we place higher or lower than we would have under the old system.
The last one is our alliance. It looks much mich more fair like an 5m taking on a 34m, but still this whole process is making so much effort and resources go lost, it just doesn’t feel right. Yeah, I know, I just keep on crying...
The last one is our alliance. It looks much mich more fair like an 5m taking on a 34m, but still this whole process is making so much effort and resources go lost, it just doesn’t feel right. Yeah, I know, I just keep on crying...
Effort, maybe. But how are resources lost? Someone forced you to spend them? Blame that “someone” then. Lol
Do you think that there should never be a situation in AW where your alliance is seriously outclassed and stand next to no chance if winning?
Scenario to consider: After the balancing out of war rating happens say your alliance goes on an incredible winning streak (pull off some wins against much stronger alliances through pure skill), each win increasing your war rating thus facing other alliances with higher and higher war ratings, you'll eventually face another alliance with an equally high war rating but a much stronger alliance (roster wise) that your alliance just can't win against.
Now can you accept that in this scenario you'll eventually face an alliance to which you stand minimal chance of winning if any?
OR
Do you think that if your alliance wins and your war rating increases, you should still only ever be matched with opponents that are pretty equal and both alliances stand an equal chance of winning?
This was never directly answered, nor @DNA3000 's scenario with the 4 alliances, 2 at 15m, 2 at 30m.
all i hear here is "i have had many many many many seasons of unfair advantage gifting me rewards well beyond what i deserve. i know that others have been getting well below what they deserve but i don't care. i want i want i want.... you can't take away from me. you cant put me lower where i belong, getting lesser rewards. ... cry cry cry i am entitled and want everything without effort and don't care that those who put effort are getting nothing..."
This isn’t true. We invested tousands of units in every damn season to get higher, ranked up the heros needed to get even higher. We always got alliances with the same or higher war and overall rating, we beet the **** out of them, end landed in g1 for two seasons continuisly. And that is I call investment. We did it with 5r4 and still some 4r5 defenders, maximal diversity, and so on. Now, everything is down in the dust bin, because after a while you cannot compete with the alliances, where every def hero is at least 5r5 or 6r2, and on attack they got 6r3 heroes. Okay, we should not be there like any analogy sais, but i think it is still unfair to get only such alliances es an opponent. Sorry!
You’re talking as though every other alliance trying to get higher didn’t invest units and time and effort. What makes what you have invested special?
If you’re getting Gold 1 with 4*s on defense and 5* R4s on attack, then you’ll most probably be losing a few wars until you get opponents using 5* R4s on attack and have 4*s on defense too.
all i hear here is "i have had many many many many seasons of unfair advantage gifting me rewards well beyond what i deserve. i know that others have been getting well below what they deserve but i don't care. i want i want i want.... you can't take away from me. you cant put me lower where i belong, getting lesser rewards. ... cry cry cry i am entitled and want everything without effort and don't care that those who put effort are getting nothing..."
This isn’t true. We invested tousands of units in every damn season to get higher, ranked up the heros needed to get even higher. We always got alliances with the same or higher war and overall rating, we beet the **** out of them, end landed in g1 for two seasons continuisly. And that is I call investment. We did it with 5r4 and still some 4r5 defenders, maximal diversity, and so on. Now, everything is down in the dust bin, because after a while you cannot compete with the alliances, where every def hero is at least 5r5 or 6r2, and on attack they got 6r3 heroes. Okay, we should not be there like any analogy sais, but i think it is still unfair to get only such alliances es an opponent. Sorry!
You’re talking as though every other alliance trying to get higher didn’t invest units and time and effort. What makes what you have invested special?
If you’re getting Gold 1 with 4*s on defense and 5* R4s on attack, then you’ll most probably be losing a few wars until you get opponents using 5* R4s on attack and have 4*s on defense too.
I never said, that our efforts and investment was bigger, propably it just felt for us so, where most of the ally members free to play players are. Then every revive boost or potion that cost you unit, hurts a lot.
The problem is: now the bigger alliances need much smaller effort to get higher in ranks faster, where we shall fall back and back and back and then sometimes get again a matching opponent as you said, and if we invest again a lot, then well be able to climb back where we once were.
This is now the compensation for the bigger allies, who spend a lot, to put them high enough where they “should” be. Not funny for us... it feels like a punch in the face. Call me a moron, but i feel like it
all i hear here is "i have had many many many many seasons of unfair advantage gifting me rewards well beyond what i deserve. i know that others have been getting well below what they deserve but i don't care. i want i want i want.... you can't take away from me. you cant put me lower where i belong, getting lesser rewards. ... cry cry cry i am entitled and want everything without effort and don't care that those who put effort are getting nothing..."
This isn’t true. We invested tousands of units in every damn season to get higher, ranked up the heros needed to get even higher. We always got alliances with the same or higher war and overall rating, we beet the **** out of them, end landed in g1 for two seasons continuisly. And that is I call investment. We did it with 5r4 and still some 4r5 defenders, maximal diversity, and so on. Now, everything is down in the dust bin, because after a while you cannot compete with the alliances, where every def hero is at least 5r5 or 6r2, and on attack they got 6r3 heroes. Okay, we should not be there like any analogy sais, but i think it is still unfair to get only such alliances es an opponent. Sorry!
You’re talking as though every other alliance trying to get higher didn’t invest units and time and effort. What makes what you have invested special?
If you’re getting Gold 1 with 4*s on defense and 5* R4s on attack, then you’ll most probably be losing a few wars until you get opponents using 5* R4s on attack and have 4*s on defense too.
I never said, that our efforts and investment was bigger, propably it just felt for us so, where most of the ally members free to play players are. Then every revive boost or potion that cost you unit, hurts a lot.
The problem is: now the bigger alliances need much smaller effort to get higher in ranks faster, where we shall fall back and back and back and then sometimes get again a matching opponent as you said, and if we invest again a lot, then well be able to climb back where we once were.
This is now the compensation for the bigger allies, who spend a lot, to put them high enough where they “should” be. Not funny for us... it feels like a punch in the face. Call me a moron, but i feel like it
Once the system evens out everyone will reach a point where they would typically win 50% of their wars, there will be outliers of course, but no matter how big or small your alliance is, you’ll fall or rise to a point where you win 1, lose 1 typically.
all i hear here is "i have had many many many many seasons of unfair advantage gifting me rewards well beyond what i deserve. i know that others have been getting well below what they deserve but i don't care. i want i want i want.... you can't take away from me. you cant put me lower where i belong, getting lesser rewards. ... cry cry cry i am entitled and want everything without effort and don't care that those who put effort are getting nothing..."
This isn’t true. We invested tousands of units in every damn season to get higher, ranked up the heros needed to get even higher. We always got alliances with the same or higher war and overall rating, we beet the **** out of them, end landed in g1 for two seasons continuisly. And that is I call investment. We did it with 5r4 and still some 4r5 defenders, maximal diversity, and so on. Now, everything is down in the dust bin, because after a while you cannot compete with the alliances, where every def hero is at least 5r5 or 6r2, and on attack they got 6r3 heroes. Okay, we should not be there like any analogy sais, but i think it is still unfair to get only such alliances es an opponent. Sorry!
you are a smaller alliance, after a little bit of tough matches you will drop to where you belong and get appropriat matches. simple as that. an alliance that is still tiny and using 4* defenders does not belong up in the realm of gold 1.... lets be real here..... you wanna get the big boy rewards you gotta have a big boy ally..... gold 3 maybe is where you belong at best....
Don't know why you guys are poking him unnecessarily. Anyone have any idea for shells? I think there was a idea that if more that 15 members change, we could guess they are shelling. What to do though? Disqualify both the source and destination alliance for 1 season?
@Gmonkey that Number up and down is entirely dependant on war rating, If you match a higher war rating opponent and Beat them, you get a bigger bonus to your war rating than if you beat a weaker war rated team than you, I’ve never thought it was very fair for the underdog, if they lose they don’t drop much war rating and so don’t get a better chance for a weaker opponent next time, it is designed to always favour the winner in that regard so underdog winners can move up faster to the appropriate skill level
I just wanted to share this ... I run a laid back, 32M semi-retirement alliance and we hardly ever war because it’s frankly terrible and hardly anyone likes it ... but, when we do, it’s a single BG.
Anyway, this is who we were matched up with this week:
Easy win for us, yes - but it isn’t cool and doesn’t feel good to win a war like this.
I haven’t read through every post, but I’m assuming this is some kind of unintentional byproduct of halving everyone’s war rating ... ?
Hoping it eventually balances out, because we should not have been matched with these guys.
Yikes, I feel for those guys. It was not a result of halfing the war rating, it is working as "intended".
Don't know why you guys are poking him unnecessarily. Anyone have any idea for shells? I think there was a idea that if more that 15 members change, we could guess they are shelling. What to do though? Disqualify both the source and destination alliance for 1 season?
Poking would imply looking for a response from him. I am not.
Sorry, that was not aimed at anyone in particular. I realized that above a certain point, both sides have good points, the only problem is we need to admit it to ourselves that the other side also has a valid point and need to let go.
@Kabam Miike Can you guys at least acknowledge this issue. This is the worst alliance war season ever. Alliances are getting matched with opponents twice their size. Also the map has some of the worst combination of nodes I have seen so far.
Comments
The last one is our alliance. It looks much mich more fair like an 5m taking on a 34m, but still this whole process is making so much effort and resources go lost, it just doesn’t feel right. Yeah, I know, I just keep on crying...
I think we all know the reason why.
If you’re getting Gold 1 with 4*s on defense and 5* R4s on attack, then you’ll most probably be losing a few wars until you get opponents using 5* R4s on attack and have 4*s on defense too.
The problem is: now the bigger alliances need much smaller effort to get higher in ranks faster, where we shall fall back and back and back and then sometimes get again a matching opponent as you said, and if we invest again a lot, then well be able to climb back where we once were.
This is now the compensation for the bigger allies, who spend a lot, to put them high enough where they “should” be. Not funny for us... it feels like a punch in the face. Call me a moron, but i feel like it
simple as that. an alliance that is still tiny and using 4* defenders does not belong up in the realm of gold 1....
lets be real here.....
you wanna get the big boy rewards you gotta have a big boy ally.....
gold 3 maybe is where you belong at best....
Number up and down is entirely dependant on war rating,
If you match a higher war rating opponent and Beat them, you get a bigger bonus to your war rating than if you beat a weaker war rated team than you, I’ve never thought it was very fair for the underdog, if they lose they don’t drop much war rating and so don’t get a better chance for a weaker opponent next time, it is designed to always favour the winner in that regard so underdog winners can move up faster to the appropriate skill level