Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.
Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.
They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
I'm confused... How is the element of attack being removed? The "problem" for many is that the element of defense is exponentially increasing in difficulty. That's the complaint right? I mean, that's what any good alliance intends to do to win. I mean, I don't stress over what nodes to drop each specific chosen defender on because I'm hoping for a fair fight.
Removing the element of Attack because these opponents are 3 and 4 times greater in some cases. Which means it's over before they even play it.
same tier, same rating, similar placement, its quite fair, if they get thrashed they simply don't belong there.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
Yes I can, and yes I did. No one is telling customers what you claim they are being told, and anyone who thinks that is what they are being told is someone I probably can't help, and won't go out of my way to help at the expense of the rest of the game.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
Yes I can, and yes I did. No one is telling customers what you claim they are being told, and anyone who thinks that is what they are being told is someone I probably can't help, and won't go out of my way to help at the expense of the rest of the game.
These people have been bringing up their issues since the change, and all people on here have been telling them is, "War Ratings are the same. All is as it should be." You're blind if you can't see that's exactly what they're being told. There's no way for them to win these Matches. That's what they keep bringing up. So their effort is expendable for what you think is for the good of the game.
That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .
Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?
I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.
You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess. As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
So it's about revenge then.
Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.
If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.
You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.
A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place." Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
Monopoly doesn’t apply. They have stronger better champs that they worked to get. If you wanna get ahead of them in the ranks then you are gonna have to do the same thing. Stop insulting everybody for being better than you.
Who's talking about me? I'm not in any of the Alliances in question. You just displayed why monopoly applies. "This is our territory. We earned it. We own it. How dare they come on our turf?"
Yes their argument of “we beat you so we earned this spot” holds more value than your “well it’s not fair because I can beat smaller teams than me”
Years ago, I thought having Seasons would add a new and fun layer to Wars. I liked the idea of having a seasonal competition where people could work towards exclusive Rewards over time. Had I known the mess that greed would have led people to make, I would have broken my fingers before I typed. This is why I'm deeply disappointed. Every step of the way people have fought fairness. The more it continues, the more toxic the game mode becomes.
Seasons are a fun layer to war, the problem is lower level alliances have in a sense exploited the system to get G1/P4 rewards by fighting low level alliances, while the big alliances are stuck in S1/G3. At the end of this season all alliances should be around the level where they are supposed to be. This is the way to make it fair for everyone.
They haven't exploited anything. They Matched their Wars and played them. They don't owe anyone any kind of unfair loss as retribution.
It's all pretty simple then.... Now they get to be matched in their wars in the new improved shiny updated system, play them.... Then let the chips fall where they may.
They haven't exploited anything previously as much as they aren't getting screwed now. You work within the system that's available....at least that's how I've interpreted the same explanation I've been reading for the last 50 pages.
Disagree with that. What's the point of having Wars if you're going to take the element of Attack out of the equation? That's exactly what's happening to them.
You just can't simply accept the fact that what is going on is good for the game, kabam said and I quote "at the end of the season will determine where alliances belong." You need to realize this is what is right for the game.
Alright. Kabam says they're going to discount half your Wars this Season for the betterment of the game. What's your reaction?
We are earning our points back. Some of us are losing here and there. That’s how competitors overcome obstacles in competition. We get better. Crying doesn’t do anything except make you look bad and causes people to avoid you because you disrespect them in the process.
That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .
Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?
I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.
You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess. As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
So it's about revenge then.
Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.
If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.
You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.
A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place." Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
Monopoly doesn’t apply. They have stronger better champs that they worked to get. If you wanna get ahead of them in the ranks then you are gonna have to do the same thing. Stop insulting everybody for being better than you.
Who's talking about me? I'm not in any of the Alliances in question. You just displayed why monopoly applies. "This is our territory. We earned it. We own it. How dare they come on our turf?"
Yes their argument of “we beat you so we earned this spot” holds more value than your “well it’s not fair because I can beat smaller teams than me”
Their argument isn't that they can beat smaller Teams than them. That's the argument of people who are pushing for unfair Matches.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
I don’t know how it can be any simpler, the best alliances should get the best rewards. War rating is the right measurement for that because then everyone regardless of prestige or ratings will face that level of competition. If you are struggling it’s because you don’t belong, you aren’t good enough. If you were, you wouldn’t get stomped, your skill would overcome and shine through. The revamped rewards are endgame level, if you aren’t endgame you don’t belong. You can be low prestige/rating and be an endgame player, but don’t complain about facing other endgame players.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
You don't seem to even be reading what I'm saying because you keep making false claims that are nothing like what I said.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
You don't seem to even be reading what I'm saying because you keep making false claims that are nothing like what I said.
Cite yourself and directly show me where I’m wrong.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
No they warned others for calling GW out
I know they did. I got one when he told me to cite where he said something. I pulled out 3 or 4 of them and got a warning for it. He’s been rudely insulting top players for days and has amazingly not been banned.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
You don't seem to even be reading what I'm saying because you keep making false claims that are nothing like what I said.
Cite yourself and directly show me where I’m wrong.
I didn't alienate anyone. The system was NOT fixed to be fair, just fair in the future. Not ONCE have I said people just pay for their Wins, and that's the second or third time you've accused me of saying that. "I" didn't say "I" deserved more of anything. I said people "deserve" to play a system that doesn't set them up to fail before they can even play the second half. Period.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
No they warned others for calling GW out
I know they did. I got one when he told me to cite where he said something. I pulled out 3 or 4 of them and got a warning for it. He’s been rudely insulting top players for days and has amazingly not been banned.
Weren't you banned on another account before i remember seeing captaincomic
No this is my only account I’ve had. That’s somebody else.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
Like all the high prestige alliances that did aq only because war rewards are ****. A bunch of 10k plus accounts left, but the change is getting more people interested in war.
You mean the ones that said they decided to play AQ because of Defense Tactics?
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
You don't seem to even be reading what I'm saying because you keep making false claims that are nothing like what I said.
Cite yourself and directly show me where I’m wrong.
I didn't alienate anyone. The system was NOT fixed to be fair, just fair in the future. Not ONCE have I said people just pay for their Wins, and that's the second or third time you've accused me of saying that. "I" didn't say "I" deserved more of anything. I said people "deserve" to play a system that doesn't set them up to fail before they can even play the second half. Period.
You said top players have a monopoly on top spots because they pay for them.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
You don't seem to even be reading what I'm saying because you keep making false claims that are nothing like what I said.
Cite yourself and directly show me where I’m wrong.
I didn't alienate anyone. The system was NOT fixed to be fair, just fair in the future. Not ONCE have I said people just pay for their Wins, and that's the second or third time you've accused me of saying that. "I" didn't say "I" deserved more of anything. I said people "deserve" to play a system that doesn't set them up to fail before they can even play the second half. Period.
You said top players have a monopoly on top spots because they pay for them.
You can take things I said and add "pay for them" to it, but that doesn't mean I said it.
This is not the same as a conspiracy theory. This is flat-out ruining their chance to even win, and that affects their Season. You can argue that the Rewards were broken, but you can't argue that this is something that should take place. Not in this way. Just like there are customers at the top, these are also customers who are being told their effort is worth throwing away because they didn't deserve the Wins they won. Tell me, what happens when you alienate people? They walk away.
You alienated stronger alliances for ten seasons. Then they fixed the system to be fair and you cried foul and say they all pay for their wins so you deserve more. Has kabam given you a warning for abuse yet?
No they warned others for calling GW out
I know they did. I got one when he told me to cite where he said something. I pulled out 3 or 4 of them and got a warning for it. He’s been rudely insulting top players for days and has amazingly not been banned.
Weren't you banned on another account before i remember seeing captaincomic
No this is my only account I’ve had. That’s somebody else.
Ok just asking
Yeah I’m never out to cause problems. I’m usually trying to learn new things or help others through things I’ve made it through. But GW has just been really disrespectful and rude to everybody who works hard on the game. And I felt the need to call out his false information before any inexperienced players take him seriously.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .
Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?
I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.
You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess. As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
So it's about revenge then.
Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.
If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.
You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.
A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place." Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
Monopoly doesn’t apply. They have stronger better champs that they worked to get. If you wanna get ahead of them in the ranks then you are gonna have to do the same thing. Stop insulting everybody for being better than you.
Who's talking about me? I'm not in any of the Alliances in question. You just displayed why monopoly applies. "This is our territory. We earned it. We own it. How dare they come on our turf?"
Right... "How dare the champ defend his title! I wanna win!"
That's half the problem. People aren't looking past their own nose. They're playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Based on their OWN experience, they're determining what's easy for others, where they should be, what Rewards they deserve, .
Like when you told everyone who's not lvl 60 that they shouldn't be allowed to do Canadian difficulty?
I didn't tell anyone anything. I said it wasn't an unreasonable requirement.
You pretty much say that. Also according to this you're against the idea of low level alliances being in gold and above aren't you? So the matchmaking fix should rectify that and we all agree with you
No, and no. I'm against placing Alliances in Matches they cannot win because they're overpowered beyond any chance. People are reacting as if I'm fighting for inappropriate Rewards. I've already said the Rewards could have been resolved without this mess. As for the off-topic, I was giving reasons why Kabam would make it Level 60 and up. Wasn't my decision. I still think it's reasonable. No idea why people aren't leveling up before trying the highest Storymode, but that's something that the majority of us have done long ago.
But you can’t figure out why someone would want to grow a stronger roster before war??? Where players who already beat that hardest content are competing to see who is the best?
You don't prove you're the best by taking people out that can't fight back.
Actually that is exactly how you prove you are the best. By beating the others.
No. That's how you prove you can go for low-hanging fruit but don't do so well with people as strong.
They are not low hanging. They are ranked in a high tier. They can’t compete. They will fall to the tier with teams at their level. They are first graders that somehow skipped to 11th grade. Now they are being given 11th grade tests instead of first grade tests. The 11th graders have been getting 11th grade tests this whole time. Those first graders are gonna have to fall back to their grade and learn and grow with time and hard work.
So it's about revenge then.
Chuckle, the word "revenge" underscores the point you've got yourself into a terrible muddle and are now arguing only for the sake of arguing. Moreover, when you do respond, you pick and choose who to respond to and even then its mostly a disingenuous mono-sentence reply. In fact, you skip over everything that illustrates how incorrect you are.
If two alliances have never met it can't be "revenge" by definition. To wit, the problem with the old system was it was allowing weaker alliances to bypass fighting the more potent ones. What's occurring now has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with rebalancing the system to create a level playing field. Conversely, alliances can't pick who they're pitted against, Kabam is the arbiter of that, so your grievances should be aimed at Kabam and not at the players. Indeed, your puerile attempt to be provocative with words has only succeeded in you conceding an own goal.
You constantly use words without understanding their context or definition, such as when you formerly referred to the current situation as a top end "monopoly". Rather than be fastidious, take the time to read and learn the definition of the words you choose to employ and this will avert you repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth. If you want to give this a pejorative tint the term you're looking for is vengeance. However, this isn't an apt description either; this is nothing more than a rebalancing exercise.
A final point; your comment that players shouldn't be Cavalier without achieving a level 60 rank is quite simply daft but not as daft as saying players placing a 4* defence should be entitled to Gold and Platinum rewards and that too without ever facing higher rated alliances. That truly is blinkered and illogical.
You continually address what I say, but you don't really understand what I'm saying. Monopoly is exactly the appropriate word for what's taking place. Certain Alliances think they own spots in the Brackets and it's their responsibility and right to control who can place in them. Revenge would be what's taking place. Under the old system, a few Alliances worked their way up, and now the M.O. is to get back at them for it. "Put them in their place." Having acknowledged the Rewards issue several times, your synopsis is incorrect. People continually say that I'm arguing for lower Alliances to earn above their pay grade, and that means either people aren't reading my words, or just don't care to. I'm talking about what legitimately took place. They earned them. No amount of butthurt can argue with the fact that they earned the Rewards they did. That's a fact. They didn't cheat the system, they didn't jump men like a game of Snakes and Ladders, they played their Wars and won. There's a reason no one is even discussing taking the Rewards they earned. They fought, they earned them. What we have here is an unfair situation that allegedly is supposed to resolve an unfair situation, but everyone got what they got by their own doing. The only difference is, the higher Alliances expect lower ones to pay for it by these Matches that are rendering the entire Season invalid because Matches that are grossly overpowered are not a measure of skill. No matter how much we keep debating what took place, it doesn't justify what they're facing.
Monopoly doesn’t apply. They have stronger better champs that they worked to get. If you wanna get ahead of them in the ranks then you are gonna have to do the same thing. Stop insulting everybody for being better than you.
Who's talking about me? I'm not in any of the Alliances in question. You just displayed why monopoly applies. "This is our territory. We earned it. We own it. How dare they come on our turf?"
Right... "How dare the champ defend his title! I wanna win!"
That entirely depends on how the Champ defends their Title. If it's by pecking off guys too weak to compete, then what kind of competition is that? Besides, that Title lasts two weeks, then it's back to earning it again.
I don't know about you but when a Middle Schooler wants to beat up a First Grader and brags about it, I call it a bully.
You keep posting things like this. For the most part, people are just happy that matchmaking is being fixed. I don't see a whole lot of gloating or glee over beating smaller alliances. Our first two matches were very lopsided in our favor. We commiserated with them. The third war was more reasonable and they cleared the map. I expect the next will be much closer to even, and then probably even after that. 3-5 wars was my guess at the beginning. I'm not sure that warrants 54 pages of you being outraged for the Predicament of the Little Guy and making all kinds of fallacious arguments on their behalf.
The one good I hope comes out of all of this is that next time, when people start claiming that they "deserve" to have all of their matches be with alliances of equal prestige or alliance rating, even if war rating is identical, the rest of the player community won't be as quick to indulge them.
I put a lot of effort into trying to quash silly crystal odds conspiracy myths back in the day. Probably put hundreds of hours into analyzing live streamed crystal openings and performing statistical analysis on a wide range of crystals. But if I'm being honest, what turned the tide on those becoming marginalized was not people like me arguing against them, but rather the people who were arguing in favor of those conspiracy myths. At some point, no one wanted to be on their side.
If I'm being honest at one point I thought adding prestige to the matchmaking might be a good thing to stop people from shell jumping for easy wars against low alliances but as so often happens the cure proved worse than the disease.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Obviously I'm not arguing for absolute even Matches. That wasn't my point when I brought up Prestige, and it's not my point now. There has to be SOME kind of regulatory measure to stop people from getting trampled. No one can logically argue to me that 3 and 4 times the size is reasonable. There has to be at best, a chance to win. Otherwise, War Seasons isn't a competition of performance at all, just a competition of Rosters. War should be judged by what's played on the War field. Not just overpowered to the point that performance is negated.
The problem is, every alliance has a chance to win another, regardless of roster. Like I mentioned many times before, die less, explore more, higher diversity. That’s the “chance” you’re talking about there.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.
Comments
You're blind if you can't see that's exactly what they're being told. There's no way for them to win these Matches. That's what they keep bringing up. So their effort is expendable for what you think is for the good of the game.
I’m directing this question to you and you only.
You mentioned that the new matchmaking system is unfair to low prestige because they don’t have a chance of a fight.
So my question is, how will you deem a matchup “fair”?
That is a VERY subjective term.
To some people, a 10m alliance matching an 11m is a fair match, to others it’s not because the 11m alliance has an advantage. So where do you draw the line on something that is so subjective? 2m? 3m? 0.5m?
The exact same thing can be said of prestige matching. 5k v 6k? 7k?
The problem with your argument is that unless prestige and alliance size (the latter being very easy to manipulate) is exactly the same, which is highly impossible, all matches can be deemed unfair for one party.
Besides, that Title lasts two weeks, then it's back to earning it again.
And once again, “reasonable” “at best” “chance to win” are terms that are subjective.
The moment you bring subjectivity in, you will have to admit that not all parties will be happy or find it reasonable.
The war rating system does just that, solving the subjectivity issue. And in my culture, there’s this saying “You might as well suffer a short pain than a long one”, which is exactly why Kabam implemented by compressing war ratings.
We know that lower alliances were gonna fall in rankings, no matter what. Now you have a choice of whether they are going to fall slowly, or fall hard and fast.
What you want is some way to cushion the fall to make it less painful. Multipliers aside, a LLLWLLLWLLLW season for them, will equate to 6 drops in war ratings. This is exactly the same as LLLLLLWLWL, or LLWLLWLLWLLL, whatever it is. So the net effect on these lower alliances in one season is the same. Therefore, we can put no consideration to that.
Now, let’s add in the factor of Tier multipliers. Since it’s fair to the lower alliances given the end result, the additional consideration will be the alliances above them. Which is more fair to them? Having the lower alliances milk the higher multipliers more which results in arbitrarily boosting their season scores, or get them in the correct tier as soon as possible so they get to compete fairly and have as little disruption to the rankings as possible?
This is why your argument about needing to cushion the fall holds no weight. It just doesn’t see the big picture.