Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
You’re leaning towards equity whilst it should be more towards equality.
Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
Bigger alliances want equality of competition, which is exactly what we will have once the transition settles everyone into where they belong. Imagine working in a company and asking for equal pay as someone who has been there for 30 years when you are just starting out. Oh, the toxicity of that 30 year veteran of the company for saying no, it doesn't work that way. And imagine the 4th grader asking to graduate high school because he was able to pass all his tests in 4th grade. The principal better prepare for a lawsuit if he says no.
We want you to be able yo play weaker alliances at your level. But don't expect platinum or masters rewards for it.
No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.
Same tier, same war rating both G2, if they get thrashed well they shouldn't be there in the first place, how did they get there? By not fighting the alliances who get worse rewards than them and would crush them, yet they get better rewards? That makes no sense, at the end of this season alliances will be where they are supposed to be whether that is P3, G3 or S3.
Everyone wants to argue the "better" point but no responses to the point of if you are a good bigger alliance shouldnt you be able to beat up on similar size alliances and get the rewards you feel you deserve..
Because that’s how you think war works. It’s not.
War isn’t about who can beat up the most evenly matched team the most times. It’s about who has the strongest and most skilled team.
Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
The higher level alliances are getting shafted in terms of rewards because war was not based on war rating which should have been for the last 10 seasons, while smaller allies are able to get a "bye" and match only small alliances which provide little to no competition, instead of having to fight for their place in G1/P4 they end up bypassing all the big alliances that would crush them. Low effort for greater rewards is simply not fair and at the end of the season every alliance will find their "true" war rating.
Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
All you do is post that picture and cry about supposedly being bullied by bigger alliances.
The ONLY viable AW system is more in line with equality. You are begging for equity which is a terrible thing for a competitive game mode.
Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
Bigger alliances want equality of competition, which is exactly what we will have once the transition settles everyone into where they belong. Imagine working in a company and asking for equal pay as someone who has been there for 30 years when you are just starting out. Oh, the toxicity of that 30 year veteran of the company for saying no, it doesn't work that way. And imagine the 4th grader asking to graduate high school because he was able to pass all his tests in 4th grade. The principal better prepare for a lawsuit if he says no.
We want you to be able yo play weaker alliances at your level. But don't expect platinum or masters rewards for it.
No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.
You have. You said they earned their rewards by winning the wars at their level. Which also implies merit to that system, which opens up counterarguments to the system. But regardless, you have said they earned those rewards.
What's already taken place? Yes. They earned them. That's what happened. We can't argue they didn't earn them because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have in the system that wasn't being used. I explained how they got them.
Do you yourself understand your argument? You believe the last system was fair, and you're not against the new system supposedly. So all we need to do is wait until everyone lands where they're supposed to be in the new system and sing kumbaya.
I feel bad for the small alliances right now too, but hopefully that will end soon. But your arguments have indicate you're still unsettled with what may happen after.
I usually do understand my own argument. I said they earned their Rewards fairly. They played the system as it was, and earned their spot. They didn't cheat or coerce their outcome in any way. They placed their Matches and fought. They didn't willfully or even subversively manipulate the system. They played the game. I've already agreed the Rewards needed to be realigned. I didn't agree that it should have been done this way. It's really dissociative to keep brushing off their complaints when we all know what they're complaining about, by saying it will all be better in the end. That end isn't here and they're complaining about the effects of this.
The complaints need to be brushed off because they are not valid. The effects are you losing rewards, both individual war rewards and seasonal rewards. That’s what the affected alliances are complaining about. You saying it’s about something else is not true, because it boils down to want you get for playing wars. This argument is about trying to hold on to as much as you can.
Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
Bigger alliances want equality of competition, which is exactly what we will have once the transition settles everyone into where they belong. Imagine working in a company and asking for equal pay as someone who has been there for 30 years when you are just starting out. Oh, the toxicity of that 30 year veteran of the company for saying no, it doesn't work that way. And imagine the 4th grader asking to graduate high school because he was able to pass all his tests in 4th grade. The principal better prepare for a lawsuit if he says no.
We want you to be able yo play weaker alliances at your level. But don't expect platinum or masters rewards for it.
No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.
You have. You said they earned their rewards by winning the wars at their level. Which also implies merit to that system, which opens up counterarguments to the system. But regardless, you have said they earned those rewards.
What's already taken place? Yes. They earned them. That's what happened. We can't argue they didn't earn them because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have in the system that wasn't being used. I explained how they got them.
Do you yourself understand your argument? You believe the last system was fair, and you're not against the new system supposedly. So all we need to do is wait until everyone lands where they're supposed to be in the new system and sing kumbaya.
I feel bad for the small alliances right now too, but hopefully that will end soon. But your arguments have indicate you're still unsettled with what may happen after.
I usually do understand my own argument. I said they earned their Rewards fairly. They played the system as it was, and earned their spot. They didn't cheat or coerce their outcome in any way. They placed their Matches and fought. They didn't willfully or even subversively manipulate the system. They played the game. I've already agreed the Rewards needed to be realigned. I didn't agree that it should have been done this way. It's really dissociative to keep brushing off their complaints when we all know what they're complaining about, by saying it will all be better in the end. That end isn't here and they're complaining about the effects of this.
Against my better judgement I'll comment one final time.
When you say they I suppose you are referring to smaller alliances. And in general I'm assuming you are correct. However, I can absolutely assure you that it does NOT include all of them.
If you think an alliance with 8-10 boss killers and 20-22 puny 3-4k accounts were just teaching newbs how to "git gud" I have a bridge for sale.
I know this because my alt was in one of those allys. It was very early on as well so this has been around for quite some time. Almost since the change to be honest. I left once I understood what was going on but how many didn't?
Yes technically it's not cheating, but it certainly isn't fair play either.
So yeah, when people say smaller allys don't belong where they are, it absolutely applies to some. And more than you might think.
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.
That's unfortunately a much trickier problem to solve. After a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that one way to address this is to replace alliance war rating with player war rating, and use some mathematical gyration to create a composite alliance war rating score. However, this seemed to be the worst possible moment to post an article describing it.
I suspect this would be enough to get the gist across for anyone interested. Pretend you're an alliance of one, and every time your alliance wins you win, and every time your alliance loses you lose. Adjust your rating as if you alone faced the other alliance. Make the alliance war rating the average of the members. If everyone has been together forever, this is indistinguishable from the current system. If everyone jumps to a shell, the shell instantly gets the same rating they had before. And if just one (or a few) people jump to a new alliance, their ratings will converge over time to the alliance they moved to.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There are ways to address that, but they venture into mathy territory. Also, at some point you have to let *some* manipulation sort of just happen, because ironically any attempt to make a fairer rating system will inevitably redefine some things currently seen as exploitable as normal.
An example might be necessary. Imagine an alliance with half the members super strong and the other half very weak. If I present the narrative that this is an alliance with super strong players that recruited a bunch of weak players just to manipulate their rating downward you'd probably say that's exploitive and their rating shouldn't change just because it added those weaker players. But what if the reverse happened: the super strong players all joined the weaker alliance to try to appropriate that lower rating. Now you'd say that was also exploitive and would want the alliance's rating to jump upward with those additions. But in the general case, you're not going to know what the narrative is. The game is just going to see an alliance composed of players and will have to take some action based on that.
The problem is the definition of rating is tied to the alliance, not to the players. That's why when players join an alliance the alliance's rating doesn't change. It is blind to the composition of the alliance, only to the win/loss record of the alliance. If we change that to say that alliance rating should be some composite of the members, then in a sense it isn't cheating to replace a strong member with a weak one to get a lower rating, because the system implies that having a weaker player is the reasonable cost for slightly lower rating.
But of course, in the real world there are all sorts of edge cases. Quite a few, each requiring some additional guardrails to prevent exploiting extremes. But I think they are all addressable.
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.
That's unfortunately a much trickier problem to solve. After a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that one way to address this is to replace alliance war rating with player war rating, and use some mathematical gyration to create a composite alliance war rating score. However, this seemed to be the worst possible moment to post an article describing it.
I suspect this would be enough to get the gist across for anyone interested. Pretend you're an alliance of one, and every time your alliance wins you win, and every time your alliance loses you lose. Adjust your rating as if you alone faced the other alliance. Make the alliance war rating the average of the members. If everyone has been together forever, this is indistinguishable from the current system. If everyone jumps to a shell, the shell instantly gets the same rating they had before. And if just one (or a few) people jump to a new alliance, their ratings will converge over time to the alliance they moved to.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
Consider all of the 6k prestige alliances. One of them is the weakest, call that alliance W. Now imagine this alliance's members decide to form a new alliance. They don't have a historical rating so their numerical rating is zero. Now imagine they get matched by prestige "until a certain war rating is achieved." Whatever that rating is likely to be they will never reach it. I picked the weakest alliance, so they are going to lose more often than they win when matched against other 6k prestige alliances. So their rating will never rise very far above zero. This alliance is now permanently stuck losing more wars than they win because this hypothetical system is sentencing them to face alliances of the same prestige instead of alliances of the same strength. Indefinitely.
Any system that matches using any metric that isn't influenced by win/loss record always has a variation of this problem. When you can't win your way out of your situation and you can't *lose* your way out either, bad things inevitably happen. In the current system, no bad situation lasts long. That's why these systems are so commonplace. They recognize that mismatches are inevitable simply because we never have perfect knowledge of who's stronger and who's weaker. But the system very quickly resorts everyone to the correct rating. But any system not directly influenced by wins and losses can't use that information to self correct. When it makes a mistake, that mistake is forever.
Picture says it all and if this thing has become so much toxic from so called larger alliances with hate they showing against smaller ones and telling to put them in their place surely we are not in spirit of game here.
Bigger alliances want equality of competition, which is exactly what we will have once the transition settles everyone into where they belong. Imagine working in a company and asking for equal pay as someone who has been there for 30 years when you are just starting out. Oh, the toxicity of that 30 year veteran of the company for saying no, it doesn't work that way. And imagine the 4th grader asking to graduate high school because he was able to pass all his tests in 4th grade. The principal better prepare for a lawsuit if he says no.
We want you to be able yo play weaker alliances at your level. But don't expect platinum or masters rewards for it.
No one is arguing for the Rewards. Not once has one of the Allies even mentioned them. They want Wars they can actually have a chance in. That's about it.
You have. You said they earned their rewards by winning the wars at their level. Which also implies merit to that system, which opens up counterarguments to the system. But regardless, you have said they earned those rewards.
What's already taken place? Yes. They earned them. That's what happened. We can't argue they didn't earn them because they didn't have the Wars they didn't have in the system that wasn't being used. I explained how they got them.
Do you yourself understand your argument? You believe the last system was fair, and you're not against the new system supposedly. So all we need to do is wait until everyone lands where they're supposed to be in the new system and sing kumbaya.
I feel bad for the small alliances right now too, but hopefully that will end soon. But your arguments have indicate you're still unsettled with what may happen after.
I usually do understand my own argument. I said they earned their Rewards fairly. They played the system as it was, and earned their spot.
What you just said was blah blah blah until you can answer DNA's question on fairness. Still waiting.
If you have an argument, make one. If you're using someone else's to try and call me out, you're fishing with cow bells on your lure.
Why? So you can ignore that too? More blah blah blah. DNA challenged your notion of fairness. You dodged it both times. My argument is that you were refuted, you are now ignoring that uncomfortable fact, and you continue to make the same point despite the refutation. It is not necessary or reasonable to demand that I restate DNA's argument. I'm not fishing at all, this is how debates and discussions on public platforms work. Until you answer DNA you need to stop making the fairness argument. Continuing to do so is being a troll.
Oh, just stop. You keep trying to bait me with someone else's argument that I've already responded to by explaining my stance on how they earned them fairly.
What? DNA's question was in response to your position on how they were earned fairly. You didn't respond so he asked you again point blank. You didn't respond again. I just looked back over the thread. On page 43 DNA pointed out, while refuting your other points, that you still hadn't answered his question on fairness. On page 44 you told him you had to agree to disagree, again without answering the question. I started pointing out that you still hadn't answered it on page 48. And here we are. You dealt with the horns of the dilemma by ignoring them lol.
They played the old system. Within that, they earned what they earned and they did it fairly. There was no kind of manipulation to gain an unfair advantage. No kind of cheating or willful bypass of anything to get unfair Rewards. They played their Wars and had more Wins, therefore more Points.
Everything you've said here will apply to the new system. Higher war rating, harder wars. Harder wars, more points. More points, better rewards. What's the issue again?
This is one of the best changes ever - was rating should be absolute.
Was very unfair having small alliances win easy matches and getting high rewards.
Let's ignore who benefited and who didn't and just ask what we want from a fair rating system. A fair rating system should have three properties:
1. Equivalence. If two alliances have the same rating, they should have roughly the same strength. Self explanatory.
2. Ordinality. If alliance A has higher rating than alliance B, alliance A is also stronger than alliance B. The greater the difference, the greater the strength difference. Also self explanatory.
3. Transitivity. If alliance A has higher rating than alliance B, then given a mutual set of competition A will win at a higher percentage than B. In other words, if A and B both face a set of opponents XYZ, A will generally have a higher win percentage than B.
They probably all sound good, but they aren't just nice to have properties. There's a reason why they are important to the overall fairness of the competition. We award higher rewards to alliances that score more points, and we presume that if an alliance scores more points it is because they did more to do so (Ordinality). The multipliers try to enforce that: higher war ratings equals higher multipliers. Which is fine if higher war ratings equals stronger alliances who demonstrated that strength by winning more often against comparable competition (Transitivity). But if that's not the case, because different alliances with the same rating don't have the same strength and don't face comparable competition (Equivalence) then we aren't tying rewards to actual war performance. Alliances that do more aren't necessarily getting more rewards.
In the current system, all three are true, or at least the system tries to converge to a state where all three are true. In the old system, all three were false, and not even goals of the system.
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.
That's unfortunately a much trickier problem to solve. After a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that one way to address this is to replace alliance war rating with player war rating, and use some mathematical gyration to create a composite alliance war rating score. However, this seemed to be the worst possible moment to post an article describing it.
I suspect this would be enough to get the gist across for anyone interested. Pretend you're an alliance of one, and every time your alliance wins you win, and every time your alliance loses you lose. Adjust your rating as if you alone faced the other alliance. Make the alliance war rating the average of the members. If everyone has been together forever, this is indistinguishable from the current system. If everyone jumps to a shell, the shell instantly gets the same rating they had before. And if just one (or a few) people jump to a new alliance, their ratings will converge over time to the alliance they moved to.
@DNA3000 I did suggest this and I was told that some alliances could just recruit low war rated players and get easy matches. There was also a suggestion for preventing shifting off-season. From what I think , may be reduce the points you get during off-season or simply have prestige based matched off season and war rating based matched on-season. Freeze more tiers, like till tier 10 all are options that we need to explore and argue about the pros and cons instead of arguing the same thing which is not helping the higher tiers or lower tiers
There's also the possibility of using Prestige until a certain War Rating is achieved, but at this point I'm just saying freeze it all. Install an allowance for Allies to start out from 0, and freeze all progress until the Season. If we're going to have to go through this, then don't let it be for nothing.
Consider all of the 6k prestige alliances. One of them is the weakest, call that alliance W. Now imagine this alliance's members decide to form a new alliance. They don't have a historical rating so their numerical rating is zero. Now imagine they get matched by prestige "until a certain war rating is achieved." Whatever that rating is likely to be they will never reach it. I picked the weakest alliance, so they are going to lose more often than they win when matched against other 6k prestige alliances. So their rating will never rise very far above zero. This alliance is now permanently stuck losing more wars than they win because this hypothetical system is sentencing them to face alliances of the same prestige instead of alliances of the same strength. Indefinitely.
Any system that matches using any metric that isn't influenced by win/loss record always has a variation of this problem. When you can't win your way out of your situation and you can't *lose* your way out either, bad things inevitably happen. In the current system, no bad situation lasts long. That's why these systems are so commonplace. They recognize that mismatches are inevitable simply because we never have perfect knowledge of who's stronger and who's weaker. But the system very quickly resorts everyone to the correct rating. But any system not directly influenced by wins and losses can't use that information to self correct. When it makes a mistake, that mistake is forever.
The same applies for a system that is manipulated by Players who alter their War Rating and jump below. It no longer reflects their skill or abilities. Which is why I considered protecting Alliances who aren't as strong from being bamboozled by Matches, but I agree after the prolonged effects that it's just best to stick with War Rating. However, unless the possibility of any manipulation is alleviated by locking all War Ratings, it doesn't have my full trust. Locking Tiers 1-5 is only a partial solution.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
We're not talking about not being able to beat them because of skill. We're talking about being so overmatched, it's not possible.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
We're not talking about not being able to beat them because of skill. We're talking about being so overmatched, it's not possible.
'It's not possible'. You keep saying that, but that's false.
Show me a 6 Mil Alliance that can beat a 40 Mil and I'll withdraw the comment.
We can stop pretending it's possible on a technicality. We all knew full well these Alliances weren't going to win. That was the whole basis for people wanting to flip the switch. I'm not arguing that water isn't wet, just liquid.
That’s like saying I did the 6* arena with 3*s and did the same number of fights as a top 10 player in the game with a 100 6*s and saying it’s not fair just because they have a bigger roster.
If they have invested the time, money and resources into then yes they deserve the win.
You get rewarded for what you put into the game not just the one fight.
How much you play the game, the decisions on who and how you rank they should absolutely all play a part in deciding the winner.
The game used to have brackets like in AQ and it was an unnecessary complication.
We can stop pretending it's possible on a technicality. We all knew full well these Alliances weren't going to win. That was the whole basis for people wanting to flip the switch. I'm not arguing that water isn't wet, just liquid.
I’ve never seen a 3rd place that couldn’t take on a 20th place. You’re gonna have to do better. Because teams are evenly matched based on their ranking.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
We're not talking about not being able to beat them because of skill. We're talking about being so overmatched, it's not possible.
'It's not possible'. You keep saying that, but that's false.
Show me a 6 Mil Alliance that can beat a 40 Mil and I'll withdraw the comment.
2 words: 1 battlegroup
Not at all what we were talking about.
What? You just said show me a 6m ally that can beat a 40m alliance and I just did? Your point?
We were talking about using 3 BGs which was understood based on what we're discussing. People are selling bags of fertilizer and I'm not buying. These higher Alliances knew the lower ones had no chance. That was the whole point of their argument to switch it back. They didn't say, "Hey. They might win. Let's see.". Honestly, if we're going to talk about it, then call it what it is.
You change the narrative everytime to insult stronger alliances for wanting a fair system. That right there is why you haven’t been able to convince anybody of your side. I honestly don’t know why you are still here. Nobody is siding with you and it’s obvious by the disagrees you get.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
We're not talking about not being able to beat them because of skill. We're talking about being so overmatched, it's not possible.
'It's not possible'. You keep saying that, but that's false.
Show me a 6 Mil Alliance that can beat a 40 Mil and I'll withdraw the comment.
2 words: 1 battlegroup
Not at all what we were talking about.
What? You just said show me a 6m ally that can beat a 40m alliance and I just did? Your point?
We were talking about using 3 BGs which was understood based on what we're discussing. People are selling bags of fertilizer and I'm not buying. These higher Alliances knew the lower ones had no chance. That was the whole point of their argument to switch it back. They didn't say, "Hey. They might win. Let's see.". Honestly, if we're going to talk about it, then call it what it is.
Fine I'll give another example then, just for you. 6 million/30 = 200k hero rating average per member. People can also can sell champs to deflate BHR. Throw a bunch of those guys in an ally and play well and you have a W.
I said give an example of a 6 Mill Ally that can beat a 40 Mil. You and I both know it's not happening.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
We're not talking about not being able to beat them because of skill. We're talking about being so overmatched, it's not possible.
'It's not possible'. You keep saying that, but that's false.
Show me a 6 Mil Alliance that can beat a 40 Mil and I'll withdraw the comment.
2 words: 1 battlegroup
Not at all what we were talking about.
What? You just said show me a 6m ally that can beat a 40m alliance and I just did? Your point?
We were talking about using 3 BGs which was understood based on what we're discussing. People are selling bags of fertilizer and I'm not buying. These higher Alliances knew the lower ones had no chance. That was the whole point of their argument to switch it back. They didn't say, "Hey. They might win. Let's see.". Honestly, if we're going to talk about it, then call it what it is.
Fine I'll give another example then, just for you. 6 million/30 = 200k hero rating average per member. People can also can sell champs to deflate BHR. Throw a bunch of those guys in an ally and play well and you have a W.
I said give an example of a 6 Mill Ally that can beat a 40 Mil. You and I both know it's not happening.
See previous comment. If you want me to find an actual ally like that in game, I'll try.
If you want to completely disregard the point I made just to go on a mission, be my guest. Show me proof of a 6 Mil Ally that beat a 40 Mil that wasn't Tanking.
The current state now ultimately means if you can beat an opponent you move up if you can’t you move down.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
We're not talking about not being able to beat them because of skill. We're talking about being so overmatched, it's not possible.
What's the point?
Let's go all the way with this. To be frank, if you think no 6 million alliance can beat no 40 million alliance, you're wrong. But let's go all the way. No 100k alliance can beat any 40 million alliance, not even if the 100k alliance has the best players that exist and the 40 million alliance is played by blind people. Done.
What this means is the 100k alliance should have absolutely no shot at the same rewards as the 40 million alliance. There should be zero overlap in their competition under normal circumstances. No sane person would argue that the 100k alliance should be able to place higher than the 40 million alliance under *any* circumstances.
And yet, it was mathematically possible for the 100k alliance to actually score more points than any other alliance including the 40 million alliance under the old system. It would take extreme conditions, but it was mathematically possible. Points are given out based on multiplier and wins. If the 100k alliance *only* faced other 100k alliances and beat them all, the 100k alliance could theoretically reach any war rating. They do not need to face anyone else except other 100k alliances to get 3000 rating: the game doesn't limit your rating in that way. So *if* they just won war after war against nothing but other 100k alliances, any rating is possible. And if their rating grew to be higher than all other alliances, they would have the top multiplier. Having the top multiplier and winning all your wars pretty much guarantees you a Master spot, if not the top spot.
This is completely broken. We've just demonstrated that an alliance hopelessly outmatched against literally all of the competition above them can nevertheless shoot right past all of them without having to face any of them and grab the top spot in seasons, simply because they can claim to "always fight fair fights against equal competition."
Under the current system, no such thing can occur, but also that 100k alliance will never face anything close to the 40 million alliance ever, because in the current system war rating means something, and those two alliances will never have the same rating, and thus will never match. This is only happening now (to a lesser extent) because the old system *broke* rating, and actually forcing all alliances that claim to have the same rating fight each other is the only way to fix it.
The current system forces all alliances that claim to have the same rating actually have about the same strength. Because it does that, it *protects* alliances from huge mismatches, at least when it functions properly and when no cheating occurs. And that disclaimer is necessary only because all match systems, including the previous one, are vulnerable to some kind of manipulation and susceptible to bugs of implementation.
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.
But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.
None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.
If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.
But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.
But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.
None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.
If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.
But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
Unfortunately that's my point. It's not really because they fought their way up like that. One Season they had fair Matches and the next they were getting stonewalled. Would I be against them? No. I think there are also limitations to how far an Alliance can go in this system as well, and they would plateau much sooner than reaching a 40 Mil.
Comments
War isn’t about who can beat up the most evenly matched team the most times. It’s about who has the strongest and most skilled team.
The ONLY viable AW system is more in line with equality. You are begging for equity which is a terrible thing for a competitive game mode.
I've already agreed the Rewards needed to be realigned. I didn't agree that it should have been done this way.
It's really dissociative to keep brushing off their complaints when we all know what they're complaining about, by saying it will all be better in the end. That end isn't here and they're complaining about the effects of this.
When you say they I suppose you are referring to smaller alliances. And in general I'm assuming you are correct. However, I can absolutely assure you that it does NOT include all of them.
If you think an alliance with 8-10 boss killers and 20-22 puny 3-4k accounts were just teaching newbs how to "git gud" I have a bridge for sale.
I know this because my alt was in one of those allys. It was very early on as well so this has been around for quite some time. Almost since the change to be honest. I left once I understood what was going on but how many didn't?
Yes technically it's not cheating, but it certainly isn't fair play either.
So yeah, when people say smaller allys don't belong where they are, it absolutely applies to some. And more than you might think.
Was very unfair having small alliances win easy matches and getting high rewards.
An example might be necessary. Imagine an alliance with half the members super strong and the other half very weak. If I present the narrative that this is an alliance with super strong players that recruited a bunch of weak players just to manipulate their rating downward you'd probably say that's exploitive and their rating shouldn't change just because it added those weaker players. But what if the reverse happened: the super strong players all joined the weaker alliance to try to appropriate that lower rating. Now you'd say that was also exploitive and would want the alliance's rating to jump upward with those additions. But in the general case, you're not going to know what the narrative is. The game is just going to see an alliance composed of players and will have to take some action based on that.
The problem is the definition of rating is tied to the alliance, not to the players. That's why when players join an alliance the alliance's rating doesn't change. It is blind to the composition of the alliance, only to the win/loss record of the alliance. If we change that to say that alliance rating should be some composite of the members, then in a sense it isn't cheating to replace a strong member with a weak one to get a lower rating, because the system implies that having a weaker player is the reasonable cost for slightly lower rating.
But of course, in the real world there are all sorts of edge cases. Quite a few, each requiring some additional guardrails to prevent exploiting extremes. But I think they are all addressable.
Any system that matches using any metric that isn't influenced by win/loss record always has a variation of this problem. When you can't win your way out of your situation and you can't *lose* your way out either, bad things inevitably happen. In the current system, no bad situation lasts long. That's why these systems are so commonplace. They recognize that mismatches are inevitable simply because we never have perfect knowledge of who's stronger and who's weaker. But the system very quickly resorts everyone to the correct rating. But any system not directly influenced by wins and losses can't use that information to self correct. When it makes a mistake, that mistake is forever.
1. Equivalence. If two alliances have the same rating, they should have roughly the same strength. Self explanatory.
2. Ordinality. If alliance A has higher rating than alliance B, alliance A is also stronger than alliance B. The greater the difference, the greater the strength difference. Also self explanatory.
3. Transitivity. If alliance A has higher rating than alliance B, then given a mutual set of competition A will win at a higher percentage than B. In other words, if A and B both face a set of opponents XYZ, A will generally have a higher win percentage than B.
They probably all sound good, but they aren't just nice to have properties. There's a reason why they are important to the overall fairness of the competition. We award higher rewards to alliances that score more points, and we presume that if an alliance scores more points it is because they did more to do so (Ordinality). The multipliers try to enforce that: higher war ratings equals higher multipliers. Which is fine if higher war ratings equals stronger alliances who demonstrated that strength by winning more often against comparable competition (Transitivity). But if that's not the case, because different alliances with the same rating don't have the same strength and don't face comparable competition (Equivalence) then we aren't tying rewards to actual war performance. Alliances that do more aren't necessarily getting more rewards.
In the current system, all three are true, or at least the system tries to converge to a state where all three are true. In the old system, all three were false, and not even goals of the system.
This is as it should be.
Unsure how anyone thinks that just because matchmaking didn’t give you an alliance you can beat it’s unfair.
If you are a 15 million alliance been playing 1-2 years and you can’t beat a 30 million alliance with people that have been playing for 5 years it’s pretty obvious the bigger alliance should be ranked higher than you.
It’s not bracketed with different rewards per bracket. War is an absolute contest across all alliances.
Once the dust settles people will all be matching of even skill not even size or prestige - and that is as it should.
If they have invested the time, money and resources into then yes they deserve the win.
You get rewarded for what you put into the game not just the one fight.
How much you play the game, the decisions on who and how you rank they should absolutely all play a part in deciding the winner.
The game used to have brackets like in AQ and it was an unnecessary complication.
Let's go all the way with this. To be frank, if you think no 6 million alliance can beat no 40 million alliance, you're wrong. But let's go all the way. No 100k alliance can beat any 40 million alliance, not even if the 100k alliance has the best players that exist and the 40 million alliance is played by blind people. Done.
What this means is the 100k alliance should have absolutely no shot at the same rewards as the 40 million alliance. There should be zero overlap in their competition under normal circumstances. No sane person would argue that the 100k alliance should be able to place higher than the 40 million alliance under *any* circumstances.
And yet, it was mathematically possible for the 100k alliance to actually score more points than any other alliance including the 40 million alliance under the old system. It would take extreme conditions, but it was mathematically possible. Points are given out based on multiplier and wins. If the 100k alliance *only* faced other 100k alliances and beat them all, the 100k alliance could theoretically reach any war rating. They do not need to face anyone else except other 100k alliances to get 3000 rating: the game doesn't limit your rating in that way. So *if* they just won war after war against nothing but other 100k alliances, any rating is possible. And if their rating grew to be higher than all other alliances, they would have the top multiplier. Having the top multiplier and winning all your wars pretty much guarantees you a Master spot, if not the top spot.
This is completely broken. We've just demonstrated that an alliance hopelessly outmatched against literally all of the competition above them can nevertheless shoot right past all of them without having to face any of them and grab the top spot in seasons, simply because they can claim to "always fight fair fights against equal competition."
Under the current system, no such thing can occur, but also that 100k alliance will never face anything close to the 40 million alliance ever, because in the current system war rating means something, and those two alliances will never have the same rating, and thus will never match. This is only happening now (to a lesser extent) because the old system *broke* rating, and actually forcing all alliances that claim to have the same rating fight each other is the only way to fix it.
The current system forces all alliances that claim to have the same rating actually have about the same strength. Because it does that, it *protects* alliances from huge mismatches, at least when it functions properly and when no cheating occurs. And that disclaimer is necessary only because all match systems, including the previous one, are vulnerable to some kind of manipulation and susceptible to bugs of implementation.
But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.
None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.
If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.
But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.