The Fair/unfair Matchmaking.

This content has been removed.

I think that alliance rating should not count when in the higher levels because you need to earn your spot even if it means going against an alliance that has 30 mil more threat level

No, but there should be something preventing lower Alliances from getting trampled with Matches like we've seen.

This content has been removed.

I think that alliance rating should not count when in the higher levels because you need to earn your spot even if it means going against an alliance that has 30 mil more threat level
No, but there should be something preventing lower Alliances from getting trampled with Matches like we've seen.
No its fine right now if they cant beat the opponent than they can always go against another one that could possibly be easier

It's not fine when a 6 Mil Ally comes up against a 40 Mil, or a 1 Mil comes up against a 20 Mil.

danielmath

I think that alliance rating should not count when in the higher levels because you need to earn your spot even if it means going against an alliance that has 30 mil more threat level
No, but there should be something preventing lower Alliances from getting trampled with Matches like we've seen.
No its fine right now if they cant beat the opponent than they can always go against another one that could possibly be easier
It's not fine when a 6 Mil Ally comes up against a 40 Mil, or a 1 Mil comes up against a 20 Mil.

it's fine as long as they're going for the same rewards, the 6 mil alliance shouldn't get better rewards then the 40 mil (obviously)

Edeuink

I agree with you OP. The way the matchmaking system used to work was broken. I guess I’ve seen the whole spectrum, and boy did the matchmaker used to be broken.
Alliance #1- 20mil in silver 3, struggling a lot
Was my old alliance, I left because they were failing in aw. We ranked our way to silver 3 in season 17 and watched alliance #2 place higher than us. This is an alliance whose war rating is too low because of prestige matchmaking.
Alliance #2- 5 mil in silver 2, nearly placed silver 1, had a season with only 1 loss.
My alt account’s alliance was consistently placing silver 2, with a lot of different players(new accounts and a few cavaliers). Obviously, every matchup except 1 since the new matchmaking system has been a loss, as we’ve been dwarfed in prestige and struggle to explore the map. This is an alliance whose prestige is too high because of prestige matchmaking.
Alliance #3- 25 mil in gold 1
I went here after I left alliance #1. We managed to get gold 1 in season 18. Since the matchmaking changes, the alliances we’ve faced have similar prestige to us. This alliance has the correct war rating.
In conclusion, I’m glad kabam decided to fix matchmaking, even if season 19 will be a wasted season.

I think that alliance rating should not count when in the higher levels because you need to earn your spot even if it means going against an alliance that has 30 mil more threat level
No, but there should be something preventing lower Alliances from getting trampled with Matches like we've seen.
No its fine right now if they cant beat the opponent than they can always go against another one that could possibly be easier
It's not fine when a 6 Mil Ally comes up against a 40 Mil, or a 1 Mil comes up against a 20 Mil.
it's fine as long as they're going for the same rewards, the 6 mil alliance shouldn't get better rewards then the 40 mil (obviously)

It's not fine. Not at all.

I'm not getting into the back and forth again. I'm just going to say I disagree. Simple as that. There are some Matches that are so overpowered they should not be taking place, no matter what the justification is.

Edeuink

This is an alliance whose prestige is too high because of prestige matchmaking.

*This is an alliance whose war rating is too high because of prestige matchmaking.

Now, before you start spamming disagrees thinking this is another rant about how the new war matchmaking is completely unfair, hear me out. This is just a personal over-view about how it fares for me and my alliance and also a speculation of the perspective many alliances have over this topic.

Our alliance is currently 19m rating with 9k+ prestige. We landed Gold 2 in the previous season. But what I was totally unaware about was there were legit 30-40m alliances who were stuck in Silver for all these years. That’s absolutely mind-blowing and I can’t imagine being in such a position for such a long duration. This is just one of the many unbalanced effects that the previous matchmaking system had brought upon this aspect of the game. Fortunately, the new system will put an end to this and give a deserving spot fo the alliances based on their player’s roster and skill. Like many mid-level alliances like mine who were placed in a wrong tier, currently getting smashed by bigger alliances, I wish the game had assigned a different method to sort this out. Yes, the frustration that the bigger alliances had to face is unprecedented compared to the mild inconvenience we are facing now. But this doesn’t justify the punishment mid-level alliances have to endure when the mistake is not even our’s. The game is solely responsible for having such a broken system for such a long time then fix it in such a way which has brought a feeling of bitterness among many players and alliances. Let’s be honest nobody wants to see thier alliance lose, war after war. It is also actually pathetic to see some players rubbing it in the face of others which is doing nothing but increasing toxicity. And also players who are not ready to accept that the new matchmaking is actually fair no matter what explanation or facts are presented before them. Seems like having words like intellect or insight in your name doesn’t actually give you those qualities ;P

All in all, I hope this gets over soon and we will be fighting alliances who are equal or slightly above than us staying in the spot we deserve. If you think my opinion is wrong or I’m failing to understand things in thier entirety, well there’s always room for improvement.

I get where you’re coming from. The thing is, for simplicity’s sake, let’s assume an alliance’s current war rating is 1,000 and their true war rating is around 500. This means, throughout the Season, they will lose 500 ratings, which is approximately 8 wars out of the 12.

Having these losses come in LLLLLLLLWLWL sequence, or LLLWLLLWLL, or whatever the permutation is, will not soften the blow of needing to have 8 losses to reach their true war rating.

However, by having the losses come earlier and thus reaching the true war rating earlier, the matchups will be balanced earlier. In addition, this prevents alliances with inflated war ratings milk higher multipliers for longer, creating an overall fairer system as a whole.

In a nutshell, there’s no point in prolonging the pain of having to face mismatches and losses. Having it dealt fast and swift is actually the more merciful of the 2 choices. (Kabam even made it less painful by compressing the war ratings so these losses will be fewer in number.)

Hope you understand what I mean.

ItsDamien

I think that alliance rating should not count when in the higher levels because you need to earn your spot even if it means going against an alliance that has 30 mil more threat level
No, but there should be something preventing lower Alliances from getting trampled with Matches like we've seen.
No its fine right now if they cant beat the opponent than they can always go against another one that could possibly be easier
It's not fine when a 6 Mil Ally comes up against a 40 Mil, or a 1 Mil comes up against a 20 Mil.

Which is exactly why it'll eventually balance out. It takes time for thousands of ratings to adjust and settle. It doesn't matter how much you try and advocate for the "little guy" if they're in the same Tier currently as bigger alliances, they can expect to get squashed down.

And just for some extra kick, my alliance has actually gone down in season rank even though we've only lost one war so far, which means that even with the war ratings of these smaller alliance that had inflated ratings, my alliance is getting pushed down further by the inflated small alliances who's ratings are still way above what they should be, even though they're losing way more matches. Eventually those smaller alliances will come across my alliance and probably still get devoured. That's how much of a flawed system the old way was. It's just time to accept that there's going to be a lot of losses until they settle in a bracket in which they are way more suited.

If that's what you believe, that's fine. I disagree. Extreme mismatches shouldn't be taking place. That's how I feel, and I'm not going to accept it happening because people justify it with Rewards.

RakeYoung

I think that alliance rating should not count when in the higher levels because you need to earn your spot even if it means going against an alliance that has 30 mil more threat level
No, but there should be something preventing lower Alliances from getting trampled with Matches like we've seen.
No its fine right now if they cant beat the opponent than they can always go against another one that could possibly be easier
It's not fine when a 6 Mil Ally comes up against a 40 Mil, or a 1 Mil comes up against a 20 Mil.

except it is absolutely fine, since that 6m or 1m ally never had to fight other alliances in the bracket they were previously in, thus earning rewards they didn't deserve and also falsely inflating their egos, believing they were indeed an actual Gold1-2 alliance.

Kabam has done many things people dont agree with and there have been several folks that enjoyed white knighting for Kabam, but for once they've done something fair and I'm glad most players have understood this.

if there are players that feel they deserve those better rewards, they can move on to another ally or perhaps recruit players to replace those that are under-performing.

Thicco_Mode

If they're competing for the spot in a tier, they should be able to matchmake together. whatever way you try to say it or make excuses for yourself, it's the truth. Of course, we know it's going to be a stomp for many alliances, but complaining because you don't get the rewards you used to is just selfish(not talking about you op, just in general)

And op, yeah I agree this method sucks big time for people like you, and they could have done something else. i personally can't think of a way they could do it without it being abused by people, but I'm not very smart in regards to in game stuff like this lol. I think everyone can agree that it isn't your fault that you had an inflated rating and that the game just had a busted system which benefited some and disadvantaged some. I think xnig made a pretty good point about just letting the system work as fast as possible so you can get balanced asap. unfortunately, a lot of people in your alliance are probably going to get frustrated about it. I would just advise to try your best to explain the system and why this is happening, and hopefully the sensible people in your alliance will understand. best of luck to you guys

danielmath

It really just depends on if you fundamentally believe that the order or rewards should be in the order of how well alliances performed or not. The current system is FINALLY (not perfectly) starting that process

DNA3000

Yes, the frustration that the bigger alliances had to face is unprecedented compared to the mild inconvenience we are facing now. But this doesn’t justify the punishment mid-level alliances have to endure when the mistake is not even our’s. The game is solely responsible for having such a broken system for such a long time then fix it in such a way which has brought a feeling of bitterness among many players and alliances.

You're not being punished. This may be hard to see because there are so many moving parts, so let's simplify things a bit and say there are just two alliances, yours and mine. Last season you placed first and I placed second. But then we realize there was a scoring error in the system and when we change the scoring system you start earning far fewer points than you did last season and now I place first and you place second. Are you being "punished?" No, you're now just getting what you were supposed to get. It might *seem* like being punished, because why should you get less rewards this season than last season when it was not your "fault." But it has nothing to do with fault. It has to do with the fact that there can only be one first place winner, and it isn't you.

Here's the more mathy but hopefully still not terribly long explanation. If your alliance had the right rating, you'd be winning about half your wars against roughly equal competition. But if you have a higher rating than you were supposed to, you were getting more points than you were supposed to even if you were still winning 50/50 because your multiplier was higher than it should have been. So the game should drop you down to that proper rating as soon as possible, and ultimately that's going to happen through losses.

Could this have happened "gradually" by some complex mechanism? Let's say there is such a way. In that case you'd have that higher rating for longer, and accumulate more points longer. This benefits you. But because there are only so many places in each war tier and each season bracket, the more points you earn above what you ought to earn, the more you're displacing other alliances downward. If you're in tier 6 but you should be in tier 8, every war you remain in tier 6 is someone in tier 7 that should be in tier 6 and losing that multiplier, and someone in tier 8 that should be in tier 7 and losing that multiplier. You are costing them points, and if that places you into a higher season bracket then you're also costing someone, maybe multiple alliances, rewards.

So to give you a soft landing and make it seem like you aren't being "punished" how slowly do you want the game to gradually lower you, and how many alliances do you want to get lower rewards than they should be getting and for how long, so your alliance can get that softer landing? How much rewards do you want to take out of other player's pockets so you can reduce the change in rewards for your own alliance mates? If you were in charge of the game, how long would you allow that situation to continue?

If you were getting more rewards than you should have been, the current system will be handing you less rewards than you were getting before. That's unavoidable. It might seem like punishment, but it is really just resorting alliances into the proper order. That happens with wins and losses. It is just more obvious now than it was before, but it was happening all the same. People were losing wars they should have won, and getting fewer points than they should have been getting, and getting fewer rewards than they should have been receiving. If you're being punished now, they were being punished then. But in fact, no one was or is being punished. Players were just playing the game and the system was rewarding players as it was programmed to, and now the system is rewarding players in a different way. That isn't punishment. It just is.

TanvirAS

Matchmaking system is broken this is not fair 13m alliance fighting a 23m alliance low alliance has no chance to win doesn't matter if they get the same rewards it's ****

The 1 Mil Alliance had a hundred and some War Rating. That shouldn't have happened. Yet here we are because people wanted it done now. If anyone can sit there with a straight face and tell me a Mil Alliance should come up against a 20 Mil, we're not having a reasonable discussion.
you're absolutely correct, this isn't a reasonable discussion because you fail to understand how that 1m alliance was able to get the rating it had.

it seems you feel strongly on this subject, I would perhaps suggest you step away from the forums for a month or two until your alliance settles in the appropriate bracket for its skill level.

My Alliance didn't benefit from the old system. We run a 2 BG Ally that ranges from S1 to G3. That's not the point. What I feel strongly about is Alliances being so overpowered they can't have a chance at a Win. This might happen organically, as they fight their way up and then hit a wall. That's a natural occurrence. When the system switches as quickly as it did, and you have what we have, I don't consider the effects of this as a necessary evil. Did the system need to be fixed? In reference to the Rewards, yes. There could have been other ways to do that, but I'm not opposed to using War Rating alone. It was the manner it was reinstated that caused what we see here, and I just don't agree that one problem justifies causing another for others. There are ways it could have been brought back without such extremes. Furthermore, the 1 Mil Alliance wasn't in Gold. They were starting out, with a War Rating of just over 100. Which means at most, they were about 500-600, give or take, before the 50% reduction. What I said originally is there should be some kind of measure to prevent that from happening. Especially when an Alliance is starting out. A 1 Mil should never come up against a 20 Mil, under any circumstances. I can't justifiably call that reasonable by any measure.

This content has been removed.

CaptainGame

The 1 Mil Alliance had a hundred and some War Rating. That shouldn't have happened. Yet here we are because people wanted it done now. If anyone can sit there with a straight face and tell me a Mil Alliance should come up against a 20 Mil, we're not having a reasonable discussion.
you're absolutely correct, this isn't a reasonable discussion because you fail to understand how that 1m alliance was able to get the rating it had.

it seems you feel strongly on this subject, I would perhaps suggest you step away from the forums for a month or two until your alliance settles in the appropriate bracket for its skill level.
My Alliance didn't benefit from the old system. We run a 2 BG Ally that ranges from S1 to G3. That's not the point. What I feel strongly about is Alliances being so overpowered they can't have a chance at a Win. This might happen organically, as they fight their way up and then hit a wall. That's a natural occurrence. When the system switches as quickly as it did, and you have what we have, I don't consider the effects of this as a necessary evil. Did the system need to be fixed? In reference to the Rewards, yes. There could have been other ways to do that, but I'm not opposed to using War Rating alone. It was the manner it was reinstated that caused what we see here, and I just don't agree that one problem justifies causing another for others. There are ways it could have been brought back without such extremes. Furthermore, the 1 Mil Alliance wasn't in Gold. They were starting out, with a War Rating of just over 100. Which means at most, they were about 500-600, give or take, before the 50% reduction. What I said originally is there should be some kind of measure to prevent that from happening. Especially when an Alliance is starting out. A 1 Mil should never come up against a 20 Mil, under any circumstances. I can't justifiably call that reasonable by any measure.

It’s a fair match. They compete in the same tier for the same rewards. 1 mil team is about 3 tiers too high in ranking at minimum.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

Yes, the frustration that the bigger alliances had to face is unprecedented compared to the mild inconvenience we are facing now. But this doesn’t justify the punishment mid-level alliances have to endure when the mistake is not even our’s. The game is solely responsible for having such a broken system for such a long time then fix it in such a way which has brought a feeling of bitterness among many players and alliances.
You're not being punished. This may be hard to see because there are so many moving parts, so let's simplify things a bit and say there are just two alliances, yours and mine. Last season you placed first and I placed second. But then we realize there was a scoring error in the system and when we change the scoring system you start earning far fewer points than you did last season and now I place first and you place second. Are you being "punished?" No, you're now just getting what you were supposed to get. It might *seem* like being punished, because why should you get less rewards this season than last season when it was not your "fault." But it has nothing to do with fault. It has to do with the fact that there can only be one first place winner, and it isn't you.

Here's the more mathy but hopefully still not terribly long explanation. If your alliance had the right rating, you'd be winning about half your wars against roughly equal competition. But if you have a higher rating than you were supposed to, you were getting more points than you were supposed to even if you were still winning 50/50 because your multiplier was higher than it should have been. So the game should drop you down to that proper rating as soon as possible, and ultimately that's going to happen through losses.

Could this have happened "gradually" by some complex mechanism? Let's say there is such a way. In that case you'd have that higher rating for longer, and accumulate more points longer. This benefits you. But because there are only so many places in each war tier and each season bracket, the more points you earn above what you ought to earn, the more you're displacing other alliances downward. If you're in tier 6 but you should be in tier 8, every war you remain in tier 6 is someone in tier 7 that should be in tier 6 and losing that multiplier, and someone in tier 8 that should be in tier 7 and losing that multiplier. You are costing them points, and if that places you into a higher season bracket then you're also costing someone, maybe multiple alliances, rewards.

So to give you a soft landing and make it seem like you aren't being "punished" how slowly do you want the game to gradually lower you, and how many alliances do you want to get lower rewards than they should be getting and for how long, so your alliance can get that softer landing? How much rewards do you want to take out of other player's pockets so you can reduce the change in rewards for your own alliance mates? If you were in charge of the game, how long would you allow that situation to continue?

If you were getting more rewards than you should have been, the current system will be handing you less rewards than you were getting before. That's unavoidable. It might seem like punishment, but it is really just resorting alliances into the proper order. That happens with wins and losses. It is just more obvious now than it was before, but it was happening all the same. People were losing wars they should have won, and getting fewer points than they should have been getting, and getting fewer rewards than they should have been receiving. If you're being punished now, they were being punished then. But in fact, no one was or is being punished. Players were just playing the game and the system was rewarding players as it was programmed to, and now the system is rewarding players in a different way. That isn't punishment. It just is.
By punishment I wasn't referring to the rewards reduction at all. War victory rewards and season rewards isn't much valuable to me in terms of the progression point I'm in currently. I'm the kind of guy who would leave an alliance just few days before season rewards distribution. I can't speak for every mid-tier alliance, let alone my own alliance members but for me personally, War has been an integral aspect of the game where we pit our skill and roster in front of others. But one thing I can guarantee is that the real punishment is the feeling of hopelessness that has embedded itself in the mind of my fellow members. The cycle of consecutive losses has demotivated many to participate in war.
And the most disheartening thing of all is when a new member joins our alliance and leaves after 2-3 wars thinking that we are an absolute loser alliance. That is the 'punishment' for me.

That would be on your alliance leadership to set the tone right. If they bothered to explain the situation, how things were overly rosy for the past few seasons, how matches were decided then and how they are decided now, players will understand and weather the tough phase out.

Speeds80

Just putting this out there, the newly formed 20m alliance two possible theories, they used to be an over placed alliance who was sick of losing all their matches in this rebalance, and so started a new alliance and jumped there so they could get easy wins this season (at terrible multipliers so ending up with worse season reward but better morale.) or another factor/ Possible reason, these war new maps are far harder than they used to be for the mid tiers, t11 is mental compared to the old map, went from averaging 5 kills per war all season to 50 in the new map Off season, this is another massive morale killer for alliances, I wouldn’t be surprised if there guys wanted to go zero item, and just focus on win shards for a season and alliance morale. And flag on rewards. The 1m - 20m is a massive outlier but with how bad this situation is going to be hitting alliances it may actually become a problem. I still believe a better solution could have been found but am yet to hear it or cone up with it myself, the system shouldn’t be what we are debating, long term nobody can deny this system reaches a far better solution for fairness than the old one. The new alliance matchups may become a problem but we are talking a .1% problem that may need a look at,
Suggestions new alliances get a matchmaking parameter of only fighting within 50% of their alliance size for their first 5 wars, after that they are on their own.
Also I think locking all ratings off season would be more viable with this system in place

Also could this whole rollout have been done off season with an incentive to participate like winning rewards even for the losers of wars, so everybody participated and got shard rewards while they found their true standings, competitive alliances would have wanted to win to get the better rewards from higher tiers and have better Multipliers to start the season, and the overrated teams could have dropped off season and still got those shard rewards as if they were winning.
Seems to work in my head
I also suggest maybe kabam bump every alliances rewards this season to be one bracket higher than they actually achieve, as compensation for the teams who will suffer demoralising losses for the season and may actually end up with worse rewards than their future season (not sure yet) but if they aren’t clearing half the maps and are losing, the higher multipliers won’t be balancing those numbers out. But also Compensation for the bigger alliances who’ve had multiple seasons of demoralising placings. And know they have missed out on Many seasons rewards they should easily have been able to compete for

Little_Crocodili29

It's really funny that hundreds (thousands?) of alliances spent 10 + seasons ranking lower than they should, but still getting on with it.

Every now and again we would come out here and add Please Fix Matchmaking to whatever complaint thread seemed to be getting track. Shaking our heads at our meagre rewards and getting burned out of war. We still got on with it.

It's not gloating to finally feel vindicated. And it's not rubbing it in when we explain (time and time again) how this is the fair way to go.

Allis that were hella advantaged by being in the wrong spot have to just take in on the chin now. One or two seasons. However long it takes to balance it out. It was broken, they fixed it. The wheel turned.

Or quit playing the mode, or change alliances. I hate saying that and I don't mean it. But that was what we used to hear when we complained about a matchmaking system that made no sense. It makes sense now. To be against it now is being a sore loser, sorry. Pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off and work for your bread.

This content has been removed.

Sensei_Maat

an alliance starting out has to play someone on their way up.
whether they are strong or weak they will win more wars then they lose until they find their spot.
its just a part of the competiton that has to happen.
if you use prestige matching and someone forms a new alliance at 40million then who do they fight?
they get stuck facing t4 platinum allies right from the get go and immediately get stuck down the bottom.

thats exactly what has been happening that is causing big allies to get stuck low.
meanwhile little allies climb easily, then grow when they are high.

i know i was a leader of an ally for a while. we were small and little, and we climbed easily to t5 and stayed there for a while.
then we changed our members out for semi retired ex vets and suddenly got much much stronger and suddenly our wars got much much harder to win and we began dropping.
we were getting rewarded easier as a smaller ally.
so we gave up, we moved to another ally, this one was t9 and we wanted them to grow, we were pushing real hard in wars, using items and boosts and couldn't for the life of us climb no matter what. this ally was 18mil and stuck at t9.
so we left and went to a 24mil ally at t5 and wow wars were easier. we could win easier using less items and got more rewards.

so yeah i see how big allies got stuck and smaller allies could climb easier.
and its also funny how lower tier wars are harder for big allies. cus nodes were so easy attack was crushing defense. wars were won or lost by who had 150 v 148 diversity or who died only twice compared to the opposition 5.
you literally cannot afford to die if you are a 20mil+ ally at low tier.
at higher tier there is less pressure cus deaths are more common it is easier play well and win.

(or those interested, yes i play multiple accounts in multiple alliances and have and still am playing in both a small alliance at t7 and a big alliance at t4. so i have different experiences in big and small allies climbing, getting stuck and everything in between. so i know how it affects people in all different situations)

Yes, the frustration that the bigger alliances had to face is unprecedented compared to the mild inconvenience we are facing now. But this doesn’t justify the punishment mid-level alliances have to endure when the mistake is not even our’s. The game is solely responsible for having such a broken system for such a long time then fix it in such a way which has brought a feeling of bitterness among many players and alliances.
You're not being punished. This may be hard to see because there are so many moving parts, so let's simplify things a bit and say there are just two alliances, yours and mine. Last season you placed first and I placed second. But then we realize there was a scoring error in the system and when we change the scoring system you start earning far fewer points than you did last season and now I place first and you place second. Are you being "punished?" No, you're now just getting what you were supposed to get. It might *seem* like being punished, because why should you get less rewards this season than last season when it was not your "fault." But it has nothing to do with fault. It has to do with the fact that there can only be one first place winner, and it isn't you.

Here's the more mathy but hopefully still not terribly long explanation. If your alliance had the right rating, you'd be winning about half your wars against roughly equal competition. But if you have a higher rating than you were supposed to, you were getting more points than you were supposed to even if you were still winning 50/50 because your multiplier was higher than it should have been. So the game should drop you down to that proper rating as soon as possible, and ultimately that's going to happen through losses.

Could this have happened "gradually" by some complex mechanism? Let's say there is such a way. In that case you'd have that higher rating for longer, and accumulate more points longer. This benefits you. But because there are only so many places in each war tier and each season bracket, the more points you earn above what you ought to earn, the more you're displacing other alliances downward. If you're in tier 6 but you should be in tier 8, every war you remain in tier 6 is someone in tier 7 that should be in tier 6 and losing that multiplier, and someone in tier 8 that should be in tier 7 and losing that multiplier. You are costing them points, and if that places you into a higher season bracket then you're also costing someone, maybe multiple alliances, rewards.

So to give you a soft landing and make it seem like you aren't being "punished" how slowly do you want the game to gradually lower you, and how many alliances do you want to get lower rewards than they should be getting and for how long, so your alliance can get that softer landing? How much rewards do you want to take out of other player's pockets so you can reduce the change in rewards for your own alliance mates? If you were in charge of the game, how long would you allow that situation to continue?

If you were getting more rewards than you should have been, the current system will be handing you less rewards than you were getting before. That's unavoidable. It might seem like punishment, but it is really just resorting alliances into the proper order. That happens with wins and losses. It is just more obvious now than it was before, but it was happening all the same. People were losing wars they should have won, and getting fewer points than they should have been getting, and getting fewer rewards than they should have been receiving. If you're being punished now, they were being punished then. But in fact, no one was or is being punished. Players were just playing the game and the system was rewarding players as it was programmed to, and now the system is rewarding players in a different way. That isn't punishment. It just is.
By punishment I wasn't referring to the rewards reduction at all. War victory rewards and season rewards isn't much valuable to me in terms of the progression point I'm in currently. I'm the kind of guy who would leave an alliance just few days before season rewards distribution. I can't speak for every mid-tier alliance, let alone my own alliance members but for me personally, War has been an integral aspect of the game where we pit our skill and roster in front of others. But one thing I can guarantee is that the real punishment is the feeling of hopelessness that has embedded itself in the mind of my fellow members. The cycle of consecutive losses has demotivated many to participate in war.
And the most disheartening thing of all is when a new member joins our alliance and leaves after 2-3 wars thinking that we are an absolute loser alliance. That is the 'punishment' for me.
That would be on your alliance leadership to set the tone right. If they bothered to explain the situation, how things were overly rosy for the past few seasons, how matches were decided then and how they are decided now, players will understand and weather the tough phase out.
We tried but to no avail. Simply put, not all players have the ability to see the bigger picture or understand something at its core. I've seen many players who don't understand how a matchmaking works but they still want a spot in higher tier for the sake of it (Honestly, I used to be one as well). I don't want to belittle players for not putting much input and present myself as Mr. Know everything because I understand if there are 2 things I excel at, there are also 4 more things I falter at. We can give our own opinions and feed information but the task of changing the very mindset or the perspective of an individual is a very tough nut to crack.

I agree. But reality will set in and possibly, alliances will break up because of that. However, I view it as a good opportunity to identify a core that the alliance can rebuild from, and gradually get strong *together*.

OneMast3r

Skill is the biggest factor. You can have a million point account and tons of ranked up champs but not play well. Big profiles do not equate to skill. You can have a big account and not even be uncollected.