I'm about what's fair for everyone. Not just one side or the other. You can't just say, "This is fair. You just don't know it yet.". They're telling you it's not.
You guys that are saying this is a fixed system are totally oblivious or don’t want to recognize that if you were a 30 mil ally and losing all season to other 30 mil allys then you deserved to get lower rewards. If an ally can play competition that is fair just like you and dominate. THEY DESERVE A HIGHER RANK!! Don’t be upset because you’ve been playing two more years and just lack the progression speed that others have. What you have now is alliances disbanding. Quitting war totally and I don’t blame them. Brian Grant is at the top of this game and has a video stating how rediculously broken this matchmaking is and he isn’t even effected. And where is A response from kabam regarding any of this. Why is brian grant responding to people’s concerns. He isn’t making the money? Step up
You mean if a 10m ally can fight 30m alliances all season and dominate, of course they deserve a higher rank. I TOTALLY agree with that.
But noooo. What the old system did was have a 10m ally fight other 10m alliances, and if they dominate, they get higher rewards than 30m alliances who go 50/50. That same 30m ally will dominate that TOP 10m ally.
So why does Kabam need to respond to this? They’ve already stated very very clearly that it will take some wars for every alliance to find their true war ratings.
It’s not their fault that players can’t stand losing wars that are match made fairly based on war ratings. If they can’t hang in that rating, they deserve to drop and not earn that tier multiplier.
I'm about what's fair for everyone. Not just one side or the other. You can't just say, "This is fair. You just don't know it yet.". They're telling you it's not.
And you conveniently brushed off the other side that higher prestige alliances have been screwed over for 10+ seasons. So what’s fair for them?
Oh, no you're right. The system was different and the Rewards went to weaker Alliances, so by all means. They should be placed in Matches they can't win and put on public display so they learn their lesson. They should then be sent to their rooms without supper to think about what they did. The previous Post has a point. People weren't winning their own Wars. Half of them just gave up trying for one reason or another, and while the Rewards were off-balance, that wasn't because Allies couldn't beat up much weaker ones. That's just a convenience side-effect. Of course people are going to move up if they're getting Wins from people that don't have a chance. The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
Oh, no you're right. The system was different and the Rewards went to weaker Alliances, so by all means. They should be placed in Matches they can't win and put on public display so they learn their lesson. They should then be sent to their rooms without supper to think about what they did. The previous Post has a point. People weren't winning their own Wars. Half of them just gave up trying for one reason or another, and while the Rewards were off-balance, that wasn't because Allies couldn't beat up much weaker ones. That's just a convenience side-effect. Of course people are going to move up if they're getting Wins from people that don't have a chance. The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
No one put them on public display except themselves.
There’s no solution that entails no one getting screwed. That’s why ratings were compressed to make the screwing hard and fast, to let the war ratings of these inflated alliances decrease as fast as your dislike counts increase.
Also, you have not given any solutions that doesn’t have anyone being screwed. None. Zero. Nil.
Oh yes, you haven’t answered my previous question yet. I’ll post it here again.
Oh, no you're right. The system was different and the Rewards went to weaker Alliances, so by all means. They should be placed in Matches they can't win and put on public display so they learn their lesson. They should then be sent to their rooms without supper to think about what they did. The previous Post has a point. People weren't winning their own Wars. Half of them just gave up trying for one reason or another, and while the Rewards were off-balance, that wasn't because Allies couldn't beat up much weaker ones. That's just a convenience side-effect. Of course people are going to move up if they're getting Wins from people that don't have a chance. The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
No one put them on public display except themselves.
There’s no solution that entails no one getting screwed. That’s why ratings were compressed to make the screwing hard and fast, to let the war ratings of these inflated alliances decrease as fast as your dislike counts increase.
Also, you have not given any solutions that doesn’t have anyone being screwed. None. Zero. Nil.
Oh yes, you haven’t answered my previous question yet. I’ll post it here again.
“What is a ‘fair’ matchup?”
I've given several suggestions that don't involve people getting screwed. Several. You can go ahead and stop asking me what's fair like it's some existential question. Fair is fair. Meaning they're not so overmatched they have no way of winning, and I'm not accepting the whole literal reference you gave about "getting more Points". We all know what fair is. A fair fight. All along people have been saying, "It'll balance out.". So what? The method of balancing out is screwing these people over and that's why they're here. So let them speak. Their gaming experience is worth just as much as your own.
You guys that are saying this is a fixed system are totally oblivious or don’t want to recognize that if you were a 30 mil ally and losing all season to other 30 mil allys then you deserved to get lower rewards. If an ally can play competition that is fair just like you and dominate. THEY DESERVE A HIGHER RANK!! Don’t be upset because you’ve been playing two more years and just lack the progression speed that others have. What you have now is alliances disbanding. Quitting war totally and I don’t blame them. Brian Grant is at the top of this game and has a video stating how rediculously broken this matchmaking is and he isn’t even effected. And where is A response from kabam regarding any of this. Why is brian grant responding to people’s concerns. He isn’t making the money? Step up
you are failing to understan in a progression based game a 5mil ally does not deserve the top rewards regardless of their performance. the whole design of the reward system in all aspects does not match this. the 6* shards from gold 1 alone does is not the rewards that are designed for new rosters. who cares what Brian Grant says. his opinion is no more or less valuable than any other member of the community. the design of the reward system is that higher allies get higher rewards.
a 5mil ally does not deserve to beat only other 5 mil allies and then claim the top rewards. aif they want bracketed pooling and matching they need different reward pools. they do not have different rewards pools therefore cannot have different matchmaking pools.
How many times are people going to keep dismissing others for bringing up their issue with this? They're going to complain and they have a right to. Just leave it alone. The system is what it is anyway. Rubbing it in is just in bad taste.
why are you allowed to state your opinion over and over but we are not allowed to rebutt it? thats not fair. i have a right to complain the system was unfair before and this is the fix to it. most of the complaints are people unknowledgable to the flaws of the old system.
how am i rubbing anything in... did you not read my post above where i mentioned the matchups my two alliance currently have? if you want us to drop it you also need to drop it which you have said you will do countless times but keep failing to actually do.
why are you complaining bout the unfairness of the system now but you never complained about the unfairness of the system before? many alliance were wronged by the season structure and forced out of rewards they should have had before and you never complained about it.
People are posting their issues. Others are making it their mission to shoot them down. Let them speak to what they're experiencing and how they feel about it. I knew this was going to happen the second they announced it. We all pretty much did. "Nothing to see here. System is just fixing itself.", isn't going to work when more and more people are bringing it up. They have a valid claim to what they're experiencing. Simple as that. As for fairness, I've been a voice for that for years. I'm not even here to make that point again. I'm saying let people speak. Trying to squash every Thread won't change the fact that many people have brought up the issue, and that usually means it's not just unwarranted complaining.
they can speak. i have not told a single person to shut up. you on the other hand are constantly telling other to shut up.
they can speak, and i can speak against them. simple as that. thats how a discussion works. you are the one here that keeps telling people to shut up and stop voicing their opinions.
Oh, no you're right. The system was different and the Rewards went to weaker Alliances, so by all means. They should be placed in Matches they can't win and put on public display so they learn their lesson. They should then be sent to their rooms without supper to think about what they did. The previous Post has a point. People weren't winning their own Wars. Half of them just gave up trying for one reason or another, and while the Rewards were off-balance, that wasn't because Allies couldn't beat up much weaker ones. That's just a convenience side-effect. Of course people are going to move up if they're getting Wins from people that don't have a chance. The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
why did you never speak out against the previous problem of weaker allies getting an easy ride up the season leaderboard and screwing stronger allies out of rewards? is that cus you didn't see it?> or you don't care?
Oh, no you're right. The system was different and the Rewards went to weaker Alliances, so by all means. They should be placed in Matches they can't win and put on public display so they learn their lesson. They should then be sent to their rooms without supper to think about what they did. The previous Post has a point. People weren't winning their own Wars. Half of them just gave up trying for one reason or another, and while the Rewards were off-balance, that wasn't because Allies couldn't beat up much weaker ones. That's just a convenience side-effect. Of course people are going to move up if they're getting Wins from people that don't have a chance. The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
No one put them on public display except themselves.
There’s no solution that entails no one getting screwed. That’s why ratings were compressed to make the screwing hard and fast, to let the war ratings of these inflated alliances decrease as fast as your dislike counts increase.
Also, you have not given any solutions that doesn’t have anyone being screwed. None. Zero. Nil.
Oh yes, you haven’t answered my previous question yet. I’ll post it here again.
“What is a ‘fair’ matchup?”
I've given several suggestions that don't involve people getting screwed. Several. You can go ahead and stop asking me what's fair like it's some existential question. Fair is fair. Meaning they're not so overmatched they have no way of winning, and I'm not accepting the whole literal reference you gave about "getting more Points". We all know what fair is. A fair fight. All along people have been saying, "It'll balance out.". So what? The method of balancing out is screwing these people over and that's why they're here. So let them speak. Their gaming experience is worth just as much as your own.
you are not the only one that has given suggestions. dont act like you are. as i said before the pool system works if there is reward pools to match. but there is not reward pools so there cannot be match making pools.
also @GroundedWisdom you go on and on about how we cant have this system cus its not fair. but you also acknowledge the old system was not fair. therefore we cannot have that. so it had to change. keeping the old system was unfair. atleast this way the system was unfair to one group, now its unfair to another. atleast the same alliances are not getting screwed over. atleast the unfairness is spread out. you would not be complaining like you are now if kabam never changed the system yet you acknowledge the old system was unfair. how can you claim to be a proponent of fairness yet you would be perfectly happy and quiet for the system to stay as it was? how about instead of arguing here over and over you design a new system. matching and rewards side, put it all together as a proposal and offer it up to kabam and the community to see. that would be a useful use of time not the arguing you are doing here.
fiar does not have to be each war as fair. what is fair is that one section of alliances were screwed. now they are not and the others are.
fair can be screwing nobody. or it can be equally screwing everybody. or it can be screwing 50% of people and then be adjusted to screw the other 50%. thats a fair syatem.
leaving the old system and continuing to screw the same alliances would be unfair. changing the system and screwing the ones that benifited from the old system is actually by definition fair as it balances out. now we just gotta keep this system for long enough for it to balance out so everyone is screwed equally.
fair is not a simple black and white concept as you make it out to be.
my point is that keeping the old system would be more unfair than changing to this as continuing to screw the same alliances is just so damn unfair it had to change.
Everything in the game should be build upon a healthy balance of challenge AND fun. Both. Unfair matchmaking is all too common. For the low side its too big of a challenge and ZERO fun. For the higher side it may be fun in smashing lower ranked players but zero challenge. There is no balance at the moment.
War is not fun. All all.
This company makes too much money not to invest in people who can craft a fair and balanced system. It is obvious the current developers do not have the smarts to build it. Speak with your wallets and stop buying into the crappy system until they figure this stuff out. Otherwise why would they change anything? Every decision they make revolves around making money. If the money keeps coming in, they assume its working as intended.
Oh, no you're right. The system was different and the Rewards went to weaker Alliances, so by all means. They should be placed in Matches they can't win and put on public display so they learn their lesson. They should then be sent to their rooms without supper to think about what they did. The previous Post has a point. People weren't winning their own Wars. Half of them just gave up trying for one reason or another, and while the Rewards were off-balance, that wasn't because Allies couldn't beat up much weaker ones. That's just a convenience side-effect. Of course people are going to move up if they're getting Wins from people that don't have a chance. The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
No one put them on public display except themselves.
There’s no solution that entails no one getting screwed. That’s why ratings were compressed to make the screwing hard and fast, to let the war ratings of these inflated alliances decrease as fast as your dislike counts increase.
Also, you have not given any solutions that doesn’t have anyone being screwed. None. Zero. Nil.
Oh yes, you haven’t answered my previous question yet. I’ll post it here again.
“What is a ‘fair’ matchup?”
I've given several suggestions that don't involve people getting screwed. Several. You can go ahead and stop asking me what's fair like it's some existential question. Fair is fair. Meaning they're not so overmatched they have no way of winning, and I'm not accepting the whole literal reference you gave about "getting more Points". We all know what fair is. A fair fight. All along people have been saying, "It'll balance out.". So what? The method of balancing out is screwing these people over and that's why they're here. So let them speak. Their gaming experience is worth just as much as your own.
Never saw ANY of your suggestions. None. You can suggest them here. I’m waiting.
You can’t define what is “fair” because you have no idea HOW to define it. Masking your ignorance with rhetorics just reduces your non-existent credibility further.
Is a 1m fighting a 6m fair? What about 10m v 15m? 20m v 26m? 30m v 36m? You can’t even answer such a basic question that ALL your “arguments” stem from.
so if in the offseason everyone from my alliance make a new alliance and move up a few tiers before season start and just at tier 4 and just steam roll our way thru because our war rating is low is that fair to the other alliance that's trying to move up from silver or gold 1 ? because I see a lot of that going on a lot of these alliance that's has low rating have a stack roster of 6 star rank 2 &3 my last war in my other alliance was against one we are Gold 3 match up with an alliance that has a higher tier than us and a way bigger roster im assuming they're new, I find it funny how people here saying its fair but don't look at people who are getting screw by this my other alliance now we are a plat 3 alliance and so far all our matches been fair, but to come on the forums and say oh its fair without knowing what's going on is just pointless I think its fair to some and you have other alliance that's taking advantage of the system, in the off season start a new alliance move up a few tiers and since war rating is froze all your matches will be a walk in the park now from tier 4 it don't take long to move to tier 3 or higher.
xNIG hope you get it what I have suggested, I am not talking matchmaking should be happened only on basis of Average alliance mamber rating.. It should be AND combination with War rating.
Otherwise you guys should have figured out for some fair game play.
fiar does not have to be each war as fair. what is fair is that one section of alliances were screwed. now they are not and the others are.
fair can be screwing nobody. or it can be equally screwing everybody. or it can be screwing 50% of people and then be adjusted to screw the other 50%. thats a fair syatem.
leaving the old system and continuing to screw the same alliances would be unfair. changing the system and screwing the ones that benifited from the old system is actually by definition fair as it balances out. now we just gotta keep this system for long enough for it to balance out so everyone is screwed equally.
fair is not a simple black and white concept as you make it out to be.
my point is that keeping the old system would be more unfair than changing to this as continuing to screw the same alliances is just so damn unfair it had to change.
Yes. Fair is as simple as Wars people can actually win on both sides.
fiar does not have to be each war as fair. what is fair is that one section of alliances were screwed. now they are not and the others are.
fair can be screwing nobody. or it can be equally screwing everybody. or it can be screwing 50% of people and then be adjusted to screw the other 50%. thats a fair syatem.
leaving the old system and continuing to screw the same alliances would be unfair. changing the system and screwing the ones that benifited from the old system is actually by definition fair as it balances out. now we just gotta keep this system for long enough for it to balance out so everyone is screwed equally.
fair is not a simple black and white concept as you make it out to be.
my point is that keeping the old system would be more unfair than changing to this as continuing to screw the same alliances is just so damn unfair it had to change.
Yes. Fair is as simple as Wars people can actually win on both sides.
but a system where 5mil alliances only fight 5 mil alliances and 30mil alliances only fight 30mi alliances yet the 5mil alliances take the top tier rewards away from the 30mil alliances is not fair.
xNIG hope you get it what I have suggested, I am not talking matchmaking should be happened only on basis of Average alliance mamber rating.. It should be AND combination with War rating.
Otherwise you guys should have figured out for some fair game play.
It’s the same thing. With average alliance member rating in the calculation, people can get their alliances artificially weaker by selling champs of lower rarities.
Once the tiers are correctly sorted, the matches will become fair. Just be patient.
fiar does not have to be each war as fair. what is fair is that one section of alliances were screwed. now they are not and the others are.
fair can be screwing nobody. or it can be equally screwing everybody. or it can be screwing 50% of people and then be adjusted to screw the other 50%. thats a fair syatem.
leaving the old system and continuing to screw the same alliances would be unfair. changing the system and screwing the ones that benifited from the old system is actually by definition fair as it balances out. now we just gotta keep this system for long enough for it to balance out so everyone is screwed equally.
fair is not a simple black and white concept as you make it out to be.
my point is that keeping the old system would be more unfair than changing to this as continuing to screw the same alliances is just so damn unfair it had to change.
Yes. Fair is as simple as Wars people can actually win on both sides.
but a system where 5mil alliances only fight 5 mil alliances and 30mil alliances only fight 30mi alliances yet the 5mil alliances take the top tier rewards away from the 30mil alliances is not fair.
Don’t reply him bro! 😂
Anyway, “fair” is very subjective. As I mentioned above, there’s no one set parameter of what “fair” means.
Eg. If a 45m alliance fights a 25m alliance that has 100 less prestige, is that considered fair?
One can argue is fair because prestige is similar, another can argue it isn’t because one alliance seems to have a much deeper roster due to alliance rating.
So the fairest way, is to discard all these variables, and have one parameter, ie war ratings, determine whether a matchup is fair or not.
I'm with @GroundedWisdom on this i don't agree much with him but he has valid points just like the one i made earlier but I'm assuming because its not affecting you then its fair funny how this community works once something is affecting you then its a problem but when its affecting someone else its ohh it will work its self out, i don't see how people arguing that its fair that silver alliance who is trying to progress is facing alliance that's 10 times their size so what happen is that alliance progress and the silver who's trying to make it to gold loses because of unfair match up so i guess silver will stay silver and the other one keep moving up and just switch to another shell alliance next season, as i said your war rating is froze at the end of the season not the tier all you have to do is start a new alliance win some matches in the off season and steam roll your way during war season on small alliances. last war my brother alliance who is trying to make it to Gold 2 face an alliance that had nothing but 5/65 and 6 rank 2 on defense that alliance was plat 3 last season keep in mind my brother is trying to make it to GOLD 2 meaning he's where he is suppose to be, how's he facing an alliance that was platinum 3 it wasn't even a fair match up but i guess you guys on here will argue that it was fair because of war rating.
We just Got matched with an 19 mill alliance and we are only 900000k our self, and this is the second time, this new system is not working for small alliance with only 1 bg @Kabam Miike what are you going to do about that?
We just Got matched with an 19 mill alliance and we are only 900000k our self, and this is the second time, this new system is not working for small alliance with only 1 bg @Kabam Miike what are you going to do about that?
We just Got matched with an 19 mill alliance and we are only 900000k our self, and this is the second time, this new system is not working for small alliance with only 1 bg @Kabam Miike what are you going to do about that?
what WR are you? are you an alliance sitting higher than you should be? if this is the case you will drop to where you should be and all will be good for you soon.
or are you a very low WR alliance who will be facing newer larger alliances? if this is the case it is unfortunate but should not happen often. hopefully some tweaking can be done to help reduce these matces right down the bottom end, but bear in mind someone needs to fight these alliance on their way up.
To clarify I am talking about UNWINNABLE matchups. When an alliance gets about 20 deaths over three bgs regularly and you think they can beat a team that is hanging up one or two deaths in an entire war that is unwinnable. One of you said there is no unwinnable. I’m talking about an ally in my previous comment my second account is in. Right around 20 million ally rating. Now I witnessed about four straight wars where there was nooooo chance. On a regular basis. For full seasons we didn’t just beat the even allys. We were always facing in high gold one, teams double our rating. But we went undefeated. So you couple people can truely look at what your saying and really think. Your telling me you think an ally with average member rating of 1.7 million should be compensated greatly because they can win against allys with average member ratings of 400k. But my team, who on the regular slays teams triple it’s size deserves to be lower than your team who can’t hang with allys their own size. There is no way one of you can say yes, You truely believe that that makes sense and sounds about right to me. Your lying if you do. Or are you one those people that believe your entitled to some great bounty because you happened upon a game two years earlier than me and you can’t hang against a group of guys that tackled cavalier as soon as they had five five stars? Are you one those? Don’t be mad that new rookies are better than you now and will be far better once their roster matches yours.
Matchmaking is just pathetic this season we are 25m alliance and face 45m+ in every war.and today's war is lit because we are facing 60m alliance kabam just tell us how its possible for us to beat 60m alliance and we are continuously losing our rank who is responsible for that????
Comments
But noooo. What the old system did was have a 10m ally fight other 10m alliances, and if they dominate, they get higher rewards than 30m alliances who go 50/50. That same 30m ally will dominate that TOP 10m ally.
So why does Kabam need to respond to this? They’ve already stated very very clearly that it will take some wars for every alliance to find their true war ratings.
It’s not their fault that players can’t stand losing wars that are match made fairly based on war ratings. If they can’t hang in that rating, they deserve to drop and not earn that tier multiplier.
The point I'm making is one problem doesn't solve another, and one doesn't make the other invalid. A better system is needed than sacrificing half the Players to the other half. An actual solution doesn't have anyone being screwed. Not just half or the other.
There’s no solution that entails no one getting screwed. That’s why ratings were compressed to make the screwing hard and fast, to let the war ratings of these inflated alliances decrease as fast as your dislike counts increase.
Also, you have not given any solutions that doesn’t have anyone being screwed. None. Zero. Nil.
Oh yes, you haven’t answered my previous question yet. I’ll post it here again.
“What is a ‘fair’ matchup?”
You can go ahead and stop asking me what's fair like it's some existential question. Fair is fair. Meaning they're not so overmatched they have no way of winning, and I'm not accepting the whole literal reference you gave about "getting more Points". We all know what fair is. A fair fight.
All along people have been saying, "It'll balance out.". So what? The method of balancing out is screwing these people over and that's why they're here. So let them speak. Their gaming experience is worth just as much as your own.
the whole design of the reward system in all aspects does not match this.
the 6* shards from gold 1 alone does is not the rewards that are designed for new rosters.
who cares what Brian Grant says. his opinion is no more or less valuable than any other member of the community.
the design of the reward system is that higher allies get higher rewards.
a 5mil ally does not deserve to beat only other 5 mil allies and then claim the top rewards.
aif they want bracketed pooling and matching they need different reward pools.
they do not have different rewards pools therefore cannot have different matchmaking pools.
you on the other hand are constantly telling other to shut up.
they can speak, and i can speak against them.
simple as that.
thats how a discussion works.
you are the one here that keeps telling people to shut up and stop voicing their opinions.
is that cus you didn't see it?>
or you don't care?
as i said before the pool system works if there is reward pools to match.
but there is not reward pools so there cannot be match making pools.
but you also acknowledge the old system was not fair. therefore we cannot have that.
so it had to change.
keeping the old system was unfair.
atleast this way the system was unfair to one group, now its unfair to another. atleast the same alliances are not getting screwed over. atleast the unfairness is spread out.
you would not be complaining like you are now if kabam never changed the system yet you acknowledge the old system was unfair.
how can you claim to be a proponent of fairness yet you would be perfectly happy and quiet for the system to stay as it was?
how about instead of arguing here over and over you design a new system. matching and rewards side, put it all together as a proposal and offer it up to kabam and the community to see. that would be a useful use of time not the arguing you are doing here.
what is fair is that one section of alliances were screwed.
now they are not and the others are.
fair can be screwing nobody.
or it can be equally screwing everybody.
or it can be screwing 50% of people and then be adjusted to screw the other 50%.
thats a fair syatem.
leaving the old system and continuing to screw the same alliances would be unfair.
changing the system and screwing the ones that benifited from the old system is actually by definition fair
as it balances out. now we just gotta keep this system for long enough for it to balance out so everyone is screwed equally.
fair is not a simple black and white concept as you make it out to be.
my point is that keeping the old system would be more unfair than changing to this as continuing to screw the same alliances is just so damn unfair it had to change.
War is not fun. All all.
This company makes too much money not to invest in people who can craft a fair and balanced system. It is obvious the current developers do not have the smarts to build it. Speak with your wallets and stop buying into the crappy system until they figure this stuff out. Otherwise why would they change anything? Every decision they make revolves around making money. If the money keeps coming in, they assume its working as intended.
You can’t define what is “fair” because you have no idea HOW to define it. Masking your ignorance with rhetorics just reduces your non-existent credibility further.
Is a 1m fighting a 6m fair? What about 10m v 15m? 20m v 26m? 30m v 36m? You can’t even answer such a basic question that ALL your “arguments” stem from.
Otherwise you guys should have figured out for some fair game play.
30mil alliances only fight 30mi alliances
yet the 5mil alliances take the top tier rewards away from the 30mil alliances is not fair.
Once the tiers are correctly sorted, the matches will become fair. Just be patient.
Anyway, “fair” is very subjective. As I mentioned above, there’s no one set parameter of what “fair” means.
Eg. If a 45m alliance fights a 25m alliance that has 100 less prestige, is that considered fair?
One can argue is fair because prestige is similar, another can argue it isn’t because one alliance seems to have a much deeper roster due to alliance rating.
So the fairest way, is to discard all these variables, and have one parameter, ie war ratings, determine whether a matchup is fair or not.
are you an alliance sitting higher than you should be?
if this is the case you will drop to where you should be and all will be good for you soon.
or are you a very low WR alliance who will be facing newer larger alliances?
if this is the case it is unfortunate but should not happen often. hopefully some tweaking can be done to help reduce these matces right down the bottom end, but bear in mind someone needs to fight these alliance on their way up.