Reasons, excuses, same thing. All of which ignore the problem. Making people go through it is not a fix. Their Season is suffering. Their Wars are being used as a balancing agent. Their experience is miserable. Their desire to even bother is leaving. THAT is what we're looking at now. Not the system as it will be when everything settles. Not what people didn't get for Rewards. Not some hypothetical situation or witty analogy to justify not caring. This right here. I'm not accepting them anymore because it's not just collateral damage. They're not pawns. They're people.
I will continue to point out these side effects because unlike some, I'm not willing to ignore the problems people are facing.
Bronze3 is a fairly big pool. If they were high enough up, then it's still possible they could remain in bronze3.
It's the fact they're coming up against a Gold 3 that's almost 3 times their size.
@GroundedWisdom Explain how we've come up against 3, Platinum 1 alliances, all of them 10M below us in rating. We struggled to reach P4 last season. Not one could bypass our defence.
Tell me how an alliance, which grinds and puts the work and effort in, and are physically superior, are less deserving of placing higher in alliance wars? If you are fighting alliances which are too big. Your rating is too high.
Our last two wars have had 8M and 10M above us, we've won one, and off to a decent start on the second.
If you don't like the system because it doesn't benefit you, if all you have to say is negative things and moan about pro player moves, by all means.. theres an unistall button.
Kabam should’ve lowered our rating instead of lowering our rank, because now it’s gonna drop us down even more, and we are never gonna come up for the next few years
Lowering your rating would lower your rank anyways. Also, the matchmaking for the past 10 seasons has been going off of either your alliance prestige or alliance rating, war rating has played a very tiny part in matchmaking for almost a year, so if you’ve been unable to climb the ranks it’s because you just weren’t good compared to other alliances at your alliance rating/prestige level.
Under the new system, which now matches on war rating primarily, the more you lose, the easier your opponents become in terms of skill and roster. Under the old, flawed system, losing didn’t lead to easier matches. If anything, for many it led to harder matches as Wars came down to 1-2 deaths.
Except we’ve been going up against alliances that are over double our prestige for so long, literally unable to win. And It’s been like that for at least 7 seasons. If it was mostly prestige, our alliance would be way further into the ranks, but there has been so many... way more than I can count, alliance wars where we are put against guys that are double the prestige of our alliance.
How many bgs are you running? The amount of alliances that run 2bgs is smaller than those running 3 bgs so there is always going to be some issues with matchmaking even just going by war ratings. But if you are only running 1 bg, the pool will be even smaller, and the disparity will always be an issue since there will always be players that start up a new alliance instead of finding an existing alliance.
My suggestion would be to find a way to run 3bgs...you will most likely find more alliances with your prestige lvl that way and where you have a better chance of winning...or your war rating will most likely fall faster if you continue to lose and find the appropriate tier eith possibly easier war maps to complete.
Some people here aren’t understanding. We’ve been in bronze 1 for the past 10 seasons, and we haven’t been able to get any higher because of the matchmaking and it keeps putting us against way better alliances because we have similar war ratings. Just because we have the same war rating, that doesn’t mean we have any chance at beating an alliance that’s leagues above us. Just because things are more fair for the higher up alliances, it doesn’t justify how us players in bronze are being treated. I don’t understand why it can’t be based off of both alliance rating AND ALSO war rating. Or better yet, why not get rid of war rating all together, because it only really makes things worse for alliances that are trying their best to come up. I don’t see how this “new” system is “putting us in our place” when we’ve always been in bronze for 10 seasons anyways. We don’t even have a real chance to win this time. No one can convince me I’m in a fair war just because of war rating alone. It’s not like I can get back to bronze 1 with this kind of matchmaking, now my alliance is stuck in bronze 3, which is even worse. At first we were able to get into silver 2, then it got worse and worse overtime and now we are struggling to stay in bronze. It’s all BS.
I'll present you the same example I've been presenting elsewhere. Let's say there's four alliances, A and B have 30 million alliance rating and C and D have 15 million alliance rating. We want to have a competition to find out who's the best alliance. So let's say we both agree that the fair thing is for A to face B and C to face D. A wins and C wins. Now, who should A face next to decide who's the best?
If you think it is unfair for A to face C because the ratings are too far apart, then A has to face B again, and C has to face D again. And if A wins again and C wins again, then what do we decide? That it is a tie? It is unfair to the competition as a whole if that's the case: C gets to be tied for first place with A without ever having to face A or anyone else who's faced A. C can just beat up on D over and over again and declare themselves the winner. That's not fair to A, even though C can claim they had "fair fights" continuously.
Getting rid of war rating is even worse, because war rating is what tells us who wins and who loses. Now, A faced B forever, regardless of who wins, and C faces D forever, regardless of who wins. That's true even if A and B have 6 million rating and C and D have 5.5 million rating. A is the closest match to B and C is the closest match to D so they just match against each other forever. That's not a competition.
If you think the current system is the cause of your problems, keep in mind that it was only introduced this season. In all previous seasons where you claim you were getting worse and worse results you *were* matching against a combination of war rating and alliance rating or prestige. But I don't think it was the match system that was your problem. As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems unlikely to me that an alliance with your rating could end up in Bronze unless you were not fighting with all three groups. Because your placement is based on points, and more groups earn more points, I think your bracket was due less to your match ups and more due to your participation level. Last season my alliance ended the season with a war rating of 2070, and we *barely* made it into Silver 1. With three full groups, that's probably Gold 1. If you're not fighting in every single war in season with three full groups, you're going to fall behind the competitive alliances that do.
I will continue to point out these side effects because unlike some, I'm not willing to ignore the problems people are facing.
Bronze3 is a fairly big pool. If they were high enough up, then it's still possible they could remain in bronze3.
It's the fact they're coming up against a Gold 3 that's almost 3 times their size.
@GroundedWisdom Explain how we've come up against 3, Platinum 1 alliances, all of them 10M below us in rating. We struggled to reach P4 last season. Not one could bypass our defence.
Tell me how an alliance, which grinds and puts the work and effort in, and are physically superior, are less deserving of placing higher in alliance wars? If you are fighting alliances which are too big. Your rating is too high.
Our last two wars have had 8M and 10M above us, we've won one, and off to a decent start on the second.
If you don't like the system because it doesn't benefit you, if all you have to say is negative things and moan about pro player moves, by all means.. theres an unistall button.
Kabam should’ve lowered our rating instead of lowering our rank, because now it’s gonna drop us down even more, and we are never gonna come up for the next few years
dont be so overdramatic, it should clear itself up after a few more fights, if not when they halve the war ratings next season.
We are gonna be all the way down in stone by the time things go “back to normal” Even tho we were always bronze 1. We have never been able to come up because our war rating is abnormally high, which is why they need to lower war rating instead of rank. If you were our position your opinion would be completely different.
Want bronze 1 rewards, beat bronze 1 teams, it’s that simple. Tbh, I’m trying to figure out how you had a 1600 war rating but could only reach bronze 1, and I think it’s one or multiple of; You run 1-2 BGs You don’t/can’t kill war bosses Your alliance is very unorganised
We can only really do great in alliance war when we only do 1 BG. My alliance isn’t active enough to do amazing in 2 or more. And I don’t know how we have that kind of war rating, it’s so confusing, and I wish kabam would just cut our rating in half again so we can start fight more fair matches. Also our alliance used to be 10 mil but our alliance fell apart at one point and we had to build it back up full of newer less experienced players. It’s been very hard just to simply maintain the alliance, not just war
Ok so your alliance built up the war rating, then crumbled, and now because your prestige fell through the floor, the old matchmaking allowed you to maintain your war rating artificially. And as a side note, the number of alliances participating in 1BG wars is so, so tiny that no matter what, there will always be mismatches as there’s not enough opponents to give everyone a fair match, it’s not the answer you’d like to hear but if you want to stand a chance at eventually having consistently fair matchups, you need to run 3 BGs.
Some people here aren’t understanding. We’ve been in bronze 1 for the past 10 seasons, and we haven’t been able to get any higher because of the matchmaking and it keeps putting us against way better alliances because we have similar war ratings. Just because we have the same war rating, that doesn’t mean we have any chance at beating an alliance that’s leagues above us. Just because things are more fair for the higher up alliances, it doesn’t justify how us players in bronze are being treated. I don’t understand why it can’t be based off of both alliance rating AND ALSO war rating. Or better yet, why not get rid of war rating all together, because it only really makes things worse for alliances that are trying their best to come up. I don’t see how this “new” system is “putting us in our place” when we’ve always been in bronze for 10 seasons anyways. We don’t even have a real chance to win this time. No one can convince me I’m in a fair war just because of war rating alone. It’s not like I can get back to bronze 1 with this kind of matchmaking, now my alliance is stuck in bronze 3, which is even worse. At first we were able to get into silver 2, then it got worse and worse overtime and now we are struggling to stay in bronze. It’s all BS.
I'll present you the same example I've been presenting elsewhere. Let's say there's four alliances, A and B have 30 million alliance rating and C and D have 15 million alliance rating. We want to have a competition to find out who's the best alliance. So let's say we both agree that the fair thing is for A to face B and C to face D. A wins and C wins. Now, who should A face next to decide who's the best?
If you think it is unfair for A to face C because the ratings are too far apart, then A has to face B again, and C has to face D again. And if A wins again and C wins again, then what do we decide? That it is a tie? It is unfair to the competition as a whole if that's the case: C gets to be tied for first place with A without ever having to face A or anyone else who's faced A. C can just beat up on D over and over again and declare themselves the winner. That's not fair to A, even though C can claim they had "fair fights" continuously.
Getting rid of war rating is even worse, because war rating is what tells us who wins and who loses. Now, A faced B forever, regardless of who wins, and C faces D forever, regardless of who wins. That's true even if A and B have 6 million rating and C and D have 5.5 million rating. A is the closest match to B and C is the closest match to D so they just match against each other forever. That's not a competition.
If you think the current system is the cause of your problems, keep in mind that it was only introduced this season. In all previous seasons where you claim you were getting worse and worse results you *were* matching against a combination of war rating and alliance rating or prestige. But I don't think it was the match system that was your problem. As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems unlikely to me that an alliance with your rating could end up in Bronze unless you were not fighting with all three groups. Because your placement is based on points, and more groups earn more points, I think your bracket was due less to your match ups and more due to your participation level. Last season my alliance ended the season with a war rating of 2070, and we *barely* made it into Silver 1. With three full groups, that's probably Gold 1. If you're not fighting in every single war in season with three full groups, you're going to fall behind the competitive alliances that do.
B gets an even shorter end of the stick than A, A atleast got a tie for first, B got a tie for last even though they should be able to beat 2 opponents.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
"I'm not getting what I WANT so I'll complain even though the previous issue hurt WAY more people."
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
That horse you keep beating, it's dead. Has been since they announced the changes.
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
"I'm not getting what I WANT so I'll complain even though the previous issue hurt WAY more people."
Okay Karen.
No, you're right. Let's not care about anyone else being harmed because YOUR side is getting what it wants.
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
They're fighting them right now. Pretty sure they know.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
I kinda want kabam to do a war reset on in gent and wipe the slate clean
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
I looked at their alliance, and 95 percent of their players are lv 60. Only 3 of mine are lv 60
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
They're fighting them right now. Pretty sure they know.
Then they either adapt and try to win or they lose and try again next war. It's not rocket science.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
"I'm not getting what I WANT so I'll complain even though the previous issue hurt WAY more people."
Okay Karen.
No, you're right. Let's not care about anyone else being harmed because YOUR side is getting what it wants.
That is exactly what you are doing when you act like this fix is not worth the short term pain the other system is causing. You dont mind that vastly more people were harmed in the other system, that is causing short term pain in fixing, you just want it your way, no matter the harm to others that is being caused. Atleast we are looking at it as a cost to fix a broken system and making it fair for everyone.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
I kinda want kabam to do a war reset on in gent and wipe the slate clean
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
I looked at their alliance, and 95 percent of their players are lv 60. Only 3 of mine are lv 60
I agree. They shouldve reset everyone back to zero instead of half. But again lvl 60 doesnt mean anything other than you explored a few acts.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
"I'm not getting what I WANT so I'll complain even though the previous issue hurt WAY more people."
Okay Karen.
No, you're right. Let's not care about anyone else being harmed because YOUR side is getting what it wants.
That is exactly what you are doing when you act like this fix is not worth the short term pain the other system is causing. You dont mind that vastly more people were harmed in the other system, that is causing short term pain in fixing, you just want it your way, no matter the harm to others that is being caused. Atleast we are looking at it as a cost to fix a broken system and making it fair for everyone.
It's quite honorable of you to throw in that short term pain when you're not the one that has to go through it. "My way" is not what it's about. It's about what isn't harmful to ANYONE. What we have here is a portion of people taking the L so others can benefit. That's not a Season competition. That's not even skill. That's valuing one section of the Player Base over the other.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
"I'm not getting what I WANT so I'll complain even though the previous issue hurt WAY more people."
Okay Karen.
No, you're right. Let's not care about anyone else being harmed because YOUR side is getting what it wants.
You ever hear of the the Trolley Problem.
The Trolley for the last 10 seasons had been running over the group of 5.
The Trolley has now changed tracks and is going to run over the lone person.
Oh, and it's not my side. I have NO dog in this fight since I don't do war. But even I could see the massive glaring issue like a beacon that you're too blind to see.
Your own ego is immeasurable, and incapable of any reasoning.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
I kinda want kabam to do a war reset on in gent and wipe the slate clean
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
I looked at their alliance, and 95 percent of their players are lv 60. Only 3 of mine are lv 60
I agree. They shouldve reset everyone back to zero instead of half. But again lvl 60 doesnt mean anything other than you explored a few acts.
That would've been worse as then you could have 2mil alliances matching with the likes of kenob. Then how do you decide who's in which map tier if everyone is even at the beginning
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
"I'm not getting what I WANT so I'll complain even though the previous issue hurt WAY more people."
Okay Karen.
No, you're right. Let's not care about anyone else being harmed because YOUR side is getting what it wants.
That is exactly what you are doing when you act like this fix is not worth the short term pain the other system is causing. You dont mind that vastly more people were harmed in the other system, that is causing short term pain in fixing, you just want it your way, no matter the harm to others that is being caused. Atleast we are looking at it as a cost to fix a broken system and making it fair for everyone.
It's quite honorable of you to throw in that short term pain when you're not the one that has to go through it. "My way" is not what it's about. It's about what isn't harmful to ANYONE. What we have here is a portion of people taking the L so others can benefit. That's not a Season competition. That's not even skill. That's valuing one section of the Player Base over the other.
How do you know who is and is not going through it. Talking about bad logic. I thought it was not about L, you always come back around to the loss. And no, it is valuing the entire player base. There was no way to do this to make the transition fair to everyone, but the new system is fair to everyone. No matter what they did in the transition someone would feel pain.
Just stop. Drop down from what? Bronze 3? Against a Gold 3? Just stop.
Actually, you should stop. You're not looking at the whole picture here. Both alliances have 800-ish rating. That implies roughly 1600 rating last season, plus or minus a few wars. No 1600 alliance is likely to place Bronze 1 unless they either didn't fight all twelve wars or were fighting with less than three groups. So this alliance probably fought with one or two groups, or didn't fight in all the wars, or both. But the other alliance got to Gold 3, and that's almost impossible to do at 1600 rating unless they were fighting with three groups.
So you can't compare a Bronze 1 alliance against a Gold 3 alliance when they were not fighting with the same number of participants or even possibly the same number of wars last season. Two alliances exactly equal in fighting strength could end up in those widely separated brackets if they were not participating at the same level, and there seems to be no way those two alliances were participating at the same level last season given the brackets they ended up in.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to focus *only* on war rating, and not on anything else. When people focus on other things, like season bracket, which are influenced by things completely different from strength like number of participants or number of wars fought, they reach the wrong conclusions consistently.
No. I've had quite enough of the excuses for these Matches.
I've seen many people use strawmen, but I have never seen anyone cosplay as one.
That's not a strawman. I'm at the end of my tolerance for the abhorrent Matches that are taking place and I'm not going to stay silent while everyone keeps saying all is well. It is not.
I kinda want kabam to do a war reset on in gent and wipe the slate clean
Then you shouldnt have any problem beating a lowly gold alliance should you.
Maybe if there were 19 other players in my alliance exactly like me. Or maybe if recruiting for players as good as me was easy. My alliance is 6 mil, battling a 16 mil alliance. You think we stand a chance?... we don’t
For all you know, they could have only 2 guys like yourself and the rest are newer players as well with low ratings. This is why alliance rating doesnt mean anything in the long run.
I looked at their alliance, and 95 percent of their players are lv 60. Only 3 of mine are lv 60
I agree. They shouldve reset everyone back to zero instead of half. But again lvl 60 doesnt mean anything other than you explored a few acts.
That would've been worse as then you could have 2mil alliances matching with the likes of kenob. Then how do you decide who's in which map tier if everyone is even at the beginning
Because eventually itll even itself out just like it is right now. Would take a little longer is all.
Comments
My suggestion would be to find a way to run 3bgs...you will most likely find more alliances with your prestige lvl that way and where you have a better chance of winning...or your war rating will most likely fall faster if you continue to lose and find the appropriate tier eith possibly easier war maps to complete.
If you think it is unfair for A to face C because the ratings are too far apart, then A has to face B again, and C has to face D again. And if A wins again and C wins again, then what do we decide? That it is a tie? It is unfair to the competition as a whole if that's the case: C gets to be tied for first place with A without ever having to face A or anyone else who's faced A. C can just beat up on D over and over again and declare themselves the winner. That's not fair to A, even though C can claim they had "fair fights" continuously.
Getting rid of war rating is even worse, because war rating is what tells us who wins and who loses. Now, A faced B forever, regardless of who wins, and C faces D forever, regardless of who wins. That's true even if A and B have 6 million rating and C and D have 5.5 million rating. A is the closest match to B and C is the closest match to D so they just match against each other forever. That's not a competition.
If you think the current system is the cause of your problems, keep in mind that it was only introduced this season. In all previous seasons where you claim you were getting worse and worse results you *were* matching against a combination of war rating and alliance rating or prestige. But I don't think it was the match system that was your problem. As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems unlikely to me that an alliance with your rating could end up in Bronze unless you were not fighting with all three groups. Because your placement is based on points, and more groups earn more points, I think your bracket was due less to your match ups and more due to your participation level. Last season my alliance ended the season with a war rating of 2070, and we *barely* made it into Silver 1. With three full groups, that's probably Gold 1. If you're not fighting in every single war in season with three full groups, you're going to fall behind the competitive alliances that do.
And as a side note, the number of alliances participating in 1BG wars is so, so tiny that no matter what, there will always be mismatches as there’s not enough opponents to give everyone a fair match, it’s not the answer you’d like to hear but if you want to stand a chance at eventually having consistently fair matchups, you need to run 3 BGs.
We run 1BG in AW. Often don't place all defenders. All we want is the loyalty. We are outscoring opponents 10-1.
This can't be fun for our opponents.
Okay Karen.
The Trolley for the last 10 seasons had been running over the group of 5.
The Trolley has now changed tracks and is going to run over the lone person.
Oh, and it's not my side. I have NO dog in this fight since I don't do war. But even I could see the massive glaring issue like a beacon that you're too blind to see.
Your own ego is immeasurable, and incapable of any reasoning.