Thank god this will be all corrected by next week. Baby alliances loses to big alliances - who cares!!
Do you see a non league team crying when they draw Man Utd in the FA Cup, no they celebrate and even with little chance of winning they play and recognise they when there is only 1 set of prizes then everyone has to beat the best to get to the top.
War rating is the same, to go up and win best rewards you must beat people and grow
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
I'm not saying it was an even war. I'm saying alliance rating is not a way to judge how skilled people are at war.
War rating is how wars are now matched as it directly shows which alliance deserves the highest rank.
Even is one thing. Overpowered beyond one side having a fair chance of winning is another.
Well i guess all those seasons of wins they probably shouldn't have won have caught up to them and things are leveling out. So yes it all seems fair as they had easier matches before so now they balance out
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
No it's not. 1mil rating doesnt equate to knowing how to fight. If all you ever did was play super casual and opened Crystal's you could still be 1 mil rated and suck totally.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
No it's not. 1mil rating doesnt equate to knowing how to fight. If all you ever did was play super casual and opened Crystal's you could still be 1 mil rated and suck totally.
It does in War when you have a Defense placed that adds Nodes, increases the PI, and adds AI. It's not just numbers.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
Well it is fair. War rating decides war tier, so the system matches on war rating. If you are 'setup to lose' your alliance is not strong enough to compete at the tier it's currently in, so it goes down.
In a sports league, teams in the same division don't avoid competing with each other because one team has a far better team than the other. Take the premier league for example. Should Norwich not have to play liverpool, since liverpool's team is 50x better than that of Norwich, despite them being in the same division?
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
No it's not. 1mil rating doesnt equate to knowing how to fight. If all you ever did was play super casual and opened Crystal's you could still be 1 mil rated and suck totally.
It does in War when you have a Defense placed that adds Nodes, increases the PI, and adds AI. It's not just numbers.
Alliance rating has never and will never equate to skill. Anyone can buy crystals endlessly and buy all offers yet never clear content thus never improving skill.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
No it's not. 1mil rating doesnt equate to knowing how to fight. If all you ever did was play super casual and opened Crystal's you could still be 1 mil rated and suck totally.
It does in War when you have a Defense placed that adds Nodes, increases the PI, and adds AI. It's not just numbers.
What game are you playing? Just curious because you seem to know next to nothing of which you speak.
For the sake of a rounded view I have come up with 2 ideas that I think could have worked/ could help the outliers we will continue to see from new alliances. I posted them in one of the many threads here but didn’t get a chance to see any feedback.
1) I think kabam could have rolled out the adjustment period off season, but given all alliances the winning amount of shards for losing or winning to encourage everybody to participate and get their correct level outside of season, leaving the top alliances locked like they are, but the mid ranges would have competed for a better start to the season with a better multiplier. And the inflated alliances could have had their bubble popped while collecting shards and not losing their season rewards, (we probably would have still seen complaints like this but for those not realising how inflated their rewards are but definitely a lesser extent.
2) I think newly formed alliances should get matches within 50% of their prestige for 5 wars, then they are on their own. this is to stop the ugly ones we see where a true noob alliance has to face an unranked newly formed vet alliance
As I wonder if some relaxed vet alliances annoyed at the new much harder maps might just flag season rewards and form an alliance where they can win tons of wars with zero items and just collect win shards until they hit their actual plateau.
Option one looks good on paper, but we know with absolute certainty it wouldn't have worked because we know with absolute certainty that in the past alliances were willing to deliberately lose during the off season, forfeiting the victory rewards, to jockey their rating into a better starting position for the start of the actual season. So we know with absolute certainty that if Kabam asked everyone to participate as if it was a real season but didn't have season rewards, many alliances would instead take the opportunity to use it to manipulate rating in their favor.
Option two makes a trade. If you put in any prestige limit, whether it is 50% or any other amount, one of two things will happen. The limit will allow that alliance to win more wars than they would have, or it wouldn't. If it is too high and they don't win any more wars, it is irrelevant. If it is narrow enough that they don't always lose, then you're allowing them to win more wars than they ought to, score more points than they ought to, and thus enter a higher bracket than they would have otherwise. And every alliance that enters a higher bracket than they should is an alliance being bumped into a lower bracket than they would have. It seems like a free thing because you don't know who that alliance is. But suppose I did the calculations and figured out which alliance that was. Or alliances, because it could be more than one if the other alliance jumped upward more than one bracket (which would bump one alliance each down one bracket). What do you tell them, and how do you justify this trade? That's not a trade I would make.
Thanks for your reply, tor option 1 I feel like this is new ground, and realising how much inflated alliances were about to be cleared out of the mid/ top tiers and seeing some rounded figures may have discouraged this, for example my wins in t11 are worth far less than my wins now in tier 6/7, in fact from memory a loss in t6 is almost comparable to a win in tier 11, remembering In this scenario we are leaving the top platinums locked. I’m not convinced we couldn’t have got reasonable participation but I guess the top 25% may have had less reason to try and gain multipliers as they are still close to where they will end up unlike alliances Like mine who were the epitomy of getting screwed by last matchmaking system.
Second point i understand what you are saying but I’m trying to throw a bone here To the genuine new alliances, I don’t think they would actually win if they are getting matched up with someone on the plus side of 50-100% of their prestige, again remembering nobody is going to be trying to use an exploit that is only for 5 wars in a new alliance. I don’t think it needs addressing yet. But I have to say the new war nodes and potion use is frustrating people, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes an exploit for retired alliances in the future and we may keep seeing <1m alliances matched up with 20m alliances happening. Which, as an outlier isn’t a big deal. but if it results from a possible trend then it is concerning, also bearing in mind alliances don’t have treasuries anymore. So there is very little hiking then from starting a new alliance and all jumping over. Seems like a simple suggestion that couldn’t be exploited to me. A matchmaking parameter for a 1k prestige alliance for 5 wars only being able to match 500-1.5k prestige alliances. would still be reasonably 50:50 win rate, and any brand new alliance who is 8k deserves to be facing 4-12k alliances rather than 1k alliances, still perceivable a 50:50 win rate, that’s why I left such a huge number, i can’t see it as being exploitable but I also understand anybodies reluctance to rely on anything other than war rating after the debacle that was the previous system
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
It's a hypothetical that completely ignores the issue right now.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
It's a hypothetical that completely ignores the issue right now.
You're completely ignoring the ongoing issue for many seasons. The majority of the player base have wanted the change and now its here. Alliances will now land where their progression/skill/rosters let them. Some will lose a few wars yes but you seem to ignore the fact about obviously losses, there is no need to blow items on a clear loss as opposed to fairly similar sized matchups so now they'll save items
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
It's a hypothetical that completely ignores the issue right now.
You're completely ignoring the ongoing issue for many seasons. The majority of the player base have wanted the change and now its here. Alliances will now land where their progression/skill/rosters let them. Some will lose a few wars yes but you seem to ignore the fact about obviously losses, there is no need to blow items on a clear loss as opposed to fairly similar sized matchups so now they'll save items
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm talking about right now. One problem doesn't make the other go away.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
It's a hypothetical that completely ignores the issue right now.
You're completely ignoring the ongoing issue for many seasons. The majority of the player base have wanted the change and now its here. Alliances will now land where their progression/skill/rosters let them. Some will lose a few wars yes but you seem to ignore the fact about obviously losses, there is no need to blow items on a clear loss as opposed to fairly similar sized matchups so now they'll save items
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm talking about right now. One problem doesn't make the other go away.
it literally does. The other issue is gone, this issue is a short lived issue that made it go away.
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
It's a hypothetical that completely ignores the issue right now.
It does not. It talks about the same issue that you state is the problem, but spins it to look at it from another way. You stated that the issue is massively unbalanced battles that you cannot win. In my question that still happens, is it a problem then or not?
My alliance with average summoner rating 130k just matched with an alliance with an average rating of almost 1 million. The matching doesn't make sense at all.
Why do people focus on alliance rating or summoner rating? It's an irrelevant number that can be manipulated by selling champs.
We have a war rating for a reason. You win rating goes up, you lose rating goes down. Best alliances rise to the top, its as easy as that. If you can't beat an alliance you don't deserve to be higher rated.
All the whiners sound like they only want to play little league for major league rewards. I have no problem playing against bigger alliances as long as if i win i will be rightly rewarded.
Stop and think about that. 130k against 1 Mil average. That's not just a number. That's a huge sign something is wrong.
For someone who does not want to debate it, you sure are debating a lot. In addition it is not a huge sign something is wrong, what was their war rating? the 130k alliance more than likely had an higher than they should rating due to too easy battles in previous wars.
I wasn't going to but I'm getting fed up with seeing the same dissociative justifications for some pretty serious gaps between Alliances. The War Rating means nil at this point. Absolutely nothing because we just spent however many Seasons with a different system working. Saying they're equally Matched because those are close is just plain ignorant at this stage. A 900k Matched with a 19 Mil? 130k avg. against a 1 Mil avg.? Enough is enough with pretending everything is as it should be.
So you are saying brackets in competitions, which war rating simulates in a non single.double elimination competition means nothing?
It shows skill. It shows that when matched with evenly matched (in terms of power), or greater than they beat them or lost to them, and it represents that as they beat those opponents they kept winning, or as they lost and lost to easier and easier opponents they kept losing. It is the closest representation to skill the game can have.
obviously has as been stated repeatably it will take some time for this to work itself out. You are focused on the short term not the long term.
No. I'm focused on the here and now, and person after person keeps pointing out some undeniable and substantial variations in strength NOW, and they can't just be ignored or brushed off for a future outcome. My patience for the denial is quite frankly at its end. These Matches are absolutely ridiculous in some cases, and it's time to stop pretending there's nothing to see here.
"hear and now", aka short term. you are concerned about short term loses, and loses is what it is, which will still net them better rewards than they deserve or the rewards that they deserve.
Losses have nothing to do with it. You've asserted that repeatedly and I keep telling you it's not about the Loss. If an Alliance fights a fair fight and loses, that's not the same. When the Loss is set up by the Matchmaking itself, that is NOT a fair contest.
You keep saying it is not about the losses and then you describe what you are upset about, and then it is the loss.
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
No, it's not about the fact that they're losing. It's about the fact that they're losing before they even play. You're describing a change in Members. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the system placing them in grossly outmatched Wars.
My question is exactly what we are talking about. If an alliance goes from silver to p3, then breaks up, and replaces with silver skilled players you would get the exact same times of makeup as now, because that p3 alliance is now over rated for their current skill level.
No it's not at all. You're talking about a natural occurrence where the Alliance changes its Roster. Absolutely nothing to do with the system flipping upside down and forcing people to face Matches they cannot win.
Its an analogy. In this case silver skilled players were able to get to p3 by keeping their prestige low and therefore fighting even lower skilled players to game the system in a way. The system is now naturally moving those players back down because the flawed design was removed.
It's a hypothetical that completely ignores the issue right now.
You're completely ignoring the ongoing issue for many seasons. The majority of the player base have wanted the change and now its here. Alliances will now land where their progression/skill/rosters let them. Some will lose a few wars yes but you seem to ignore the fact about obviously losses, there is no need to blow items on a clear loss as opposed to fairly similar sized matchups so now they'll save items
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm talking about right now. One problem doesn't make the other go away.
So we have 2 options
Return to old system which majority hated Or Continue with new system which majority wanted
Which do you choose? I assume you'll ride the fence and say no comment
There are people who undestand and those who don't. Arguing with those who don't is pointless. Even when presenting them with facts and reason, they don't understand. I'll try one more time to dumb it down:. Your strength in Alliance Wars is determined your War Rating. Alliance rating is pointless and has no bearing on any aspect of the game. Exsmple: You win a war, your war rating goes up, showing your new strength. You win the next, war rating goes up, you're more powerfull. You win and win and win until at the end you have to face KenoB. The system was broken before, now it readjust itself until everyone will have the war rating to match their actual strength. Then will have "fair" matches
Not when it's been another system used up until this Season. Then War Rating isn't a true reflection. Not until the balancing has finished. That's what I keep saying, but for some reason, people don't see that. Saying War Rating is all that matters doesn't take into account what is taking place now, and that may be true after all the dust settles, providing it can be frozen so it's not swayed otherwise, but as of now, it's not really a measure of anything but two different systems.
We've been stuck at Silv2 for years, we're slaughtering people that have been silv1 gold 2 and 3 now. We're a couple points from gold 3 now, whatever theyre doing is leveling things out
Not when it's been another system used up until this Season. Then War Rating isn't a true reflection. Not until the balancing has finished. That's what I keep saying, but for some reason, people don't see that. Saying War Rating is all that matters doesn't take into account what is taking place now, and that may be true after all the dust settles, providing it can be frozen so it's not swayed otherwise, but as of now, it's not really a measure of anything but two different systems.
Note the words. Starting to lay the foundation for the wind change.
Not when it's been another system used up until this Season. Then War Rating isn't a true reflection. Not until the balancing has finished. That's what I keep saying, but for some reason, people don't see that. Saying War Rating is all that matters doesn't take into account what is taking place now, and that may be true after all the dust settles, providing it can be frozen so it's not swayed otherwise, but as of now, it's not really a measure of anything but two different systems.
Totally agree it is an amalgamation of two systems. I think people see that just fine
But I am curious how war rating is not taking into account what is happening now. In my mind, what is happening now is a direct reflection of the old system meeting the new system. The very reason the current matchups are occurring is because of the old system and now the new system so I don't really understand how it's not an accurate reflection. Unless you feel that matchups will always remain as they are now. But then the system would be broke.
War rating is all that matters because that is all the system uses for matchmaking. To say otherwise is false under the current system. Many of those posting regarding ally pi ratings are continuously erring in pointing out that ally pi's are vastly different so it is a mismatch. Perhaps. But ally pi rating is not a great indicator of strength. It CAN be but it is not the BEST indicator of strength. Those parameters can be altered. I asked this in another thread, If i sell all my 1 2 and 3 stars what happens to my pi? What if all 30 of my ally mates do the same? Does the matchup with another alliance against us somehow become easier for them? Of course not.
Finally, pointing out ally pi rating and pointing to it as proof of a mismatch ignores the very premise of the quoted post above. You say that this is the result of 2 systems coming together and that it ignores what is happening now. War rating is very much taking into account what happened before hence the varied disparity in alliance pi. It is in effect, the very proof you say is lacking.
In order for war rating to become accurate wars fought must have meaning. Off season wars lack meaning. Only the season can adequately provide that meaning.
Comments
Do you see a non league team crying when they draw Man Utd in the FA Cup, no they celebrate and even with little chance of winning they play and recognise they when there is only 1 set of prizes then everyone has to beat the best to get to the top.
War rating is the same, to go up and win best rewards you must beat people and grow
here is a question for you to consider. take an alliance, lets say it goes on a killer win streak and goes from silver to p3, then the alliance falls apart. The leadership gets new members but they are no where near as good. They start losing matches and keep falling because their skill level is much lower. How should the game handle that?
In a sports league, teams in the same division don't avoid competing with each other because one team has a far better team than the other. Take the premier league for example. Should Norwich not have to play liverpool, since liverpool's team is 50x better than that of Norwich, despite them being in the same division?
Thanks for your reply, tor option 1 I feel like this is new ground, and realising how much inflated alliances were about to be cleared out of the mid/ top tiers and seeing some rounded figures may have discouraged this, for example my wins in t11 are worth far less than my wins now in tier 6/7, in fact from memory a loss in t6 is almost comparable to a win in tier 11, remembering In this scenario we are leaving the top platinums locked. I’m not convinced we couldn’t have got reasonable participation but I guess the top 25% may have had less reason to try and gain multipliers as they are still close to where they will end up unlike alliances Like mine who were the epitomy of getting screwed by last matchmaking system.
Second point i understand what you are saying but I’m trying to throw a bone here To the genuine new alliances, I don’t think they would actually win if they are getting matched up with someone on the plus side of 50-100% of their prestige, again remembering nobody is going to be trying to use an exploit that is only for 5 wars in a new alliance. I don’t think it needs addressing yet. But I have to say the new war nodes and potion use is frustrating people, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes an exploit for retired alliances in the future and we may keep seeing <1m alliances matched up with 20m alliances happening. Which, as an outlier isn’t a big deal. but if it results from a possible trend then it is concerning, also bearing in mind alliances don’t have treasuries anymore. So there is very little hiking then from starting a new alliance and all jumping over.
Seems like a simple suggestion that couldn’t be exploited to me. A matchmaking parameter for a 1k prestige alliance for 5 wars only being able to match 500-1.5k prestige alliances. would still be reasonably 50:50 win rate, and any brand new alliance who is 8k deserves to be facing 4-12k alliances rather than 1k alliances, still perceivable a 50:50 win rate, that’s why I left such a huge number, i can’t see it as being exploitable but I also understand anybodies reluctance to rely on anything other than war rating after the debacle that was the previous system
Return to old system which majority hated
Or
Continue with new system which majority wanted
Which do you choose?
I assume you'll ride the fence and say no comment
Just cause wars was screwed up from the get go they don’t get to fix it
If you in let’s say plat1(I’m not) you SHOULD have to play ANYBODY in plat1
Not just ppl close to you in strength
Even when presenting them with facts and reason, they don't understand.
I'll try one more time to dumb it down:. Your strength in Alliance Wars is determined your War Rating. Alliance rating is pointless and has no bearing on any aspect of the game.
Exsmple:
You win a war, your war rating goes up, showing your new strength. You win the next, war rating goes up, you're more powerfull. You win and win and win until at the end you have to face KenoB.
The system was broken before, now it readjust itself until everyone will have the war rating to match their actual strength. Then will have "fair" matches
But I am curious how war rating is not taking into account what is happening now. In my mind, what is happening now is a direct reflection of the old system meeting the new system. The very reason the current matchups are occurring is because of the old system and now the new system so I don't really understand how it's not an accurate reflection. Unless you feel that matchups will always remain as they are now. But then the system would be broke.
War rating is all that matters because that is all the system uses for matchmaking. To say otherwise is false under the current system. Many of those posting regarding ally pi ratings are continuously erring in pointing out that ally pi's are vastly different so it is a mismatch. Perhaps. But ally pi rating is not a great indicator of strength. It CAN be but it is not the BEST indicator of strength. Those parameters can be altered. I asked this in another thread, If i sell all my 1 2 and 3 stars what happens to my pi? What if all 30 of my ally mates do the same? Does the matchup with another alliance against us somehow become easier for them? Of course not.
Finally, pointing out ally pi rating and pointing to it as proof of a mismatch ignores the very premise of the quoted post above. You say that this is the result of 2 systems coming together and that it ignores what is happening now. War rating is very much taking into account what happened before hence the varied disparity in alliance pi. It is in effect, the very proof you say is lacking.
In order for war rating to become accurate wars fought must have meaning. Off season wars lack meaning. Only the season can adequately provide that meaning.