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 us lacking that it is taking into account what is happening now.
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.
The War Rating was far from a gauge of strength when the system was changed. In fact, that was one of the supporting arguments to switching it back. Which means as of right now, it's not a reflection of what Alliances are capable of based on Wins and Losses. Going back to the old system doesn't make it an accurate reflection of that overnight. It will take time and unfortunately, people are being affected by that gap. What I'm speaking to is the response that War Rating is the only thing that matters and if they're equal, then the Match is fair. That's not a current reality. That will only be when the system has realigned itself. I don't really want to get too deep into it on another Thread, but as it stands now, it is not a measure of strength. Not even with a few Wars already fought. It will take time. What I keep pointing out is things are out of whack and for people on the losing end, it's an unfair process to go through because their Wars are well beyond their capabilities. People may be able to argue they think it has to be this way, and they may be able to argue the system will settle in time, but the argument that the Matches are fair because the War Rating is even is not correct. Not at this moment in time. In fact, we all knew this was going to happen. Saying it is now, is just trite.
67% + 8% so 75% of the community see it as working as it should. Therefore no issue. If the majority of the community is happy with something it is the right thing to do.
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 us lacking that it is taking into account what is happening now.
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.
The War Rating was far from a gauge of strength when the system was changed. In fact, that was one of the supporting arguments to switching it back. Which means as of right now, it's not a reflection of what Alliances are capable of based on Wins and Losses. Going back to the old system doesn't make it an accurate reflection of that overnight. It will take time and unfortunately, people are being affected by that gap. What I'm speaking to is the response that War Rating is the only thing that matters and if they're equal, then the Match is fair. That's not a current reality. That will only be when the system has realigned itself. I don't really want to get too deep into it on another Thread, but as it stands now, it is not a measure of strength. Not even with a few Wars already fought. It will take time. What I keep pointing out is things are out of whack and for people on the losing end, it's an unfair process to go through because their Wars are well beyond their capabilities. People may be able to argue they think it has to be this way, and they may be able to argue the system will settle in time, but the argument that the Matches are fair because the War Rating is even is not correct. Not at this moment in time. In fact, we all knew this was going to happen. Saying it is now, is just trite.
I agree that war rating as it is currently is not an accurate reflection of strength. It is however a true reflection of how things are and just how out of whack things were. It demonstrates that profoundly well. I also agree that a group of players are unfairly taking it on the chin. I can believe that and believe that the system is fair because both can be true.
I guess where we truly diverge is on the point of fairness. There exists a set of rules for.matchmaking that the system uses to set up matches. The system plays no favorites and matches according to a given set of parameters. Each alliance plays under the same set of rules. And each alliance has a chance to reach #1. Maybe not today and maybe it will take a while but they have a chance. That's all I or any other alliance can really ask for. The rest is up to the individual alliance. In my book, that's fair.
It absolutely is, and this is why this was a much needed change. I’m in like a 30 million ally and have been undefeated since the change, and no war has been particularly close. We were like gold 3. It’s just correction is all. These 5 and 10 mil allies had no business in gold 1/platinum 4.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this sure is a lot of discussion to put simply... the current system has the potential to suck for everyone (but the top dogs), it's geared to suck even more for those that were fighting in a different silo, but getting the same rewards. The silo is torn down and they have to swim or sink. It's the same for nearly everyone, but those without the skill for their accustomed tier will take the greatest lashing and fall the furthest. The matches you draw over time are likely an indication of your right to be in your previous tier. I'm still hoping to roll over an alliance or two, but so far matches have not been lopsided and there's been a slow climb to the previously unattainable tier. I have sympathy for an alliance headed in the opposite direction as losing isn't fun. Would they have sympathy for me not collecting higher tier rewards for any number of seasons....what I'm hearing here is no, they would not.
He that will not be named is most sour about his fall. That does make me feel better about all the other times he's felt the need to try to piss in my cereal. I'll be back to watch the show. Might even go look for a few examples of when he rubbed someone else's nose in his previous tier rating.
I don't know whu people are saying yes, this is completley nonsense. This matchmaking is completley not in favour of gold tier or lower. Alliances in gold are degrading to silver and silver to bronzd. This is disgusting. They are completely destroying low tier alliance. Where high tier alliances are getting more benefits. Kabam just wants you to put money on the game . I don't respect that . They should do something about this matchmaking they are ruining aw.
I don't know whu people are saying yes, this is completley nonsense. This matchmaking is completley not in favour of gold tier or lower. Alliances in gold are degrading to silver and silver to bronzd. This is disgusting. They are completely destroying low tier alliance. Where high tier alliances are getting more benefits. Kabam just wants you to put money on the game . I don't respect that . They should do something about this matchmaking they are ruining aw.
The only alliances degrading from gold are the ones that never should’ve been gold in the first place.
I voted no comments, since I disagree with all other options, and I kinda agree and disagree with GW on this one. The war rating is a fair metric to determine a war strength of an alliance regardless of prestige and alliance rating. The previous system was ignoring this war rating and it was inflated for some low prestige alliances and very low for some high prestige alliances. Kabam shifted the matchmaking too quickly. If previous system was broken, then war rating should have been reduced to 0 or some value of their prestige or alliance rating. I know it is a metric that can be manipulated too, but it would have reduced these huge mismatches to a degree. That being said, it is what it is. I know the season is ruined for some alliances, but like all things in life, move on. I am seeing multiple threads of same people arguing with the same person. Unless you are in master bracket, AW rewards are not significant to the account progression at this time. As many have said, previous matchmaking allowed for smaller alliances to claim bigger rewards than they would have got if the matchmaking was purely based on war rating. 1 season does not determine your account. As someone who has not played multiple seasons, I can attest to that.
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 us lacking that it is taking into account what is happening now.
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.
The War Rating was far from a gauge of strength when the system was changed. In fact, that was one of the supporting arguments to switching it back. Which means as of right now, it's not a reflection of what Alliances are capable of based on Wins and Losses. Going back to the old system doesn't make it an accurate reflection of that overnight. It will take time and unfortunately, people are being affected by that gap. What I'm speaking to is the response that War Rating is the only thing that matters and if they're equal, then the Match is fair. That's not a current reality. That will only be when the system has realigned itself. I don't really want to get too deep into it on another Thread, but as it stands now, it is not a measure of strength. Not even with a few Wars already fought. It will take time. What I keep pointing out is things are out of whack and for people on the losing end, it's an unfair process to go through because their Wars are well beyond their capabilities. People may be able to argue they think it has to be this way, and they may be able to argue the system will settle in time, but the argument that the Matches are fair because the War Rating is even is not correct. Not at this moment in time. In fact, we all knew this was going to happen. Saying it is now, is just trite.
I agree that war rating as it is currently is not an accurate reflection of strength. It is however a true reflection of how things are and just how out of whack things were. It demonstrates that profoundly well. I also agree that a group of players are unfairly taking it on the chin. I can believe that and believe that the system is fair because both can be true.
I guess where we truly diverge is on the point of fairness. There exists a set of rules for.matchmaking that the system uses to set up matches. The system plays no favorites and matches according to a given set of parameters. Each alliance plays under the same set of rules. And each alliance has a chance to reach #1. Maybe not today and maybe it will take a while but they have a chance. That's all I or any other alliance can really ask for. The rest is up to the individual alliance. In my book, that's fair.
That sounds more like RNG than fairness in Matching from what I see. At least that's been my response on the fairness of RNG. Everyone has the same Drop Rates. If that's the point you're coming from, I suppose we do diverge. Fairness is not about playing favorites for me, and it's really not as abstract as people have been questioning. It has to do with the two extremes. People went from having Matches that were within range or their size to very far from it. That's not a transition that skill can accommodate that quickly. The system is matching based on where the War Ratings are now, and they're so far from what people have been working on over the last while that they have no choice but to lose. Because of the extremes, that's not fair. In terms of War Rating alone, had they worked their way up and fought stronger and stronger Alliances until eventually reaching their limit, that would be fair to me. Only that's not what happened, and having it artificially imposed abruptly without allowing those Alliances the opportunity to do so and grow along the way creates an unfair situation. There's no real transition into it, or bridging of the two systems. Just collide, fall, repeat, and wait for the system to balance itself. Fairness is very simple for me. Matches that are appropriate to where Alliances are at. We don't have that. We have Matches that are appropriate to a system that existed 10 Seasons ago, or however long it's been, and a great deal of limbo. It's going to take more than a couple weeks for the system to get there, and fair won't be a thing until this is over. In the meantime, the Alliances affected are swimming upstream in rapids, which means their Seasons aren't even true measures of their performance. I mean sure, they'll go down. They won't be earning what they deserve this Season. Perhaps not even next. There could have been a more fair approach than Yahzee. That's just how I feel.
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 us lacking that it is taking into account what is happening now.
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.
The War Rating was far from a gauge of strength when the system was changed. In fact, that was one of the supporting arguments to switching it back. Which means as of right now, it's not a reflection of what Alliances are capable of based on Wins and Losses. Going back to the old system doesn't make it an accurate reflection of that overnight. It will take time and unfortunately, people are being affected by that gap. What I'm speaking to is the response that War Rating is the only thing that matters and if they're equal, then the Match is fair. That's not a current reality. That will only be when the system has realigned itself. I don't really want to get too deep into it on another Thread, but as it stands now, it is not a measure of strength. Not even with a few Wars already fought. It will take time. What I keep pointing out is things are out of whack and for people on the losing end, it's an unfair process to go through because their Wars are well beyond their capabilities. People may be able to argue they think it has to be this way, and they may be able to argue the system will settle in time, but the argument that the Matches are fair because the War Rating is even is not correct. Not at this moment in time. In fact, we all knew this was going to happen. Saying it is now, is just trite.
but as we said before the previous system was unfair.
alliances getting these "unfair" matches now are sitting higher then they shuld be due to seasons of an unfair system that benefited them. i wouldn't say one season of bad matchups is unfair to these allies, as they have had many seasons where they have had an unfair advantage. unfair positive for 10+ seasons, unfair negative for 1 season. you're right it is unfair, but still overall favors them. the extra rewards earnt for the last 10+ seasons is much much greater then what they will lose from this season.
it all balances out to be somewhat fair. stop looking at it as a per war basis, look at it from the season standpoint. the WR system is changed to create balance and fairness in the end of season results as thats where the big rewards are.
That's the part that I keep trying to get across, but people aren't accepting it. It IS unfair to them right now, and it's not about the old system being unfair so it's okay to make this one unfair. There's no battle of consequences. There's that problem, and this problem.
someone votes wit - no comments...... then proceeds to comment time after time after time.... i think you need to change your vote to a yes or no..... cus clearly no comment is not true or accurate.....
someone votes wit - no comments...... then proceeds to comment time after time after time.... i think you need to change your vote to a yes or no..... cus clearly no comment is not true or accurate.....
I have in a silver2 alliance with 13mil rating. For the past 4 aw, we have been facing around 26, 30 and 20 mil alliances. We had been practising a lot during offseason so our rating was decent. Now we are being matched against gold alliances. How is this fair ? I think we do deserve a silver 2 position but due to this matchmaking, we are almost down to bronze.
That's the part that I keep trying to get across, but people aren't accepting it. It IS unfair to them right now, and it's not about the old system being unfair so it's okay to make this one unfair. There's no battle of consequences. There's that problem, and this problem.
Consider this your penance for all the rewards you've had from AW that you didn't deserve, because the previous system was broken. Matchmaking has been in your favour for multiple seasons because you couldn't match tough alliances. Now everything is fair and you're going to get pounded on by the alliances that deserved the rewards you were getting but couldn't get them.
It's going to level out and in the grand scheme of things your accounts will still have profited from the mistakes. You just don't like that you have to deal with tough matches for a short time. Get over it.
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.
We are in silver 3 and no one in my alliance has sold champs. Two people in our alliance (me and a guy not in war) have 5* r5's and a rating above 400k. The other highest in the alliance is roughly 4* r4 or lower. The enemy team is only using 5* r5's.
We haven't had easy wars as we have been going against alliances the same level as us or slightly higher, however this one is a major mismatch.
To be fair I can’t believe how deluded some people are.. makes me laugh reading some of the comments from people (who have never played t1/t2 war to see what tough fights actually look like)
Here is a simple way to explain it for people who seems lost by the logic..
Liverpool just won the premier leagues (division 1) they have 93 points and played premier league opposition all season. Leeds just won championship (Division 2) they have 90 points, playing d2 opposition all season.
Under they logic some people are suggesting it would be fair for Leeds to be awarded 2nd place in the premier league and all the huge rewards that come with it. Cause they have 90 points.
Now I appreciate Kabam has not introduced divisions, but they effectively did allowing small ally to only match other small ally and yet claim huge rewards.
Now everyone will find rightful place with their war rating and get ‘fair’ rewards for their performance. This correction is coming at some Pain to those who mainly perceive there ability to be better that it is, created by bais matches for so long.
I'm not going to put anything as an answer to this poll because in my opinion, there really isn't a black or white answer.
For now, the matchmaking makes no sense at all. We are a 13M ally, ended silver 1 last season and I guess we were placed pretty correctly. This season we won one war so far, against an ally similar to ours. The other wars were against Ally's 25 to 40M. So for us, it's crappy at the moment. I know of other alliances, half or less of our strength who are fighting empty wars back to back. Not really fair I guess.
As the season evolves, I hope and think everything will balance out and the matchmaking will make more sense. Battling against alliances with approximately the same war rating will be more logical.
So, in conclusion, for now it doesn't make sense, in the long run, it will balance out and most alliances will end up where they belong.
I just hope it's not going to take more than one season.
I don't know whu people are saying yes, this is completley nonsense. This matchmaking is completley not in favour of gold tier or lower. Alliances in gold are degrading to silver and silver to bronzd. This is disgusting. They are completely destroying low tier alliance. Where high tier alliances are getting more benefits. Kabam just wants you to put money on the game . I don't respect that . They should do something about this matchmaking they are ruining aw.
for every alliance going down another is going up.
those that were higher than their skill are going down. those that were lower than their skill are going up.
~33% alliances staying in similar position ~33% alliances going up ~33% of alliances going down.
just think bout it. its pure numbers, maths and statistics. if one alliance falls another must climb.
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.
We are in silver 3 and no one in my alliance has sold champs. Two people in our alliance (me and a guy not in war) have 5* r5's and a rating above 400k. The other highest in the alliance is roughly 4* r4 or lower. The enemy team is only using 5* r5's.
We haven't had easy wars as we have been going against alliances the same level as us or slightly higher, however this one is a major mismatch.
I never said you did sell champs. I commented that alliance rating can be manipulated by big accounts selling champs.
I understand that having a war against a more powerful alliance can suck but from your picture it looks as though war rating is even. This season is leveling out where alliances should place and unfortunately some alliances will get the shaft in some wars.
It also sounds like you don't do 3 bg wars which have always been tough to match as 1 alliance could have low members get their 5 wars in by losing intentionally to lower rating then giving the bigger members easy war wins to boost their season points
I voted no comments, since I disagree with all other options, and I kinda agree and disagree with GW on this one. The war rating is a fair metric to determine a war strength of an alliance regardless of prestige and alliance rating. The previous system was ignoring this war rating and it was inflated for some low prestige alliances and very low for some high prestige alliances. Kabam shifted the matchmaking too quickly. If previous system was broken, then war rating should have been reduced to 0 or some value of their prestige or alliance rating. I know it is a metric that can be manipulated too, but it would have reduced these huge mismatches to a degree. That being said, it is what it is. I know the season is ruined for some alliances, but like all things in life, move on. I am seeing multiple threads of same people arguing with the same person. Unless you are in master bracket, AW rewards are not significant to the account progression at this time. As many have said, previous matchmaking allowed for smaller alliances to claim bigger rewards than they would have got if the matchmaking was purely based on war rating. 1 season does not determine your account. As someone who has not played multiple seasons, I can attest to that.
That would have been unfair to people as well, as people who are stone tier could be fighting people who are master tier until the dust settled again. Also the season should not be ruined for anyone. In terms of rewards they should get close to what they truly deserve or better.
That's the part that I keep trying to get across, but people aren't accepting it. It IS unfair to them right now, and it's not about the old system being unfair so it's okay to make this one unfair. There's no battle of consequences. There's that problem, and this problem.
BS, people have stated they understand that it is a rough transition, but it is a more fair system. This system is ultimately the fairest you can have that anyone can think of.
This is our latest matchup, we are a small Alliance trying to climb the ranks. This is extremely demotivating.
seems to indicate the system is working, why were they silver last season, was it because they are not very good but have a high pi? Their prestige is also fairly low for their Pi seeming to indicate someone may be buying lots of crystals and not ranking up their champs.
This is our latest matchup, we are a small Alliance trying to climb the ranks. This is extremely demotivating.
I'm actually pretty interested in this. What story does this say? War rating about the same, lower in Silver 3 but a great difference in PI. Could the war rating use in this case be wrong?
Comments
I don't really want to get too deep into it on another Thread, but as it stands now, it is not a measure of strength. Not even with a few Wars already fought. It will take time. What I keep pointing out is things are out of whack and for people on the losing end, it's an unfair process to go through because their Wars are well beyond their capabilities. People may be able to argue they think it has to be this way, and they may be able to argue the system will settle in time, but the argument that the Matches are fair because the War Rating is even is not correct. Not at this moment in time. In fact, we all knew this was going to happen. Saying it is now, is just trite.
Therefore no issue.
If the majority of the community is happy with something it is the right thing to do.
I guess where we truly diverge is on the point of fairness. There exists a set of rules for.matchmaking that the system uses to set up matches. The system plays no favorites and matches according to a given set of parameters. Each alliance plays under the same set of rules. And each alliance has a chance to reach #1. Maybe not today and maybe it will take a while but they have a chance. That's all I or any other alliance can really ask for. The rest is up to the individual alliance. In my book, that's fair.
I'm still hoping to roll over an alliance or two, but so far matches have not been lopsided and there's been a slow climb to the previously unattainable tier. I have sympathy for an alliance headed in the opposite direction as losing isn't fun. Would they have sympathy for me not collecting higher tier rewards for any number of seasons....what I'm hearing here is no, they would not.
He that will not be named is most sour about his fall. That does make me feel better about all the other times he's felt the need to try to piss in my cereal. I'll be back to watch the show. Might even go look for a few examples of when he rubbed someone else's nose in his previous tier rating.
That being said, it is what it is. I know the season is ruined for some alliances, but like all things in life, move on. I am seeing multiple threads of same people arguing with the same person. Unless you are in master bracket, AW rewards are not significant to the account progression at this time. As many have said, previous matchmaking allowed for smaller alliances to claim bigger rewards than they would have got if the matchmaking was purely based on war rating. 1 season does not determine your account. As someone who has not played multiple seasons, I can attest to that.
Fairness is not about playing favorites for me, and it's really not as abstract as people have been questioning. It has to do with the two extremes. People went from having Matches that were within range or their size to very far from it. That's not a transition that skill can accommodate that quickly. The system is matching based on where the War Ratings are now, and they're so far from what people have been working on over the last while that they have no choice but to lose. Because of the extremes, that's not fair. In terms of War Rating alone, had they worked their way up and fought stronger and stronger Alliances until eventually reaching their limit, that would be fair to me. Only that's not what happened, and having it artificially imposed abruptly without allowing those Alliances the opportunity to do so and grow along the way creates an unfair situation. There's no real transition into it, or bridging of the two systems. Just collide, fall, repeat, and wait for the system to balance itself. Fairness is very simple for me. Matches that are appropriate to where Alliances are at. We don't have that. We have Matches that are appropriate to a system that existed 10 Seasons ago, or however long it's been, and a great deal of limbo. It's going to take more than a couple weeks for the system to get there, and fair won't be a thing until this is over. In the meantime, the Alliances affected are swimming upstream in rapids, which means their Seasons aren't even true measures of their performance. I mean sure, they'll go down. They won't be earning what they deserve this Season. Perhaps not even next. There could have been a more fair approach than Yahzee. That's just how I feel.
alliances getting these "unfair" matches now are sitting higher then they shuld be due to seasons of an unfair system that benefited them.
i wouldn't say one season of bad matchups is unfair to these allies, as they have had many seasons where they have had an unfair advantage.
unfair positive for 10+ seasons,
unfair negative for 1 season.
you're right it is unfair, but still overall favors them.
the extra rewards earnt for the last 10+ seasons is much much greater then what they will lose from this season.
it all balances out to be somewhat fair. stop looking at it as a per war basis, look at it from the season standpoint. the WR system is changed to create balance and fairness in the end of season results as thats where the big rewards are.
- no comments......
then proceeds to comment time after time after time....
i think you need to change your vote to a yes or no.....
cus clearly no comment is not true or accurate.....
It's going to level out and in the grand scheme of things your accounts will still have profited from the mistakes. You just don't like that you have to deal with tough matches for a short time. Get over it.
We haven't had easy wars as we have been going against alliances the same level as us or slightly higher, however this one is a major mismatch.
Here is a simple way to explain it for people who seems lost by the logic..
Liverpool just won the premier leagues (division 1) they have 93 points and played premier league opposition all season.
Leeds just won championship (Division 2) they have 90 points, playing d2 opposition all season.
Under they logic some people are suggesting it would be fair for Leeds to be awarded 2nd place in the premier league and all the huge rewards that come with it. Cause they have 90 points.
Now I appreciate Kabam has not introduced divisions, but they effectively did allowing small ally to only match other small ally and yet claim huge rewards.
Now everyone will find rightful place with their war rating and get ‘fair’ rewards for their performance. This correction is coming at some Pain to those who mainly perceive there ability to be better that it is, created by bais matches for so long.
For now, the matchmaking makes no sense at all.
We are a 13M ally, ended silver 1 last season and I guess we were placed pretty correctly.
This season we won one war so far, against an ally similar to ours.
The other wars were against Ally's 25 to 40M.
So for us, it's crappy at the moment.
I know of other alliances, half or less of our strength who are fighting empty wars back to back. Not really fair I guess.
As the season evolves, I hope and think everything will balance out and the matchmaking will make more sense.
Battling against alliances with approximately the same war rating will be more logical.
So, in conclusion, for now it doesn't make sense, in the long run, it will balance out and most alliances will end up where they belong.
I just hope it's not going to take more than one season.
those that were higher than their skill are going down.
those that were lower than their skill are going up.
~33% alliances staying in similar position
~33% alliances going up
~33% of alliances going down.
just think bout it. its pure numbers, maths and statistics.
if one alliance falls another must climb.
I commented that alliance rating can be manipulated by big accounts selling champs.
I understand that having a war against a more powerful alliance can suck but from your picture it looks as though war rating is even. This season is leveling out where alliances should place and unfortunately some alliances will get the shaft in some wars.
It also sounds like you don't do 3 bg wars which have always been tough to match as 1 alliance could have low members get their 5 wars in by losing intentionally to lower rating then giving the bigger members easy war wins to boost their season points