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.
I hear ya but regarding the transition part, there really exists no system that would have allowed for that. While you may be able to accommodate a skill transition in a timely manner, creating a system that allowed for a gradual accommodation for the roster demands some of these players now face and would have faced would require years in some cases. That's just not realistic. Because it's not just an increase in skill, but an increase in roster demand and nothing but time (or money or some variation of both) can accommodate that.
I've seen many ideas based on good intentions offered. Despite being good intentions they haven't necessarily been good ideas. Someone suggested reset war rating for all to 0. That does nothing to avoid mismatches and each individual alliance can do that themselves by forming a new alliance. Others have suggested that this should be done in the off season despite many alliances having no motivation to even participate during the off season. Your suggestion of slowly introducing it isn't feasible either because of what I mention above. It becomes more apparent that kabam may have actually made the best course correction available by slashing everyone's previous war rating. Reasonable minds can say it should have been more or less I suppose but that'd quibbling.
In my mind anything that prolongs the current setup is just cruel so examining ideas to lessen the blow or ease into it seem off base to me. I've thought about this long and hard, and the best idea I could come up with would be to increase the loss of war rating and tie it to the amount of points ( or lack there of) an alliance scored in a match. But see even that has flaws. Drop too fast and and an alliance will retain a higher tier multiplier against potentially much lower tier multiplier alliances. I've seen it when alliances are close to each other in tier multipliers, it's a coin flip on the multiplier used but what happens if they are widely spaced? I've not seen that so I don't know. It potentially could create other unfair advantages so once again we come back to there just aren't good solutions.
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.
I'd assume it's a retired alliance with 10-20 strong accounts and others are more of new players
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.
I thought you voted no comment. Please don’t derail another thread. Even miike is tired of it.
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.
A rough transition is a nice way of saying they don't care that it's unfair to others. I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
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.
I thought you voted no comment. Please don’t derail another thread. Even miike is tired of it.
I'm not the only one participating in the conversation, and my tone is fairly civil.
Short term perspective... it doesn't look good or make a lot of sense but in the long term it should even out and get Alliances match'd up with equal skill/effort put towards AW.
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.
I hear ya but regarding the transition part, there really exists no system that would have allowed for that. While you may be able to accommodate a skill transition in a timely manner, creating a system that allowed for a gradual accommodation for the roster demands some of these players now face and would have faced would require years in some cases. That's just not realistic. Because it's not just an increase in skill, but an increase in roster demand and nothing but time (or money or some variation of both) can accommodate that.
I've seen many ideas based on good intentions offered. Despite being good intentions they haven't necessarily been good ideas. Someone suggested reset war rating for all to 0. That does nothing to avoid mismatches and each individual alliance can do that themselves by forming a new alliance. Others have suggested that this should be done in the off season despite many alliances having no motivation to even participate during the off season. Your suggestion of slowly introducing it isn't feasible either because of what I mention above. It becomes more apparent that kabam may have actually made the best course correction available by slashing everyone's previous war rating. Reasonable minds can say it should have been more or less I suppose but that'd quibbling.
In my mind anything that prolongs the current setup is just cruel so examining ideas to lessen the blow or ease into it seem off base to me. I've thought about this long and hard, and the best idea I could come up with would be to increase the loss of war rating and tie it to the amount of points ( or lack there of) an alliance scored in a match. But see even that has flaws. Drop too fast and and an alliance will retain a higher tier multiplier against potentially much lower tier multiplier alliances. I've seen it when alliances are close to each other in tier multipliers, it's a coin flip on the multiplier used but what happens if they are widely spaced? I've not seen that so I don't know. It potentially could create other unfair advantages so once again we come back to there just aren't good solutions.
I'm not sure I agree about Roster demands. War Rewards are won, not a given. From my perspective, they can't be counted on. I have to say I disagree that there were no other ways to deal with this. I just think this was the fastest. I also don't really agree that it was necessary. We've seen the results of moving too fast before, and we see it now.
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.
A rough transition is a nice way of saying they don't care that it's unfair to others. I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
you keep creating thsi strawman. I can be sad that it is hurting some people, but understand it is for the best of the game in the long term at the exact same time.
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.
You can go to another alliance who's more in line with your skill or simply rank your champions up and go to a bigger alliance? That option is there so this unfair talk is just not true. You got an over inflated sense of where your alliance stood because the old system has been giving you a pass.
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.
A rough transition is a nice way of saying they don't care that it's unfair to others. I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
It might seem unfair right now, yes, but in the big picture it will be a lot more fair than the bs that was previous matchmaking.
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.
I thought you voted no comment. Please don’t derail another thread. Even miike is tired of it.
I'm not the only one participating in the conversation, and my tone is fairly civil.
But you are the consistent thread throughout all these discussion. The main arguments shutting down threads are you calling the system unfair for some weird reason, people respond with some logical answers and reasoning, and you turn your nose up at it.
For now, it is what it is. Those that were held back from the previous matchmaking are moving forward. Those that moved forward under the previous matchmaking (a lot with lower PI and weaker accounts) are finding their way back into the true food chain. Once the dust settles (probably close to the end of this season), the alliance hopping will be in full swing. Those who can hang will get their chance in bigger allies and those that can't will need to keep beefing up rosters to get their chance if they want the bigger rewards that they feel they deserve.
Don't complain if you generally feel that the game is designed the way it is intended and are upset because one new aspect that finally impacts you negatively, but overall should be good for the player base when the cleanup period is over.
Oh, and while I'm here, just gonna say that I'm ecstatic about shorter AQ timers and the extra energy in AQ too! The game and real life are sooooo much better now. Funny, I "vaguely" remember someone who's been quite vocal in this thread, also being very adamant about not wanting AQ timers reduced for.... I really still don't know why - there was never a good point from that side made.... Oh yeah, because the game was designed that way (like this change was too).
Change is good, especially when it's done in an attempt to make the game better for everyone in the long run. Embrace it and move on or don't and move out.
#1: 28m alliance, didn't take AW seriously last season, just played the odd war with our lower-tier champs to get the loyalty and finished Silver 3 #2: 5m alliance, mostly enthusiastic newbs, took war seriously and filled 2 BGs, faced and beat a lot of disorganized alliances that couldn't fill 2 BGs, finished Silver 2
Both alliances are playing serious AW this season and trying to move up. - Alliance 2 is getting curb-stomped by 20m alliances and free-falling to Bronze 2. - Alliance 1 is doing the curb-stomping. Alliance 1 actually faced (and destroyed) Alliance 2. It's on its way to Gold 3.
This course correction for both alliances makes total sense to me, but especially for alliance 2 (the weaker one). I think its war rating was 1,500 by the end, but that's only because it found a sweet spot beating alliances that had similar prestige but weren't organized enough to fill 2 BGs.
The new matchmaking system is painful only for those alliances that were moving up by facing weak opponents. And matchups are going to balance out soon enough.
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.
The thing is war rating is the only thing that matters, your war rating is what determines the map tier you play in and your final reward bracket at the end of each season, the fact is the system that has just been replaced was ignoring war rating in favour of PI why? PI had no bearing on your final standing yet it was the most important factor in matchmaking the result been skewed rewards. The top teams in the lower pI brackets benefited greatly by been able to rise the ranks without having to face people much higher, regardless of how you try dress it up that’s an unfair advantage. Our last war was against a 9.7k prestige alliance we are 10.3 they had more people with r3 6* in their alliance than we do yet their match difficulty was capped. All of their defenders were r5 5* and 6* hero’s same with their attackers.
I agree these huge gaps at the moment are no fun for the alliance on the receiving end but I can assure you that for a lot of higher alliances the last 7 or 8 seasons have been no fun either. Maybe there could have been a better way to reset everything but I think if you had automatically started alliances lower, say based on their PI rating rather than war raiting to try ensure a more even fight many would have felt just as annoyed by having to start the season 3 or 4 tiers down.
I have to agree with what seems to be the vast majority on these threads that if war rating Is the only thing that determines your final ranking then ultimately war raiting is the only measure that should be used to arrange matchmaking.
Well, as long as people are facing Matches they have no chance of winning (900k vs. 19 Mil, i.e.), I cannot call the system fair. Those are extremes I cannot ignore. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
You're still missing the point that it was just as unfair to other allies before the change because no matter how good some bigger allies were, they could not move up based on the matching rules. Smaller shell allies could just undercut them to Gold and platinum, but now that doesn't work and in general, those who can't handle their own against other allies in the same bracket are being relegated to their appropriate bracket.
Some allies were negatively impacted before and some allies are negatively impacted now. However, with the change, Overall, this system is going to be more fair in the long run. It just needs a bit of time to even the mess from the previous rating system and that's the imbalance smaller PI alliances are feeling as the bandaid is being ripped off in one quick motion. It will soon pass though.
Well, as long as people are facing Matches they have no chance of winning (900k vs. 19 Mil, i.e.), I cannot call the system fair. Those are extremes I cannot ignore. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Wjich means that baby alliance had a higher war rating/tier/multiplier and finished higher in the season leaderboards. Yet that was fair? Twist it any way you want. At the end of the day you are wrong.
@GroundedWisdom you keep going on about size difference.. 6M points more than us correct?
Well... they're still easily beaten..
Matchmaking is fair. If you cannot compete at a level, you do not deserve to be there. Your size should not matter.
We beat New Enterals a few weeks back, they're twice our size. Admittedly they likely were not trying, but thats the point, you get in, what you put out.
Not at all. I've seen Alliances starting out, 1 Mil vs. 20 Mil. Shouldn't happen, but nothing is stopping it. I've seen a Bronze 3 Ally come up against a Gold 3 much larger. I've seen the example I just gave, nothing at all to do withthe few Alliances that were Ranking higher. More and more consequences for honest Players that are not fair. So it has nothing to do with Rewards. The whole system has been changed. The Season is a write-off for anyone who isn't large enough not to lose, and that makes it an unfair Season because no one else is being measured fairly. That's my stance.
Well, as long as people are facing Matches they have no chance of winning (900k vs. 19 Mil, i.e.), I cannot call the system fair. Those are extremes I cannot ignore. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Wjich means that baby alliance had a higher war rating/tier/multiplier and finished higher in the season leaderboards. Yet that was fair? Twist it any way you want. At the end of the day you are wrong.
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.
I hear ya but regarding the transition part, there really exists no system that would have allowed for that. While you may be able to accommodate a skill transition in a timely manner, creating a system that allowed for a gradual accommodation for the roster demands some of these players now face and would have faced would require years in some cases. That's just not realistic. Because it's not just an increase in skill, but an increase in roster demand and nothing but time (or money or some variation of both) can accommodate that.
I've seen many ideas based on good intentions offered. Despite being good intentions they haven't necessarily been good ideas. Someone suggested reset war rating for all to 0. That does nothing to avoid mismatches and each individual alliance can do that themselves by forming a new alliance. Others have suggested that this should be done in the off season despite many alliances having no motivation to even participate during the off season. Your suggestion of slowly introducing it isn't feasible either because of what I mention above. It becomes more apparent that kabam may have actually made the best course correction available by slashing everyone's previous war rating. Reasonable minds can say it should have been more or less I suppose but that'd quibbling.
In my mind anything that prolongs the current setup is just cruel so examining ideas to lessen the blow or ease into it seem off base to me. I've thought about this long and hard, and the best idea I could come up with would be to increase the loss of war rating and tie it to the amount of points ( or lack there of) an alliance scored in a match. But see even that has flaws. Drop too fast and and an alliance will retain a higher tier multiplier against potentially much lower tier multiplier alliances. I've seen it when alliances are close to each other in tier multipliers, it's a coin flip on the multiplier used but what happens if they are widely spaced? I've not seen that so I don't know. It potentially could create other unfair advantages so once again we come back to there just aren't good solutions.
I'm not sure I agree about Roster demands. War Rewards are won, not a given. From my perspective, they can't be counted on. I have to say I disagree that there were no other ways to deal with this. I just think this was the fastest. I also don't really agree that it was necessary. We've seen the results of moving too fast before, and we see it now.
When I refer to roster demands I mean they need a 5* to handle 6* rank 3 defense depending on tier not a 3*. There is no quick fix for 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.
I hear ya but regarding the transition part, there really exists no system that would have allowed for that. While you may be able to accommodate a skill transition in a timely manner, creating a system that allowed for a gradual accommodation for the roster demands some of these players now face and would have faced would require years in some cases. That's just not realistic. Because it's not just an increase in skill, but an increase in roster demand and nothing but time (or money or some variation of both) can accommodate that.
I've seen many ideas based on good intentions offered. Despite being good intentions they haven't necessarily been good ideas. Someone suggested reset war rating for all to 0. That does nothing to avoid mismatches and each individual alliance can do that themselves by forming a new alliance. Others have suggested that this should be done in the off season despite many alliances having no motivation to even participate during the off season. Your suggestion of slowly introducing it isn't feasible either because of what I mention above. It becomes more apparent that kabam may have actually made the best course correction available by slashing everyone's previous war rating. Reasonable minds can say it should have been more or less I suppose but that'd quibbling.
In my mind anything that prolongs the current setup is just cruel so examining ideas to lessen the blow or ease into it seem off base to me. I've thought about this long and hard, and the best idea I could come up with would be to increase the loss of war rating and tie it to the amount of points ( or lack there of) an alliance scored in a match. But see even that has flaws. Drop too fast and and an alliance will retain a higher tier multiplier against potentially much lower tier multiplier alliances. I've seen it when alliances are close to each other in tier multipliers, it's a coin flip on the multiplier used but what happens if they are widely spaced? I've not seen that so I don't know. It potentially could create other unfair advantages so once again we come back to there just aren't good solutions.
I'm not sure I agree about Roster demands. War Rewards are won, not a given. From my perspective, they can't be counted on. I have to say I disagree that there were no other ways to deal with this. I just think this was the fastest. I also don't really agree that it was necessary. We've seen the results of moving too fast before, and we see it now.
When I refer to roster demands I mean they need a 5* to handle 6* rank 3 defense depending on tier not a 3*. There is no quick fix for that.
That was actually one of the things I pointed out about the extremes. They cannot possibly compete and win with some of these Matches. It is what it is I suppose, but I'm just not willing to call it fair now because it will be fair in the future.
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.
I know, that is why I said or some measure of prestige or alliance rating. People will find a way to manipulate everything in the game, but with the war rating reset to some 10% of prestige rating, it could have avoided these huge mis-matches. I mean we have people in bronze crying here.
Comments
I've seen many ideas based on good intentions offered. Despite being good intentions they haven't necessarily been good ideas. Someone suggested reset war rating for all to 0. That does nothing to avoid mismatches and each individual alliance can do that themselves by forming a new alliance. Others have suggested that this should be done in the off season despite many alliances having no motivation to even participate during the off season. Your suggestion of slowly introducing it isn't feasible either because of what I mention above. It becomes more apparent that kabam may have actually made the best course correction available by slashing everyone's previous war rating. Reasonable minds can say it should have been more or less I suppose but that'd quibbling.
In my mind anything that prolongs the current setup is just cruel so examining ideas to lessen the blow or ease into it seem off base to me. I've thought about this long and hard, and the best idea I could come up with would be to increase the loss of war rating and tie it to the amount of points ( or lack there of) an alliance scored in a match. But see even that has flaws. Drop too fast and and an alliance will retain a higher tier multiplier against potentially much lower tier multiplier alliances. I've seen it when alliances are close to each other in tier multipliers, it's a coin flip on the multiplier used but what happens if they are widely spaced? I've not seen that so I don't know. It potentially could create other unfair advantages so once again we come back to there just aren't good solutions.
Don't complain if you generally feel that the game is designed the way it is intended and are upset because one new aspect that finally impacts you negatively, but overall should be good for the player base when the cleanup period is over.
Oh, and while I'm here, just gonna say that I'm ecstatic about shorter AQ timers and the extra energy in AQ too! The game and real life are sooooo much better now. Funny, I "vaguely" remember someone who's been quite vocal in this thread, also being very adamant about not wanting AQ timers reduced for.... I really still don't know why - there was never a good point from that side made.... Oh yeah, because the game was designed that way (like this change was too).
Change is good, especially when it's done in an attempt to make the game better for everyone in the long run. Embrace it and move on or don't and move out.
#1: 28m alliance, didn't take AW seriously last season, just played the odd war with our lower-tier champs to get the loyalty and finished Silver 3
#2: 5m alliance, mostly enthusiastic newbs, took war seriously and filled 2 BGs, faced and beat a lot of disorganized alliances that couldn't fill 2 BGs, finished Silver 2
Both alliances are playing serious AW this season and trying to move up.
- Alliance 2 is getting curb-stomped by 20m alliances and free-falling to Bronze 2.
- Alliance 1 is doing the curb-stomping. Alliance 1 actually faced (and destroyed) Alliance 2. It's on its way to Gold 3.
This course correction for both alliances makes total sense to me, but especially for alliance 2 (the weaker one). I think its war rating was 1,500 by the end, but that's only because it found a sweet spot beating alliances that had similar prestige but weren't organized enough to fill 2 BGs.
The new matchmaking system is painful only for those alliances that were moving up by facing weak opponents. And matchups are going to balance out soon enough.
I agree these huge gaps at the moment are no fun for the alliance on the receiving end but I can assure you that for a lot of higher alliances the last 7 or 8 seasons have been no fun either. Maybe there could have been a better way to reset everything but I think if you had automatically started alliances lower, say based on their PI rating rather than war raiting to try ensure a more even fight many would have felt just as annoyed by having to start the season 3 or 4 tiers down.
I have to agree with what seems to be the vast majority on these threads that if war rating Is the only thing that determines your final ranking then ultimately war raiting is the only measure that should be used to arrange matchmaking.
You're still missing the point that it was just as unfair to other allies before the change because no matter how good some bigger allies were, they could not move up based on the matching rules. Smaller shell allies could just undercut them to Gold and platinum, but now that doesn't work and in general, those who can't handle their own against other allies in the same bracket are being relegated to their appropriate bracket.
Some allies were negatively impacted before and some allies are negatively impacted now. However, with the change, Overall, this system is going to be more fair in the long run. It just needs a bit of time to even the mess from the previous rating system and that's the imbalance smaller PI alliances are feeling as the bandaid is being ripped off in one quick motion. It will soon pass though.