War Matchmaking is busted

Jestuh · September 2020

winterthur said:

Jestuh said:

Mr_Platypus said:

Jestuh said:
I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.
So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.
A 1.5 million boss killer can leave an alliance that has mostly 400k players, he leaves mid season and the alliance rating stays the same for the next match. It may slowly lower over time as they lose more often. But the war rating won’t accurately reflect the loss. It won’t reflect that suddenly there are not duped, maxed r3 6s champs in the diamond and as minis.
Likewise, if that alliance gain instead a heavyweight Summoner, the comparable alliances will face the same problem.

Looks like no easy way out.

Not with the last or current matchmaker.

But the current system sets you up for guaranteed losses which is horrible design.

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

Durzo said:
The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!
So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them
The entire argument for making the switch back was that "smaller" Alliances were getting better Rewards than larger ones. It's too late for that rebuttal. Size matters when it means a guaranteed Loss.
I dont understand why you keep making these false equivalencies... There are no Guaranteed losses, there is only people who give up or dont have the skill, again a 5* r4 should be able to beat any 6* r3 in the game, heck 4*s can beat 6*s r3's as well, but you keep ignoring this....

Also it is never about "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it is about "less skilled" alliances getting better awards.

If you have a set of placed alliances as follows
1) alliance A
2) alliance B
3) alliance C
4) alliance D
5) alliance E
6) alliance F
7) alliance G
8) alliance H
9) alliance I
10) alliance J

In this reward structure if alliance B cannot reliably beat alliances C-J then alliance B should not be in that position, it does not matter if alliance B is 10X or 1/10th the size of the other alliance.

You’re assumption of one alliance not being able to beat the other is based on both alliances running equal players each time and that’s not what happens.

But in reality those change. You have alliances that run 1bg only, 2 bg only, all 3, or that mix 2-3 bgs during a season.

When you have 2 bgs and lose an alliance war, did you lose it because your alliance could never beat that alliance?

Or did you lose it because your 20 players in THAT war couldn’t beat their 20 players in that war?

Not all wars are your best 20 against their best 20. Sometimes it might be your best 14 against their best 20. If my best 20 can definitely beat their best 20, but my best 14 filled with 6 part timers lose to their best 20, which of those alliances should be ranked higher on your board?

This is where the war rating system falls short.

Jestuh · September 2020

Mauled said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

Durzo said:
The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!
So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them
The entire argument for making the switch back was that "smaller" Alliances were getting better Rewards than larger ones. It's too late for that rebuttal. Size matters when it means a guaranteed Loss.
Only time size matters is in the bedroom or reaching for something on a high shelf

Flying in coach. Size matters there. I basically do a 4 hour stress position. 😂

Pulyaman · September 2020

Lormif said:

The_Sentry06 said:
In a game so vast, with so many players, you can't have a system to satisfy all. Honestly speaking, I don't get how Prestige should determine your rating and rewards. At the end of the day, why should you as an ally get high tier rewards despite being less skilled than a higher skilled ally just because you have a few members who upgraded more champs at a high PI. Rewards have to be earned. If you want platinum rewards, shouldn't you be facing platinum alliances.
It is actually worse, they want to be able to get higher tier rewards because they DONT have people with high pi or prestige, therefore they get only matched with easier opponents and can get more points and therefore more rewards.

That was the complaint of people who did not understand how the earlier system worked and why they changed it. The people complaining now have genuinely bad match ups for the second consecutive season. The talk has shifted from rewards to match-ups and you guys are still talking about rewards.

Lormif · September 2020

Pulyaman said:

Lormif said:

The_Sentry06 said:
In a game so vast, with so many players, you can't have a system to satisfy all. Honestly speaking, I don't get how Prestige should determine your rating and rewards. At the end of the day, why should you as an ally get high tier rewards despite being less skilled than a higher skilled ally just because you have a few members who upgraded more champs at a high PI. Rewards have to be earned. If you want platinum rewards, shouldn't you be facing platinum alliances.
It is actually worse, they want to be able to get higher tier rewards because they DONT have people with high pi or prestige, therefore they get only matched with easier opponents and can get more points and therefore more rewards.
That was the complaint of people who did not understand how the earlier system worked and why they changed it. The people complaining now have genuinely bad match ups for the second consecutive season. The talk has shifted from rewards to match-ups and you guys are still talking about rewards.

you cannot talk about matchups and ignore the rewards, they are all part of the same system. You cannot balance one area without looking at how it affects the other area. If you balance matchups based on size but the end result is that the smaller alliances can get plat rewards without being able to beat gold alliances then that system is out of sync. My statements take the ENTIRE system into account, not just one aspect.

Jestuh · September 2020

ItsDamien said:

Jestuh said:

Mr_Platypus said:

Jestuh said:
I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.
So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.
The fairest system for all is a pretty ridiculous claim for something as paltry as, you win a war you get 30 points. You lose war, you lose 30 points.

And read what I said. I’m not advocating going back to the old system because that also sucked.

Kabam added the bg feature that lets officers assign people to a bg.

All I’m saying is have them do that before you enlist for the next war. Then you know pi, prestige, number of 5s/6s champs and their rank, number of war mvps, arena kill streak max, all that stuff people look at when recruiting a new person into an alliance. Then you can use that to place those most like each other together, then add a war rating/skill modifier based on how well those people do against opponents at their level and above.

I think we both agree the old system sucked.

But the current system also falls short because the bg war rating doesn’t depend on which players are actually doing the fighting. It’s just based on alliances which are always changing members.

A 1.5 million boss killer can leave an alliance that has mostly 400k players, he leaves mid season and the alliance rating stays the same for the next match. It may slowly lower over time as they lose more often. But the war rating won’t accurately reflect the loss. It won’t reflect that suddenly there are not duped, maxed r3 6s champs in the diamond and as minis.

You really going to tell me that’s the fairest system for all?
Imagine having one person essentially carry an alliance to victory.

Does that sound fair?

Honestly we see this anyway because scoring in war is so stupid.

Right now you get a 20k bonus for killing the boss out of a possible 50k for each bg and no additional bonus for 100% exploration or overall progression. Meaning that an alliance that has a player that can bulldoze straight to the final boss and drop him with the nodes still up will give you such a huge scoring advantage that you pretty much have to kill the boss to win.

That puts the emphasis on 2-3 great players instead of the full 20-30 that are playing.

With the buff nodes not even increasing the health and damage of the boss (at least not in gold 2-3), this means that it’s not uncommon for this to happen.

Also, defender kills don’t reward points but just cost attacker bonuses is freaking stupid. If I place a champ on a node and it just shreds and puts up 8 kills, I get a max 240 point advantage from that.

Lormif · September 2020

Jestuh said:

winterthur said:

Jestuh said:

Mr_Platypus said:

Jestuh said:
I get it’s a tough system to design a matchmaker for.

You might have guys ranging from 150k to 1.2 million in your alliance, but maybe only the top 10 do war and just run one bg. Or maybe just the bottom 10 do. Or maybe they rotate out.

I think the only good matchmaker you’ll ever get for war is to enlist in war with your bg groups already filled out and assigned. That way you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

People will still find a way to sandbag or cheese through the rankings.

But I agree, the current war rating is a stupid system for doing it, especially with how high turnover can be sometimes. An alliance might see 5 people per season take a break, go to another alliance, or get kicked. Or the people in bgs will rotate. So pretending that alliance still has the same war rating after it loses and replaces 5 people is just stupid.

The people in an alliance that fight one week can be totally different than the one the next.

Lumping alliances under “war rating” is just a cheap and easy out imo.
So what? Your solution is to have everyone fill in their BGs and match based on what they place for defence?

Look, if we didn’t have season rewards then kabam could use any matchmaking system they wanted and nobody would care.
However we dealt with prestige based matchmaking for many months and it screwed the rankings so, so much. You had 7-8k prestige alliances getting master, plat 1, plat 2 and plat 3 rewards whilst never fighting any of the other alliances in those reward brackets, instead they were pummelling some other 7-8k prestige alliance that was just trying to cling to gold 1 or 2.

You think it’s fair to get ranked in the top 10 alliances in the world and not have to fight any of the other 9? Because that’s what alliance rating or prestige based matchmaking will do, and it affects more than the top 10, the side effects of such a flawed system can affect alliances all the way down in silver.

Another side effect is that if an alliance has their strongest members retire and they participate in war whilst replacing them, if they lose and drop too many war tiers, they will never, ever get back to where they once were because they’ll never get an easier matchup to break their losing streak, they’ll just win 6, lose 6 every season, stuck at whatever tier they were left at when the alliance stabilised.

This left 30-40mil (9-11k prestige) alliances trapped getting silver rewards whilst having to fight maxed 5* defences every war, they’d have to invest considerable resources and play so perfect to stand a chance of climbing back up the rankings.

You might not like these supposedly impossible matches, but we know for a fact based on past data that this is the fairest system for all.
A 1.5 million boss killer can leave an alliance that has mostly 400k players, he leaves mid season and the alliance rating stays the same for the next match. It may slowly lower over time as they lose more often. But the war rating won’t accurately reflect the loss. It won’t reflect that suddenly there are not duped, maxed r3 6s champs in the diamond and as minis.
Likewise, if that alliance gain instead a heavyweight Summoner, the comparable alliances will face the same problem.

Looks like no easy way out.
Not with the last or current matchmaker.

But the current system sets you up for guaranteed losses which is horrible design.
Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

Durzo said:
The point isn't about the rating, the point is that smaller alliances like mine are getting destroyed by alliances double our power. The matchmaking clearly isn't quite balanced correctly if alliances are getting super easy wins off of it! I apologize if that was confusing!
So it’s about rating, that is how you are defining large and small alliances. Also those alliances getting “super easy wing]s” quickly move out of your bracket to higher brackets. This is how a ranking system works. We dont have tiers for sizes, the smaller alliances would not like that because in general it would mean less rewards for them
The entire argument for making the switch back was that "smaller" Alliances were getting better Rewards than larger ones. It's too late for that rebuttal. Size matters when it means a guaranteed Loss.
I dont understand why you keep making these false equivalencies... There are no Guaranteed losses, there is only people who give up or dont have the skill, again a 5* r4 should be able to beat any 6* r3 in the game, heck 4*s can beat 6*s r3's as well, but you keep ignoring this....

Also it is never about "smaller" alliances getting better rewards, it is about "less skilled" alliances getting better awards.

If you have a set of placed alliances as follows
1) alliance A
2) alliance B
3) alliance C
4) alliance D
5) alliance E
6) alliance F
7) alliance G
8) alliance H
9) alliance I
10) alliance J

In this reward structure if alliance B cannot reliably beat alliances C-J then alliance B should not be in that position, it does not matter if alliance B is 10X or 1/10th the size of the other alliance.
You’re assumption of one alliance not being able to beat the other is based on both alliances running equal players each time and that’s not what happens.

But in reality those change. You have alliances that run 1bg only, 2 bg only, all 3, or that mix 2-3 bgs during a season.

When you have 2 bgs and lose an alliance war, did you lose it because your alliance could never beat that alliance?

Or did you lose it because your 20 players in THAT war couldn’t beat their 20 players in that war?

Not all wars are your best 20 against their best 20. Sometimes it might be your best 14 against their best 20. If my best 20 can definitely beat their best 20, but my best 14 filled with 6 part timers lose to their best 20, which of those alliances should be ranked higher on your board?

This is where the war rating system falls short.

I am making no assumptions. You will note I used a very specific word in my statement, reliably, this means they may lose sometimes to those other alliances due to variables, but they should be able to beat those other alliances the majority of the time. If you can intercept a defender 90% of the time that is a reliable ability just not perfect.

Also if you are in 2 bgs it should always be your 20 best vs their 20 best, if it is not then you are not playing seriously and therefore what does it matter?

Shamir51 · September 2020

Pulyaman said:

Lormif said:

The_Sentry06 said:
In a game so vast, with so many players, you can't have a system to satisfy all. Honestly speaking, I don't get how Prestige should determine your rating and rewards. At the end of the day, why should you as an ally get high tier rewards despite being less skilled than a higher skilled ally just because you have a few members who upgraded more champs at a high PI. Rewards have to be earned. If you want platinum rewards, shouldn't you be facing platinum alliances.
It is actually worse, they want to be able to get higher tier rewards because they DONT have people with high pi or prestige, therefore they get only matched with easier opponents and can get more points and therefore more rewards.
That was the complaint of people who did not understand how the earlier system worked and why they changed it. The people complaining now have genuinely bad match ups for the second consecutive season. The talk has shifted from rewards to match-ups and you guys are still talking about rewards.

You can’t be saying that the people complaining this season have had these “abnormal” match ups every single war this season?

If anyone cannot see how it has started to stabilise this season, then I genuinely feel sorry for you, but you’ll never be happy.

Lastly, so so many people have complained that this system isn’t working. Have yet to see anyone come up with an alternative.

The_Sentry06 · September 2020

The matchmaking will sort itself out. If a 45 mill ally is still in bronze for example, they will crush everything and progress to higher tiers which sorts out the matchmaking.

endgame141 · September 2020

i'm pretty sure its working as intended and its to stop small ally's from getting into gold 1 and stuff like that as its just based on war rating which completely makes sense lol coz smaller ally's get in gold 1 and better ally's get into gold 3 and stuff so its stopping that

Rap · September 2020

There are fewer complaints because alliances have quit playing war. They aren't gonna complain if they aren't playing, and the dog piling is from those in the upper tier pouncing to silence those that would question the fairness of this change. And then the posts get pulled and those who would challenge the herd are bulled and badgered into silence or completely out of the forum.
It really isn't about gaining higher tier rewards than we deserve it is about actually having an opportunity to play against an equal but hopefully challenging opponent for whatever rewards we do get. Our efforts really have nothing to do with what we will be recieving. We have faced 1 man alliance one time, no challenge there and almost embarrassing to walk all over them, but the next we face 3 maps with 30 summoners placing ranked 5 and 6 stars.
Not every player and every alliance is obsessed with the tier rewards.
If you actually play the other parts of the game the same rewards are available in many other events far more quickly and in a shorter period of time than 30 days and there by in a greater quantity.
So the truth is for many of those supporting this change it is about ego and gaining things that you don't play other parts of the game to get.
Another season like this one will see fewer and fewer alliances participating.
This particular game mode is just no fun but apparently your attitude is we should settle for it not being any fun and be happy with whatever rewards we recieve...
That in itself is telling.

Lormif · September 2020

Rap said:
There are fewer complaints because alliances have quit playing war. They aren't gonna complain if they aren't playing, and the dog piling is from those in the upper tier pouncing to silence those that would question the fairness of this change. And then the posts get pulled and those who would challenge the herd are bulled and badgered into silence or completely out of the forum.
It really isn't about gaining higher tier rewards than we deserve it is about actually having an opportunity to play against an equal but hopefully challenging opponent for whatever rewards we do get. Our efforts really have nothing to do with what we will be recieving. We have faced 1 man alliance one time, no challenge there and almost embarrassing to walk all over them, but the next we face 3 maps with 30 summoners placing ranked 5 and 6 stars.
Not every player and every alliance is obsessed with the tier rewards.
If you actually play the other parts of the game the same rewards are available in many other events far more quickly and in a shorter period of time than 30 days and there by in a greater quantity.
So the truth is for many of those supporting this change it is about ego and gaining things that you don't play other parts of the game to get.
Another season like this one will see fewer and fewer alliances participating.
This particular game mode is just no fun but apparently your attitude is we should settle for it not being any fun and be happy with whatever rewards we recieve...
That in itself is telling.

Why cant a r4 5* beat a r3 6*? What makes you think lower pi or prestige alliances will not have the exact same defenders as the one you are facing?

And no, you would not be happy with the rewards, that is why you are upset, if you were just doing it for fun then losing would be ok. I fight to win, but if I lose I am ok with it, why is that not your attitude?

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

Rap said:
There are fewer complaints because alliances have quit playing war. They aren't gonna complain if they aren't playing, and the dog piling is from those in the upper tier pouncing to silence those that would question the fairness of this change. And then the posts get pulled and those who would challenge the herd are bulled and badgered into silence or completely out of the forum.
It really isn't about gaining higher tier rewards than we deserve it is about actually having an opportunity to play against an equal but hopefully challenging opponent for whatever rewards we do get. Our efforts really have nothing to do with what we will be recieving. We have faced 1 man alliance one time, no challenge there and almost embarrassing to walk all over them, but the next we face 3 maps with 30 summoners placing ranked 5 and 6 stars.
Not every player and every alliance is obsessed with the tier rewards.
If you actually play the other parts of the game the same rewards are available in many other events far more quickly and in a shorter period of time than 30 days and there by in a greater quantity.
So the truth is for many of those supporting this change it is about ego and gaining things that you don't play other parts of the game to get.
Another season like this one will see fewer and fewer alliances participating.
This particular game mode is just no fun but apparently your attitude is we should settle for it not being any fun and be happy with whatever rewards we recieve...
That in itself is telling.

Do you have proof that alliances are quitting wars?
Or is that some more baseless nonsense?
Also why do you always bring up that all 30 players placed defence? That’s a completely normal thing for anyone in a semi-competent alliance.
And how exactly do we get rewards here that we don’t get elsewhere? Last I checked you’re the one that struggles with literally everything ingame, not us.

Rap · September 2020

I have no idea what would fix this. All I know is it is costing the game new players.
But No? Really? You expect smaller alliances to continue playing a game mode that is no fun, locks up 8 of their top champions from a limited roster of champs, in a hopless endeavor so you can find your "true war rating"? And then take what we get and let you get on with proving how greatly skilled you are?
This is supposed to be about skill? It took no skill to 100% 3 maps with five champions placed! And it took our current opponent no skill to walk all over a bunch of r4 4 stars and max r1 5 * using thier r5 5* Dooms and Silver surfers. So they haven't proven any skill...which makes the little number next to our alliance meaningless! And to say that if my players can't overcome, r4 and 5 5*s and r2 6*s with their r4 and r5 4 stars, they don't deserve to win is rediculous.
What they don't deserve is such a rediculous match for the sake of those who could not deal with being bumped from their bracket and tiers because they made questionable decisions about dumping champs from their roster.
And as i said! It is telling! You have no concern for the bigger picture, only the corner of the picture you have staked out as your own!

Lormif · September 2020

Rap said:
I have no idea what would fix this. All I know is it is costing the game new players.
But No? Really? You expect smaller alliances to continue playing a game mode that is no fun, locks up 8 of their top champions from a limited roster of champs, in a hopless endeavor so you can find your "true war rating"? And then take what we get and let you get on with proving how greatly skilled you are?
This is supposed to be about skill? It took no skill to 100% 3 maps with five champions placed! And it took our current opponent no skill to walk all over a bunch of r4 4 stars and max r1 5 * using thier r5 5* Dooms and Silver surfers. So they haven't proven any skill...which makes the little number next to our alliance meaningless! And to say that if my players can't overcome, r4 and 5 5*s and r2 6*s with their r4 and r5 4 stars, they don't deserve to win is rediculous.
What they don't deserve is such a rediculous match for the sake of those who could not deal with being bumped from their bracket and tiers because they made questionable decisions about dumping champs from their roster.
And as i said! It is telling! You have no concern for the bigger picture, only the corner of the picture you have staked out as your own!

no, you have no concern for the bigger picture, all you want it is match ups you can win despite being unskilled, you dont care how that system plays out for the overall war system, and how it cheats players out of rewards. it is off how large your projector is.

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

Rap said:
for the sake of those who could not deal with being bumped from their bracket and tiers because they made questionable decisions about dumping champs from their roster.
And as i said! It is telling! You have no concern for the bigger picture, only the corner of the picture you have staked out as your own!

Shows how ignorant you are. People didn’t get bumped from their spot by selling champs. People got bumped from their spot by alliances made up of people rocking maxed 4*s steamrolling garbage alliances like yours and claiming their gold and platinum rewards.
So how’s that work for the longevity of the game eh? When the top 30% of players decide they don’t want to play 12 hyper competitive wars in which the winner is the team that died 1 time instead of 2, all for some silver 1 rewards.
Come on genius, explain where the longevity is there?

Durzo · September 2020

Lormif said:

Rap said:
I have no idea what would fix this. All I know is it is costing the game new players.
But No? Really? You expect smaller alliances to continue playing a game mode that is no fun, locks up 8 of their top champions from a limited roster of champs, in a hopless endeavor so you can find your "true war rating"? And then take what we get and let you get on with proving how greatly skilled you are?
This is supposed to be about skill? It took no skill to 100% 3 maps with five champions placed! And it took our current opponent no skill to walk all over a bunch of r4 4 stars and max r1 5 * using thier r5 5* Dooms and Silver surfers. So they haven't proven any skill...which makes the little number next to our alliance meaningless! And to say that if my players can't overcome, r4 and 5 5*s and r2 6*s with their r4 and r5 4 stars, they don't deserve to win is rediculous.
What they don't deserve is such a rediculous match for the sake of those who could not deal with being bumped from their bracket and tiers because they made questionable decisions about dumping champs from their roster.
And as i said! It is telling! You have no concern for the bigger picture, only the corner of the picture you have staked out as your own!
no, you have no concern for the bigger picture, all you want it is match ups you can win despite being unskilled, you dont care how that system plays out for the overall war system, and how it cheats players out of rewards. it is off how large your projector is.

Stop acting like you're better than everyone, and that everyone agreeing that you're wrong is unskilled. There are legitimate issues in matchmaking, and instead of acknowledging them, you're choosing to call people bad at the game because these issues don't affect you.

Rap · September 2020

Too funny! You are all such a waste of time! I could care less about these rewards. If it were entirely up to me we wouldn't particpate in war at all. I play at the request of my players and fewer and fewer are wanting to play. So we will not be in next season. I open as many 5 star shards in a week as we will get from silver 2 or 3 (because i haven't sold my roster) just opening crystals. I actually play the daily t4b quest.
But my players have such limited rosters that turning over 8 for 24 hours limits their options for questing.
And i am not looking for easy wins. You obviously aren't paying attention! I came in to defend the poor sap running a one man operation! How a one man alliance nearly made it to silver 3 is a question in and of itself.
What this is about is that some of you want the option of short cutting your new higher tier champions growth by selling champs without it risking your war rewards. You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
But there is no sense in trying to reason with you. You are obviously too far removed from being beginner players to care what their game experience might be.
Enjoy your rewards! Though i doubt some of you deserve them after facing off with alliances like my guys, incomplete mastries, limited rosters, partially complete champs not much gameplay experience. You haven't proven your skill as far as i can see either. I know my guys haven't! Because they haven't had a chance.
And believe it or not! There are many new alliances that don't hang out or ever even enter the forum. They just quit.

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

Rap said:
Too funny! You are all such a waste of time! I could care less about these rewards. If it were entirely up to me we wouldn't particpate in war at all. I play at the request of my players and fewer and fewer are wanting to play. So we will not be in next season. I open as many 5 star shards in a week as we will get from silver 2 or 3 (because i haven't sold my roster) just opening crystals. I actually play the daily t4b quest.
But my players have such limited rosters that turning over 8 for 24 hours limits their options for questing.
And i am not looking for easy wins. You obviously aren't paying attention! I came in to defend the poor sap running a one man operation! How a one man alliance nearly made it to silver 3 is a question in and of itself.
What this is about is that some of you want the option of short cutting your new higher tier champions growth by selling champs without it risking your war rewards. You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
But there is no sense in trying to reason with you. You are obviously too far removed from being beginner players to care what their game experience might be.
Enjoy your rewards! Though i doubt some of you deserve them after facing off with alliances like my guys, incomplete mastries, limited rosters, partially complete champs not much gameplay experience. You haven't proven your skill as far as i can see either. I know my guys haven't! Because they haven't had a chance.
And believe it or not! There are many new alliances that don't hang out or ever even enter the forum. They just quit.

NOBODY IS SELLING CHAMPS FOR EASY MATCHUPS BECAUSE THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

You’re blinded by a misguided hatred (jealousy maybe) of anyone in the mid game and up.

naikavon · September 2020

So let me make sure I understand things. You want to enter a race with U. Bolt, run against only 12 year olds, and obtain the same rewards Bolt would be entitled to?

This is a competition folks. In a competition, you don't duck the competition, you face them head on. If you don't understand that, then nothing anyone says will change your stance. But I will say this, it's hard to respect folks who wanna duck competition. Just saying.

ABOMB · September 2020

All you high rated players getting bent outta shape because the little guys are complaining (with a legit reason) is making my day! Keep em coming tuff guys!🤣🤣

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

ABOMB said:
All you high rated players getting bent outta shape because the little guys are complaining (with a legit reason) is making my day! Keep em coming tuff guys!🤣🤣

You never did explain that 1.7mil member you have pummelling little guys in your alliance...
The guys higher rated than me so if you’re gonna hate on alliances just wanting reasonable rewards for their effort, you best kick the guy that’s likely steamrolling every opponent you come across.

Tell you what, you argue for kabam to going back to prestige matchmaking and I’ll show you how steamrolling works because I’m not dealing with maxed 5* defenders all season for gold 3 rewards when I could carry some little alliance to platinum 3 or 4 with my roster and skill as I’ll easily steamroll the 4* defenders I’ll come against.

naikavon · September 2020

ABOMB said:
All you high rated players getting bent outta shape because the little guys are complaining (with a legit reason) is making my day! Keep em coming tuff guys!🤣🤣

Bent out of shape 😆. Hardly. As I said, ducking competition and advocating for methods to do so is laughable and receives no respect from me. Perhaps you don't care. That's cool. But it's reciprocated I assure you. 🤣🤣🤣

Oh, I'm a girl btw so I'm not trying to be "tuff"

Rap · September 2020

Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent?
Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up.
Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out.
Have a great day of winning!
Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

Rap said:
Yes? competition??? And currently our matchups are as competitive as a pop warner football team playing against the Cowboys or the Steelers! Would you consider that to be a far match? Based on your arguments here you apparently would! Would you accuse the pop warner kids of dodging competition if they refused to take the field after seeing the size of their opponent?
Thats what is happening! And after a couple of tries they stop showing up.
Like is said, nothing in war worth facing my jr high kids against your Broncos! So we will be opting out.
Have a great day of winning!
Guess i will see you when you are back in here whinging about not enough gold and iso!

Please do leave, it’s not good for you to be angry all the time, wasn’t too long ago you’d get angry at anything and everything kabam releases that was alliance related because it’s “NoT FaiR tO SoLO PLayERs”

ABOMB · September 2020

Mr_Platypus said:

ABOMB said:
All you high rated players getting bent outta shape because the little guys are complaining (with a legit reason) is making my day! Keep em coming tuff guys!🤣🤣
You never did explain that 1.7mil member you have pummelling little guys in your alliance...
The guys higher rated than me so if you’re gonna hate on alliances just wanting reasonable rewards for their effort, you best kick the guy that’s likely steamrolling every opponent you come across.

Tell you what, you argue for kabam to going back to prestige matchmaking and I’ll show you how steamrolling works because I’m not dealing with maxed 5* defenders all season for gold 3 rewards when I could carry some little alliance to platinum 3 or 4 with my roster and skill

For the record I'm not complaining but I absolutely agree that matchmaking needs a tweak of some kind. We handle our own and are in the third war in a row where our opponents ally prestige trumps ours by over 3K. It is what it is.
But seriously you high rated guys and gals that 😉 can't even let the dude who started this thread voice their opinion without pure worry of omg im in danger of possibly losing this nice setup of easy beatdowns is very comical.🤣🤣
As for platypus I suppose I'll answer you even tho its none your business..my guy who has a 1.7 rating joined because his low account has been with us for a long time and he got sick of the uneven matches we've been dealing with so he joined to help us.
His prestige and my own vary by only 800K..so what. Lol
Okay, now give me some more tears of worry that Kabam might take away your easy war setup of bullying little guys.🤣🤣
I luv it

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

Right so he decided to steamroll your opponents lol.

As for our matches this season, we’ve won against alliances 10mil rating above us and lost against alliances 10mil below us, nothing is a guaranteed win.
But for the most part every opponent has been +/- 1-3mil.

Durzo · September 2020

Mr_Platypus said:

ABOMB said:
All you high rated players getting bent outta shape because the little guys are complaining (with a legit reason) is making my day! Keep em coming tuff guys!🤣🤣
You never did explain that 1.7mil member you have pummelling little guys in your alliance...
The guys higher rated than me so if you’re gonna hate on alliances just wanting reasonable rewards for their effort, you best kick the guy that’s likely steamrolling every opponent you come across.

Tell you what, you argue for kabam to going back to prestige matchmaking and I’ll show you how steamrolling works because I’m not dealing with maxed 5* defenders all season for gold 3 rewards when I could carry some little alliance to platinum 3 or 4 with my roster and skill as I’ll easily steamroll the 4* defenders I’ll come against.

Ah yes, clearly your opinion is better. Because you're such a 'high skill player'. Get real. Bragging about how you could steamroll 4 star champions is hardly worth bragging about. If you could do that, that's also an issue. Carrying an alliance to platinum or masters because of one person? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

War Matchmaking is busted

Comments