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.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
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!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
Okay, very very VERY technically speaking, you always have a chance, regardless of how small it is. So while it's an exaggeration to say there are impossible matchups, it's still fair to say that there are ridiculously hard matchups that you have almost no chance of winning, right??
Actually, even technically speaking, the more you vary, the slimmer the chances get. You have Timer restraints, CR, differences in Base Stats, difficulty relative to the difficulty of your Defense, Points mechanics, all the parts that go into War. It makes it increasingly harder than say, just a Fight with a 40k Champ in a Quest with a 4*. Then you add the AI to that, and there is a point of no return. If they want to argue semantics and say there's no such thing as an impossible Match, there actually is.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Both of these are definitely options...but you're right on both accounts of it being unfair. But yeah, imagine if Kabam actually did that and opened up war to having every champion available...I guess that really would prove if skill was the real thing haha! I suppose they would need to maybe limit it to having only one of each champion on defense per BG, otherwise it would just be full of Things and Korgs
This kinda ignores my question though. How do you think a team that took a season off should be handled when coming back? Should they be allowed to keep their place in the rankings and take rewards while they didn’t play? Or do you think they should be treated as they are and fall in the rankings and have to compete and climb the rankings again?
The way the system works now is you keep your war rating, but you get no rewards for the season you didnt play in. If you make them fall in the ratings then that would truthfully create an imbalance for lower tier alliances AND create a way to do shell alliances again.
I don’t disagree with that. I’m just not sure how they would handle that for many teams that do it. Because taking a season off because you have things to do outside of the game is a legitimate reason to skip. But does that warrant a punishment upon returning to the game? Should you have to play teams near you in rankings of where you land or should you only play teams near where your ranking was? It sounds complicated
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.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
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!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
Okay, very very VERY technically speaking, you always have a chance, regardless of how small it is. So while it's an exaggeration to say there are impossible matchups, it's still fair to say that there are ridiculously hard matchups that you have almost no chance of winning, right??
Actually, even technically speaking, the more you vary, the slimmer the chances get. You have Timer restraints, CR, differences in Base Stats, difficulty relative to the difficulty of your Defense, Points mechanics, all the parts that go into War. It makes it increasingly harder than say, just a Fight with a 40k Champ in a Quest with a 4*. Then you add the AI to that, and there is a point of no return. If they want to argue semantics and say there's no such thing as an impossible Match, there actually is.
all things overcomable. There are no impossible matches, everyone is mechanically capable of winning any match. Stop confusing capable with possible.
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.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
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!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
Okay, very very VERY technically speaking, you always have a chance, regardless of how small it is. So while it's an exaggeration to say there are impossible matchups, it's still fair to say that there are ridiculously hard matchups that you have almost no chance of winning, right??
Actually, even technically speaking, the more you vary, the slimmer the chances get. You have Timer restraints, CR, differences in Base Stats, difficulty relative to the difficulty of your Defense, Points mechanics, all the parts that go into War. It makes it increasingly harder than say, just a Fight with a 40k Champ in a Quest with a 4*. Then you add the AI to that, and there is a point of no return. If they want to argue semantics and say there's no such thing as an impossible Match, there actually is.
all things overcomable. There are no impossible matches, everyone is mechanically capable of winning any match. Stop confusing capable with possible.
Okay, so anything is possible, even if it's the tiniest chance ever. I think we need to replace the word possible here with probable. It's not impossible for a 15 mil alliance to beat a 25 mil alliance, but it IS improbable.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
As I stated before you only have 2 options
If you want eveyrone to be completely fair then you make AW a system where everyone has access to every champ at the highest rank/star level. Kabam is unlikly to go that way.
the next closes is to make brackets based on rating. Again that will be unfair to smaller but skilled alliances because they would be locked into a lower bracket with less rewards.
Both of these are definitely options...but you're right on both accounts of it being unfair. But yeah, imagine if Kabam actually did that and opened up war to having every champion available...I guess that really would prove if skill was the real thing haha! I suppose they would need to maybe limit it to having only one of each champion on defense per BG, otherwise it would just be full of Things and Korgs
This kinda ignores my question though. How do you think a team that took a season off should be handled when coming back? Should they be allowed to keep their place in the rankings and take rewards while they didn’t play? Or do you think they should be treated as they are and fall in the rankings and have to compete and climb the rankings again?
The way the system works now is you keep your war rating, but you get no rewards for the season you didnt play in. If you make them fall in the ratings then that would truthfully create an imbalance for lower tier alliances AND create a way to do shell alliances again.
I don’t disagree with that. I’m just not sure how they would handle that for many teams that do it. Because taking a season off because you have things to do outside of the game is a legitimate reason to skip. But does that warrant a punishment upon returning to the game? Should you have to play teams near you in rankings of where you land or should you only play teams near where your ranking was? It sounds complicated
And this is why I cannot see a method that is going to be acceptable by everyone.
What about some of these huge alliances that do casual 1 or 2 bg AW? How do you treat them.
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.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
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!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
Okay, very very VERY technically speaking, you always have a chance, regardless of how small it is. So while it's an exaggeration to say there are impossible matchups, it's still fair to say that there are ridiculously hard matchups that you have almost no chance of winning, right??
Actually, even technically speaking, the more you vary, the slimmer the chances get. You have Timer restraints, CR, differences in Base Stats, difficulty relative to the difficulty of your Defense, Points mechanics, all the parts that go into War. It makes it increasingly harder than say, just a Fight with a 40k Champ in a Quest with a 4*. Then you add the AI to that, and there is a point of no return. If they want to argue semantics and say there's no such thing as an impossible Match, there actually is.
all things overcomable. There are no impossible matches, everyone is mechanically capable of winning any match. Stop confusing capable with possible.
You don't honestly believe that, do you? I mean, I've been argumentative a time or two, but that's a pretty watered down whitewash, and as much as we disagree on this, I still consider you highly intelligent. Every single factor mentioned, plus the ones like Nodes added, Defense Tactics, and managing all 30 Players performing exactly the same. All inconsequential? There's no way that's correct. You can only vary so much before you set the Match up before it starts. Let's be honest here.
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.
A 35 mill ally has a prestige that is fairly high so facing opponents with a 10 mill rating difference isn't really a big issue because they're prestige is still fairly high too. A 15K or lower ally has a significantly lower prestige than those much higher in rating so facing say a 25K ally for them is much more difficult than it would be for a 35 mill ally say having to face a 45 mill ally.. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
what does prestige have to do with anything? I dont even use my highest prestige champs in most wars because they are not good for anything....Also what says that 15m alliance does not have the same champs for offence and defense as the 25m alliance? because alliance rating means nothing either, and it is more about what champs you have pulled and leveled up.
You are ignoring all logic just to be outraged.
Then for you its like the Joker says.."you wouldn't get it" about why prestige matters
again explain to me why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*? because prestige does not matter. Again I dont use my highest prestige champs in war typically.
You don't want to have to be patient and grind for the things you need and don't want penalized for dumping champs.
That is horrible logic there. If you are finding silver 2-3 rewards inadequate, join higher tier allies. If you don't want to leave your current ally, that is your fault and not ours.
Also, people get rewards in higher tiers too in case you didn't know and there is no where else ingame you get around 2-3 6 stars(I think) every month. They are an addition to what you already get
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!
If you are finding your competition easy, join a higher tier ally. If you are finding the competition too hard, you don't deserve those rewards and is better of in a lower tier.
That entire logic is based on the idea that Alliances DESERVE their Rank and hold it. That's not a given in a competition, and that's the problem. The Season is a month-long competition that measures progress from start to finish. We've done 2 Seasons now where that progress has been altered for people on one side of this. Not as a result of anything they have control over.
except it is a given, you have not pointed out any alliance war where the winner should not have been the winner.
Should or should not have been the winner is based on how they perform in the War. Not whether or not they're bigger. The argument is an entire contradiction. To say one side should not have been the winner because of their size and then say size doesn't matter is ironic. When you take away the ability of one side to compete with any reasonable capability, it's not a competition anymore.
again why cant a 4r 5* bat a r3 6*, that is the bane of your entire argument.
Not at all. You're acting as if the numbers don't matter, like we're talking about ROL with the suggested Team Rating. Only, you can't argue with the Math of it, and they're not just numbers. They're an average representation of the most an Alliance is working with. There is undeniably a limitation within that compared to others, and when you add the other various mechanics of War, Node increases and combinations, limits within the scoring, etc....they matter even more. Numbers are what it's entirely about.
and yet you still cannot explain why a r4 5* cannot beat a r3 6*. The math of it is simple, the team rating and the prestiqe does not matter, your skill in being able to overcome the fights matter. We are able to take a r5 4* into modes and kill 40k rated champions without using a revive, this is called skill, why can you not do this is war?
This isn't a piece of content like EQ or Story. There are penalties to losing based on efforts, and that goes into the scoring. There is already a measurement for skill. That skill hinges on both sides having a level playing field. What you're saying is the entire competition should be measured by the standard of the rare few who can punch well above their size, and that idea is more dangerous than the **** wood chipper.
There are penalties to losing in all efforts. Cost of resources are penalties. But if you can solo kill a 40k defender with a r5 4* why can you not do it in war. You are ignoring the question just like you are ignoring the question of why a r4 5* can apparently not kill a r3 6*, because again you dont use your entire roster in war, and you only have to kill an average of 5 nodes with 3 champs.
You think everyone can solo a 40k with a Max 4*? You think that's the standard that should apply to all Alliances no matter their point of progress?
Do I think everyone can? no, but that is a matter of skill, or capability, and that should apply to all alliances. War is a skill based system. If you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5* or a r5 4* then it is not a matter of roster size it is a matter of your alliances skill, because it is not a game constraint it is a player constraint.
No, that's absurd to expect of all Alliances. War has a measurement of skill already.
You still do not understand it do you. Its really very simple. If you can beat a r3 6* with a r5 5* there is nothing stopping you from beating it with a rank 4 5*, other than that same skill.
Wrong.
Please elaborate? What part of the game prevents it?
WAR. It's not just taking an R3 down with a 4*. It's taking an R3 down, within 3 minutes, without costing the Team Points from Attack Bonus. It's not a piece of content you can keep trying until you get a perfect run. It's an active competition. You're operating under the pretense that everyone should and must perform with the same standard that those who are at the top do, and that totally ignores the myriad of progress levels underneath, which are being ignored altogether as a result of these Matches, as if they just can't hang. Only they're being forced to lose over and over, and with the end of the second Season like this, the excuses are starting to come up short.
SKILL. You can take down r3s with r4s and skill. You can beat an ally 10m rating above you with skill. It's been done many times. Ofc that's harder to do in say s3 and bronze brackets, but it's definitely possible. Also, a strong defense definitely helps. Place higher champs, attack with lower ones.
Some can now and then. That's not applicable to everyone, and to mandate it means forcing people to lose. That's the whole point of the argument. However, my points have been made, and quite frankly I'm tired of the same cyclical dance. People are going to argue until they are blue in the face that everything is as it should be and the really sad part is for 2 months, one Alliance after another has been shafted and ignored.
Force would mean that they have no chance at all of winning. Not true. We both know that. The new matchmaking isn't perfect, but it's better than the previous one. BOTH have their flaws and everyone knows that.
Many cases, they don't have a chance of winning. The opposition just can't see that because they assume everyone is as skilled as they are and if they're not, they should be. There are flaws with both, but the old one didn't involve Matches people were forced to lose. Forced is exactly what it is when the Matchmaking pairs you with an Alliance you have no chance of winning against. People KNEW this before the revert was even made, and I'm not going to argue semantics over that. It was the express purpose of the request. To knock those lower Alliances down, and "put them in their place". People knew 100% if the system was flipped, those Alliances would lose for sure. That's why they wanted it so. There is no perfect system, but one that involves taking an unfair advantage is no better than another allowing an unfair advantage. Neither is a better of the two, and one is not a solution to the other. It's not about the last one giving unfair Rewards and this one doesn't. It's about two wrongs not making a right, and it's very apparent that adjustment period is more prolonged than just a few weeks, as was suspected. One system was put in place because others were taking advantage of the system. Now they're just taking advantage of others.
You are confusing a chance of wining with the ability to win. if everyone has mechanically a chance to win then they have a chance to win. There is no alliance you cannot win, mechanically, against. There are no guaranteed losses.
No. Ability means ability, and yes. There are Alliances you cannot win against in War.
Okay, very very VERY technically speaking, you always have a chance, regardless of how small it is. So while it's an exaggeration to say there are impossible matchups, it's still fair to say that there are ridiculously hard matchups that you have almost no chance of winning, right??
Actually, even technically speaking, the more you vary, the slimmer the chances get. You have Timer restraints, CR, differences in Base Stats, difficulty relative to the difficulty of your Defense, Points mechanics, all the parts that go into War. It makes it increasingly harder than say, just a Fight with a 40k Champ in a Quest with a 4*. Then you add the AI to that, and there is a point of no return. If they want to argue semantics and say there's no such thing as an impossible Match, there actually is.
all things overcomable. There are no impossible matches, everyone is mechanically capable of winning any match. Stop confusing capable with possible.
Okay, so anything is possible, even if it's the tiniest chance ever. I think we need to replace the word possible here with probable. It's not impossible for a 15 mil alliance to beat a 25 mil alliance, but it IS improbable.
improbable is a better word but then you have to determine HOW improbable, because probability can come into the match up every match.
1) is a 15m alliance likely to have a large variance in defenders from a 25m alliance? Probably not since there are 10 players per BG it is pobable that both alliances can field the exact same defense, since most of the extra points will come from extra star level dupes and rankups. In fact it is possible that a smaller size allinence could have an even better defense.
2) the same can be said for offense.
The only thing the larger sized alliance does is give you a higher probability to have better counters to specific nodes, and a higher probability to having better defenders but that is not guaranteed, especially since you can manipulate the size of your alliance.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
Hmmm....these are legitimate concerns. And of course it would be frustrating to be kicked down to a lower tier when a new alliance gets in for free. So we would need a way to prevent that.... I'll have to think about that.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
What about temporary brackets. There could be a temporary bracket for those who's war season is their first. Then when they look at their leaderboard ranking, it could have an estimate instead of a permanent one. Rewards could be adjusted accordingly Just throwing out that idea.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
What about temporary brackets. There could be a temporary bracket for those who's war season is their first. Then when they look at their leaderboard ranking, it could have an estimate instead of a permanent one. Rewards could be adjusted accordingly Just throwing out that idea.
works better, but then you also get the exploit of people who suck and drop to a lower tier just reforming the alliance to get an temp better start the next war, also affects what I stated as well.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
What about temporary brackets. There could be a temporary bracket for those who's war season is their first. Then when they look at their leaderboard ranking, it could have an estimate instead of a permanent one. Rewards could be adjusted accordingly Just throwing out that idea.
works better, but then you also get the exploit of people who suck and drop to a lower tier just reforming the alliance to get an temp better start the next war, also affects what I stated as well.
So put a cooldown on how often you can form an alliance... isn't there one in the game already? Or you could drastically extend the cooldown for joining war when you create an alliance, at least.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
What about temporary brackets. There could be a temporary bracket for those who's war season is their first. Then when they look at their leaderboard ranking, it could have an estimate instead of a permanent one. Rewards could be adjusted accordingly Just throwing out that idea.
works better, but then you also get the exploit of people who suck and drop to a lower tier just reforming the alliance to get an temp better start the next war, also affects what I stated as well.
Then put a cooldown on joining war. Maybe if you create an alliance for war and disband it, then recreate it, you can't join war again that season? That would prevent alliances making an alliance and then joining war last minute to get top tier rewards.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
I think that all alliances that form and start war could have a war rating assigned based on their rating. Not something huge, but something to avoid stupid matchups.
That is really the biggest issue, is that new alliances have to go through existing alliances.
We can ALL agree on that. So the issue on the table now is figuring out a way to fix that. Ya Boi's suggestion actually has some merit in my opinion, @Lormif what do you think?
Its a hard one to fix without being unfair to someone, since unfairness is what this thread is about.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
What about temporary brackets. There could be a temporary bracket for those who's war season is their first. Then when they look at their leaderboard ranking, it could have an estimate instead of a permanent one. Rewards could be adjusted accordingly Just throwing out that idea.
works better, but then you also get the exploit of people who suck and drop to a lower tier just reforming the alliance to get an temp better start the next war, also affects what I stated as well.
Then put a cooldown on joining war. Maybe if you create an alliance for war and disband it, then recreate it, you can't join war again that season?
The issue itself is not intra season, but off seasons. An alliance created in a season or disbands in a season will not give itself an advantage because they will lose all points when they disband. You also have to be careful not to make it so alliances can easily screw other players by locking the players otu. The issue of people being able to recreate an alliance to fix a broken rating because they suck may be something you can live with because of it not being an issue in seasons.
Only real issue in matchmaking is that sometimes difference in paired war rating is too big. Today we have ally which has lower war rating by almost 300 and thats not fair for those guys. Instead of highlighting these there is neverending posts abou small ally matching big. If war rating is same its ok and it will always happen. One time you guys are small ally one time big. 1 war is not making whole season. So instead focusing on 1 stupid war which can always happen ( new ally climbing laffer for example) just smash 11 rest and you will be where you want
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.
Its different when its 6m vs 16m and 40m vs 50m so thats also something to consider
I really don't understand why matchmaking doesn't just pair you with someone who's currently in the same reward bracket. My new alliance has spent all season (well, we actually started after the season started but whatever) beating stone alliances who had little to no defenders and will end in silver 3, which doesn't seem fair to the people who actually earned silver 3 by fighting other silver 3 alliances. I'm aware new alliances tend to screw the system but isn't that a flaw in the system that it does?
Remember, we aren't here to argue! We are just here to discuss potential improvements to the matchmaking system. There aren't sides to take. Feel free to say what you think is wrong, but make sure you aren't tearing someone else down while you're doing it!
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.
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?
We have people in our alliance that want rewards but don’t have the time or spare champs to do war and aq. Our focus is aq. So that’s why we run 2 bgs and rotate people out for seasonal rewards.
I think it matters because most of the people isn’t his game aren’t in plat. So war shouldn’t be geared entirely towards what is optimal or beneficial for plat.
Comments
What about some of these huge alliances that do casual 1 or 2 bg AW? How do you treat them.
1) is a 15m alliance likely to have a large variance in defenders from a 25m alliance? Probably not since there are 10 players per BG it is pobable that both alliances can field the exact same defense, since most of the extra points will come from extra star level dupes and rankups. In fact it is possible that a smaller size allinence could have an even better defense.
2) the same can be said for offense.
The only thing the larger sized alliance does is give you a higher probability to have better counters to specific nodes, and a higher probability to having better defenders but that is not guaranteed, especially since you can manipulate the size of your alliance.
The best fix would probably to create the bracket system with where you expect people to be at a certain rating, but just use it to place new alliances. The problem is that tiers are percentage based so if you do this you will invariably kick someone to a lower tier when a new high pi/prestige alliance is created. It also allows them to get to a higher tier easier then other people who may be smaller but more skilled.
not saying do or dont do it just pointing out pain points.
The issue itself is not intra season, but off seasons. An alliance created in a season or disbands in a season will not give itself an advantage because they will lose all points when they disband. You also have to be careful not to make it so alliances can easily screw other players by locking the players otu. The issue of people being able to recreate an alliance to fix a broken rating because they suck may be something you can live with because of it not being an issue in seasons.
I think it matters because most of the people isn’t his game aren’t in plat. So war shouldn’t be geared entirely towards what is optimal or beneficial for plat.