YOU are not going to get it. The majority of the community is in favor of the new matchmaking. Open up a poll and try to prove me wrong if you want to.
What for? My opinion is my opinion. Open your own poll and prove yourself right bra
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.
It is not about plat, it is a bout every tier. Someone in silver 1 that cannot reliably beat everyone in silver 2-3 should not be in silver1. It is geared to make sure rewards are distributed fairly.
While GW tried to argue with his logic and very nice, we have ABOMB thought he is almighty and funny, turn out how clown he is and "haha bra go brrrr", don't you think argue him is a waste of time and GW's arguement is much more better
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?
This won’t work due to AQ focussed alliances who take a casual 1 or 2 bg approach to war.
The alliance I am in would be a decent example. We’re 25m and run 1 bg of war. We’re Silver 1, but if the top 10 members put out a defence, it’ll be full of maxed 5* and rank 2 6*. Judging by the previous comments on this thread, and previous posts, that’s a big problem.
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?
This won’t work due to AQ focussed alliances who take a casual 1 or 2 bg approach to war.
The alliance I am in would be a decent example. We’re 25m and run 1 bg of war. We’re Silver 1, but if the top 10 members put out a defence, it’ll be full of maxed 5* and rank 2 6*. Judging by the previous comments on this thread, and previous posts, that’s a big problem.
But you run 1BG, getting silver 1 with 1BG isn't the same thing as getting it with 2 or 3 BGs. You'd be matched with other silver 1 allys that run 1BG, which are presumably around the same quality as you or they wouldn't be making the same tier. If a 1BG alliance is the same rewards bracket as a 3BG alliance it's because they're getting 3x as many points per BG, so their progression levels and tier multipliers are obviously different so you can't compare like that. Every tiered system outside of this game has you play people in the same tier for the same rewards, yet here tiers and rewards brackets are different, and matchmaking is based on another number, and people are upset it was changed from a different number entirely that has no bearing on any of the others. The system still seems messy and I don't think the change to matchmaking fixed it as intended.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
The bigger alliances don't want to be side stepped for rewards when the smaller alliances don't actually have to go through them. And rightfully so. But the smaller alliances don't want to be matched in wars they feel they have no chance of winning. Also, rightfully so. There's only one solution if you're looking for a brand new system, and that has to be bracketing matchups based on some sort of size metric, and have that go along with tiers of rewards.
I can't say I support the move, but as someone not really affected by the current matchmaking, I don't think it's my call to make. But from an objective standpoint,
To be clear, I hate this idea because I believe this leaves a lot up to Kabam's arbitrary views and it basically guarantees that some alliances will lose out. For example, there is almost no qualitative difference between a 9.5k and a 9.2k alliance. But if I were Kabam and I were creating the new system, they would probably end up in different brackets. Such is the sacrifice you make when you ask an outside entity to convert a continuous variable into smaller, discrete sub-components. No system is foolproof, but why I believe a system where only the players decide their final standing is better than a system where we ask Kabam to partner in that decision as well.
Alternatively, maybe Kabam can look at the matchmaking data and see if there are secondary trends that they can add to matchmaking to balance it out a little at the silver level.
Also in a bracket system you would assume rewards or at minimum multipliers would also be based on the bracket you're in right? That also poses a problem that essentially creates another version of AQ where you're essentially guaranteed a level of reward just by being at a certain strength level and leaves no ability of a more skilled smaller alliance to earn more bc they don't even qualify for the bracket. If you only section of the matching but not the rewards or at least multiplier you basically end up with the same system as before.
I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.
From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.
Oooooo.... I won! Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Some people just don't care about war and only even participate for the loyalty and whatever bare minimum season rewards they get without any effort. I was in Asgrd last year when they were the #1 AQ alliance. We were horrendous in war bc no one cared at all.
I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.
From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.
Oooooo.... I won! Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Some people just don't care about war and only even participate for the loyalty and whatever bare minimum season rewards they get without any effort. I was in Asgrd last year when they were the #1 AQ alliance. We were horrendous in war bc no one cared at all.
That is the thing which really confused me. It was literally like a free map. They just need to turn up and take 1 minute to take the boss down ... but did not ...
I won't bother reading past the first page. It is obvious people do not understand that war rating is the deciding factor. Kabam should NOT change the current system. For those complaining they face alliances with a higher total base hero rating and/or prestige difference, this will balance out as those alliances who think war rating isn't "fair" will lose and play lesser alliances and the alliances who beat those complaining alliances win, and will face better alliances.
Prestige can be bought and means nothing, total base hero rating can be bought or actually sold and means nothing either way. Only war rating makes sense
I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.
From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.
Oooooo.... I won! Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Some people just don't care about war and only even participate for the loyalty and whatever bare minimum season rewards they get without any effort. I was in Asgrd last year when they were the #1 AQ alliance. We were horrendous in war bc no one cared at all.
Unfortunately, they're still running it, and if a much smaller Alliance comes up against them, that affects their Season score.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
The bigger alliances don't want to be side stepped for rewards when the smaller alliances don't actually have to go through them. And rightfully so. But the smaller alliances don't want to be matched in wars they feel they have no chance of winning. Also, rightfully so. There's only one solution if you're looking for a brand new system, and that has to be bracketing matchups based on some sort of size metric, and have that go along with tiers of rewards.
I can't say I support the move, but as someone not really affected by the current matchmaking, I don't think it's my call to make. But from an objective standpoint,
To be clear, I hate this idea because I believe this leaves a lot up to Kabam's arbitrary views and it basically guarantees that some alliances will lose out. For example, there is almost no qualitative difference between a 9.5k and a 9.2k alliance. But if I were Kabam and I were creating the new system, they would probably end up in different brackets. Such is the sacrifice you make when you ask an outside entity to convert a continuous variable into smaller, discrete sub-components. No system is foolproof, but why I believe a system where only the players decide their final standing is better than a system where we ask Kabam to partner in that decision as well.
Alternatively, maybe Kabam can look at the matchmaking data and see if there are secondary trends that they can add to matchmaking to balance it out a little at the silver level.
Also in a bracket system you would assume rewards or at minimum multipliers would also be based on the bracket you're in right? That also poses a problem that essentially creates another version of AQ where you're essentially guaranteed a level of reward just by being at a certain strength level and leaves no ability of a more skilled smaller alliance to earn more bc they don't even qualify for the bracket. If you only section of the matching but not the rewards or at least multiplier you basically end up with the same system as before.
Not exactly. I had an idea when Prestige was used to add a maximum amount of Points an Alliance can earn based on Prestige. Essentially the same as we have now, only the Rewards would reflect what an Alliance is working with. Which means for example, Alliance A with 8k Prestige could make let's say....20k Points, Alliance B with 10k Prestige could make 25k. Then those Points would be multiplied based on the Tiers they achieved. The purpose of that would not only prevent Alliances from earning much larger Rewards, but it would also keep the Season Rewards in line with what's most appropriate and useful to what an Alliance has. As for punching above their weight, that's not really happening now. Alliances will win the occasional War against a tougher Alliance, then they fall back down when they come up against a much tougher one. God forbid they come up against those who "must win everytime". Alliances earn Rewards, acquire Champs, Rank them, and grow. That reflects in the Prestige just like AQ. Only with AQ, you're not fighting other Alliances in a battle-dependent game mode. War isn't guaranteed like AQ. There are no set milestones.
Prestige can be bought and means nothing, total base hero rating can be bought or actually sold and means nothing either way. Only war rating makes sense
You can buy the highest Prestige Champ, buy the Dup, and buy the materials to Rank them to R3. I guarantee if you have to fight them in War Defense, it doesn't matter a lick how they were gotten.
I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.
From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.
Oooooo.... I won! Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Some people just don't care about war and only even participate for the loyalty and whatever bare minimum season rewards they get without any effort. I was in Asgrd last year when they were the #1 AQ alliance. We were horrendous in war bc no one cared at all.
Unfortunately, they're still running it, and if a much smaller Alliance comes up against them, that affects their Season score.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
The bigger alliances don't want to be side stepped for rewards when the smaller alliances don't actually have to go through them. And rightfully so. But the smaller alliances don't want to be matched in wars they feel they have no chance of winning. Also, rightfully so. There's only one solution if you're looking for a brand new system, and that has to be bracketing matchups based on some sort of size metric, and have that go along with tiers of rewards.
I can't say I support the move, but as someone not really affected by the current matchmaking, I don't think it's my call to make. But from an objective standpoint,
To be clear, I hate this idea because I believe this leaves a lot up to Kabam's arbitrary views and it basically guarantees that some alliances will lose out. For example, there is almost no qualitative difference between a 9.5k and a 9.2k alliance. But if I were Kabam and I were creating the new system, they would probably end up in different brackets. Such is the sacrifice you make when you ask an outside entity to convert a continuous variable into smaller, discrete sub-components. No system is foolproof, but why I believe a system where only the players decide their final standing is better than a system where we ask Kabam to partner in that decision as well.
Alternatively, maybe Kabam can look at the matchmaking data and see if there are secondary trends that they can add to matchmaking to balance it out a little at the silver level.
Also in a bracket system you would assume rewards or at minimum multipliers would also be based on the bracket you're in right? That also poses a problem that essentially creates another version of AQ where you're essentially guaranteed a level of reward just by being at a certain strength level and leaves no ability of a more skilled smaller alliance to earn more bc they don't even qualify for the bracket. If you only section of the matching but not the rewards or at least multiplier you basically end up with the same system as before.
Not exactly. I had an idea when Prestige was used to add a maximum amount of Points an Alliance can earn based on Prestige. Essentially the same as we have now, only the Rewards would reflect what an Alliance is working with. Which means for example, Alliance A with 8k Prestige could make let's say....20k Points, Alliance B with 10k Prestige could make 25k. Then those Points would be multiplied based on the Tiers they achieved. The purpose of that would not only prevent Alliances from earning much larger Rewards, but it would also keep the Season Rewards in line with what's most appropriate and useful to what an Alliance has. As for punching above their weight, that's not really happening now. Alliances will win the occasional War against a tougher Alliance, then they fall back down when they come up against a much tougher one. God forbid they come up against those who "must win everytime". Alliances earn Rewards, acquire Champs, Rank them, and grow. That reflects in the Prestige just like AQ. Only with AQ, you're not fighting other Alliances in a battle-dependent game mode. War isn't guaranteed like AQ. There are no set milestones.
Matching against a stronger alliance that doesn't care about the war isn't an automatic loss at all. We got beat repeatedly by alliances with half our prestige/rating.
That's basically just AQ 2.0. Basing scoring on prestige is exactly how AQ works. We don't need another version of the same thing
I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.
From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.
Oooooo.... I won! Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Some people just don't care about war and only even participate for the loyalty and whatever bare minimum season rewards they get without any effort. I was in Asgrd last year when they were the #1 AQ alliance. We were horrendous in war bc no one cared at all.
Unfortunately, they're still running it, and if a much smaller Alliance comes up against them, that affects their Season score.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
The bigger alliances don't want to be side stepped for rewards when the smaller alliances don't actually have to go through them. And rightfully so. But the smaller alliances don't want to be matched in wars they feel they have no chance of winning. Also, rightfully so. There's only one solution if you're looking for a brand new system, and that has to be bracketing matchups based on some sort of size metric, and have that go along with tiers of rewards.
I can't say I support the move, but as someone not really affected by the current matchmaking, I don't think it's my call to make. But from an objective standpoint,
To be clear, I hate this idea because I believe this leaves a lot up to Kabam's arbitrary views and it basically guarantees that some alliances will lose out. For example, there is almost no qualitative difference between a 9.5k and a 9.2k alliance. But if I were Kabam and I were creating the new system, they would probably end up in different brackets. Such is the sacrifice you make when you ask an outside entity to convert a continuous variable into smaller, discrete sub-components. No system is foolproof, but why I believe a system where only the players decide their final standing is better than a system where we ask Kabam to partner in that decision as well.
Alternatively, maybe Kabam can look at the matchmaking data and see if there are secondary trends that they can add to matchmaking to balance it out a little at the silver level.
Also in a bracket system you would assume rewards or at minimum multipliers would also be based on the bracket you're in right? That also poses a problem that essentially creates another version of AQ where you're essentially guaranteed a level of reward just by being at a certain strength level and leaves no ability of a more skilled smaller alliance to earn more bc they don't even qualify for the bracket. If you only section of the matching but not the rewards or at least multiplier you basically end up with the same system as before.
Not exactly. I had an idea when Prestige was used to add a maximum amount of Points an Alliance can earn based on Prestige. Essentially the same as we have now, only the Rewards would reflect what an Alliance is working with. Which means for example, Alliance A with 8k Prestige could make let's say....20k Points, Alliance B with 10k Prestige could make 25k. Then those Points would be multiplied based on the Tiers they achieved. The purpose of that would not only prevent Alliances from earning much larger Rewards, but it would also keep the Season Rewards in line with what's most appropriate and useful to what an Alliance has. As for punching above their weight, that's not really happening now. Alliances will win the occasional War against a tougher Alliance, then they fall back down when they come up against a much tougher one. God forbid they come up against those who "must win everytime". Alliances earn Rewards, acquire Champs, Rank them, and grow. That reflects in the Prestige just like AQ. Only with AQ, you're not fighting other Alliances in a battle-dependent game mode. War isn't guaranteed like AQ. There are no set milestones.
Matching against a stronger alliance that doesn't care about the war isn't an automatic loss at all. We got beat repeatedly by alliances with half our prestige/rating.
That's basically just AQ 2.0. Basing scoring on prestige is exactly how AQ works. We don't need another version of the same thing
If an Alliance of 40 Mil barely does War and hops on for Loyalty, a 5 Mil starting out has to fight them. That's a problem. Also, it's not the same as AQ.
And yes alliances do absolutely punch above their "weight" with ability. The alliance we just beat was 4th in master with prestige 1.2k and rating almost 20M below us. They got there by being good at the game as they are also regularly placing in master. Just bc every alliance doesn't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and isn't possible
I'll be losing this current war and possibly the last one as well.
From leaderboard, I see so many alliances stronger than m(in)e but currently ranked below.
Oooooo.... I won! Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Some people just don't care about war and only even participate for the loyalty and whatever bare minimum season rewards they get without any effort. I was in Asgrd last year when they were the #1 AQ alliance. We were horrendous in war bc no one cared at all.
Unfortunately, they're still running it, and if a much smaller Alliance comes up against them, that affects their Season score.
Let's turn this back around to potentially improving war matchmaking. Does anyone have any solid ideas?
The bigger alliances don't want to be side stepped for rewards when the smaller alliances don't actually have to go through them. And rightfully so. But the smaller alliances don't want to be matched in wars they feel they have no chance of winning. Also, rightfully so. There's only one solution if you're looking for a brand new system, and that has to be bracketing matchups based on some sort of size metric, and have that go along with tiers of rewards.
I can't say I support the move, but as someone not really affected by the current matchmaking, I don't think it's my call to make. But from an objective standpoint,
To be clear, I hate this idea because I believe this leaves a lot up to Kabam's arbitrary views and it basically guarantees that some alliances will lose out. For example, there is almost no qualitative difference between a 9.5k and a 9.2k alliance. But if I were Kabam and I were creating the new system, they would probably end up in different brackets. Such is the sacrifice you make when you ask an outside entity to convert a continuous variable into smaller, discrete sub-components. No system is foolproof, but why I believe a system where only the players decide their final standing is better than a system where we ask Kabam to partner in that decision as well.
Alternatively, maybe Kabam can look at the matchmaking data and see if there are secondary trends that they can add to matchmaking to balance it out a little at the silver level.
Also in a bracket system you would assume rewards or at minimum multipliers would also be based on the bracket you're in right? That also poses a problem that essentially creates another version of AQ where you're essentially guaranteed a level of reward just by being at a certain strength level and leaves no ability of a more skilled smaller alliance to earn more bc they don't even qualify for the bracket. If you only section of the matching but not the rewards or at least multiplier you basically end up with the same system as before.
Not exactly. I had an idea when Prestige was used to add a maximum amount of Points an Alliance can earn based on Prestige. Essentially the same as we have now, only the Rewards would reflect what an Alliance is working with. Which means for example, Alliance A with 8k Prestige could make let's say....20k Points, Alliance B with 10k Prestige could make 25k. Then those Points would be multiplied based on the Tiers they achieved. The purpose of that would not only prevent Alliances from earning much larger Rewards, but it would also keep the Season Rewards in line with what's most appropriate and useful to what an Alliance has. As for punching above their weight, that's not really happening now. Alliances will win the occasional War against a tougher Alliance, then they fall back down when they come up against a much tougher one. God forbid they come up against those who "must win everytime". Alliances earn Rewards, acquire Champs, Rank them, and grow. That reflects in the Prestige just like AQ. Only with AQ, you're not fighting other Alliances in a battle-dependent game mode. War isn't guaranteed like AQ. There are no set milestones.
Matching against a stronger alliance that doesn't care about the war isn't an automatic loss at all. We got beat repeatedly by alliances with half our prestige/rating.
That's basically just AQ 2.0. Basing scoring on prestige is exactly how AQ works. We don't need another version of the same thing
ya that would completely kill any FTP players cause alliances literally wouldn't be able to have lower prestige players, regardless of skill, if they wanted to do war
And yes alliances do absolutely punch above their "weight" with ability. The alliance we just beat was 4th in master with prestige 1.2k and rating almost 20M below us. They got there by being good at the game as they are also regularly placing in master. Just bc every alliance doesn't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and isn't possible
So you think it's fair to screw over many people just because the occasional Alliance can punch above their weight?
And yes alliances do absolutely punch above their "weight" with ability. The alliance we just beat was 4th in master with prestige 1.2k and rating almost 20M below us. They got there by being good at the game as they are also regularly placing in master. Just bc every alliance doesn't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and isn't possible
So you think it's fair to screw over many people just because the occasional Alliance can punch above their weight?
It's not "screwing over" anyone. It's just saying that if you continue to win more than lose in your tier, you'll be able to move up. Matching the occasional strong alliance that doesn't even care about war is not stopping that in the slightest
And yes alliances do absolutely punch above their "weight" with ability. The alliance we just beat was 4th in master with prestige 1.2k and rating almost 20M below us. They got there by being good at the game as they are also regularly placing in master. Just bc every alliance doesn't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and isn't possible
So you think it's fair to screw over many people just because the occasional Alliance can punch above their weight?
It's not "screwing over" anyone. It's just saying that if you continue to win more than lose in your tier, you'll be able to move up. Matching the occasional strong alliance that doesn't even care about war is not stopping that in the slightest
People have been screwed over for the last 2 months, and they've posted about it repeatedly. That keeps being ignored, and it's the whole point of these Threads. Everytime people jump in and say, "Nothing to see here. War Rating is the same.", that point gets buried. Only, there are still some of us on here that aren't ignoring it. I'm not sure what game some people are playing where it doesn't matter what you're coming up against, but it isn't War in this game.
I feel no pity. Either get gud, accept the result and system that will balance out, or put out $$$$ bills you grow your roster and try to compete before you're ready
I won't bother reading past the first page. It is obvious people do not understand that war rating is the deciding factor. Kabam should NOT change the current system. For those complaining they face alliances with a higher total base hero rating and/or prestige difference, this will balance out as those alliances who think war rating isn't "fair" will lose and play lesser alliances and the alliances who beat those complaining alliances win, and will face better alliances.
When is it going to balance out tho..? A third season..a fourth..a fifth? Sure seems that reasoning is only an excuse so the higher allys can keep winning against easy competition. Because here we are ending second season with this matchmaking setup and the lopsided wars are obviously still happening.
And yes alliances do absolutely punch above their "weight" with ability. The alliance we just beat was 4th in master with prestige 1.2k and rating almost 20M below us. They got there by being good at the game as they are also regularly placing in master. Just bc every alliance doesn't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and isn't possible
So you think it's fair to screw over many people just because the occasional Alliance can punch above their weight?
It's not "screwing over" anyone. It's just saying that if you continue to win more than lose in your tier, you'll be able to move up. Matching the occasional strong alliance that doesn't even care about war is not stopping that in the slightest
People have been screwed over for the last 2 months, and they've posted about it repeatedly. That keeps being ignored, and it's the whole point of these Threads. Everytime people jump in and say, "Nothing to see here. War Rating is the same.", that point gets buried. Only, there are still some of us on here that aren't ignoring it. I'm not sure what game some people are playing where it doesn't matter what you're coming up against, but it isn't War in this game.
do you think that if 2 alliances are both in gold 2 for example, one is 10 mil the other is 20 mil, and their war ratings are the same, that it's an unfair matchup that shouldn't happen?
I wont say 'all' as that would be unfair. Maybe alliances had cakewalks with old broken system and now don't know what to do. So they ****. Learn adapt, practice, get better
Comments
The alliance I am in would be a decent example. We’re 25m and run 1 bg of war. We’re Silver 1, but if the top 10 members put out a defence, it’ll be full of maxed 5* and rank 2 6*. Judging by the previous comments on this thread, and previous posts, that’s a big problem.
Don't know how it happened. The alliance I fought against certainly had more than sufficient 🔥 power to take wipe out the map.
Anyway, it was a shock for me.
That's basically just AQ 2.0. Basing scoring on prestige is exactly how AQ works. We don't need another version of the same thing