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.
So you think the current system makes that happen?
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
there are also likly to be little variance between the defense of a 15m alliance and a 25m alliance, because there is a lot of players in the alliance that can offset that, further making prestige and alliance rating pointlesss.
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?
Had they started at the bottom and worked their way up to that, no. That's not what we have here. We have a bastardized system that's still all over the place because until the beginning of last Season, a different Matchmaking parameter was used. The second it was flipped abruptly, with nothing preventing these disproportionate Matches aside from a halved Rating, it stopped being fair. People continue to use the final product of Rewards as a gauge of what's fair for the individual Matches themselves, but the Matches are the issue being communicated. Not that these Alliances demand the Bracket Rewards. It's the Matches themselves that are the problem, and they are the way they are because the system has changed, very extremely. This adjustment period is going into its third Season, and people are still suffering because of it. To put it frankly, it's a mess. We had two Matches this Season. They didn't have a chance to beat us. It felt wrong on many levels. Didn't even feel like a Win. We felt bad for these guys. It's not their doing. They entered Matchmaking. That was their only fault.
Stopped being fair? it was never fair, it's just much better now that's all. If we face the 15th best alliance in the world, that alliance has no chance at all, they will lose 100% of the time unless they pilot or mod. You're always going to have that.
Stopped being fair? it was never fair, it's just much better now that's all. If we face the 15th best alliance in the world, that alliance has no chance at all, they will lose 100% of the time unless they pilot or mod. You're always going to have that.
It's not better now. It's worse. The only thing better is there aren't occasional Alliances that are small who are getting higher Rewards. In the same breath, people argue that the size doesn't matter. This is only better for the people riding these Matches to gains. As for that never fair argument, it wasn't fair when people were Tanking and forced them to use Prestige to begin with. That's what caused this mess in the first place. It wasn't fair when Alliances were starting decoy Alliances to take others out on the board. It's not fair now. You might say that no system is fair, but I refuse to accept that we can't strive for better. There needs to be something that's fair for everyone as much as possible, and what people keep saying in these Threads is that it ain't here yet.
Stopped being fair? it was never fair, it's just much better now that's all. If we face the 15th best alliance in the world, that alliance has no chance at all, they will lose 100% of the time unless they pilot or mod. You're always going to have that.
It's not better now. It's worse. The only thing better is there aren't occasional Alliances that are small who are getting higher Rewards. In the same breath, people argue that the size doesn't matter. This is only better for the people riding these Matches to gains. As for that never fair argument, it wasn't fair when people were Tanking and forced them to use Prestige to begin with. That's what caused this mess in the first place. It wasn't fair when Alliances were starting decoy Alliances to take others out on the board. It's not fair now. You might say that no system is fair, but I refuse to accept that we can't strive for better. There needs to be something that's fair for everyone as much as possible, and what people keep saying in these Threads is that it ain't here yet.
There's no way to account for alliances who try and alliances who don't try in war. A 20 mil alliance who tries in war will always beat a 25 mil alliance who has no interest in war. Where do you draw the line?
The aw rating matchup is better. It’s straight up. Based on whether you win or lose. It matches you up with similar aw rating alliances. The problem was lower prestige alliances with less developed rosters were able to place higher than alliances with developed rosters because you can have great attackers and not sig them up all the way and decent lower prestige defense and feast on lower prestige Alliances. That Athens was manipulated by having higher prestige accounts then throw in a few low end prestige at the not time to bring it down getting easier matchups. What you saw last season and first 2 weeks of this season was most these lower prestige alliances with less developed rosters for weeded out and back down where they most likely should have been.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
You have literally put into words what I failed to in making this post. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you so much for this!
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
The questions are 1/ where should be the entry point for this new alliance and 2/ is it "fair" that they don't start from zero?
These "impossible matches" arent even that impossible. If you face 10-15 million higher alliances they prob suck or dont care about war and are AQ focused.
Otherwise they would not be this low. They prob have a lot of ppl that place with suicides (that hurts the defense a lot and makes a lot of otherwise hard fights a cakewalk) and they may even have their main attacker in AQ.
We are between P2-3 and T2-3. If we face 45 million alliances its often easier than 30 millions (thats our rating as well).
If you keep reading on the forum about why warrating is better than prestige/alliance rating you will understand why its here IF you are open minded. We got P1 in the old system bc we had easier matches. But it was just not fair.
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.
So you think the current system makes that happen?
the current system matches you with people in your current skillset, specifically those in your same tier. Tiers do not exactly equate to bracket but very closely does. So yes it makes it so if you are in gold 1 then you are capable of beating gold 2 opponents.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Give me an example... This who "unevened matchups" is just an excuse. There is a top barrier of what people can place, 6*r3, so the most any player can place is a 6* r3. You are going to be seeing mostly 250% health (~150k) and 300% for bosses.
If everyone in plat 1 leaves and creates new alliances the battles will still be mechanically beatable, the alliances may not be capable due to their skill level, but they are not unbeatable. In addition why would a p1 alliance want to recreate? They will lose their bonuses and therefore finish lower in 1, maybe 2 seasons.
There is no reasoning with you ^, go unbunch them huggies and take a breath bra 🤣
all you got are ad hominems, that is the reason yu cannot reason with people, logical fallacies typically does not equate to reasoning. I am still waiting to here why you cannot beat a r3 6* with a r4 5*....
Tbf its possible for a figure to be impossible even work r5 5*s depending on the nudes
its not impossible, it is a matter of capability and in rare cases roster, but if you have roster issues in your alliance you should not be assigning lanes, but determining who takes what lane after you see the defenders, because there is no defender that a p1 alliance can place that a s1 cannot also place
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
Bro...stone alliances don't typically even have five stars...unless you're taking rarity out of the equation, in which case I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant!
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
This may well be the only case I can ever remember where I’d disagree with you. But just a little disagreement.
I would expect someone in a master alliance to have, and probably place, Wolverine Weapon X on defence.
There is no one in a stone alliance that would be able to do this.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
Bro...stone alliances don't typically even have five stars...unless you're taking rarity out of the equation, in which case I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant!
you are confusing capability with probability. It is possible for a stone alliance to place a 6* r3 defender in every single slot, even with a 700k or lower alliance rating. It is not probable, but it is possible. And even then it is possible and more probable that they can have the exact same defense at a lower star level. This is why getting mad at alliance rating or prestige rating is pointless.
1) even at a lower prestige you can have the exact same defense 2) even at a lower alliance pi you can have the exact same defense.
These "impossible matches" arent even that impossible. If you face 10-15 million higher alliances they prob suck or dont care about war and are AQ focused.
Otherwise they would not be this low. They prob have a lot of ppl that place with suicides (that hurts the defense a lot and makes a lot of otherwise hard fights a cakewalk) and they may even have their main attacker in AQ.
We are between P2-3 and T2-3. If we face 45 million alliances its often easier than 30 millions (thats our rating as well).
If you keep reading on the forum about why warrating is better than prestige/alliance rating you will understand why its here IF you are open minded. We got P1 in the old system bc we had easier matches. But it was just not fair.
I'm in a 48 million alliance and we got beat by a 30 million alliance. Why? because the 30 million alliance played better than us. Once you hit a certain level as in 30 million alliance you have more than enough champions to face any alliance. The reality is the people that have 40+ million alliance try harder which is why their total rating is so high. They have more experience played the game longer, they most likely have completed Abyss etc etc.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
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.
No there are not, not mechanically. There is no defender that cannot be taken down with skill.
In under the three minute fight timer for war, given limited rosters and the differences in rosters between high and low pi players, and some of the matches I’ve seen matchmaker put together, there definitely are fights in war that certain players cannot win even with great skill.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
Once again, I'll circle back to it: what is skill, and more importantly, why does it matter? Your specific example is a flaw I think everyone agrees to. Perhaps starting off with a war rating that's a derivative of average prestige, until they can be appropriately sorted into their correct rating.
I'm not sure what would work, to be honest. I'm curious if the aforementioned suggestion is a viable solution, but unless Kabam implements it or runs simulations on their algorithm, we'll never know. But you can't say that the entire system is flawed because of an outlying example that seldom happens. Because what you're implying is that for the typical matchup, the system works fine and only these instances which occur .01% of the time are an issue- which I believe to be true. The problem is, I don't believe YOU do.
There is no ideal system. I think everyone will agree with that . But the system was changed from War rating to Allince rating or prestige because so many alliances were tanking and playing around that system. When Kabam decided to change it back to War rating, me and @GroundedWisdom were the only people against that because we knew what that will mean. But our arguments were met with "if they lose, they don't deserve to be there" and " Everything will settle in a couple of seasons". No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW. Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
cool, give us a realistic fight that cannot be overcome with skill, ill wait, I keep waiting..... There is no defender that a master rated alliance can place that a stone alliance cannot place. None, zip, zero
A Master Alliance shouldn't be coming up against a lower to mid-range Alliance. They're not matched in Roster, or skill. It's ridiculous to expect that they have the same capabilities, and implement a system that says they should.
Master alliances aren't matching midrange alliances though. That just isn't happening right now.
That wasn't the question. The OP is implying there's no such thing as a mismatch.
The only thing I'm facing is now p3 and P4 alliances and I'm in p3 so everyone is fighting people who they deserve. If that wasn't the case than they would've been lowered already. So the mismatches you speak of have been gone, it's been two seasons since the change happened. Crying about it won't change. Also, you're not even playing anywhere near close to high level war so how do you even know what's going on?
Comments
there are also likly to be little variance between the defense of a 15m alliance and a 25m alliance, because there is a lot of players in the alliance that can offset that, further making prestige and alliance rating pointlesss.
Don’t get me wrong I love your attitude of “there’s nothing that can’t be done.” Generally I share it. But that’s the point some of us are trying to make:
That because roster depth and breadth varies so much, and because matchmaker can make some very uneven matches, players with lower ranked and less diverse rosters cannot win certain fights or beat some alliances with much more champs of a much higher rank.
If all the guys in a plat 1 alliance leave and make a new alliance, the early fights that alliance enters into will basically be unwinnable for the opposing alliance, BECAUSE of the strength of the champs they place on defense as well as the skill and strength of the champs they can attack with on offense.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the opposing alliance wasn’t skillful enough. They may just not have had the dps or depth or quality of roster to overcome the champs the Forbes plat alliance placed without timing out.
Sorry if this is a double post. I tried to edit and it got deleted.
1/ where should be the entry point for this new alliance and
2/ is it "fair" that they don't start from zero?
These "impossible matches" arent even that impossible. If you face 10-15 million higher alliances they prob suck or dont care about war and are AQ focused.
Otherwise they would not be this low. They prob have a lot of ppl that place with suicides (that hurts the defense a lot and makes a lot of otherwise hard fights a cakewalk) and they may even have their main attacker in AQ.
We are between P2-3 and T2-3.
If we face 45 million alliances its often easier than 30 millions (thats our rating as well).
If you keep reading on the forum about why warrating is better than prestige/alliance rating you will understand why its here IF you are open minded. We got P1 in the old system bc we had easier matches. But it was just not fair.
If everyone in plat 1 leaves and creates new alliances the battles will still be mechanically beatable, the alliances may not be capable due to their skill level, but they are not unbeatable. In addition why would a p1 alliance want to recreate? They will lose their bonuses and therefore finish lower in 1, maybe 2 seasons.
No one including Kabam actually gave any ideas to try to mitigate the damage and we are still here with mis-matches. People saying anyone skilled can take down anything are not honestly deluding themselves. No amount of skill can bridge the gap in account size when it comes to AW.
Let me be clear so that people don't start saying I want the old system back. I don't. It was a disadvantage to many alliances since they had high prestige. We cannot prevent mis-matches in any system because of the vast number of alliances present and some of them doing 2BG, 1BG and some forming a new one, and some not even serious and doing itemless ones. But, it could have been lessened.
This may well be the only case I can ever remember where I’d disagree with you. But just a little disagreement.
I would expect someone in a master alliance to have, and probably place, Wolverine Weapon X on defence.
There is no one in a stone alliance that would be able to do this.
1) even at a lower prestige you can have the exact same defense
2) even at a lower alliance pi you can have the exact same defense.