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
I don't understand by what you mean by a realistic fight. You mean in war? rank 3 6 star maxed thing boss with a rank 4 void in 3 minutes. That has happened to a friend of mine. I have seen skilled youtubers fail to beat 5 star rank 5 max sig Thing boss with a correct counter too. You mean in other content? One shot abyss collector and I will bow down to you. I mean, you cannot be that arrogant to think you know everything. You people are only thinking about players complaining in forums, there are tons of players in line groups complaining about horrible matches they got. Hell, we got matched with a alliance half the size of ours and those guys cried in the war room abt the horrible match, we felt sorry for them.
Once again, I am not saying the system inherently is a bad one. Matchmaking based on war rating is fair. But, the execution is really bad. I think kabam saw that most people were happy in the forums are decided to go ahead and ignored the rest.
I honestly don't understand your second point. Master and stones are ranks in a war season. A high rating alliance can be a stone one and is possible to place 6 star rank 3 defenders.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
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!
I agree with you dont kno why all the disagree youre in a silver 1 alliance how can people say you're in an alliance you dont belong its not like you're in plat 3 or 2 complaining about unfair match ups you're in a low tier alliance trying to work your way up and you're being match up with whats known as shell alliance, i saw one match up where one alliance was in silver 2 match up against an alliance with all rank 2 and 3 6 stars on defense each BG had wolverine weapon X at rank 2 but people in here will say that was a fair match up.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
4th war in a row facing an ally with atleast 2K prestige better than us. All we are is fodder for the stronger allys
My current matchup is against an ally with 1.5k prestige more than us. We are 8.2k, they are 9.7. They have better attackers and defenders. Is our matchup fair? Yep. Am I complaining? Nah. We'll just have to fihht harder to get into g3 and make up for our dreadful start to the war season.
Really a 8.2K, were a 5.8K and in Silver 1 too..u guys must suck!🤣
4th war in a row facing an ally with atleast 2K prestige better than us. All we are is fodder for the stronger allys
My current matchup is against an ally with 1.5k prestige more than us. We are 8.2k, they are 9.7. They have better attackers and defenders. Is our matchup fair? Yep. Am I complaining? Nah. We'll just have to fihht harder to get into g3 and make up for our dreadful start to the war season.
Really a 8.2K, were a 5.8K and in Silver 1 too..u guys must suck!🤣
Cries about unfair wars. But still no problem making fun of others.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
4th war in a row facing an ally with atleast 2K prestige better than us. All we are is fodder for the stronger allys
My current matchup is against an ally with 1.5k prestige more than us. We are 8.2k, they are 9.7. They have better attackers and defenders. Is our matchup fair? Yep. Am I complaining? Nah. We'll just have to fihht harder to get into g3 and make up for our dreadful start to the war season.
Really a 8.2K, were a 5.8K and in Silver 1 too..u guys must suck!🤣
Cries about unfair wars. But still no problem making fun of others.
I just don't like that guy, he completely shrugged my post by flexing his arms and puffing his chest out so..yeah.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
Did you really ignore my post pontificating the reasons for such a matchup so that you can continue this nonsense narrative?
You mean did I ignore your effort to explain away the issue I presented and divert the problem? Yes. I ignored the ignore.
People giving examples of mismatches give a 30 mill vs 45 mill. I don't really understand if you can't differentiate between the two.A 30 mill alliance generally means they are established well enough in the game. People complaining are usually 15-20 mill and they come up against 30 mill alliances. The smaller alliance places rank 4 5 stars and rank 1 6 stars and even they are not good defenders. 30 mill place rank 2 6 stars and maxed 5 stars. That is where the mismatch occurs. Once you reach 1 mill rating, we can pretty much assume you are experienced in the game. The 400-900k players are developing their rosters.
While there is something characteristically different about the 15-20mil and 30 mil alliance, I still don't think that's inherently a mismatch. Many 30 mil alliances don't care enough about war. With enough planning and execution, yes, I do think the upset is possible.
I do agree that a 4mil alliance vs say a 15mil alliance has next to no chance. But are we actually seeing those still?
Yes. This Season.
pics or it didn't happen. Also, without more information, I have nothing to add to my previous post. Feel free to take a look at it and reply.
I just told you. We're a 15 Mil, we had 5 Mil Allies. The point that's being glanced over is there's nothing preventing Matches like that from happening.
No one is ignoring the possibility. But what I meant by more information is your win/loss streak before to theirs. If they were beating 10 mil alliances, then, yes the system gave them the chance to face 15mil alliances. It's not likely unless they have a couple of boss killers in each NG able to handle the r4s you probably put up against them. On average you're looking at 500k accounts vs 160k ish accounts, with less experience. Did they win their way to fighting you guys?
You missed the point entirely. The point is there's nothing stopping them from happening. Discrepancies like that shouldn't be a thing. This is a byproduct of the switch.
Of the way it was switched, or the new system?
Both, really. More specifically as a result of nothing making a transition that didn't involve this. One War they just stopped trying once they knew they didn't have a chance. That's another side to this. People aren't just being overpowered. They're losing morale. When you keep getting placed in Matches by a system you trust and hope will place you in Wars appropriate for you, that are so overpowered you don't stand much of a chance, you lose the will to even play.
Did you really ignore my post pontificating the reasons for such a matchup so that you can continue this nonsense narrative?
You mean did I ignore your effort to explain away the issue I presented and divert the problem? Yes. I ignored the ignore.
If you call trying to understand by exploring the potential reasons "explaining away and diverting the problem" then yes, that's exactly what I was doing. You can't call it an ignore when someone is actively engaged in trying to understand it. Well, you can. But a rational person would not.
Ah, yes. You must genuinely be trying to understand my "nonsense narrative". This is redundant at this point. The problem has been presented for 2 months. It's going to continue to be the problem, no matter how many times people try to spin it or brush it off. Whether or not something is done to address it, is out of my control. What I'm not going to do is pretend it's not a problem.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
if you wanna be real, the only way to prevent mismatches completely is to not have war. As long as war exists, you'll have mismatches
Absolutely perfectly even, no. That's not really reasonable. Within regulated limits to ensure as fair a chance for both sides as possible, not too much to ask.
but nobody here (kabam prob does) has ANY clue about what % of matches are what you would consider to be unreasonable. There's only a couple posts every war, so we don't know if 99.8% of matches are "fair", 98%, 95%, etc. Also, what's considered "fair" is impossible to judge because not all alliances try in war.
Comments
Once again, I am not saying the system inherently is a bad one. Matchmaking based on war rating is fair. But, the execution is really bad. I think kabam saw that most people were happy in the forums are decided to go ahead and ignored the rest.
I honestly don't understand your second point. Master and stones are ranks in a war season. A high rating alliance can be a stone one and is possible to place 6 star rank 3 defenders.