War Matchmaking is busted

GroundedWisdom · September 2020

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:
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.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.".
They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given.
That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest.
It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.

In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
How many times can you keep trying to justify taking advantage of Alliances too weak to win against the opponent? Nothing to do with skill, and that argument is knuckle dragging. What Alliances are working with has an effect on the War played out. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.
how many times can you push the same lies. It is everything to do with skill. Yes what they are working with has some effect, but it is not the end all be all you are making it out to be. It also does not address that you keep misrepresenting the cause of these changes.

"Yes what they are working with has some effect"
....that affect can make or break a War when it's too varied, and that's exactly what we're discussing here. If what you're implying is true, no one would bother getting higher Champs and Ranking them because it doesn't matter.

Lormif · September 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:
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.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.".
They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given.
That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest.
It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.

In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
How many times can you keep trying to justify taking advantage of Alliances too weak to win against the opponent? Nothing to do with skill, and that argument is knuckle dragging. What Alliances are working with has an effect on the War played out. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.
how many times can you push the same lies. It is everything to do with skill. Yes what they are working with has some effect, but it is not the end all be all you are making it out to be. It also does not address that you keep misrepresenting the cause of these changes.
"Yes what they are working with has some effect"
....that affect can make or break a War when it's too varied, and that's exactly what we're discussing here. If what you're implying is true, no one would bother getting higher Champs and Ranking them because it doesn't matter.

If they lack skill yes, you want to ignore that part, every time. You cannot unlink the two.

you rank champs to lower the skill threshold required to do something, it does not bypass it.

GroundedWisdom · September 2020

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Pulyaman said:
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.

You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.

I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.

When someone wins often enough they get matched with more capable opponents until they hit their ceiling. When someone loses enough, they get matched with lesser capable opponents until they start winning again. Imagine complaining that this is an issue in a competitive mode.

The only other option is brackets, which has its own issues. But if all the weaker alliances want to switch to a bracket system where they have no shot at silver 1 or gold rewards, then by all means, be my guest.

When you're throwing Players into a washing machine with stones by flipping the switch like what happened, then that IS a problem. Unless you can justify trampling anyone and everyone as long as you get bigger Rewards than smaller Allies. Sounds like a self-centred measuring contest more than a fair competition based on performance on an even playing field.

GroundedWisdom · September 2020

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:
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.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.".
They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given.
That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest.
It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.

In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
How many times can you keep trying to justify taking advantage of Alliances too weak to win against the opponent? Nothing to do with skill, and that argument is knuckle dragging. What Alliances are working with has an effect on the War played out. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.
how many times can you push the same lies. It is everything to do with skill. Yes what they are working with has some effect, but it is not the end all be all you are making it out to be. It also does not address that you keep misrepresenting the cause of these changes.
"Yes what they are working with has some effect"
....that affect can make or break a War when it's too varied, and that's exactly what we're discussing here. If what you're implying is true, no one would bother getting higher Champs and Ranking them because it doesn't matter.
If they lack skill yes, you want to ignore that part, every time. You cannot unlink the two.

you rank champs to lower the skill threshold required to do something, it does not bypass it.

You can stop with the skill argument. It's just arrogant to assume every level of Player has to ascribe to what the highest Alliances call skill.

Lormif · September 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:

GroundedWisdom said:

danielmath said:
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.
We've had these Matches ever since the revert. The simple fact is there's nothing in place stopping them from happening. As for whether they try or not, that's irrelevant. It's not hard to set a limit on the difference between what one Alliance is bringing versus the other.
HOW do you do that? how is trying not relevant? a 30 mil alliance that tries in war will slaughter a 40 mil that doesn't
My concern is for people who have little to no chance trying because the Matchmaking system placed them in unreasonable Matches. I'm not really as concerned for an Alliance who is placing and not even trying.
but a lot of times, those alliances who place and don't try are the "top" alliance in these mismatches that you're upset about, that's how their rating/ranking got low enough to match those alliances in the 1st place
I really don't care who the Alliance is. My concern is for people playing War for the Season, who trust the Matchmaking system to give them Matches that are within reach. A Season where every Win and Loss matters, and when they're trying as hard as they can to the best of their ability and the system fails them, that's a concern. If it means having a measure in place to protect Alliances from being slaughtered, whether established or starting out, then that is more of a priority than the select few Alliances who like to get an overpowered Win now and then, or the Alliances who are playing but don't really care what they do. People are trusting the system, and it's failing them. They have absolutely no control over that. It's not even a matter of playing their best and losing. The goal post has been moved leaps and bounds, and for 9 Seasons they've trusted it to give them a reasonable War matchup. Now for 2 months, they've been expressing that these Matches are overpowered, and all they're being told is "You didn't deserve what you got. You want it, take it. Nothing to see here. War Ratings are similar.".
They're being wronged, and that takes precedence over the arrogant.
Why are those the only alliances that matter? I don't recall you caring about alliances constantly getting destroyed and robbed during the prestige war seasons? Why does the alliance who's content to just clear the map and get gold 2 not matter but the alliance trying to move up to take their spot matter?
Robbed? No one was robbed. Alliances were playing within their own Matches, and the Rewards needed to be restructured. You make it sound like people were intentionally coming for them. All they did was play the Wars they were given.
That's one fundamental difference. This change came because bigger Alliances actively came for smaller ones. Not only demanded and petitioned for it, but said they'd make it happen one way or another, even if they had to start smaller Alliances to do it themselves. Pretty disgusting, to be honest.
It's not about one being more important than the other, and there really is nothing wrong with an Alliance taking it easy, but that Alliance should not be able to impede the growth of people who are actually trying to come up and grow. Otherwise what you have is a system that has no protection for honest Players on the lower end, and one that allows greater Alliances to stop anyone else from moving any further. Taking it easy shouldn't stop the system from functioning as a fair competition.
Not bigger, BETTER. No one cares if "bigger" alliances are not getting rewards better than "smaller" alliances, absolutely no one. We care that alliances that cannot beat their peers are getting rewards equal to and better than them. because that is unfair. Yhou keep creating these strawman argument because it is impossible to argue against the real problem.

In this system even with what you call unfair systems, which are not, the alliances are getting the rewards that their skill dictates in a competitive system they should be getting so no one is impeding their growth.
How many times can you keep trying to justify taking advantage of Alliances too weak to win against the opponent? Nothing to do with skill, and that argument is knuckle dragging. What Alliances are working with has an effect on the War played out. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.
how many times can you push the same lies. It is everything to do with skill. Yes what they are working with has some effect, but it is not the end all be all you are making it out to be. It also does not address that you keep misrepresenting the cause of these changes.
"Yes what they are working with has some effect"
....that affect can make or break a War when it's too varied, and that's exactly what we're discussing here. If what you're implying is true, no one would bother getting higher Champs and Ranking them because it doesn't matter.
If they lack skill yes, you want to ignore that part, every time. You cannot unlink the two.

you rank champs to lower the skill threshold required to do something, it does not bypass it.
You can stop with the skill argument. It's just arrogant to assume every level of Player has to ascribe to what the highest Alliances call skill.

still misrepresenting the argument, is that really all you can do is throw strawmen arguments? You dont have to ascribe to a masters alliance skill, because you are not fighting master alliances, but you still need to have skill, and it still can overcome the problem of a larger alliance because there is a ceiling for the largest defense that they can have, it is jsut arrogance to assume skill has nothing to do with it.

Lormif · September 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Pulyaman said:
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.

You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.

I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.

When someone wins often enough they get matched with more capable opponents until they hit their ceiling. When someone loses enough, they get matched with lesser capable opponents until they start winning again. Imagine complaining that this is an issue in a competitive mode.

The only other option is brackets, which has its own issues. But if all the weaker alliances want to switch to a bracket system where they have no shot at silver 1 or gold rewards, then by all means, be my guest.
When you're throwing Players into a washing machine with stones by flipping the switch like what happened, then that IS a problem. Unless you can justify trampling anyone and everyone as long as you get bigger Rewards than smaller Allies. Sounds like a self-centred measuring contest more than a fair competition based on performance on an even playing field.

you still have not illustrated that there is a problem, let alone that it is so systematic to claim it is putting them into a washing machine.

GroundedWisdom · September 2020

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Pulyaman said:
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.

You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.

I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.

When someone wins often enough they get matched with more capable opponents until they hit their ceiling. When someone loses enough, they get matched with lesser capable opponents until they start winning again. Imagine complaining that this is an issue in a competitive mode.

The only other option is brackets, which has its own issues. But if all the weaker alliances want to switch to a bracket system where they have no shot at silver 1 or gold rewards, then by all means, be my guest.
When you're throwing Players into a washing machine with stones by flipping the switch like what happened, then that IS a problem. Unless you can justify trampling anyone and everyone as long as you get bigger Rewards than smaller Allies. Sounds like a self-centred measuring contest more than a fair competition based on performance on an even playing field.

It's a competition. Who said anything about an even playing field?

To be clear, I'll gladly take on a competition on an even playing field, but that's not what AW is supposed to be. AW is a competition at which ally is the most capable with what they have. But at least you're willing to admit that this is about the rewards. Progress in a way, I suppose.

It's always been about the Rewards. The means to getting there is despicable. People knew this would happen. That's why they wanted it.

The_Sentry06 · September 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Pulyaman said:
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.

You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.

I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.

When someone wins often enough they get matched with more capable opponents until they hit their ceiling. When someone loses enough, they get matched with lesser capable opponents until they start winning again. Imagine complaining that this is an issue in a competitive mode.

The only other option is brackets, which has its own issues. But if all the weaker alliances want to switch to a bracket system where they have no shot at silver 1 or gold rewards, then by all means, be my guest.
When you're throwing Players into a washing machine with stones by flipping the switch like what happened, then that IS a problem. Unless you can justify trampling anyone and everyone as long as you get bigger Rewards than smaller Allies. Sounds like a self-centred measuring contest more than a fair competition based on performance on an even playing field.

It's a competition. Who said anything about an even playing field?

To be clear, I'll gladly take on a competition on an even playing field, but that's not what AW is supposed to be. AW is a competition at which ally is the most capable with what they have. But at least you're willing to admit that this is about the rewards. Progress in a way, I suppose.
It's always been about the Rewards. The means to getting there is despicable. People knew this would happen. That's why they wanted it.

The entire point of this game is to grow your roster to attain better rewards to further improve your roster. It is a cycle. That is what AW is supposed to be. To encourage players to develop their rosters to climb up the ranks. It was never an even playing field.

Lormif · September 2020

Lattughino said:
Hi to all,
I've got a little suggestion, I'm an officer of a small alliance and we lost the fun in making aw, we are now in bronze 1 and we were silver 3 and I think maybe is our right ranking, is not a problem of rewards or ranking, simply is not fun when so many matches are unbalanced because we fight against alliance with full of 5s maxed and 6s or against other who are far weaker than us.
My suggestion is: why is not possible to maintain the actual matchmaking based on war rating but, when the match is done, if the alliance rating is different for more than a certain amount (i.e. 25% or whatever else) the war became a Max 4s war, big guns on the ground, and it's not possible to bring in war the 5s and the 6s.
I'm quite sure that our ranking will not change, for an ally with few cavalier it will not be hard to win against us, but It will me more challenging for them and maybe a bit less frustrating for us. And the 4s will be again useful.
What do you think about?
Thank's for the attention.

Giuliano.

The issue there is that people can still manipulate the their alliance or prestige to get these wars, which would be easier for them. A better way is just to make all wars be done with all max ranks/start levels of the champions you have, or just give everyone a full roster of 6*r3 that can only be used in war.

danielmath · September 2020

Lattughino said:
Hi to all,
I've got a little suggestion, I'm an officer of a small alliance and we lost the fun in making aw, we are now in bronze 1 and we were silver 3 and I think maybe is our right ranking, is not a problem of rewards or ranking, simply is not fun when so many matches are unbalanced because we fight against alliance with full of 5s maxed and 6s or against other who are far weaker than us.
My suggestion is: why is not possible to maintain the actual matchmaking based on war rating but, when the match is done, if the alliance rating is different for more than a certain amount (i.e. 25% or whatever else) the war became a Max 4s war, big guns on the ground, and it's not possible to bring in war the 5s and the 6s.
I'm quite sure that our ranking will not change, for an ally with few cavalier it will not be hard to win against us, but It will me more challenging for them and maybe a bit less frustrating for us. And the 4s will be again useful.
What do you think about?
Thank's for the attention.

Giuliano.

cause then alliances would just sell all their 3/4* to drop their rating

GroundedWisdom · September 2020

The_Sentry06 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Pulyaman said:
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.

You side step every attempt to have any actual conversation. If you want to talk in meaningless campaign points (I can only speculate what you're running for), then have at it. There's this other post of mine that ponders why mismatches could happen. Feel free to take a look.
I don't side step anything. I've been the most vocal on the subject for two months, going into great detail what the problem is. If you want to explain hypotheticals, be my guest. You're not going to explain away the issue that I've presented ad nauseum.

I'm not questioning the issue... I'm denying its existence. Of course, you'd know that if you read this post where I discuss 4 potential explanations for mismatches. You know, the one you've been side stepping. Maybe give it a look and let me know your thoughts.
No. I'm not arguing with someone who is actively denying the issues I'm presenting. I already have one I'm engaged with who is doing the same, and no matter how many times the same people try to jump in and silence the problem, it's still there. Alliance after Alliance has posted about it in the last 2 months. If it wasn't actually a problem, you might have heard one or two complaints. Not as many. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to someone who has already decided it doesn't exist.

When someone wins often enough they get matched with more capable opponents until they hit their ceiling. When someone loses enough, they get matched with lesser capable opponents until they start winning again. Imagine complaining that this is an issue in a competitive mode.

The only other option is brackets, which has its own issues. But if all the weaker alliances want to switch to a bracket system where they have no shot at silver 1 or gold rewards, then by all means, be my guest.
When you're throwing Players into a washing machine with stones by flipping the switch like what happened, then that IS a problem. Unless you can justify trampling anyone and everyone as long as you get bigger Rewards than smaller Allies. Sounds like a self-centred measuring contest more than a fair competition based on performance on an even playing field.

It's a competition. Who said anything about an even playing field?

To be clear, I'll gladly take on a competition on an even playing field, but that's not what AW is supposed to be. AW is a competition at which ally is the most capable with what they have. But at least you're willing to admit that this is about the rewards. Progress in a way, I suppose.
It's always been about the Rewards. The means to getting there is despicable. People knew this would happen. That's why they wanted it.
The entire point of this game is to grow your roster to attain better rewards to further improve your roster. It is a cycle. That is what AW is supposed to be. To encourage players to develop their rosters to climb up the ranks. It was never an even playing field.

When you're talking about a game mode like War, an even playing field is paramount for that growth. Especially when you add a scoring system like the current setup, and a Season competition. Rewards earned need to be a reflection of performance, and when one side is fighting 3 times harder than the other for the same Rewards, that's not a competition.

pseudosane · September 2020

Durzo said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Durzo said:

Ebony_Naw said:

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

No one is bent out of shape, except perhaps your misguided perception of fairness.
Misguided? So getting matched up against an alliance with 10 million more rating that yours because of war rating is fair and balanced? Clearly something is wrong if you don't have even a chance to win the war...you all keep talking about skill and how you don't belong in this tier or that tier if you can't win, but it's not us that doesn't belong in the tier...it's these monster allys with 800k average member rating sitting in silver 2 and 1. And even if they move up to the next rank, there are always more. You think WE have low skill in silver 1 or 2 when we're using not even max champs and can still get to almost gold 3? How about the people who have max five/six stars who can't even make it up past gold 3?

Point to the post where I said it's about skill. I love how the smaller alliances always bring up skill, as if the only difference between you and a master ally is the size of the accounts. Genuinely, I find comedy in it.

If you're so skilled, let's compare units spent on Act 6 exploration, or how you did in the Omega Boss rush, assuming you were able to complete epic. I did it itemless. No? Variant 5? And I'm not a top account by any stretch.

So now that we've gotten the skill argument out of the way, let me get one other thing out of the way. My alliance was inspired by DNAs idea and we now run 2 BG for the first 5 wars of every AW season, and 1 BG after that for the die hards in our group. So I have no real horse in this race.

I want to posit that I believe skill should be limited when it comes to AW. Skill isn't something that can really be objectively quantified. The problem with "skill" is that it is a goalpost that moves depending on your own capabilities and the perceived capabilities of others. In fact, I think AW is much more about capability than it is about "skill." And as long as there is a single scale for rewards, that's exactly what it should be about. If you are more capable than another alliance, your rewards are better. So "skill" (I guess that means more capable with all else being equal?) should only matter when talking about similar alliances. But if a smaller alliance wants to move up on the leaderboard, there is nothing wrong with saying they should have to play through bigger alloances to get there.

This system is not perfect, but it's MUCH better than the previous.

The only thing that "annoys" me is when you bring up skill as if you rhink you're more skilled than someone like @Mr_Platypus. I dont think you realize how ridiculous that is. If I'm not mistaken, he's offered to do a 4* challenge and match up his results vs some with a smaller account who believes they have more skill. I'll take that challenge as well. Won't hold my breath for a response though.
Are you REALLY going to deny that almost everyone in Platinum/Master Alliances regularly spend money on this game? You can't be serious. How do you think their accounts got that big? In any case, I never said I have more skill than anyone. You can look for a quote on that. And I'm not going to bother doing challenges posted by someone on a forum looking to show off their big boi skills. If you're incredible at this game, great! If you can do all of Omega boss rush itemless, that's really cool! It's actually really impressive, if you actually did it. And to be honest, it sounds like we agree at least a bit on the whole "skill" aspect of AW. I just don't understand why people think it's fair to say that if you aren't getting matched up against alliances similar in power to you, that you lost because of skill. This isn't a skill based game. It's literally pay to win. Big Alliances will always have access to revives and items and boosters because they put big money into the game. The only restriction on war is that people can only use 15 items. That's 15 team revives if you have money.

I have an alt with 20r5s and zero money spent in a platinum ally....

pseudosane · September 2020

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣

My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.

ABOMB · September 2020

Lormif said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Right. Doesn't matter if those Wars are fair or not, the War Rating is all that matters. Lol. Have to disagree there.
you dont want them fair yourself, you just want alliance ratings to be closer, that still does not make wars fair.
ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
yea no easy smaller alliances in tier 3/4 but hey if you think this what it is about and makes you feel better go ahead with the logical fallacies.

There you go man, tier 3/4..the issue isn't with the high up matches in those tiers as most all surely have equal rosters.
The issue is with the smaller alliances in the mid to back end tier ranges that keep getting dealt lopsided opponents.
Its not about you high end allies and your skill, itd about the weaker less skilled.
Join the convo..lol

ABOMB · September 2020

pseudosane said:

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.

"My mini" there you go man..you obviously have been playing a while and have good skill. Were talking about the lower allies that are still developing skill getting matched with such lopsided opponents..

Patchie93 · September 2020

ABOMB said:

pseudosane said:

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.
"My mini" there you go man..you obviously have been playing a while and have good skill. Were talking about the lower allies that are still developing skill getting matched with such lopsided opponents..

Yes a single mini in an alliance of 30 people. Oh how terrible it was still a 15mil (developing alliance) vs a 35mil (developed alliance)

That alliance according to you should've stomped the smaller alliance. But didn't showing that what @Lormif has been saying is correct. Skill decides the winner not the alliance size

Lormif · September 2020

ABOMB said:

pseudosane said:

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.
"My mini" there you go man..you obviously have been playing a while and have good skill. Were talking about the lower allies that are still developing skill getting matched with such lopsided opponents..

who are you determine the skill level of those "developing" alliances? That is what war rating is for, to determine their skill level....

ABOMB · September 2020

Patchie93 said:

ABOMB said:

pseudosane said:

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.
"My mini" there you go man..you obviously have been playing a while and have good skill. Were talking about the lower allies that are still developing skill getting matched with such lopsided opponents..
Yes a single mini in an alliance of 30 people. Oh how terrible it was still a 15mil (developing alliance) vs a 35mil (developed alliance)

That alliance according to you should've stomped the smaller alliance. But didn't showing that what @Lormif has been saying is correct. Skill decides the winner not the alliance size

So a high skilled ally with all 1* champs can beat an ally with all max 6* champs..lol okay then
Skate around the issue all you want 😅

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

Aa

ABOMB said:
Lol, lots of high up players (worried about their gravy train getting dismantled) getting their huggies bunched up in here still..
Munching my popcorn 🤣

I think most are just arguing because they can now. Nobody is worried that the matchmaking system will be changed anytime soon.
Even if it was changed it would be spotted much earlier than last time and I think many would just take advantage for some easy rewards.

Lormif · September 2020

ABOMB said:

Patchie93 said:

ABOMB said:

pseudosane said:

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.
"My mini" there you go man..you obviously have been playing a while and have good skill. Were talking about the lower allies that are still developing skill getting matched with such lopsided opponents..
Yes a single mini in an alliance of 30 people. Oh how terrible it was still a 15mil (developing alliance) vs a 35mil (developed alliance)

That alliance according to you should've stomped the smaller alliance. But didn't showing that what @Lormif has been saying is correct. Skill decides the winner not the alliance size
So a high skilled ally with all 1* champs can beat an ally with all max 6* champs..lol okay then
Skate around the issue all you want 😅

so now you are creating a new strawman. If you cannot debate the merits just done debate. How many alliances do you think are out there fighting with 1* champs only? I would bet money it is exactly 0. Give a more realistic comparison.

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

ABOMB said:

Patchie93 said:

ABOMB said:

pseudosane said:

ABOMB said:
^This guy lol..just keep taking advantage of the smaller allys and getting your easy wins.
Makes ya feel tuff I guess 🤣
My mini mini account is facing such "high level folks" in silver1, One bg war. We have 6k prestige. Maybe 1, max 2 r5 per person. We faced an ally with only maxed 5* and r2 6* in war. We won. Nothing "easy". We were just better. 15million ally vs 35 million. We won. In the end, it is who is better, nothing more.
"My mini" there you go man..you obviously have been playing a while and have good skill. Were talking about the lower allies that are still developing skill getting matched with such lopsided opponents..
Yes a single mini in an alliance of 30 people. Oh how terrible it was still a 15mil (developing alliance) vs a 35mil (developed alliance)

That alliance according to you should've stomped the smaller alliance. But didn't showing that what @Lormif has been saying is correct. Skill decides the winner not the alliance size
So a high skilled ally with all 1* champs can beat an ally with all max 6* champs..lol okay then
Skate around the issue all you want 😅

You called your current matchup (15 mil vs 21mil) unfair, you can’t then argue a 15mil vs a 35mil is perfectly fair, it completely ruins your argument that unfair matchups do happen.

Lormif · September 2020

Lattughino said:

danielmath said:

Lattughino said:
Hi to all,
I've got a little suggestion, I'm an officer of a small alliance and we lost the fun in making aw, we are now in bronze 1 and we were silver 3 and I think maybe is our right ranking, is not a problem of rewards or ranking, simply is not fun when so many matches are unbalanced because we fight against alliance with full of 5s maxed and 6s or against other who are far weaker than us.
My suggestion is: why is not possible to maintain the actual matchmaking based on war rating but, when the match is done, if the alliance rating is different for more than a certain amount (i.e. 25% or whatever else) the war became a Max 4s war, big guns on the ground, and it's not possible to bring in war the 5s and the 6s.
I'm quite sure that our ranking will not change, for an ally with few cavalier it will not be hard to win against us, but It will me more challenging for them and maybe a bit less frustrating for us. And the 4s will be again useful.
What do you think about?
Thank's for the attention.

Giuliano.
cause then alliances would just sell all their 3/4* to drop their rating
But in the proposal the matchmaking is mainly done with the war rating, and the alliance rating will be used only to rebalance an unbalanced match, and if the system slowly gains a balance only few matches will need to be rebalanced.
In my opinion it will be a little correction and the strongest will win anyway.

Except it does not rebalanace, it makes it more unbalanced, a skilled alliance who dropped their alliance rating to compete with developing alliances will still run over the developing alliance because they have more skill than them.

ABOMB · September 2020

Mr_Platypus said:
Aa
ABOMB said:
Lol, lots of high up players (worried about their gravy train getting dismantled) getting their huggies bunched up in here still..
Munching my popcorn 🤣
I think most are just arguing because they can now. Nobody is worried that the matchmaking system will be changed anytime soon.
Even if it was changed it would be spotted much earlier than last time and I think many would just take advantage for some easy rewards.

I dont want it changed for the record, but something does need to be tweaked perhaps so all can enjoy wars with reasonable opponents. That's my opinion of course.
And your right im just having fun in here!😅

Mr_Platypus · September 2020

ABOMB said:

Mr_Platypus said:
Aa
ABOMB said:
Lol, lots of high up players (worried about their gravy train getting dismantled) getting their huggies bunched up in here still..
Munching my popcorn 🤣
I think most are just arguing because they can now. Nobody is worried that the matchmaking system will be changed anytime soon.
Even if it was changed it would be spotted much earlier than last time and I think many would just take advantage for some easy rewards.
I dont want it changed for the record, but something does need to be tweaked perhaps so all can enjoy wars with reasonable opponents. That's my opinion of course.
And your right im just having fun in here!😅

I’m literally only here because I’ve been saying I’m gonna get back on the arena grind for the past 2 weeks. Instead I’ve found pointless arguments on the forums to be more interesting.

Lormif · September 2020

ABOMB said:
Also all of those here that keep posting how skill is the be all end all and that prestige doesn't matter..
I challenge you to an incursion run with me in a mid sector and all you can use are 1* champs..and ill use 5* champs so we can compare.
Because as many of you are clearly not objectively looking at this issue from any other perspective but "skill"..put your money where your mouth is!!

I will film it and put on my channel for all to see!
Should be fun!

After were finished you can try and back pedal your skill argument..

I challenge you to show me a developing alliance using all 1* champions for all their wars. When you can do that I will take you up on your challenge. You can do an reductio ad absurdum all you want, it wont get you far.

War Matchmaking is busted

Comments