**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
War Matchmaking is busted
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1) alliances are matched based on either prestige or alliance rating
AND
2) less skilled alliances can never get better rewards than alliances they cannot beat.
Do it.
The strongest ideas don't win out because everyone else acknowledges them. They only need to be unable to be countered. The current system can be objected to, but no one has countered it with a better option that eliminates the primary problem with the previous system, which was that for a system with one job, to decide who should get which rewards in the season, it failed to do so. The fact that it avoiding giving people hard match ups is not a positive benefit, when it fails its one and only job.
There's also the small problem of making a complete mockery of the competition, which some people consider to be problematic.
We had that system. It's called prestige matching. It's a patently unfair matching system that rewards allys without ever having to face allys outside of the given parameters to match. All good... except ya know shared rewards pool and all.
ANY partitioning leads us right back to the poor matching previously endured.
I haven't even seen a mismatch at my level since last season. Seems to me the folks experiencing mismatches are leaving out some pretty important information.
What reward level are they at?
What is their current streak?
How many bg's?
Answering these questions will help provide much needed context on these "mismatches"
I suspect these matches are happening at specific levels for specific reasons already outlined in this thread but ignored.
Ever hear the expression bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's exactly what these smaller Alliances are doing. Only, they don't have a choice in the matter. They enter Matchmaking, and the system is failing to find them an actual fair Match.
What is infinitely worse than an overpowered loss is an undeserved win. Because every undeserved win is also an undeserved loss. Overpowered losses are not fun, but they are deserved losses, because if you're facing opponents way stronger than you are, you're in the wrong place to begin with.
In my opinion. And in the opinion of those that care about the integrity of competition, where a million overpowered losses is better than one undeserved win.
You could move up and play with 29 other 1mil+ accounts.
And as someone at that level, I can tell you now that pretty much every war is a tough fight to the end. They’ll be significant differences in alliance rating at times, but look deeper and you’ll find that alliance you’re up against that has 10mil less rating than you actually has more players (that are also closer to 500k than 1mil rating) that have done a path of abyss than your alliance.
And no I’m not making that up, I did come across an alliance just like that, we just happened to play better on the day and won by 5 attack bonus, they were leading at the halfway point though.
Prestige - 1 high prestige hidden among 29 low, will barely raise the difficulty of your opponents.
Alliance rating - same as prestige.
War rating - well you know already that it leaves you trampling on opponents.
Platinum alliances were getting bumped down to Gold because of the old system, but Gold 3 alliances were getting dropped to Silver 1, and Silver 3 alliances were getting bumped down to Bronze. It is just that most of them didn't know this was happening. So which little guys was the previous system protecting? The participation tier alliances were the only ones who couldn't be bumped down, so they were the only ones that were not impacted by the previous match rules. But *every* alliance helped by the old system hurt another one, because that's unavoidable when your season rewards are determined by rank. If you go up, other alliances go down.
This didn't just impact the highest alliances. It affected alliances at every tier. It was just more *obvious* in the Platinum and higher brackets. Every bracket has a fixed number of alliances in it, so every alliance that jumped into a higher bracket pushed another alliance out, and this happened in essentially every bracket.
The false narrative is that the new system lets strong alliances beat up weaker ones for easy rewards. But strong alliances can't keep beating up weaker ones in the current system, because you can't keep beating up the same alliances: you go up and they go down. Instead the old system let some alliances jump above others, pushing them down in the process. Every winner created at least one victim. I say at least one, because it was possible for one alliance to jump two brackets, which meant that one winner created two victims, one each from the brackets they jumped. Mathematically, then, the old system was guaranteed to create more victims than beneficiaries.
Just on that basis *alone* the system was wrong.
you are forcing people with 500k, 400k, 300k, and 200k or lower ratings to face off against your stacked account, while argueing that an average of 500k vs 1m is completely unwinnable
In a game mode that only exists to add a competitive element to the game.
I don't even know how to argue against that, except to simply state it, highlight it, draw a giant circle around it in crayon, stare at it, blink, stare at it some more, and then sigh.
And yes we answer his challenge with a realistic counter challenge which matches the discussion.
Fair does not mean equal. Just because someone has an advantage over someone else doesn't mean the competition is unfair. That perverts the meaning of fair competition to meaninglessness. Is the 100 meter dash only fair if all the competitors are equally fast? What does it mean if competitors are only allowed to race against other competitors exactly as fast as they are? Should basketball only be played against competitors of equal height?
In this game, roster advantage is something you earn as part of game progression. But if you aren't allowed to use that advantage anywhere, then the advantage is meaningless, and progression itself loses most of its gameplay meaning. Roster advantage is a fair advantage, just like player height is a fair advantage in basketball. If skill was the only thing that was *supposed* to matter in the game, we'd all be handed identical rosters.
We don't do that because a) the game is in large part about building roster, and b) that would make the game dumb and boring, and probably wouldn't still exist now.
Your basketball reference isn't entirely accurate though because there are skill levels my man. College, Semi-pro, NBA..you get my point. Skill levels vary