**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
Comments
My alliance had a pretty similar matchup (my 35mil alliance vs 55mil alliance, same war ratings) and won, alliance rating means nothing and neither that nor prestige should come anywhere near the matchmaking algorithm.
Anyone that says otherwise wants higher rewards for less effort.
We always run just 1 bg of AW. That 12m ally only had 11 people in it, but they had more 6* R3 than our entire 30 person alliance. They were 1 bg of raw talent with stronger defense and offense.
We move routinely move between G2-S2 and are currently just S2 at the moment because a lot of people just don't want to make the commitment to press up as we're enjoying a stress free season and only playing for fun with random participants, no set paths, and no requirement to use items.
The other ally not only had better ranked defense and better attackers, but they outclassed us in every way with only a single death.
Our ally rating meant nothing.
Basing matchups off war rating is much more fair than it was before and we aren't mad for that loss. In fact, we were all pretty damn impressed. That ally deserved the win and did everything right to secure it.
Mkay.
There is no perfect matchmaking system as far as I know. Kabam has tried many and every system has its holes. It's a reality that we need to accept and move on.
If based off prestige or pi how would you determine brackets since the top alliance of each prestige or pi bracket would never face each other?
War rating takes into account only your points from wins and losses in a season. If you match based off pi and or prestige you would have multiple alliances tied in many brackets.
Now to rewards. If a 3 mil alliance dominates their bracket do they deserve the same rewards as the 60 mil alliance that had much harder matchups? Will you be content to see a much smaller 3mil alliance ranking 6* rank 3 champs while you are ranked silver in your particular bracket.
Set rewards aside. How do you break down the alliance brackets using pi or prestige? No matter how you choose to break them up someone will eventually be the low end of the bracket vs the higher end and you are right back to arguing that it isn't fair because the other alliance is bigger.
But, I too am dumb founded that you still think it was ok for 40m allies to never be able to move up in the old system, and be behind 10m allies who were getting much better rewards when they didn't deserve it.
Of the 2 options, this is by far the better scrnario. Scrubs shouldn't get better rewards just because they're scrubs and giants shouldn't lose out on rewards just for being giants. That was the case all the time under the old ranking. The lopsided alliance rating that happens occasionally now is because people can move up and down, but doesn't mean that just because an ally is smaller, they have no chance of winning.
The big scary 55mil alliance were trash and had 5 deaths within their first 10 fights, they also didn’t even try to explore lanes 4-9 and still ended up with more deaths than us.If anything it was unfair for them, because we steamrolled them despite the 20mil rating difference.
"No matter how much people keep making excuses, what people are bringing into the War affects what the other team comes up against. Alliance Rating is a variable that can be manipulated. You can lose on purpose, you can take a hiatus, you can do many things to change it as a reflection of strength. You can't deny that the fire power both sides are bringing has an effect on the outcome. It's almost delusional the way people keep asserting Alliance Rating is all that makes a difference."
Hell you can replace that with Prestige. I could Rank up a bunch of high prestige champs (Sig 20 R3 Gambit has huge prestige all things considered) and still have no good champs for attack or defense.
Every other variable in the game can be manipulated to benefit the player and alliances. The WAR rating is the only thing that should matter in WAR, as much as PRESTIGE only really matters for AQ.
It’s just people wanting to blame their poor planning and skills on anything but themselves and you just encourage it because that’s the unpopular opinion.
Genuinely a good day when that person is capable of clearing their 3-4 AW fights with less than 2 deaths.
Alliance ratings don't matter. I could rank up every 1, 2, 3 and 4* I have and have a massive ratings, as could my entire alliance. We could only R3 all our 5*s and not level up any of our 6* and STILL have a massive rating. What does that reflect in war? Absolutely nothing.
And as others stated, why should that 5m ally get an easier time and better rewards than two 40m allies who are duking it out against harder opponents with more developed rosters?
You are fixated on one aspect of many and that's why your argument falls to pieces.