Compensation for the Issues that we experienced on November 8th and the rewards that were unable to be claimed due to those issues are being sent out via in-game mail on November 15. Alliance War season rewards will be sent out on approximately November 20. Leaving your Alliance prior to this will result in missing out on your season rewards.

Gold 1 bracket is broken

2

Comments

  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    It's more likely that he is in an alliance where tier and multiplier do not matter as much as it does between the Platinum 3 and Gold 1 tier.

    You are right. My alliance finished top 10 in master while his was probably Bronze 3. There is a disconnect between players at different levels in the game and no single solution is beneficial to all. I have no idea what goes on in Bronze 3 or what multipliers/tiers they get. But the explanation of how seasons and tiers work is a simple one that's the same for everyone lol.
  • TheDemonTheDemon Posts: 159
    @GroundedWisdom You are completely wrong about the multiplier being based off of the bracket you are in.
    ihmii1oxpa7y.png

    You can review the season 1 thread below. But war tier affects multiplier. Bracket tier does not.
    http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/47443/announcing-alliance-wars-seasons

    It is all starting to make sense now.

    @GroundedWisdom Feel free not to answer my question from earlier about what tier you placed in. But I must ask do you even play the game?
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    This last paragraph sums up perfectly what your argument means in this thread.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    This last paragraph sums up perfectly what your argument means in this thread.

    Same old argument. Sad, really. People are incapable of having a discussion without cheap shots. Perhaps more substance and less Ego.
  • TheOneAndOnlyTheOneAndOnly Posts: 690 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    Then you're wrong. Check the post right above @DNA3000 with the chart that shows that Tier completely affects your multiplier which has a significant impact on your points total which affects which Bracket you end up in.
  • TheOneAndOnlyTheOneAndOnly Posts: 690 ★★★
    edited April 2018
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    This last paragraph sums up perfectly what your argument means in this thread.

    Same old argument. Sad, really. People are incapable of having a discussion without cheap shots. Perhaps more substance and less Ego.

    The only ego in this thread is the person arguing with proven metrics that disproves everything you have argued. Until you can realize that you lose all remaining credibility on these forums.
    o0rpf7ukny2x.png
    You cannot argue with multiplier being a factor of your war tier.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    This last paragraph sums up perfectly what your argument means in this thread.

    Same old argument. Sad, really. People are incapable of having a discussion without cheap shots. Perhaps more substance and less Ego.

    The only ego in this thread is the person arguing with proven metrics that disproves everything you have argued. Until you can realize that you lose all remaining credibility on these forums.
    o0rpf7ukny2x.png
    You cannot argue with multiplier being a factor of your war tier.

    You can go down in War Rating and still go up in Points. There is a difference. We will have to disagree.
  • TheOneAndOnlyTheOneAndOnly Posts: 690 ★★★
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    This last paragraph sums up perfectly what your argument means in this thread.

    Same old argument. Sad, really. People are incapable of having a discussion without cheap shots. Perhaps more substance and less Ego.

    The only ego in this thread is the person arguing with proven metrics that disproves everything you have argued. Until you can realize that you lose all remaining credibility on these forums.
    o0rpf7ukny2x.png
    You cannot argue with multiplier being a factor of your war tier.

    You can go down in War Rating and still go up in Points. There is a difference. We will have to disagree.

    While that is correct you miss one very important feature of math: 8, 7 and 6 are all greater than 4.5

    So, even if you lose and points go up it really does not matter because an alliance in tier 3 or higher is going to have a much better chance of placing in platinum. Unless you are in an alliance with a rating high enough to have one of those multipliers you will not understand.

  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,663 Guardian
    Cujo999 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    Cujo999 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    To rephrase, I wouldn't say irrelevant. DNA put together a comprehensive breakdown, but the point I'm making is that the focus is on the Points rather than the Tiers equating the Seasonal Ranks and Multipliers.

    From what I understand, DNA had a (wonderful) breakdown of the math behind what is required to get where. This post kind of looks at it retroactively as to what exactly happened. Two different approaches, both have their arguments I can understand. But the main point behind this post is saying (for the majority) alliances in tier 4 and tier 7 received the same rewards, and there should be more of a division there. I don't think the rewards were BAD per se, but I wouldn't oppose an extra reward bracket

    Edit: Didn't realize it was DNA. I guess this is just posed as a "Gold 1 is too big" argument again.

    Well, Tier 4 is the top 2-3% of Alliances and Tier 7 is the top 7-9%. It kinda seems silly to me that there's so many rewards brackets ahead of the top 2-3% if, in fact, the majority of Tier 4 Alliances wound up in Gold 1. If that is actually the case, then they probably need to broaden the Platinum Brackets to include more Tier 4 allies.

    Thing is, DNA's study may be good enough to set goals by, but it's by no means a replacement for hard statistical analysis. It relies on several unrealistic assumptions, like an Alliance will win exactly 50% of their wars and never win enough in a row to temporarily bump up a tier or lose enough to temporarily drop down a tier

    DNA's assumptions are actually fairly accepted statistical norms, barring manipulation of the system. There are always outliers, but thats why we call it an average.

    I guess the weird thing about being in the gold 1 bracket is you are aiming to get into a pool of 300 people in platnum. and even then, because their rewards vary so greatly, you're just trying to get into a pool of 200 in platnum 3. The next few pools for rewards are 1,500 alliances each. This is a large jump of alliances/players to a much smaller group of rewards. The image becomes one of "1% has 75% of the wealth" with a huge jump to the next group, that outnumbers them.

    There's no way these are statistical norms. Look at Silver 1, for example. There's no Alliance out there that averaged 165k per war in Tier 18 the entire season while winning 50% of their wars. Maybe in DNA's tier, those are statistical norms, but they don't hold true up and down the board. A better exercise if you didn't want to take the time to examine the allies in each tier and come up with a true average would be to take the cut line for each tier and make a table for each showing how many points/war you need to are the cut based on your War Tier. Even that would still be only nominally useful since the vast majority of the player base are in tiers where 1-2 wins or losses is enough to move you up or down a tier.

    I agree that the rewards brackets can stand some retooling, size wise.

    Yeah, I'm not sure how someone in tier 6/7 could hit Gold 1. We finished 1177 with 13.6 million pts and every single one of our matches was in tier 5 or 6, with the majority of our matches in tier 5. We won 13 and lost 11, btw. Every time we would win in tier 6, our rank would actually drop slightly once all the numbers were in that night.

    Tier 7 has a 3.2 multiplier. You needed slightly more than 13,465,355 points to just make it into Gold 1. That means you would have needed to average about 175,330 points per war including war bonuses. Winning about half the time, that's literally right at the limit of what is possible. I'm not saying it is likely. I'm saying that is the mathematical limit. In fact, since the calculation showed a minimum multiplier of 3.2, there's no margin for error at all if you are in tier 6 (which has a 3.2 multiplier). You have to basically score the maximum possible points anyone in tier 6 can possibly score to just cross the finish line in Gold 1.

    Tier 6 has slightly more realistic assumptions. With a 3.4 multiplier, you would need to average almost exactly 165,000 points to enter Gold 1. That's scoring about 140k per war and winning half the time. That is excellent, but not maximum performance. As mentioned in the article, the first set of numbers presumes extremely good but not mathematically perfect performance. The second set of numbers presumes almost mathematically perfect performance (but the other side still shows up).

    I can redo the numbers for some level of "average" performance. Let's assume that outside of the very top tier alliances a more realistic average performance is scoring about 130k points and winning about half the time. In that case the average points earned in the season would be 155k (25k more for half the win bonus). The numbers then look like this:

    dssm3khneqwm.png

    Averaging only 130k points (plus win bonus) you would need to be in tier 5 to have a high enough multiplier to reach Gold 1. This goes beyond the intent of the original analysis, but I'm including these numbers for discussion purposes.

    That does seem roughly consistent with your experience, assuming averaging about 135k points (not including win bonuses).
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,663 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.
  • 420down420down Posts: 170
    edited April 2018
    We pushed hard early on bouncing back and forth from plat 3 to gold and tier 3 and 4. Maybe half way through we started realizing that if we failed to make plat 3 we had wasted a huge amount of resources to be in a bracket we could have easily coasted the whole season to make. To me the bracket seems much to large.

    That being said having been privy to conversations regarding rewards from the top down to gold 1 I think only the master bracket felt like the rewards were fair. There’s a lot of concern about the gap that was just created which will only widen. I’m anxiously awaiting the announcement for season 2. Seeing some of the top spending alliances taking falls I have to wonder if this is the best business model for kabam in regards to aw.

    Also it would be great if the forum had a block user feature like other forums do. Certain forum members answer far too many threads with multiple responses that essentially say the same thing.
  • 420down420down Posts: 170
    Why argues with a poster that so obviously doesn’t actually play the game.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,663 Guardian
    420down wrote: »
    We pushed hard early on bouncing back and forth from plat 3 to gold and tier 3 and 4. Maybe half way through we started realizing that if we failed to make plat 3 we had wasted a huge amount of resources to be in a bracket we could have easily coasted the whole season to make. To me the bracket seems much to large.

    I don't think the Gold 1 bracket's size is the problem, or at least not directly the problem. If you mean there should be a bracket between Platinum 3 and Gold 1 with a higher multiplier and higher rewards and you should make it by cutting Gold 1 in half, then I understand the sentiment. But I'm not sure that's what I would do. My feeling is not that Gold 1 is too big, but perhaps the Platinum brackets are a bit too small.

    My rough estimates based on watching my own alliance rating bounce up and down is that the total number of alliances represented in the war standings is between 45,000 and 50,000 alliances. That means the Platinum and Master brackets combined are only the top 0.6% of all alliances. My gut feeling is that these brackets should probably end up being closer to about the top 1% of all alliances, which would extend Platinum 3 to include the top 500 alliances rather than 300. I'm not sure if I would chop Gold 1 down to 1000 wide or keep it approximately the same. I would need to think about the numbers more.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,663 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?
  • FactorQFactorQ Posts: 99
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    I think we're making progress!
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.

    Perhaps there's a miscommunication. When I say Tier, I'm talking about Tier 1-20 that determines the War Rewards for Wars. When I say Bracket, I'm not talking about all of Platinum. Platinum 1 is a Bracket, Platinum 2 is another.
  • becauseicantbecauseicant Posts: 323 ★★★
    As a member of an alliance in the Top 50 of Gold 1 I can say that there really was no reason for us to push as hard as we did and focus all our efforts on AW only to end up with the same rewards we would have gotten for being much more casual towards the whole thing. I definitely don't want anyone to get less rewards than we got this season, so maybe this means the top brackets need to expand a bit to better reward those alliances who are pushing hard to move into platinum. Alternatively they could shift the current rewards in Gold 1 to Gold 2 and create a new of rewards that would be better than Gold 1 is now but less than Platinum 3 and then cut the amount of people allowed in Gold 1 down from 1200 to 500 and adjust how many spots are in Gold 2 and 3 appropriately. This way no one will end up with less than what their current effort gave them but instead give a reward to those who are pushing a bit harder.
  • FactorQFactorQ Posts: 99
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.

    Perhaps there's a miscommunication. When I say Tier, I'm talking about Tier 1-20 that determines the War Rewards for Wars. When I say Bracket, I'm not talking about all of Platinum. Platinum 1 is a Bracket, Platinum 2 is another.

    Yes. Everyone here is aware and stand by what they said. Tier determines multiplier, not bracket.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    FactorQ wrote: »
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.

    Perhaps there's a miscommunication. When I say Tier, I'm talking about Tier 1-20 that determines the War Rewards for Wars. When I say Bracket, I'm not talking about all of Platinum. Platinum 1 is a Bracket, Platinum 2 is another.

    Yes. Everyone here is aware and stand by what they said. Tier determines multiplier, not bracket.

    Not consistently, no.
  • FactorQFactorQ Posts: 99
    FactorQ wrote: »
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.

    Perhaps there's a miscommunication. When I say Tier, I'm talking about Tier 1-20 that determines the War Rewards for Wars. When I say Bracket, I'm not talking about all of Platinum. Platinum 1 is a Bracket, Platinum 2 is another.

    Yes. Everyone here is aware and stand by what they said. Tier determines multiplier, not bracket.

    Not consistently, no.

    Please provide a counter-example where this is true. Are you claiming that bracket determines multiplier? That is easily refuted.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,482 ★★★★★
    FactorQ wrote: »
    FactorQ wrote: »
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.

    Perhaps there's a miscommunication. When I say Tier, I'm talking about Tier 1-20 that determines the War Rewards for Wars. When I say Bracket, I'm not talking about all of Platinum. Platinum 1 is a Bracket, Platinum 2 is another.

    Yes. Everyone here is aware and stand by what they said. Tier determines multiplier, not bracket.

    Not consistently, no.

    Please provide a counter-example where this is true. Are you claiming that bracket determines multiplier? That is easily refuted.
    Clearly the Bracket determines the Multiplier. That's not even a question because the Multiplier changes based on the Bracket. I've already given an example. Brackets don't always reflect what Tier someone is in. I'm not disputing the information DNA provided. I think it's a useful analysis if Allies want to know what to aim for. There are also other variables that go into it. You need to fight the same amount of Wars with the same amount of BGs to find the same results. Someone can be in a higher Tier than their Bracket reflects if they miss Wars. It's a reflection, but it's not hard-and-fast that your Tier reflects your Bracket, hence the Multiplier. That's based on your cumulative Points in relation to the Points others put up. As this is getting redundant and I've already made my points, I'm out.
  • Cujo999Cujo999 Posts: 117
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    Cujo999 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    Cujo999 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    To rephrase, I wouldn't say irrelevant. DNA put together a comprehensive breakdown, but the point I'm making is that the focus is on the Points rather than the Tiers equating the Seasonal Ranks and Multipliers.

    From what I understand, DNA had a (wonderful) breakdown of the math behind what is required to get where. This post kind of looks at it retroactively as to what exactly happened. Two different approaches, both have their arguments I can understand. But the main point behind this post is saying (for the majority) alliances in tier 4 and tier 7 received the same rewards, and there should be more of a division there. I don't think the rewards were BAD per se, but I wouldn't oppose an extra reward bracket

    Edit: Didn't realize it was DNA. I guess this is just posed as a "Gold 1 is too big" argument again.

    Well, Tier 4 is the top 2-3% of Alliances and Tier 7 is the top 7-9%. It kinda seems silly to me that there's so many rewards brackets ahead of the top 2-3% if, in fact, the majority of Tier 4 Alliances wound up in Gold 1. If that is actually the case, then they probably need to broaden the Platinum Brackets to include more Tier 4 allies.

    Thing is, DNA's study may be good enough to set goals by, but it's by no means a replacement for hard statistical analysis. It relies on several unrealistic assumptions, like an Alliance will win exactly 50% of their wars and never win enough in a row to temporarily bump up a tier or lose enough to temporarily drop down a tier

    DNA's assumptions are actually fairly accepted statistical norms, barring manipulation of the system. There are always outliers, but thats why we call it an average.

    I guess the weird thing about being in the gold 1 bracket is you are aiming to get into a pool of 300 people in platnum. and even then, because their rewards vary so greatly, you're just trying to get into a pool of 200 in platnum 3. The next few pools for rewards are 1,500 alliances each. This is a large jump of alliances/players to a much smaller group of rewards. The image becomes one of "1% has 75% of the wealth" with a huge jump to the next group, that outnumbers them.

    There's no way these are statistical norms. Look at Silver 1, for example. There's no Alliance out there that averaged 165k per war in Tier 18 the entire season while winning 50% of their wars. Maybe in DNA's tier, those are statistical norms, but they don't hold true up and down the board. A better exercise if you didn't want to take the time to examine the allies in each tier and come up with a true average would be to take the cut line for each tier and make a table for each showing how many points/war you need to are the cut based on your War Tier. Even that would still be only nominally useful since the vast majority of the player base are in tiers where 1-2 wins or losses is enough to move you up or down a tier.

    I agree that the rewards brackets can stand some retooling, size wise.

    I don't see why they wouldn't average 165k per war if I'm being honest. This math is ignoring starting from scratch, or losing members, or drastically changing the makeup of your alliance, mainly because its all impossible to plan on. So if an already-established alliance didnt get better, didnt get worse, didnt add players, didnt lose players, 165k is what you would see at any tier. We're not including multipliers in this.

    To average 165k per War before Tier multiplier, you basically have to clear all three BG's, win or lose. While that's the norm in higher tiers, in lower tiers, Alliances can regularly win with 2 and even rarely 1 BG clear. So, if you're averaging 165k per war, you won't stay in Tier 18 but for a minute because you're going to win the vast majority of the time.
  • Cujo999Cujo999 Posts: 117
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Cujo999 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    To rephrase, I wouldn't say irrelevant. DNA put together a comprehensive breakdown, but the point I'm making is that the focus is on the Points rather than the Tiers equating the Seasonal Ranks and Multipliers.

    From what I understand, DNA had a (wonderful) breakdown of the math behind what is required to get where. This post kind of looks at it retroactively as to what exactly happened. Two different approaches, both have their arguments I can understand. But the main point behind this post is saying (for the majority) alliances in tier 4 and tier 7 received the same rewards, and there should be more of a division there. I don't think the rewards were BAD per se, but I wouldn't oppose an extra reward bracket

    Edit: Didn't realize it was DNA. I guess this is just posed as a "Gold 1 is too big" argument again.

    Well, Tier 4 is the top 2-3% of Alliances and Tier 7 is the top 7-9%. It kinda seems silly to me that there's so many rewards brackets ahead of the top 2-3% if, in fact, the majority of Tier 4 Alliances wound up in Gold 1. If that is actually the case, then they probably need to broaden the Platinum Brackets to include more Tier 4 allies.

    Thing is, DNA's study may be good enough to set goals by, but it's by no means a replacement for hard statistical analysis. It relies on several unrealistic assumptions, like an Alliance will win exactly 50% of their wars and never win enough in a row to temporarily bump up a tier or lose enough to temporarily drop down a tier

    You're technically correct that those assumptions are unrealistic, but they are deliberately unrealistic in a specific way that I mention. The analysis attempted to determine the minimum average multiplier you would need to have a realistic chance of reaching a particular bracket. It does not attempt to predict what bracket you will end up in. To determine the minimum multiplier necessary, the assumptions lean in the direction of presuming the maximum realistic points an alliance can usually expect to score.

    If you're assuming the alliance is doing as well as possible, then you don't assume they will win many wars in a row and climb in multiplier, because the average multiplier in that situation will be lower than if you started in that tier to begin with. And the assumption that best matches the assumption that an alliance started in, and then stayed in, the highest possible tier within their capabilities is the assumption that they win about 50% of the time. Significantly more often and they would climb tier, significantly less often and they would drop tier.

    No alliance does this all the time, of course. But any alliance that doesn't do this is scoring less points than this hypothetical model, and would thus require a higher multiplier to reach the same score. As I'm looking for the minimum realistically possible multiplier, I don't account for situations with lower scoring output.

    Anyone using my analysis to say something like "I was in tier 6 so I should be in Gold 1" is using it incorrectly. The analysis says you could reach Gold 1, but you aren't guaranteed to do so. You could do much less. But the analysis says you are extremely unlikely to do more.

    The thought occurred to me to do a statistical analysis to try to answer the question "if you averaged tier X, what was the most likely bracket you ended up in" but I don't think the data exists (available to us) to perform that kind of analysis. Too many variables that are not visible in the final standings we can see.

    Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,663 Guardian
    FactorQ wrote: »
    FactorQ wrote: »
    FactorQ wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The Tiers are really irrelevant in terms of Seasons. Save for the Multipliers. Seasons are about cumulative Points. Tiers determine individual Rewards, but Seasons are based on total Points. It's two different systems coinciding.

    Lmao tiers have EVERYTHING to do with seasons. In a system where getting the most points gets you the highest rankings, you always want to be at the highest multiplier possible to get the most points. There are many different factors and systems that go into determining your final season rank, but they are all related and nothing is irrelevant

    Clearly you didn't read the following comment. I said irrelevant was the wrong choice of wording. There are Tiers (Tier 1-20), then Season Brackets. (Plat 1-3 etc). They line up somewhat but they're two different systems that operate differently. Not sure what factors and systems you're referring to in terms of Season Rank, but it's pretty straightforward. It's a Leaderboard. It's based on Points. Your Bracket determines your Multiplier, and it can flux based on the results that other Allies put up. You win, you go up. Someone scores more than you, you go down.

    It helps to think before a post or at least use the edit button. Why post something and then go in the complete opposite direction right after? Alliance war tiers ARE RELEVANT with alliance war rankings. All the different systems in alliance war (tiers, war rating, leaderboard, point scoring) are relevant with each other and work together to determine your final leaderboard ranking.

    You're not grasping what I'm saying and you seem to be looking for an argument so best of luck.

    I think you just can't refute that tiers are relevant to alliance war seasons, but thanks.

    I'm going to explain it one more time and you can argue with whatever you want.

    Tiers are based on War Rating. You can win or lose and alter your Rating going up or down in Tiers, and that determines individual War Rewards. This can also be affected by other Allies winning or losing, but not as instantaneously as Brackets. The War Rating determines your Matches.

    Brackets are based on how many Points you score. It's a live-action Leaderboard. You can't lose Points, but what you put up versus what others put up determines what Bracket you're in. It's an Arena for Allies. You can put up Points, but you can go down after as Allies put up more Points.

    The Multiplier is determined by the Bracket you're in. Not the Tier you're in. We can see a reflection of the Tier in the scoring, but they have no effect on each other by design. It's a race of Points. There's no reason why the Tier needs to line up with the Bracket you're in.

    The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.

    I wouldn't say it's determined by it. I would say you can see a reflection of it. There is a difference between the two because of how Points are accumulated. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain a position. With Tiers, if you fight and lose, you lose Rating. With Seasons, you still accumulate Points. I would agree that there is somewhat of a lesser correlation lower because how many BGs are run and how many Wars are fought also affect Points.

    I'm not sure what you are talking about, but your multiplier is determined by your war tier. It is explicitly set by your war tier based on a table that I won't repost, as it has been posted in the thread already.

    That's not an absolute because there are other factors that go into your Bracket. You need to assume that Allies are running a set number of Wars with a set number of BGs. In our case, our Bracket did not reflect our Tier because we weren't available to run 3 Wars a week. The end result suffered. You need to run Wars constantly to maintain or advance in Brackets. Tiers are based on Wins and Losses, and can remain the same longer, whereas you miss one or two Wars, and you can go down in Brackets.

    Still not sure what you are talking about, because none of that has anything to do with multiplier. MULTIPLIER is determined by war tier. BRACKET is determined by points, but BRACKET is not MULTIPLIER.

    Isn't the Multiplier changed based on the Bracket you're in?

    No. As many have pointed out, multiplier is based on Tier alone.

    Perhaps there's a miscommunication. When I say Tier, I'm talking about Tier 1-20 that determines the War Rewards for Wars. When I say Bracket, I'm not talking about all of Platinum. Platinum 1 is a Bracket, Platinum 2 is another.

    Yes. Everyone here is aware and stand by what they said. Tier determines multiplier, not bracket.

    Not consistently, no.

    Please provide a counter-example where this is true. Are you claiming that bracket determines multiplier? That is easily refuted.
    Clearly the Bracket determines the Multiplier. That's not even a question because the Multiplier changes based on the Bracket. I've already given an example. Brackets don't always reflect what Tier someone is in. I'm not disputing the information DNA provided. I think it's a useful analysis if Allies want to know what to aim for. There are also other variables that go into it. You need to fight the same amount of Wars with the same amount of BGs to find the same results. Someone can be in a higher Tier than their Bracket reflects if they miss Wars. It's a reflection, but it's not hard-and-fast that your Tier reflects your Bracket, hence the Multiplier. That's based on your cumulative Points in relation to the Points others put up. As this is getting redundant and I've already made my points, I'm out.

    The game uses the term "war tier" to refer to the specific percentile range that determines your rewards per war and the multiplier used to calculate seasonal points. The different seasonal rewards that are designated by reward titles like "Platinum 1" or "Gold 3" are referred to as seasonal brackets by Kabam. There are twenty seasonal brackets from Master 1 to Participation. There are twenty two alliance war rating tiers, designated only by number. I believe everyone else is using those terms in the same way the game uses them, and I tried to be very careful to use those terms in the way the game does consistently.
Sign In or Register to comment.