**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
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
The multiplier is determined by your war tier, not your reward bracket.
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.
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?
This last paragraph sums up perfectly what your argument means in this thread.
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.
Same old argument. Sad, really. People are incapable of having a discussion without cheap shots. Perhaps more substance and less Ego.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I think we're making progress!
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.
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.
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
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.