We are aware of the issues surrounding collecting items from an in-game message(s). The team is working to resolve the issue and is hoping to have it sorted by the end of the week. More information and future communications will happen here.
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/329772/unable-to-claim-compensation-rewards-merged-with-info
We will be closing/merging any newly created threads related to this issue.
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/329772/unable-to-claim-compensation-rewards-merged-with-info
We will be closing/merging any newly created threads related to this issue.
Comments
The 3mil and the 8mil are esentially playing in different competitions but fighting for the same rewards and the same positions on the same leaderboard...
In sport where there are divisions the lower divisions get lower rewards.... if they want top rewards they need to grow....
How is it fair that my ally grew and got stronger only to face harder matchups.... if we went back to the same 5 mil roster we had before we could half ass it for better rewards then we are now and we are trying our best now....
It is not fair that a the best in a lower competition takes rewards away from someone in a higher level of competion
This is a contest.....
The best ally wins...
This is not the best in class.....
Marchmaking is performin in a class based situation but rewards are issued in a manner that does not reflect this...
The seasons showed just how this happens....
The fairness of the rating is the fact of the individual matches. When you earn rewards in the same tier it is a range of skill. Thus playing in a better rating makes the skill bracket for the alliance based on rating. That's why the performance isn't higher if rating is a range outside the average.
When there's a metric that reflects performance and Matching is placed within range of that, it is indeed fair. The Tier reflects the Rewards each individual Ally is earning based on their cumulative Wins. Quite frankly, if the 8 Mil was performing better, they would be ahead in War Rating regardless of the Ally Rating.
I contemplated continuing, but the previous post almost shattered my language processing neurons.
The bottom line is Allies earn their War Rating through Wins. If they go up in Tiers, they deserve the Rewards they earn. There is nothing unfair about that.
I'm pretty sure you are in fact compelled to disagree, since you just disagreed with a post I deliberately constructed to be meaningless.
I'm not disagreeing to disagree. I just support a more fair system for Matching that encourages even progression based on performance, rather than a Darwinian Jungle.
You're apparently willing to disagree with a dictionary sent through a wood chipper.
Yes if we win more we will get better rewards.....
If my 8mil face the same allies as my 3mil
We would win more and we would go up
If my 3mil faced the same allies as my 8mil
We would lose more and we would drop down
It wat world is it fair that people can compete for the same prize yet be fighting a different competition.....
The best featherweight boxer is not necesarilly a better boxer than the best heavyweight cus he is undefeated whilst the heavy weight has had two losses. You cannot compare as they are fighting different competitions.
Hense why they are rewarded from different prize pools. It would be unfair if they were fighting different competition for the same prizes.
It is made fair cus they are fighting different competition for different prizes.
Performanced is biased due to matchmaking....
Matchmaking is leading to skewed war ratings...
Rewards should be based on performance yes....
But top performance in a bottom pool is not better performance than average performance in a top pool...
Are you saying a college football team undefeated deserves the same rewards as an undefeated pro NFL team.....
They both deserve top rewards for thir class but not the same rewards as each other
My 8 mil loses with 95% exploration....
In wat world does this mean the 3mil performed better???
By every metric the 8mil performed better but suffered a hard loss....
This is the situation regularly
And this is only the case due to the current broken problematic matchmaking system
At the 3mil level most opposition doesnt have enough strength to clear all bgs..... meaning we can do less and get the win.....
At the 8mil level who wins comes down the little details like 2% exploration or 10 less deaths. A much higher performance is required to get the win.
Meaning the 8mil can have better “in war” performance but suffer a loss....
This happens regularly meaning our win loss ratio amd therefore war rating is not actually a clear indicator of our perfomance level overall.
Only an indicator of our performance against a biased subset of opponents
Due simply to the strength of most attackers a 3mil ally has less boss kilss and less exploration needs to happen to get a win. As people die much easier.
So yes a win is based on performance v an opponent.
But that does not mean the alliance is a better performing alliance just because it has more wins..
If one alliance can only ever kill 2 bosses but win every war whilst one can kill all 3 bosses does not indicate the 2 bosskilling alliance is better. In fact it shows the 3 bosskilling allinance is better.
The fact the alliance with 2 bosskills always wins whilst the alliance with 3 boss kills losing is indicative of the performance of the opponents we are facing.
We should be facing the same opponents. Then and only then will war rating actually clearly indicate the actuall war strength of an alliance.
Now all it indicates is a skewed measurement.