Not clueless....just not at your level in gameplay & not willing to spend cash on the game. So they get there 4star Champs from the Arena. Your reasons for playing could be very different from another gamers reasons for playing.
And I'm not against max ranked 4*s. If you read my first comment above that I made at 1:11pm I make that very clear. It is for the few hundreds or thousands of players in the truly elite alliances that 4*s are an afterthought.
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
And I'm not against max ranked 4*s. If you read my first comment above that I made at 1:11pm I make that very clear. It is for the few hundreds or thousands of players in the truly elite alliances that 4*s are an afterthought.
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
And I'm not against max ranked 4*s. If you read my first comment above that I made at 1:11pm I make that very clear. It is for the few hundreds or thousands of players in the truly elite alliances that 4*s are an afterthought.
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
If you actually read what I posted, you would know I specifically said that your statement about them being an "afterthought" for the highest hundreds or thousands of players appears to be false.
And I'm not against max ranked 4*s. If you read my first comment above that I made at 1:11pm I make that very clear. It is for the few hundreds or thousands of players in the truly elite alliances that 4*s are an afterthought.
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
If you actually read what I posted, you would know I specifically said that your statement about them being an "afterthought" for the highest hundreds or thousands of players appears to be false.
I'm talking about what I first posted yesterday. Thanks.
And by the way if you look at the 50th rated alliance by war rating most of the members there have at least 2 4/55 5*s. My point is the priority of the top alliances (and I'd argue it's more than just the top 50) is to get 5*s to the level of 4/55. Max ranked 4*s are nice but not their main priority. Trust me, my main account sits in a t4cc alliance, tier 2 for war and we are constantly pushing to get 4/55 so that our prestige is higher and higher.
And I'm not against max ranked 4*s. If you read my first comment above that I made at 1:11pm I make that very clear. It is for the few hundreds or thousands of players in the truly elite alliances that 4*s are an afterthought.
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
If you actually read what I posted, you would know I specifically said that your statement about them being an "afterthought" for the highest hundreds or thousands of players appears to be false.
I'm talking about what I first posted yesterday. Thanks.
No, ironically I posted something very similar. I think they have value, but not to those in top alliances. 4/55 5*s generally carry higher prestige which helps in AQ and the higher challenger rating is huge for both AQ and AW like you pointed out.
Unless you are now repudiating your full statement "but not to those in top alliances" I still disagree with the original statement as originally stated.
I might as well also note that challenger rating is not huge in AQ and AW if you are comparing 5/50s vs 4/55s.
And I'm not against max ranked 4*s. If you read my first comment above that I made at 1:11pm I make that very clear. It is for the few hundreds or thousands of players in the truly elite alliances that 4*s are an afterthought.
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
If you actually read what I posted, you would know I specifically said that your statement about them being an "afterthought" for the highest hundreds or thousands of players appears to be false.
I'm talking about what I first posted yesterday. Thanks.
No, ironically I posted something very similar. I think they have value, but not to those in top alliances. 4/55 5*s generally carry higher prestige which helps in AQ and the higher challenger rating is huge for both AQ and AW like you pointed out.
Unless you are now repudiating your full statement "but not to those in top alliances" I still disagree with the original statement as originally stated.
I might as well also note that challenger rating is not huge in AQ and AW if you are comparing 5/50s vs 4/55s.
You're assertion is wrong at this point. I caught you in a mistake and now you only have moved on to trying to be right. Have a good one cause I'm not talking to you anymore. You obviously don't get that YOU'RE WRONG!
Any 4* that's not available in 5* (aka ex god tier) are still worthwhile. Maybe with the exception of DS but even he has good synergy with AW defense god mordo. I still use BW, Thor, and SW alot and the exclusive og vision and DP are almost a must even though I have neither.
Comments
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
If you actually read what I posted, you would know I specifically said that your statement about them being an "afterthought" for the highest hundreds or thousands of players appears to be false.
I'm talking about what I first posted yesterday. Thanks.
What you first posted yesterday was:
Unless you are now repudiating your full statement "but not to those in top alliances" I still disagree with the original statement as originally stated.
I might as well also note that challenger rating is not huge in AQ and AW if you are comparing 5/50s vs 4/55s.
You're assertion is wrong at this point. I caught you in a mistake and now you only have moved on to trying to be right. Have a good one cause I'm not talking to you anymore. You obviously don't get that YOU'RE WRONG!