We're just going to have to disagree. I'm completely agaisnt the manipulation of Tiers and Rating that's taken place, and I'm all for it. It was my idea. I'm sorry, but I do not agree that taking a break should warrant playing people much weaker. To be honest, if people want to take a break, don't run them, instead of taking one pecking off people much lower. I've seen enough manipulating in the system, and it's not right on any level. Max 5*s hanging out in Silver, Allies that have been well-established Tanking and Shelling, I'm all for regulating them. If you have the strength and experience to play at the highest levels, you have no business pecking people off down there. That's my stance.
Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.
Prestige has NOTHING to do with war, totally seperate game mode. There are tons of AQ focused alliances that dont care about war as much. This basically completely ruins war for those alli’s and at the same time creates huge waves for alliances who care about wars because of the points being left up by these alli’s.
Oh, but it's related. The strength of the Ally determines what they can put up for Defense, and it also sets the limits to what the other side is capable of doing for Attack. An Ally might have skill, but they're only as strong as what they can work with. When you have Matches which are grossly manipulated to provide an unreasonable advantage, that's a problem.
AQ alliances rank for prestige though. It shouldn't result in them getting war matches outside their league. I liked the idea of incorporating prestige at first but it seems to be creating a lot of problems.
Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.
Prestige has NOTHING to do with war, totally seperate game mode. There are tons of AQ focused alliances that dont care about war as much. This basically completely ruins war for those alli’s and at the same time creates huge waves for alliances who care about wars because of the points being left up by these alli’s.
Oh, but it's related. The strength of the Ally determines what they can put up for Defense, and it also sets the limits to what the other side is capable of doing for Attack. An Ally might have skill, but they're only as strong as what they can work with. When you have Matches which are grossly manipulated to provide an unreasonable advantage, that's a problem.
AQ alliances rank for prestige though. It shouldn't result in them getting war matches outside their league. I liked the idea of incorporating prestige at first but it seems to be creating a lot of problems.
Regardless of what they Rank for, there are limits that are determined by what people are working with. You're only as strong as your best Champs.
We're just going to have to disagree. I'm completely agaisnt the manipulation of Tiers and Rating that's taken place, and I'm all for it. It was my idea. I'm sorry, but I do not agree that taking a break should warrant playing people much weaker. To be honest, if people want to take a break, don't run them, instead of taking one pecking off people much lower. I've seen enough manipulating in the system, and it's not right on any level. Max 5*s hanging out in Silver, Allies that have been well-established Tanking and Shelling, I'm all for regulating them. If you have the strength and experience to play at the highest levels, you have no business pecking people off down there. That's my stance.
If you dont run war you cant get enough loyalty to run AQ. You position is that in order to get rid of tanking you will destroy the game mode essentially, which then spills into other parts of the game. The impact this change has already had is very negative, you can ask damn near anyone who plays competitively at the top. The scary thing about you is that you say things with such conviction But have no true understanding of the game.
Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.
Prestige has NOTHING to do with war, totally seperate game mode. There are tons of AQ focused alliances that dont care about war as much. This basically completely ruins war for those alli’s and at the same time creates huge waves for alliances who care about wars because of the points being left up by these alli’s.
Oh, but it's related. The strength of the Ally determines what they can put up for Defense, and it also sets the limits to what the other side is capable of doing for Attack. An Ally might have skill, but they're only as strong as what they can work with. When you have Matches which are grossly manipulated to provide an unreasonable advantage, that's a problem.
AQ alliances rank for prestige though. It shouldn't result in them getting war matches outside their league. I liked the idea of incorporating prestige at first but it seems to be creating a lot of problems.
Regardless of what they Rank for, there are limits that are determined by what people are working with. You're only as strong as your best Champs.
Aren’t you implying that the best prestige champs for AQ are also good for war defence though? Which is clearly not the case, if I rank Thor Ragnark, Phoenix, goldpool, captain marvel movie and thing, who are the 5 highest in prestige that doesn’t make me good at AW.
Using JUST War Rating is a mess because that's what is all over the place as a result of everything from Tanking to punishments. Using JUST Prestige is equally as useless because growth of that is slow, and leads to the same Matches over and over. Using a combination of both of them is like a buffer so that Allies aren't ambushing people lower than them just for the momentum. It's the smartest thing I can come up with that doesn't involve separating the two completely. Wouldn't be opposed to that either.
Prestige has NOTHING to do with war, totally seperate game mode. There are tons of AQ focused alliances that dont care about war as much. This basically completely ruins war for those alli’s and at the same time creates huge waves for alliances who care about wars because of the points being left up by these alli’s.
Oh, but it's related. The strength of the Ally determines what they can put up for Defense, and it also sets the limits to what the other side is capable of doing for Attack. An Ally might have skill, but they're only as strong as what they can work with. When you have Matches which are grossly manipulated to provide an unreasonable advantage, that's a problem.
AQ alliances rank for prestige though. It shouldn't result in them getting war matches outside their league. I liked the idea of incorporating prestige at first but it seems to be creating a lot of problems.
Regardless of what they Rank for, there are limits that are determined by what people are working with. You're only as strong as your best Champs.
Aren’t you implying that the best prestige champs for AQ are also good for war defence though? Which is clearly not the case, if I rank Thor Ragnark, Phoenix, goldpool, captain marvel movie and thing, who are the 5 highest in prestige that doesn’t make me good at AW.
What I'm implying is the only way to regulate people using Matchmaking to manipulate and overpower Matches is to use Prestige. Am I saying Champs that are high in Prestige are automatically good in War? No. However, what I am saying is it's a good indicator of what is a reasonable and unreasonable Match within a certain range. Allies much lower in Prestige literally don't have the capabilities of winning agaisnt Allies much higher. Especially within the current system where the measure of skill is Attack Bonus. There are reasonable limits. Now, I wasn't a proponent of using Prestige alone, but both Prestige and War Rating. Simply put, Allies that grossly overpower others shouldn't be coming up agaisnt them in Tiers they normally wouldn't be in. In fact, no system can teach skill. If both are within reasonable ranges and one is better at War than the other, that means one possesses the skill and one doesn't. Fair Loss. Under other circumstances, I would agree that War Rating should be the only measure. However, we have the unique case of Seasons and Season Points being tied into Off-Seasons progress. We also have a situation where War Rating has been manipulated and (I want to use the term b*st**dized, which fits but may be inappropriate), to the point where Allies are not able to make fair progress within their own capabilities because people have found a way to capitalize on how this works. So, something is needed to intervene. Within a certain range, Allies shouldn't be coming up agaisnt other Allies. For whatever reason. Anything after that really depends on the performance within the Wars.
Using an AQ measuring metric in AW simply doesn’t work, your essentially forcing those who choose to push in AQ to also push in AW, I should be able to choose at what level I want to play AW the same way I can with AQ by choosing what map I want to play.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
It actually works quite perfectly. It's not just a metric that determines Rewards. The Rewards and AQ strength you run is adjusted based on it because that's literally the metric they use to gauge the strength of your Ally. It's also not likely going to be manipualted by selling, nor could it be because we can't sell 5*s and 6*s. It's a rather appropriate solution.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
You can earn Loyalty, win or lose.
Huh? You asked why are people running war if they don’t want to compete, I just told you why.
People need loyalty as well as shards which is why anyone runs war lol. Just because its not a focus doesn’t mean those teams want to completely throw war away. It also ruins wars for the teams who do want to compete, masters right now is literally determined by who faces the most teams who dont care about war and are leaving nodes up. Never has this happened before. We both want the same thing, fare war matches,but this sure as **** isnt it.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
You can earn Loyalty, win or lose.
Huh? You asked why are people running war if they don’t want to compete, I just told you why.
Yes, and I said if the issue was Loyalty, it shouldn't be. They get it no matter what. The comment was that people don't want to compete. War is a competition. Seasons are competitions. If you're entering, you need to either be prepared to compete, or not care and run the risk of losing. I don't condone overpowering other people who are trying to compete because you don't feel like putting in the effort at your level. (You in the general sense.)
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
You can earn Loyalty, win or lose.
Not enough by losing, but the point is that it's causing mismatches. Some teams are in higher brackets they don't belong in because they keep matching against lower alliances and not against others in their current tiers. Others are lower than they ought to be because they keep getting matched against master alliances.
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
You can earn Loyalty, win or lose.
Huh? You asked why are people running war if they don’t want to compete, I just told you why.
Yes, and I said if the issue was Loyalty, it shouldn't be. They get it no matter what. The comment was that people don't want to compete. War is a competition. Seasons are competitions. If you're entering, you need to either be prepared to compete, or not care and run the risk of losing. I don't condone overpowering other people who are trying to compete because you don't feel like putting in the effort at your level. (You in the general sense.)
Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example: A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.
If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?
You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.
You can earn Loyalty, win or lose.
Not enough by losing, but the point is that it's causing mismatches. Some teams are in higher brackets they don't belong in because they keep matching against lower alliances and not against others in their current tiers. Others are lower than they ought to be because they keep getting matched against master alliances.
I'm sorry, what's the argument there? That Masters Allies are coming up agaisnt lower Allies, or that Allies fought their way up there with less Rating? If they're earning their position based on the Matches they are given, presumably within range, then that's where they should be.
People don't want to compete but they still want to win. Lol. Get what I'm saying?
People dont want to compete with people way above them, whats your point? Prestige isnt a way to determine if someone is good at war Or wants to compete in it
Comments
Under other circumstances, I would agree that War Rating should be the only measure. However, we have the unique case of Seasons and Season Points being tied into Off-Seasons progress. We also have a situation where War Rating has been manipulated and (I want to use the term b*st**dized, which fits but may be inappropriate), to the point where Allies are not able to make fair progress within their own capabilities because people have found a way to capitalize on how this works. So, something is needed to intervene. Within a certain range, Allies shouldn't be coming up agaisnt other Allies. For whatever reason. Anything after that really depends on the performance within the Wars.
A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.