I think people are confusing individual Prestige with overall Prestige. It's an internal metric that gauges the capabilities and strength of the Ally. PI is not arbitrary. It increases with Nodes. It's used in everything from the Arena to AQ. They're not just random numbers. When using averages, it shows a range that can give a pretty much concrete limit to capabilities. We're not talking about some Champs that can OP their way through content. We're talking about determining what strength you will plateau at based on the average of what you're bringing.
Then prestige needs to factor top 11 champs Aq and aw teams. Top 5 is way unbalancing war. I have 5 r5s I'm ballpark 9900.
Now let's take this guy Has 12 or more r5s and is a top 1 allainces in war his prestige is max 10500 ish.. not that far off guess were equal in war
Not at all talking about matching individuals against individuals based on Prestige, but answer this. Prestige is a measure of the highest Champs you have. When you go into a War, do you use your lowest?
I dont use my highest 5 actually hela rarely sees war. Captiw rarely sees war.
My offense has 2 r4s My defense 3 r4s
So I'm using 3 of my top 5 then some randoms for diveristy
Still goes into the total average of what your Ally can do.
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.
The argument is that mismatches both ways are creating problems. Group A is in Plat 1 with low prestige because they don't fight other Plat 1 alliances. They keep getting matched with Plat 3 groups. Group B ought to be in Plat 1 but they are in Plat 3 because they have high prestige and keep matching with master groups.
If they're similar in Prestige and running the same Maps, then there really isn't much unfairness in it. They either win or lose.
How is it not unfair for someone to get plat 1 rewards without having to fight other plat 1 alliances, or for someone to get plat 3 rewards without getting to fight other plat 3 groups? This ought to be obvious.
You don't win based on what other Allies are in your Tier. You win based on the Wars you play. That's how it's fair. I don't have to beat everyone in the system. That's impossible. I just have to win the Matches I'm in. The system has been so linear and stagnant for so long that people are convinced some Allies own their spot. It should be based on performance.
This is absurd. That's like saying it would be fair if the Yankees win the AL east because the schedule only makes them play the Orioles and they never have to play the Red Sox, whereas the Red Sox have to keep playing the Astros. They both played the matches they were given. The point is that the system is creating bad matches. Saying they won the matches they were given in this discussion is missing the point. We are saying that they should be given other matches. How is it fair for someone to get master rewards without ever having to play anyone in the master bracket? If you can't see that or refuse to see it there is no point continuing the discussion.
I think people are confusing individual Prestige with overall Prestige. It's an internal metric that gauges the capabilities and strength of the Ally. PI is not arbitrary. It increases with Nodes. It's used in everything from the Arena to AQ. They're not just random numbers. When using averages, it shows a range that can give a pretty much concrete limit to capabilities. We're not talking about some Champs that can OP their way through content. We're talking about determining what strength you will plateau at based on the average of what you're bringing.
Then prestige needs to factor top 11 champs Aq and aw teams. Top 5 is way unbalancing war. I have 5 r5s I'm ballpark 9900.
Now let's take this guy Has 12 or more r5s and is a top 1 allainces in war his prestige is max 10500 ish.. not that far off guess were equal in war
Not at all talking about matching individuals against individuals based on Prestige, but answer this. Prestige is a measure of the highest Champs you have. When you go into a War, do you use your lowest?
Who the heck is gonna use Thor ragnarok in high tier war. He’s a trash attacker but has high prestige
Did I say use Rags? No. I said people use their higher Champs. They don't use the mid-Ranked ones they have. They put up the highest-Ranked Champs that are the best Defenders.
You said that high prestige champs are what is being used for war which he is the highest prestige champ which is why many rank him for aq scores
I think people are confusing individual Prestige with overall Prestige. It's an internal metric that gauges the capabilities and strength of the Ally. PI is not arbitrary. It increases with Nodes. It's used in everything from the Arena to AQ. They're not just random numbers. When using averages, it shows a range that can give a pretty much concrete limit to capabilities. We're not talking about some Champs that can OP their way through content. We're talking about determining what strength you will plateau at based on the average of what you're bringing.
Then prestige needs to factor top 11 champs Aq and aw teams. Top 5 is way unbalancing war. I have 5 r5s I'm ballpark 9900.
Now let's take this guy Has 12 or more r5s and is a top 1 allainces in war his prestige is max 10500 ish.. not that far off guess were equal in war
Not at all talking about matching individuals against individuals based on Prestige, but answer this. Prestige is a measure of the highest Champs you have. When you go into a War, do you use your lowest?
I dont use my highest 5 actually hela rarely sees war. Captiw rarely sees war.
My offense has 2 r4s My defense 3 r4s
So I'm using 3 of my top 5 then some randoms for diveristy
Still goes into the total average of what your Ally can do.
No, it has nothing to do with what your alliance can do. Everyone's top 5 prestige champs in a game mode that values your best 8 offensive and defensive champs is a horrible metric.
I think people are confusing individual Prestige with overall Prestige. It's an internal metric that gauges the capabilities and strength of the Ally. PI is not arbitrary. It increases with Nodes. It's used in everything from the Arena to AQ. They're not just random numbers. When using averages, it shows a range that can give a pretty much concrete limit to capabilities. We're not talking about some Champs that can OP their way through content. We're talking about determining what strength you will plateau at based on the average of what you're bringing.
Then prestige needs to factor top 11 champs Aq and aw teams. Top 5 is way unbalancing war. I have 5 r5s I'm ballpark 9900.
Now let's take this guy Has 12 or more r5s and is a top 1 allainces in war his prestige is max 10500 ish.. not that far off guess were equal in war
Not at all talking about matching individuals against individuals based on Prestige, but answer this. Prestige is a measure of the highest Champs you have. When you go into a War, do you use your lowest?
I dont use my highest 5 actually hela rarely sees war. Captiw rarely sees war.
My offense has 2 r4s My defense 3 r4s
So I'm using 3 of my top 5 then some randoms for diveristy
Still goes into the total average of what your Ally can do.
No, it has nothing to do with what your alliance can do. Everyone's top 5 prestige champs in a game mode that values your best 8 offensive and defensive champs is a horrible metric.
It has everything to do with what your Alliance can do when you're talking about regulating Matches that are overpowered, otherwise people wouldn't be Tanking to begin with. You Prestige is a reflection of how strong you are, I don't care who agrees or not. It's a reflection of power. When the Top Champs of one Ally greatly overpower the Top Champs of another, there is little to no possibility of winning. That's why Allies are manipulating the system to begin with. Prestige isn't just a random number for AQ. It's a measure of strength.
Baseball team A and B both have 5 amazing hitters. Baseball team A has bad pitching and 4 bad hitters. Team B goes 9 deep with their lineup and has amazing pitching. @GroundedWisdom must be a fair match.
That would be a fair loss, one is better at it than the other.
But it wouldn't be a fair match if they kept getting matched simply because they both have 5 amazing hitters. No one is saying that alliances are winning or losing unfairly. They are getting matched unfairly. Also your point about tanking makes no sense. That was about manipulating war rating to create mismatches. Prestige added into the equation may have taken the teeth out of tanking, but it has created other mismatches. I really feel like you could see this if you wanted to lol
I'm going to say this once more and I'm done going over it and over it. When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win? The strength of the Defense you put up is reflected in the Rating, and Prestige is a measure of the highest you have. Is it an idication that all your highest Champs are great Defenders? No. What it is, is an indication of strength. Total strength overall. I'm really done going over this because at this point, I've made my points and we're just regressing. No system is perfect. This is where we're at after people abused the Matchmaking to the point that it was no longer a reflection of what Allies were capable of. I'm all for only running Wars during Seasons, TBH. Agree or disagree. I'm tired of going in circles. Lol.
I'm going to say this once more and I'm done going over it and over it. When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win? . Lol.
Prestige does not equal tough, and top 5 does not measure depth. 5k will lose to 10k sure. Bad metrics still measure something. To continue the baseball analogy, wins are a horrible stat. But no pitcher gets 20 wins in a season by being bad. RBIs are a horrible stat, but no one gets 120 RBIs by having a bad season. So yes, anyone with 10k prestige will be much stronger than anyone with 5k prestige. Well done. You have correctly pointed out that prestige does measure something that has to do with overall strength even if it measures it badly. That doesn't make it not a horrible metric for what we are talking about. If two alliances have similar prestige they are equals in AQ and they will both win a war against an alliance with 1/2 their prestige. That doesn't make them peers in war.
I'm going to say this once more and I'm done going over it and over it. When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win?
I agree with you on that. However, like what others have mentioned, using ONLY the top 5 is a bad measurement when others are able to have a deeper roster.
The strength of the Defense you put up is reflected in the Rating, and Prestige is a measure of the highest you have. Is it an idication that all your highest Champs are great Defenders? No. What it is, is an indication of strength. Total strength overall.
True. But this is why there’s a “War Rating” metrics that measures exactly this. Attackers/Defenders/Skill/Willingness to spend items. Prestige as an added measure complicates this because, as mentioned above, it is insufficient to only measure the top 5. If prestige were to include the top 20 champions of a roster, then it might be worth considering.
I'm really done going over this because at this point, I've made my points and we're just regressing. No system is perfect. This is where we're at after people abused the Matchmaking to the point that it was no longer a reflection of what Allies were capable of. I'm all for only running Wars during Seasons, TBH. Agree or disagree. I'm tired of going in circles. Lol.
Regardless Seasons or Off Seasons, Wars are free shards, win or lose. That’s my opinion though.
If an alliance with 5k prestige buys over a 3.3k War rating alliance, shift their members in and gets matched with other alliances at 5k prestige with tier 1 multiplier, then ends up in Plat 1 or Masters, does this mean that alliance is a top 50 alliance? Lol
I'm going to say this once more and I'm done going over it and over it. When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win?
I agree with you on that. However, like what others have mentioned, using ONLY the top 5 is a bad measurement when others are able to have a deeper roster.
The strength of the Defense you put up is reflected in the Rating, and Prestige is a measure of the highest you have. Is it an idication that all your highest Champs are great Defenders? No. What it is, is an indication of strength. Total strength overall.
True. But this is why there’s a “War Rating” metrics that measures exactly this. Attackers/Defenders/Skill/Willingness to spend items. Prestige as an added measure complicates this because, as mentioned above, it is insufficient to only measure the top 5. If prestige were to include the top 20 champions of a roster, then it might be worth considering.
I'm really done going over this because at this point, I've made my points and we're just regressing. No system is perfect. This is where we're at after people abused the Matchmaking to the point that it was no longer a reflection of what Allies were capable of. I'm all for only running Wars during Seasons, TBH. Agree or disagree. I'm tired of going in circles. Lol.
Regardless Seasons or Off Seasons, Wars are free shards, win or lose. That’s my opinion though.
We don't know if they're even using it. However, signs point to it being used. Reason I pointed that out is we don't know if it's Top 5, Top 8, Top 10....it's an average.
War Rating is a reflection of performance. It only works as a measure of performance in an honest system. Meaning people are playing to the best of their capabilities, whether through spending or not. That's no longer the case. Between Shells and Tanking, people are all over the place. It's no longer a measure of skill or ability. Take 2 weeks for example. Calculate the reduction in War Rating for 2 weeks. More with a longer hiatus. That's the difference in capabilities that results from Tanking. Give or take a Win/Loss margin. That's quite a step down. It's been shifted all over the place, both as a result of those factors and so many reductions from punitive measures. War Rating is no longer a reliable indication of ability because people have used it in combination with the added medium of Seasons. It used to be. Not now. In essence, what few Allies are seeing in the difference in War Rating now has been happening wide-spread in the Off-Season. Only the result is on the backs of people being overpowered and cheated out of an honest effort in the Season. For every overpowered Win when Seasons start again, there's an Alliance cheated out of an honest fight and chances at Points. It's a lesser of two evils, and definitely a better system where the fight is more even. I'm not debating Prestige as a metric anymore. It is 100% an internal measure of strength, and I've outlined the ways it is, and is already being used. People can't see the forest for the trees on this one. Nothing is free Shards. There is work and effort beind every Win and Loss, and when your work doesn't matter at all because there's literally no chance of winning, just because someone played the system, that's about as wrong as it gets. It's not even free Shards when Allies Tank. They get the small Win Rewards compared to the larger Season Rewards that they could be earning, only they don't have a fair chance because those same Allies who Tanked will turn around and beat them when it counts for Points. There's also another added effect it has on the overall system and progress in general, but I'm too tired to explain it. Lol. Basically it freezes progress to play that way. For most. In any event, I wanted to reply to you, but I've said about all I can say on it. It's going over about as well as Pisa.
I'm going to say this once more and I'm done going over it and over it. When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win?
I agree with you on that. However, like what others have mentioned, using ONLY the top 5 is a bad measurement when others are able to have a deeper roster.
The strength of the Defense you put up is reflected in the Rating, and Prestige is a measure of the highest you have. Is it an idication that all your highest Champs are great Defenders? No. What it is, is an indication of strength. Total strength overall.
True. But this is why there’s a “War Rating” metrics that measures exactly this. Attackers/Defenders/Skill/Willingness to spend items. Prestige as an added measure complicates this because, as mentioned above, it is insufficient to only measure the top 5. If prestige were to include the top 20 champions of a roster, then it might be worth considering.
I'm really done going over this because at this point, I've made my points and we're just regressing. No system is perfect. This is where we're at after people abused the Matchmaking to the point that it was no longer a reflection of what Allies were capable of. I'm all for only running Wars during Seasons, TBH. Agree or disagree. I'm tired of going in circles. Lol.
Regardless Seasons or Off Seasons, Wars are free shards, win or lose. That’s my opinion though.
We don't know if they're even using it. However, signs point to it being used. Reason I pointed that out is we don't know if it's Top 5, Top 8, Top 10....it's an average.
War Rating is a reflection of performance. It only works as a measure of performance in an honest system. Meaning people are playing to the best of their capabilities, whether through spending or not. That's no longer the case. Between Shells and Tanking, people are all over the place. It's no longer a measure of skill or ability. Take 2 weeks for example. Calculate the reduction in War Rating for 2 weeks. More with a longer hiatus. That's the difference in capabilities that results from Tanking. Give or take a Win/Loss margin. That's quite a step down. It's been shifted all over the place, both as a result of those factors and so many reductions from punitive measures. War Rating is no longer a reliable indication of ability because people have used it in combination with the added medium of Seasons. It used to be. Not now. In essence, what few Allies are seeing in the difference in War Rating now has been happening wide-spread in the Off-Season. Only the result is on the backs of people being overpowered and cheated out of an honest effort in the Season. For every overpowered Win when Seasons start again, there's an Alliance cheated out of an honest fight and chances at Points. It's a lesser of two evils, and definitely a better system where the fight is more even. I'm not debating Prestige as a metric anymore. It is 100% an internal measure of strength, and I've outlined the ways it is, and is already being used. People can't see the forest for the trees on this one. Nothing is free Shards. There is work and effort beind every Win and Loss, and when your work doesn't matter at all because there's literally no chance of winning, just because someone played the system, that's about as wrong as it gets. It's not even free Shards when Allies Tank. They get the small Win Rewards compared to the larger Season Rewards that they could be earning, only they don't have a fair chance because those same Allies who Tanked will turn around and beat them when it counts for Points. There's also another added effect it has on the overall system and progress in general, but I'm too tired to explain it. Lol. Basically it freezes progress to play that way. For most. In any event, I wanted to reply to you, but I've said about all I can say on it. It's going over about as well as Pisa.
Which is what the current system allows. Hence, it’s better to improve the system and make war ratings a part of multiplier instead of them placing people in static ones with static multipliers.
Take eg, Tier 2 is around 2.7k to 3k rating. For an alliance at 3k rating, it’s more beneficial to drop to 2.7k and win back to 3k since the multiplier is exactly the same. It’s not manipulation, it’s being smart, playing within the system, similar to how individuals use donations and other means to reduce their tax liabilities.
However, should war ratings be directly proportionate to multiplier, the exact same alliance in tier 2 will most likely stay at equilibrium 3k ratings due to having a higher multiplier. Even if they were to decide to tank and drop to 2.7k, they might win their way up but each point earned contributes fewer score to their season score as due to a lower 2.7k multiplier.
Yeah off season is the problem. In off season you can play for shards, but results shouldn’t affect your war rating.
I don’t know why Kabam doesn’t understand that simple thing.
I disagree with you. Let’s say you made some changes to the personnel in your alliance in the off season and your alliance ended the season right between tier 3 and tier 4. One more win gives you 6* shards and quite abit more 5* shards. So in the off season your entire alliance will have to make do with win after win after win without earning the appropriate rewards?
Comments
When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win?
The strength of the Defense you put up is reflected in the Rating, and Prestige is a measure of the highest you have. Is it an idication that all your highest Champs are great Defenders? No. What it is, is an indication of strength. Total strength overall.
I'm really done going over this because at this point, I've made my points and we're just regressing. No system is perfect. This is where we're at after people abused the Matchmaking to the point that it was no longer a reflection of what Allies were capable of. I'm all for only running Wars during Seasons, TBH. Agree or disagree. I'm tired of going in circles. Lol.
If an alliance with 5k prestige buys over a 3.3k War rating alliance, shift their members in and gets matched with other alliances at 5k prestige with tier 1 multiplier, then ends up in Plat 1 or Masters, does this mean that alliance is a top 50 alliance? Lol
War Rating is a reflection of performance. It only works as a measure of performance in an honest system. Meaning people are playing to the best of their capabilities, whether through spending or not. That's no longer the case. Between Shells and Tanking, people are all over the place. It's no longer a measure of skill or ability. Take 2 weeks for example. Calculate the reduction in War Rating for 2 weeks. More with a longer hiatus. That's the difference in capabilities that results from Tanking. Give or take a Win/Loss margin. That's quite a step down. It's been shifted all over the place, both as a result of those factors and so many reductions from punitive measures. War Rating is no longer a reliable indication of ability because people have used it in combination with the added medium of Seasons. It used to be. Not now.
In essence, what few Allies are seeing in the difference in War Rating now has been happening wide-spread in the Off-Season. Only the result is on the backs of people being overpowered and cheated out of an honest effort in the Season. For every overpowered Win when Seasons start again, there's an Alliance cheated out of an honest fight and chances at Points. It's a lesser of two evils, and definitely a better system where the fight is more even.
I'm not debating Prestige as a metric anymore. It is 100% an internal measure of strength, and I've outlined the ways it is, and is already being used. People can't see the forest for the trees on this one.
Nothing is free Shards. There is work and effort beind every Win and Loss, and when your work doesn't matter at all because there's literally no chance of winning, just because someone played the system, that's about as wrong as it gets. It's not even free Shards when Allies Tank. They get the small Win Rewards compared to the larger Season Rewards that they could be earning, only they don't have a fair chance because those same Allies who Tanked will turn around and beat them when it counts for Points. There's also another added effect it has on the overall system and progress in general, but I'm too tired to explain it. Lol. Basically it freezes progress to play that way. For most. In any event, I wanted to reply to you, but I've said about all I can say on it. It's going over about as well as Pisa.
Take eg, Tier 2 is around 2.7k to 3k rating. For an alliance at 3k rating, it’s more beneficial to drop to 2.7k and win back to 3k since the multiplier is exactly the same. It’s not manipulation, it’s being smart, playing within the system, similar to how individuals use donations and other means to reduce their tax liabilities.
However, should war ratings be directly proportionate to multiplier, the exact same alliance in tier 2 will most likely stay at equilibrium 3k ratings due to having a higher multiplier. Even if they were to decide to tank and drop to 2.7k, they might win their way up but each point earned contributes fewer score to their season score as due to a lower 2.7k multiplier.