Kabam...AW match making frustrations boiling over

QuikPik · May 2019

Let that sink in....

There’s a 3 million alliance at rank 59 in Gold 2 in tier 3

TacoScotty · May 2019

I always felt war rating should be only thing for using matchups this ultimately bakes in the strength of your defense, strength of offense and skill all into one metric... e.g. you Win the war. If you are stronger in skill than roster it allows you to make up for it in War Rating. Using Prestige and/or alliance rating have flaws and I think one or the other are in the calculation (there is some alliance now highly ranked in P1 I think where a lot of members don't even have r5s but their Alliance rating / prestige would be much lower -> hey maybe they have crazy skill but would love to see who they faced off against).

I liked idea that after first few wars of system shifting to a system that considers your rank on the leaderboard but in this instance you would also need to align multiplier to be similar to spot on leaderboard -> you shouldn't be getting t1 multiplier facing alliances in p3 because you lost first couple wars.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

We're talking about a 3 Mil in Gold 3. Not groundbreaking. A 7 and an 8 Mil in Gold 1, entirely possible. Depending on how well they did in their Matches. Again, there could be other things going on there as well that we're not aware of. If so, they'll deal with that.
The Board is all over the place. Between Tanking, Shells, and people jumping down to these Retirement Allies, strengths are all over the Board. Something has to act as a buffer so that lower Allies aren't stopped up by Accounts much more advanced than they are.
To be honest, the best solution is to do away with Off-Season altogether. Implement a Placement Phase, buff the Season Rewards, and any progress would be done during Seasons. Take a break in between so people can regroup, and keep progress where it can't be manipulated. That's the best solution I see. Enough with the back-and-forth and one being tied into the other.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:
You're focusing on what their Rating is, and that has nothing to do with how they performed in the Season. That's in the Points.
That’s where you’re wrong. Performance in Season is directly correlated to the matchups they get in Seasons, which is related to what their rating is.
The point I'm making is the OP seems to think the Leaderboard should reflect Total Alliance Rating, when that's not much at all. People aren't even using their total Rosters. You can have strong guys with less Total Rating, and you can have an Alliance with a high Rating that aren't that strong. Rating is only the total PI of the Ally. Not an automatic reflection of what they brought and how they fought.
If that's the logic, throw away fighting altogether and award people from least to highest-Rated Ally. No need to compete. Doesn't matter.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anyone suggested that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. People suggested that no one should be able to climb to the top of the leaderboard while only playing against people in the middle, which is entirely different.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:
You're focusing on what their Rating is, and that has nothing to do with how they performed in the Season. That's in the Points.
That’s where you’re wrong. Performance in Season is directly correlated to the matchups they get in Seasons, which is related to what their rating is.
The point I'm making is the OP seems to think the Leaderboard should reflect Total Alliance Rating, when that's not much at all. People aren't even using their total Rosters. You can have strong guys with less Total Rating, and you can have an Alliance with a high Rating that aren't that strong. Rating is only the total PI of the Ally. Not an automatic reflection of what they brought and how they fought.
If that's the logic, throw away fighting altogether and award people from least to highest-Rated Ally. No need to compete. Doesn't matter.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anyone suggested that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. People suggested that no one should be able to climb to the top of the leaderboard while only playing against people in the middle, which is entirely different.

Yes. That's exactly what they're looking at. The sequence of Ratings on the Leaderboard, and anything that doesn't follow descending patterns.

QuikPik · May 2019

They’re in Gold 2 not 3 and top of Gold 2 at that.

xNig · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't have the energy for is to open peoples' minds when they refuse to see something. So I need a break. Lol.
What are the odds that you're right ant everyone else is wrong?
Statistically.....LOL.
You don't fight in high tier AW and refuse to listen to those who do. Why do you think you're right and those who actually live what they talk about, not guess and assume, are wrong? Can you answer that simple question?
....and you refuse to accept that someone has the intelligence and capability of knowing much more than what they fought. Now that we've established each other....
Are you talking about yourself? those with true intelligence learn from those who know, not try to argue facts with assumptions.
So the only people who know anything are the ones playing in a certain Tier? Interesting way to approach a discussion. Bit closed-minded if you ask me.
They know the most. They don't have to guess or assume.

Your refusal to admit you don't know something as well as those above you is your great undoing on this site. Your few creditable posts are dwarfed by the plethora of dribble where you are clearly incorrect. instead of learning from the people who know what they're talking about, you dig in your heels and double down by playing the victim and not talking about your level, like everyone doesn't know where you are.

What happens first, your ally finishes in Platinum or you hit 30k posts?
People don't know more automatically just because of what Tier they're in. You can't measure knowledge based on where they're at in the game. That's an egotistical outlook that remains ignorant to the thoughts of others. It's also not old on this Forum, but it's still just as disappointing that there's a great deal of understanding and learning that's missed, just because it's ignored by a position in the game. Nevertheless, you don't need to be at a certain level to understand the system. You just need sufficient knowledge and intelligence. You want to keep thinking I don't know anything because I'm not "on your level", you do you.
Lol what you vant measure knowledge based on experience?

Real.world perspective that for a second. High school drop out doing open heart surgery?
GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:
Heres another example of whats going on. The NBA finals are raptors vs warrior. To get to the finals the raptors faced the bucks and the warriors faced michigan state. Yes they both technically won there games to get there. But beating a college team isnt the equivalent of another top ranked NBA team. This is exactly what this new prestige based matchmaking is doing to the top of war. Everything other then this point is just noise and can be ignored. This is the issue. It can be solved by changing the scoring (which would also eliminate tanking), or they could remove seasons all together because it is toxic as hell for the game and distribute a % of season rewards every war win. Prestige has no place in AW, prestige is an arbitrary value given to champs. In no way does it represent anything to do with your strength in war, its an accurate measurement for the number of sig stone deals you have bought tho haha
What do you think measures your strength in War? Besides playing the Map, what do you think determines the strength of what you're putting up?
The rank of your champions if one team.is placing all r5s and the other mostly r4s.
GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't have the energy for is to open peoples' minds when they refuse to see something. So I need a break. Lol.
What are the odds that you're right ant everyone else is wrong?
Statistically.....LOL.
You don't fight in high tier AW and refuse to listen to those who do. Why do you think you're right and those who actually live what they talk about, not guess and assume, are wrong? Can you answer that simple question?
....and you refuse to accept that someone has the intelligence and capability of knowing much more than what they fought. Now that we've established each other....
Are you talking about yourself? those with true intelligence learn from those who know, not try to argue facts with assumptions.
So the only people who know anything are the ones playing in a certain Tier? Interesting way to approach a discussion. Bit closed-minded if you ask me.
They know the most. They don't have to guess or assume.

Your refusal to admit you don't know something as well as those above you is your great undoing on this site. Your few creditable posts are dwarfed by the plethora of dribble where you are clearly incorrect. instead of learning from the people who know what they're talking about, you dig in your heels and double down by playing the victim and not talking about your level, like everyone doesn't know where you are.

What happens first, your ally finishes in Platinum or you hit 30k posts?
People don't know more automatically just because of what Tier they're in. You can't measure knowledge based on where they're at in the game. That's an egotistical outlook that remains ignorant to the thoughts of others. It's also not old on this Forum, but it's still just as disappointing that there's a great deal of understanding and learning that's missed, just because it's ignored by a position in the game. Nevertheless, you don't need to be at a certain level to understand the system. You just need sufficient knowledge and intelligence. You want to keep thinking I don't know anything because I'm not "on your level", you do you.
Lol what you vant measure knowledge based on experience?

Real.world perspective that for a second. High school drop out doing open heart surgery?
GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:
Heres another example of whats going on. The NBA finals are raptors vs warrior. To get to the finals the raptors faced the bucks and the warriors faced michigan state. Yes they both technically won there games to get there. But beating a college team isnt the equivalent of another top ranked NBA team. This is exactly what this new prestige based matchmaking is doing to the top of war. Everything other then this point is just noise and can be ignored. This is the issue. It can be solved by changing the scoring (which would also eliminate tanking), or they could remove seasons all together because it is toxic as hell for the game and distribute a % of season rewards every war win. Prestige has no place in AW, prestige is an arbitrary value given to champs. In no way does it represent anything to do with your strength in war, its an accurate measurement for the number of sig stone deals you have bought tho haha
What do you think measures your strength in War? Besides playing the Map, what do you think determines the strength of what you're putting up?
The rank of your champions if one team.is placing all r5s and the other mostly r4s.

Which team is likely to win? And deserve a master spot?
If you think the only people who know what they're talking about are the ones in a certain position in the game, not much else to say besides what I said to him.

As for the strength, the Rank of the Champions you put up. Correct. How do you determine Prestige?
Again your top 5 doesnt equal your war team .
And 5 r5s doesnt equal 15 r5s. Prestoge is terribly flawed in this.

Or are you really claiming an allaince with 5 r5s each should be able to fight an allaince with 15 each in a fair fight? Chase prestige says they are equals
Let me get this straight. It's unfair because you have to come up agaisnt an Ally with 10 extra R5s, but you expect to hang out where people barely have one typically? Hmm...

That’s not what Drooped meant, and it’s kind of an extreme situation that you’re quoting.

There are people who, despite having a good roster, have a skill level way below the average person has. So in terms of capabilities of war, even if he puts up 5 R5s as defenders, he might cede 10-15 deaths, which can be similar to the performance of a very skilled person who has 1 R5 and puts up 5 R4s on defense.

Hence, using prestige as a gauge for warring capabilities is a very bad metric as it excludes one of the most important components in the game, ie, skill.

War rating, on the other hand, captures everything because it is a result orientated metric.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't have the energy for is to open peoples' minds when they refuse to see something. So I need a break. Lol.
What are the odds that you're right ant everyone else is wrong?
Statistically.....LOL.
You don't fight in high tier AW and refuse to listen to those who do. Why do you think you're right and those who actually live what they talk about, not guess and assume, are wrong? Can you answer that simple question?
....and you refuse to accept that someone has the intelligence and capability of knowing much more than what they fought. Now that we've established each other....
Are you talking about yourself? those with true intelligence learn from those who know, not try to argue facts with assumptions.
So the only people who know anything are the ones playing in a certain Tier? Interesting way to approach a discussion. Bit closed-minded if you ask me.
They know the most. They don't have to guess or assume.

Your refusal to admit you don't know something as well as those above you is your great undoing on this site. Your few creditable posts are dwarfed by the plethora of dribble where you are clearly incorrect. instead of learning from the people who know what they're talking about, you dig in your heels and double down by playing the victim and not talking about your level, like everyone doesn't know where you are.

What happens first, your ally finishes in Platinum or you hit 30k posts?
People don't know more automatically just because of what Tier they're in. You can't measure knowledge based on where they're at in the game. That's an egotistical outlook that remains ignorant to the thoughts of others. It's also not old on this Forum, but it's still just as disappointing that there's a great deal of understanding and learning that's missed, just because it's ignored by a position in the game. Nevertheless, you don't need to be at a certain level to understand the system. You just need sufficient knowledge and intelligence. You want to keep thinking I don't know anything because I'm not "on your level", you do you.
Lol what you vant measure knowledge based on experience?

Real.world perspective that for a second. High school drop out doing open heart surgery?
GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:
Heres another example of whats going on. The NBA finals are raptors vs warrior. To get to the finals the raptors faced the bucks and the warriors faced michigan state. Yes they both technically won there games to get there. But beating a college team isnt the equivalent of another top ranked NBA team. This is exactly what this new prestige based matchmaking is doing to the top of war. Everything other then this point is just noise and can be ignored. This is the issue. It can be solved by changing the scoring (which would also eliminate tanking), or they could remove seasons all together because it is toxic as hell for the game and distribute a % of season rewards every war win. Prestige has no place in AW, prestige is an arbitrary value given to champs. In no way does it represent anything to do with your strength in war, its an accurate measurement for the number of sig stone deals you have bought tho haha
What do you think measures your strength in War? Besides playing the Map, what do you think determines the strength of what you're putting up?
The rank of your champions if one team.is placing all r5s and the other mostly r4s.
GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't have the energy for is to open peoples' minds when they refuse to see something. So I need a break. Lol.
What are the odds that you're right ant everyone else is wrong?
Statistically.....LOL.
You don't fight in high tier AW and refuse to listen to those who do. Why do you think you're right and those who actually live what they talk about, not guess and assume, are wrong? Can you answer that simple question?
....and you refuse to accept that someone has the intelligence and capability of knowing much more than what they fought. Now that we've established each other....
Are you talking about yourself? those with true intelligence learn from those who know, not try to argue facts with assumptions.
So the only people who know anything are the ones playing in a certain Tier? Interesting way to approach a discussion. Bit closed-minded if you ask me.
They know the most. They don't have to guess or assume.

Your refusal to admit you don't know something as well as those above you is your great undoing on this site. Your few creditable posts are dwarfed by the plethora of dribble where you are clearly incorrect. instead of learning from the people who know what they're talking about, you dig in your heels and double down by playing the victim and not talking about your level, like everyone doesn't know where you are.

What happens first, your ally finishes in Platinum or you hit 30k posts?
People don't know more automatically just because of what Tier they're in. You can't measure knowledge based on where they're at in the game. That's an egotistical outlook that remains ignorant to the thoughts of others. It's also not old on this Forum, but it's still just as disappointing that there's a great deal of understanding and learning that's missed, just because it's ignored by a position in the game. Nevertheless, you don't need to be at a certain level to understand the system. You just need sufficient knowledge and intelligence. You want to keep thinking I don't know anything because I'm not "on your level", you do you.
Lol what you vant measure knowledge based on experience?

Real.world perspective that for a second. High school drop out doing open heart surgery?
GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:
Heres another example of whats going on. The NBA finals are raptors vs warrior. To get to the finals the raptors faced the bucks and the warriors faced michigan state. Yes they both technically won there games to get there. But beating a college team isnt the equivalent of another top ranked NBA team. This is exactly what this new prestige based matchmaking is doing to the top of war. Everything other then this point is just noise and can be ignored. This is the issue. It can be solved by changing the scoring (which would also eliminate tanking), or they could remove seasons all together because it is toxic as hell for the game and distribute a % of season rewards every war win. Prestige has no place in AW, prestige is an arbitrary value given to champs. In no way does it represent anything to do with your strength in war, its an accurate measurement for the number of sig stone deals you have bought tho haha
What do you think measures your strength in War? Besides playing the Map, what do you think determines the strength of what you're putting up?
The rank of your champions if one team.is placing all r5s and the other mostly r4s.

Which team is likely to win? And deserve a master spot?
If you think the only people who know what they're talking about are the ones in a certain position in the game, not much else to say besides what I said to him.

As for the strength, the Rank of the Champions you put up. Correct. How do you determine Prestige?
Again your top 5 doesnt equal your war team .
And 5 r5s doesnt equal 15 r5s. Prestoge is terribly flawed in this.

Or are you really claiming an allaince with 5 r5s each should be able to fight an allaince with 15 each in a fair fight? Chase prestige says they are equals
Let me get this straight. It's unfair because you have to come up agaisnt an Ally with 10 extra R5s, but you expect to hang out where people barely have one typically? Hmm...
That’s not what Drooped meant, and it’s kind of an extreme situation that you’re quoting.

There are people who, despite having a good roster, have a skill level way below the average person has. So in terms of capabilities of war, even if he puts up 5 R5s as defenders, he might cede 10-15 deaths, which can be similar to the performance of a very skilled person who has 1 R5 and puts up 5 R4s on defense.

Hence, using prestige as a gauge for warring capabilities is a very bad metric as it excludes one of the most important components in the game, ie, skill.

War rating, on the other hand, captures everything because it is a result orientated metric.

War Rating is not capturing skill because people are dropping it below their skill level to manipulate Points. It's no longer an effective gauge.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:
You're focusing on what their Rating is, and that has nothing to do with how they performed in the Season. That's in the Points.
That’s where you’re wrong. Performance in Season is directly correlated to the matchups they get in Seasons, which is related to what their rating is.
The point I'm making is the OP seems to think the Leaderboard should reflect Total Alliance Rating, when that's not much at all. People aren't even using their total Rosters. You can have strong guys with less Total Rating, and you can have an Alliance with a high Rating that aren't that strong. Rating is only the total PI of the Ally. Not an automatic reflection of what they brought and how they fought.
If that's the logic, throw away fighting altogether and award people from least to highest-Rated Ally. No need to compete. Doesn't matter.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anyone suggested that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. People suggested that no one should be able to climb to the top of the leaderboard while only playing against people in the middle, which is entirely different.
Yes. That's exactly what they're looking at. The sequence of Ratings on the Leaderboard, and anything that doesn't follow descending patterns.

Finding alliances that may be playing well above their weight through alliance rating, looking at those alliances and confirming that they don't have artificially low alliance ratings and then discovering that they are where they are because they don't have to fight others in the same bracket is not the same thing as claiming that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. You're refusal to see problems in the current matchmaking is honestly bizarre. I suspect if a Kabam Mod would deign to acknowledge this thread and confirm that prestige is being used, they would admit that it has had some unforeseen and unintended consequences.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't have the energy for is to open peoples' minds when they refuse to see something. So I need a break. Lol.
What are the odds that you're right ant everyone else is wrong?
Statistically.....LOL.
You don't fight in high tier AW and refuse to listen to those who do. Why do you think you're right and those who actually live what they talk about, not guess and assume, are wrong? Can you answer that simple question?
....and you refuse to accept that someone has the intelligence and capability of knowing much more than what they fought. Now that we've established each other....
Are you talking about yourself? those with true intelligence learn from those who know, not try to argue facts with assumptions.
So the only people who know anything are the ones playing in a certain Tier? Interesting way to approach a discussion. Bit closed-minded if you ask me.
They know the most. They don't have to guess or assume.

Your refusal to admit you don't know something as well as those above you is your great undoing on this site. Your few creditable posts are dwarfed by the plethora of dribble where you are clearly incorrect. instead of learning from the people who know what they're talking about, you dig in your heels and double down by playing the victim and not talking about your level, like everyone doesn't know where you are.

What happens first, your ally finishes in Platinum or you hit 30k posts?
People don't know more automatically just because of what Tier they're in. You can't measure knowledge based on where they're at in the game. That's an egotistical outlook that remains ignorant to the thoughts of others. It's also not old on this Forum, but it's still just as disappointing that there's a great deal of understanding and learning that's missed, just because it's ignored by a position in the game. Nevertheless, you don't need to be at a certain level to understand the system. You just need sufficient knowledge and intelligence. You want to keep thinking I don't know anything because I'm not "on your level", you do you.
Lol what you vant measure knowledge based on experience?

Real.world perspective that for a second. High school drop out doing open heart surgery?
GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:
Heres another example of whats going on. The NBA finals are raptors vs warrior. To get to the finals the raptors faced the bucks and the warriors faced michigan state. Yes they both technically won there games to get there. But beating a college team isnt the equivalent of another top ranked NBA team. This is exactly what this new prestige based matchmaking is doing to the top of war. Everything other then this point is just noise and can be ignored. This is the issue. It can be solved by changing the scoring (which would also eliminate tanking), or they could remove seasons all together because it is toxic as hell for the game and distribute a % of season rewards every war win. Prestige has no place in AW, prestige is an arbitrary value given to champs. In no way does it represent anything to do with your strength in war, its an accurate measurement for the number of sig stone deals you have bought tho haha
What do you think measures your strength in War? Besides playing the Map, what do you think determines the strength of what you're putting up?
The rank of your champions if one team.is placing all r5s and the other mostly r4s.
GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:

RagamugginGunner said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't have the energy for is to open peoples' minds when they refuse to see something. So I need a break. Lol.
What are the odds that you're right ant everyone else is wrong?
Statistically.....LOL.
You don't fight in high tier AW and refuse to listen to those who do. Why do you think you're right and those who actually live what they talk about, not guess and assume, are wrong? Can you answer that simple question?
....and you refuse to accept that someone has the intelligence and capability of knowing much more than what they fought. Now that we've established each other....
Are you talking about yourself? those with true intelligence learn from those who know, not try to argue facts with assumptions.
So the only people who know anything are the ones playing in a certain Tier? Interesting way to approach a discussion. Bit closed-minded if you ask me.
They know the most. They don't have to guess or assume.

Your refusal to admit you don't know something as well as those above you is your great undoing on this site. Your few creditable posts are dwarfed by the plethora of dribble where you are clearly incorrect. instead of learning from the people who know what they're talking about, you dig in your heels and double down by playing the victim and not talking about your level, like everyone doesn't know where you are.

What happens first, your ally finishes in Platinum or you hit 30k posts?
People don't know more automatically just because of what Tier they're in. You can't measure knowledge based on where they're at in the game. That's an egotistical outlook that remains ignorant to the thoughts of others. It's also not old on this Forum, but it's still just as disappointing that there's a great deal of understanding and learning that's missed, just because it's ignored by a position in the game. Nevertheless, you don't need to be at a certain level to understand the system. You just need sufficient knowledge and intelligence. You want to keep thinking I don't know anything because I'm not "on your level", you do you.
Lol what you vant measure knowledge based on experience?

Real.world perspective that for a second. High school drop out doing open heart surgery?
GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:
Heres another example of whats going on. The NBA finals are raptors vs warrior. To get to the finals the raptors faced the bucks and the warriors faced michigan state. Yes they both technically won there games to get there. But beating a college team isnt the equivalent of another top ranked NBA team. This is exactly what this new prestige based matchmaking is doing to the top of war. Everything other then this point is just noise and can be ignored. This is the issue. It can be solved by changing the scoring (which would also eliminate tanking), or they could remove seasons all together because it is toxic as hell for the game and distribute a % of season rewards every war win. Prestige has no place in AW, prestige is an arbitrary value given to champs. In no way does it represent anything to do with your strength in war, its an accurate measurement for the number of sig stone deals you have bought tho haha
What do you think measures your strength in War? Besides playing the Map, what do you think determines the strength of what you're putting up?
The rank of your champions if one team.is placing all r5s and the other mostly r4s.

Which team is likely to win? And deserve a master spot?
If you think the only people who know what they're talking about are the ones in a certain position in the game, not much else to say besides what I said to him.

As for the strength, the Rank of the Champions you put up. Correct. How do you determine Prestige?
Again your top 5 doesnt equal your war team .
And 5 r5s doesnt equal 15 r5s. Prestoge is terribly flawed in this.

Or are you really claiming an allaince with 5 r5s each should be able to fight an allaince with 15 each in a fair fight? Chase prestige says they are equals
Let me get this straight. It's unfair because you have to come up agaisnt an Ally with 10 extra R5s, but you expect to hang out where people barely have one typically? Hmm...
That’s not what Drooped meant, and it’s kind of an extreme situation that you’re quoting.

There are people who, despite having a good roster, have a skill level way below the average person has. So in terms of capabilities of war, even if he puts up 5 R5s as defenders, he might cede 10-15 deaths, which can be similar to the performance of a very skilled person who has 1 R5 and puts up 5 R4s on defense.

Hence, using prestige as a gauge for warring capabilities is a very bad metric as it excludes one of the most important components in the game, ie, skill.

War rating, on the other hand, captures everything because it is a result orientated metric.
War Rating is not capturing skill because people are dropping it below their skill level to manipulate Points. It's no longer an effective gauge.

It still does reflect skill, but yes, it was subject to manipulation. It needs to be fixed. But creating a system in which some people keep playing much higher groups, and others keep playing much lower groups than their current bracket isn't a good fix.

xNig · May 2019

Which is why in the initial post, I already suggested to do away with the fixed multiplier tier system that encourages/incentivizes tanking.

xNig · May 2019

Jamiefyffe16 said:
It’s fun getting to watch some of the other regulars bang their head against the wall for awhile lol.

Always kind hearted souls around seeking to enlighten lost sheep man.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:
You're focusing on what their Rating is, and that has nothing to do with how they performed in the Season. That's in the Points.
That’s where you’re wrong. Performance in Season is directly correlated to the matchups they get in Seasons, which is related to what their rating is.
The point I'm making is the OP seems to think the Leaderboard should reflect Total Alliance Rating, when that's not much at all. People aren't even using their total Rosters. You can have strong guys with less Total Rating, and you can have an Alliance with a high Rating that aren't that strong. Rating is only the total PI of the Ally. Not an automatic reflection of what they brought and how they fought.
If that's the logic, throw away fighting altogether and award people from least to highest-Rated Ally. No need to compete. Doesn't matter.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anyone suggested that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. People suggested that no one should be able to climb to the top of the leaderboard while only playing against people in the middle, which is entirely different.
Yes. That's exactly what they're looking at. The sequence of Ratings on the Leaderboard, and anything that doesn't follow descending patterns.
Finding alliances that may be playing well above their weight through alliance rating, looking at those alliances and confirming that they don't have artificially low alliance ratings and then discovering that they are where they are because they don't have to fight others in the same bracket is not the same thing as claiming that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. You're refusal to see problems in the current matchmaking is honestly bizarre. I suspect if a Kabam Mod would deign to acknowledge this thread and confirm that prestige is being used, they would admit that it has had some unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Alliance Rating is not a reliable metric to determine what someone's weight is. You have to factor in what Tier they're in, what they're bringing into War, how they play, what they come up agaisnt, all of that. You can't just look at the total Rating, which really consists of a good percentage more than what's being used in War, and determine they don't belong somewhere. Once again, Brackets are based on Points. Not beating out everyone else in that Bracket. That's not how the system works. That may have been how Top Allies kept their spots once upon a time by collusion, but Seasons are an entirely different entity. The number one issue we have right now is that Seasons progress can be influenced by Off-Season actions. It needs to be separated somehow. Otherwise there's very little accuracy or fairness to the Season itself. It's not based on actual Seasons progress.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

xNig said:

Which is why in the initial post, I already suggested to do away with the fixed multiplier tier system that encourages/incentivizes tanking.

Incentivizes Tanking? You want to encourage more of it?

Edit. Nevermind. Misread.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:
You're focusing on what their Rating is, and that has nothing to do with how they performed in the Season. That's in the Points.
That’s where you’re wrong. Performance in Season is directly correlated to the matchups they get in Seasons, which is related to what their rating is.
The point I'm making is the OP seems to think the Leaderboard should reflect Total Alliance Rating, when that's not much at all. People aren't even using their total Rosters. You can have strong guys with less Total Rating, and you can have an Alliance with a high Rating that aren't that strong. Rating is only the total PI of the Ally. Not an automatic reflection of what they brought and how they fought.
If that's the logic, throw away fighting altogether and award people from least to highest-Rated Ally. No need to compete. Doesn't matter.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anyone suggested that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. People suggested that no one should be able to climb to the top of the leaderboard while only playing against people in the middle, which is entirely different.
Yes. That's exactly what they're looking at. The sequence of Ratings on the Leaderboard, and anything that doesn't follow descending patterns.
Finding alliances that may be playing well above their weight through alliance rating, looking at those alliances and confirming that they don't have artificially low alliance ratings and then discovering that they are where they are because they don't have to fight others in the same bracket is not the same thing as claiming that the leaderboard should reflect total alliance rating. You're refusal to see problems in the current matchmaking is honestly bizarre. I suspect if a Kabam Mod would deign to acknowledge this thread and confirm that prestige is being used, they would admit that it has had some unforeseen and unintended consequences.
Alliance Rating is not a reliable metric to determine what someone's weight is. You have to factor in what Tier they're in, what they're bringing into War, how they play, what they come up agaisnt, all of that. You can't just look at the total Rating, which really consists of a good percentage more than what's being used in War, and determine they don't belong somewhere. Once again, Brackets are based on Points. Not beating out everyone else in that Bracket. That's not how the system works. That may have been how Top Allies kept their spots once upon a time by collusion, but Seasons are an entirely different entity. The number one issue we have right now is that Seasons progress can be influenced by Off-Season actions. It needs to be separated somehow. Otherwise there's very little accuracy or fairness to the Season itself. It's not based on actual Seasons progress.

You keep saying that brackets are based on points. No one has any confusion over this point. Generally though, in competition you ascend to the next bracket by beating the people in your bracket, or you descend to a lower bracket by losing to the people in your bracket. People are pointing out that due to the new prestige metric, some groups are ascending to the next bracket by only playing groups in lower brackets, and others are descending by only facing groups in higher brackets, and you're all "the points are what they are" lmao

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

The problem is having one being influenced by the other. That's what I've felt all the way back to when I suggested Seasons. In order for it to be a true competition, it has to be based on the progress made from start to finish. Not whatever you do leading up to that and then some. Having one being able to affect the other is just asking for problems.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

Edit:
Well that would have been a funny comment but I already have a warning lol

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

Now I have to Edit because my comment makes no sense. Lol.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:
I don't think I'm wrong at all. People just don't like the idea of change happening, but it's absolutely necessary with the **** show that people have made out of the War Rating system.

I agree with most of this. Not the you not being wrong part, but 100% the **** show needs to be stopped. Change is needed. I just don't think this particular change is the way to go given the problems it creates.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I don't think I'm wrong at all. People just don't like the idea of change happening, but it's absolutely necessary with the **** show that people have made out of the War Rating system.
I agree with most of this. Not the you not being wrong part, but 100% the **** show needs to be stopped. Change is needed. I just don't think this particular change is the way to go given the problems it creates.

It's a solution to people trying to trick the system as it is now. I'm all for something different, but it has to stop the manipulation of one with the other.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

What I can't figure out is the common denominator which is being used because our War Rating has been consistently similar. Could just be the areas that Tanking is taking place.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I don't think I'm wrong at all. People just don't like the idea of change happening, but it's absolutely necessary with the **** show that people have made out of the War Rating system.
I agree with most of this. Not the you not being wrong part, but 100% the **** show needs to be stopped. Change is needed. I just don't think this particular change is the way to go given the problems it creates.
It's a solution to people trying to trick the system as it is now. I'm all for something different, but it has to stop the manipulation of one with the other.

I agree with this too. Twice in one day! Has to be a record. Maybe they can tweak it and something good will emerge, or maybe they can find another solution. I think it's clear that they found a flawed solution to one problem, but have created other problems in the process that are arguably just as bad.

xNig · May 2019

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I don't think I'm wrong at all. People just don't like the idea of change happening, but it's absolutely necessary with the **** show that people have made out of the War Rating system.
I agree with most of this. Not the you not being wrong part, but 100% the **** show needs to be stopped. Change is needed. I just don't think this particular change is the way to go given the problems it creates.
It's a solution to people trying to trick the system as it is now. I'm all for something different, but it has to stop the manipulation of one with the other.
I agree with this too. Twice in one day! Has to be a record. Maybe they can tweak it and something good will emerge, or maybe they can find another solution. I think it's clear that they found a flawed solution to one problem, but have created other problems in the process that are arguably just as bad.

Make... multipliers... variable.... and.... directly... correlated.... to.... war... ratings......

If the above system is implemented, then an alliance that wants to tank will suffer a lower multiplier due to a lower war rating.

LeNoirFaineant · May 2019

xNig said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I don't think I'm wrong at all. People just don't like the idea of change happening, but it's absolutely necessary with the **** show that people have made out of the War Rating system.
I agree with most of this. Not the you not being wrong part, but 100% the **** show needs to be stopped. Change is needed. I just don't think this particular change is the way to go given the problems it creates.
It's a solution to people trying to trick the system as it is now. I'm all for something different, but it has to stop the manipulation of one with the other.
I agree with this too. Twice in one day! Has to be a record. Maybe they can tweak it and something good will emerge, or maybe they can find another solution. I think it's clear that they found a flawed solution to one problem, but have created other problems in the process that are arguably just as bad.
Make... multipliers... variable.... and.... directly... correlated.... to.... war... ratings......

If the above system is implemented, then an alliance that wants to tank will suffer a lower multiplier due to a lower war rating.

I saw you post this before but didn't really think about it. I'd like to see that fleshed out. I'm not sure it would prevent all tanking as getting multiple wins might still be better than a slightly higher multiplier, but you may have something there.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't agree that disincetivising it is the solution. It has to be removed completely from Off Season. As long as one can affect the other, there's going to be problems.

xNig · May 2019

LeNoirFaineant said:

xNig said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:

LeNoirFaineant said:

GroundedWisdom said:
I don't think I'm wrong at all. People just don't like the idea of change happening, but it's absolutely necessary with the **** show that people have made out of the War Rating system.
I agree with most of this. Not the you not being wrong part, but 100% the **** show needs to be stopped. Change is needed. I just don't think this particular change is the way to go given the problems it creates.
It's a solution to people trying to trick the system as it is now. I'm all for something different, but it has to stop the manipulation of one with the other.
I agree with this too. Twice in one day! Has to be a record. Maybe they can tweak it and something good will emerge, or maybe they can find another solution. I think it's clear that they found a flawed solution to one problem, but have created other problems in the process that are arguably just as bad.
Make... multipliers... variable.... and.... directly... correlated.... to.... war... ratings......

If the above system is implemented, then an alliance that wants to tank will suffer a lower multiplier due to a lower war rating.
I saw you post this before but didn't really think about it. I'd like to see that fleshed out. I'm not sure it would prevent all tanking as getting multiple wins might still be better than a slightly higher multiplier, but you may have something there.

Just for you bro, I’ll type it out again. Just for you. 😂😂

Generally, what this means is instead of using fixed multipliers like x7 for Tier 1 and x6.2 for Tier 2 etc, have the aggregate war ratings be the actual multiplier for the war.

For eg, alliances A and B matches.

Alliance A - 2990 WR
Alliance B - 3000 WR
Multiplier for the war - (2990+3000)/2 = 2995

Let’s say a very lopsided matchup occurs,
Alliance A - 2000 WR
Alliance B - 3000 WR
Multiplier for the war - (2000+3000)/2 = 2500

Alliance A gets more season score per point for that war as they are going up against a harder defense, while alliance B gets lower as they go up against an easier defense. Under unified matchmaking matched solely based on war ratings, this scenario is VERY unlikely to occur though.

This also combats tanking by reducing the multipliers of tanking alliances.

Eg. Alliance X tanks from equilibrium rating of 3k to 2.5k WR. This means until they reach 3k ratings again, each point they earned per war counts lower to their season score, which might or might not be better off than them staying at their equilibrium rating of 3k.

Lastly, if there are minor discrepancies in terms of score, instead of needing to change the multipliers etc, the war win bonus can be adjusted instead.

GroundedWisdom · May 2019

Meanwhile, people that have to come up agaisnt them in the process are affected, and the system suffers. It needs to be stopped. Not a gentle suggestion.

xNig · May 2019

GroundedWisdom said:
Meanwhile, people that have to come up agaisnt them in the process are affected, and the system suffers. It needs to be stopped. Not a gentle suggestion.

You want a system that improves the current system that makes it beneficial for those who aren’t supposed to be at their current war ratings and want it just by snapping your fingers? You know that’s not possible right?

All that needs to be done is to have a fair system and alliances will adjust by themselves.

Kabam...AW match making frustrations boiling over

Comments