Kabam...AW match making frustrations boiling over

1910111315

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    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.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 3,513 ★★★★
    edited May 27

    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.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    Tanking has been going on for many Seasons now. It's become a habit. It's stifled progress throughout the entire system, and people are not just going to stop doing it unless you stop it from taking place. I do not agree that more collateral damage from making it less advantageous is a solution to the problem because it still allows it to take place.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    Yeah I'm actually for the hard cap. Perhaps not your hard cap. Lol.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    @GroundedWisdom

    If in theory there was no incentive to tanking, would people still do it?
  • 5tarscream5tarscream Posts: 78
    Summoner rating/number of champions. That way the guy with all maxed out 3* isn't seen as being on the same level as the guy who sold everything but 30 5*.
    I could essentially have 3 champs for AQ. 3 for AW attack and 5 for AW defense and sell everything else and get matched with a player with much much weaker champions.
    My alliance has the opposite issue. We keep getting matched with allainces that were rated B2 last year but have an alliance rating of around 8million. We were G3 or S1 I think last year and are rated 5m. We didn't tank in offseason, the last 2 wars have been against teams with similar ratings but we were low end S2 by the time it sorted itself out. Our last war we matched a team with an almost identical alliance rating. They are S1 we are S2. Our reward was +40 the loss was -64. It really shouldn't be this difficult to make a matchmaking system that is fair.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    As long as both systems are connected, people will find a way to manipulate Season results with the Off. First, it will take a while for people to catch on. Most will still be doing it out of habit. Then when that fails, they'll move on to the next way they can work on some kind of advantage, only when the stakes are that high (about to become higher), that means they don't care what affect it has on others. I fear these increased Rewards and new Meta will only push things further. For me, the only solution is to stop it from happening outright.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    As long as both systems are connected, people will find a way to manipulate Season results with the Off. First, it will take a while for people to catch on. Most will still be doing it out of habit. Then when that fails, they'll move on to the next way they can work on some kind of advantage, only when the stakes are that high (about to become higher), that means they don't care what affect it has on others. I fear these increased Rewards and new Meta will only push things further. For me, the only solution is to stop it from happening outright.

    You did not answer my question. You fear assumes that people will continue tanking regardless what happens. But that makes no sense. People will not tank if the rewards don't incentivise tanking in the first place. People are not irrational. To the contrary, tanking evolved only because it was the most rational way to approach AW and get the best rewards for the effort/cost one has to put

    Remove the incentive to tank and we will no longer see tanking. It is really that simple.
  • ThiartcThiartc Posts: 47
    Why should there be matching making in war?

    Why not just compete against the guys around you on the list?

    Your alliance is in gold 3 and want to move up, you win some and lose some, cause very war is closely matched by the match making system, and by the end of the season you still gold 3, now, some other alliances that has way weaker members than you are gold one, cause the system keeps them there. Matching 2 weaker alliances against each other each war, win some, lose some stay gold one.

    My idea and for this, note there will be 3 divisions, one for 3 BG’s, one for 2 Bg’s and one for 1 Bg, if you start the season with one bg, you will be forced to end season with one, ext ext.

    Start from top down. Rank 1 down to how many ever ranks there are for all.

    The day before the season starts all alliances are ranked from 1 down, starting with a score of 101.

    Now day one Number 1 (Starting Score 101) v Number 2 (starting Score 102)
    #3 (SS 103) v #4 (SS 104)
    #5 (SS105) v #6 (SS6 106) ext ext

    If you win then SS less one, so say rank number one wins, their score is now 100
    If you lose then plus 2 points (this will keep teams fighting each other every war, as I will explain below)

    So after 1 round results are in
    Number 1 v Number 2 – Number 2 Won
    #3 v #4 - Number 3 Won
    #5 v #6 – Number 6 Won

    New Scores
    #1 – 103
    #2 – 101
    #3 – 102
    #4 – 106
    #5 – 107
    #6 – 106

    The new ranks will thus be
    #2 (101)
    #3 (102)
    #1 (103)
    #6 (106)
    #4 (106)
    #5 (107)

    Next round:
    #2 v #3
    #1 v #6
    #4 v #5

    There will be times when you fight against someone twice in a row, or even a couple of times during season, some might say that makes it boring, but for me it makes it more interesting, the team that lost, might them try something else to get the upper hand the next time round, as you will know beforehand who you will be fighting (even numbers will always fight the odd number above them in ranks), so defence wise you might rotate some champs to try and catch the other alliance off guard.

    After the 4 weeks the teams are ranked from lowest score to highest, same tiers as now with plat one plat 2 ext ext. Smaller weaker alliances will the start moving down the list and the better alliance will start going upward. The top will rise to the top, people can’t complain about match making problems as you will eventually fight in your “true” bracket and the issue with alliances dropping slots on purpose between seasons will also be put to an end cause every fight you lose on purpose drops you two spots till the day the new season starts and everyone is ranked again from 1 down using their current points.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 said:

    As long as both systems are connected, people will find a way to manipulate Season results with the Off. First, it will take a while for people to catch on. Most will still be doing it out of habit. Then when that fails, they'll move on to the next way they can work on some kind of advantage, only when the stakes are that high (about to become higher), that means they don't care what affect it has on others. I fear these increased Rewards and new Meta will only push things further. For me, the only solution is to stop it from happening outright.

    You did not answer my question. You fear assumes that people will continue tanking regardless what happens. But that makes no sense. People will not tank if the rewards don't incentivise tanking in the first place. People are not irrational. To the contrary, tanking evolved only because it was the most rational way to approach AW and get the best rewards for the effort/cost one has to put

    Remove the incentive to tank and we will no longer see tanking. It is really that simple.
    I DID answer your question. Not at first they won't, no. Further damage ensues. Then after they figure out that's not working, they'll move on to the next way they can manipulate Season results with a system that can be affected by Off-Season. My fear is reasonable, considering people don't stop trying something they think will give them an advatage until you stop them abruptly, or they catch on. In the meantime, more of the same problem occurs, and the system suffers. Then when the increased Rewards and Defense Tactics are introduced, what do you think people will do next? With the push for Act 6 and the drive to get every little Shard comes, do you not think people will have the next thing in place to work an angle? No. It needs to be separated altogether, or intervened on like it is now. It's been abused too long.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    Ultra8529 said:

    As long as both systems are connected, people will find a way to manipulate Season results with the Off. First, it will take a while for people to catch on. Most will still be doing it out of habit. Then when that fails, they'll move on to the next way they can work on some kind of advantage, only when the stakes are that high (about to become higher), that means they don't care what affect it has on others. I fear these increased Rewards and new Meta will only push things further. For me, the only solution is to stop it from happening outright.

    You did not answer my question. You fear assumes that people will continue tanking regardless what happens. But that makes no sense. People will not tank if the rewards don't incentivise tanking in the first place. People are not irrational. To the contrary, tanking evolved only because it was the most rational way to approach AW and get the best rewards for the effort/cost one has to put

    Remove the incentive to tank and we will no longer see tanking. It is really that simple.
    I DID answer your question. Not at first they won't, no. Further damage ensues. Then after they figure out that's not working, they'll move on to the next way they can manipulate Season results with a system that can be affected by Off-Season. My fear is reasonable, considering people don't stop trying something they think will give them an advatage until you stop them abruptly, or they catch on. In the meantime, more of the same problem occurs, and the system suffers. Then when the increased Rewards and Defense Tactics are introduced, what do you think people will do next? With the push for Act 6 and the drive to get every little Shard comes, do you not think people will have the next thing in place to work an angle? No. It needs to be separated altogether, or intervened on like it is now. It's been abused too long.
    I can see where you are coming from, but you are trying to pre-empt a problem that has not even arisen yet. What manipulation might there be if alliances no longer tank or shell-swap?

    I get your solution is to complete separate the effects of off-season from the actual season. To some extent I don't disagree with that, and in my view that would be preferable to the current prestige system for match making.

    I just do not see how infusing war with prestige is a sensible option given that they engage entirely different considerations. An AQ-only alliance scores high because of high prestige champs, which may be all entirely useless for AW. They may be terrible at AW too because they chose players with no skill. It makes no sense for these guys to then be going up against the very best teams in the game who happen to be top in AW and also have top prestige.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    Trust me, without something drastic to mediate, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
    As for Prestige, that's not a random number. It's a measure of strength, their own actually. Always has been. Then people realized you could maximize it and maximize Rewards, thus the Prestige Race was born. People have been doing that for so long, they believe it's just for AQ. Every metric has a purpose.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    Trust me, without something drastic to mediate, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
    As for Prestige, that's not a random number. It's a measure of strength, their own actually. Always has been. Then people realized you could maximize it and maximize Rewards, thus the Prestige Race was born. People have been doing that for so long, they believe it's just for AQ. Every metric has a purpose.

    Let me take you up on your theory that prestige is a good measure of strength.

    Assume 2 players:

    Player A: top 5 prestige are Thor Rag, Goldpool, Phoenix, Cap marvel (movie) and Thing - average prestige about 10.6k. Only has these 5 champs at r5.

    Player B: top 5 prestige are Thor Rag, Phoenix, Cap Marvel (movie) and Thing - average prestige about 10.6k. BUT also has 10 other r5 5* champs, including corvus, domino, ghost, quake, blade, havok, Sinister, Korg and several others.

    Now imagine an entire alliance - Alliance A - made up for 30 players like player A. And another alliance - Alliance B - made up of 30 players like player B. They each have an alliance prestige of 10.6k.

    My question to you @GroundedWisdom is: Would you say that Alliance A and Alliance B are of the same strength in war? Do you think Alliance A has a 50% chance of winning a war against Alliance B?
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Ultra8529 said:

    Trust me, without something drastic to mediate, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
    As for Prestige, that's not a random number. It's a measure of strength, their own actually. Always has been. Then people realized you could maximize it and maximize Rewards, thus the Prestige Race was born. People have been doing that for so long, they believe it's just for AQ. Every metric has a purpose.

    Let me take you up on your theory that prestige is a good measure of strength.

    Assume 2 players:

    Player A: top 5 prestige are Thor Rag, Goldpool, Phoenix, Cap marvel (movie) and Thing - average prestige about 10.6k. Only has these 5 champs at r5.

    Player B: top 5 prestige are Thor Rag, Phoenix, Cap Marvel (movie) and Thing - average prestige about 10.6k. BUT also has 10 other r5 5* champs, including corvus, domino, ghost, quake, blade, havok, Sinister, Korg and several others.

    Now imagine an entire alliance - Alliance A - made up for 30 players like player A. And another alliance - Alliance B - made up of 30 players like player B. They each have an alliance prestige of 10.6k.

    My question to you @GroundedWisdom is: Would you say that Alliance A and Alliance B are of the same strength in war? Do you think Alliance A has a 50% chance of winning a war against Alliance B?
    I would also highlight to @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit @Kabam Vydious @Kabam Lyra @Kabam Porthos that these are the exact match ups your current algorithm is encouraging this season.

    How do you think those players in Alliance A are feeling? They wanted to focus on AQ but now you are making it impossible for them to ever get fair match ups in AW. There are many huge spenders in this game who are happy spending but simply do not want the stress/pressure of AW, but this system is forcing them back into it against their will. I fear the consequence will be many of them quitting instead of going along with this new system, and that's not healthy for the game.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 490 ★★★

    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 new 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.
    People in a certain tier don’t know more but in this discussion they have the upper hand. You don’t see the problem because you’re not being affected by it but the people in higher tiers are so when they say there’s a problem and you say there isn’t you’re wrong...
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 490 ★★★

    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?
    Rating was a broken system that could be gamed but prestige is only 1% better. A broken system is still broken except now you have people not even level 60 getting the best rewards in the game.

    If Prestige alone will be the measure from now on then another scoring system needs to be implemented.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 490 ★★★
    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    Definitely getting rampant. Former top 20 alliance, consistently placing in masters, simply decided prestige based wars aren't worth it and have opted to go for 2 BG wars. Fairer wars that way since not many of the top prestige allies run 2 BG wars.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    edited May 27
    Drooped2 said:

    xNig said:

    Drooped2 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?

    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.

    Drooped2 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?

    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.
    Neither is prestige tho that's all I'm saying prestige is easily purchased or just time in aq. My acct is of beta I've had a ton of resources over the years doesnt equal squat in battlefield.

    I've done master for 2 seasons and plat for 4. Decided the items werent worth it and we as an allaince decided we would win or lose for free. And landed gold 1 based on our item less sk

    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.

    Your prestige may just be similar to allainces in your war rating too.
    That becomes less common higher up due to more aw or aq focused allies. Or guys who used to play hard just looking to play fun now.(us all free wars win or lose) dont even full clear every war
    There is the problem I was pointing out. You're from Master and Plat hanging out in Gold. Well below what you're equipped for.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    So you think the system should be allowed to be manipulated and progress frozen just because the Top "pays the bills"? Disagree with that one.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    edited May 27
    Ultra8529 said:

    Ultra8529 said:

    As long as both systems are connected, people will find a way to manipulate Season results with the Off. First, it will take a while for people to catch on. Most will still be doing it out of habit. Then when that fails, they'll move on to the next way they can work on some kind of advantage, only when the stakes are that high (about to become higher), that means they don't care what affect it has on others. I fear these increased Rewards and new Meta will only push things further. For me, the only solution is to stop it from happening outright.

    You did not answer my question. You fear assumes that people will continue tanking regardless what happens. But that makes no sense. People will not tank if the rewards don't incentivise tanking in the first place. People are not irrational. To the contrary, tanking evolved only because it was the most rational way to approach AW and get the best rewards for the effort/cost one has to put

    Remove the incentive to tank and we will no longer see tanking. It is really that simple.
    I DID answer your question. Not at first they won't, no. Further damage ensues. Then after they figure out that's not working, they'll move on to the next way they can manipulate Season results with a system that can be affected by Off-Season. My fear is reasonable, considering people don't stop trying something they think will give them an advatage until you stop them abruptly, or they catch on. In the meantime, more of the same problem occurs, and the system suffers. Then when the increased Rewards and Defense Tactics are introduced, what do you think people will do next? With the push for Act 6 and the drive to get every little Shard comes, do you not think people will have the next thing in place to work an angle? No. It needs to be separated altogether, or intervened on like it is now. It's been abused too long.
    I can see where you are coming from, but you are trying to pre-empt a problem that has not even arisen yet. What manipulation might there be if alliances no longer tank or shell-swap?

    I get your solution is to complete separate the effects of off-season from the actual season. To some extent I don't disagree with that, and in my view that would be preferable to the current prestige system for match making.

    I just do not see how infusing war with prestige is a sensible option given that they engage entirely different considerations. An AQ-only alliance scores high because of high prestige champs, which may be all entirely useless for AW. They may be terrible at AW too because they chose players with no skill. It makes no sense for these guys to then be going up against the very best teams in the game who happen to be top in AW and also have top prestige.
    It's a way to regulate the Matches with the current system all over the place due to Tanking and other reasons.
    People probably don't see it as sensible considering War has primarily been about being overpowered, or overpowering. That's where the problem arose. People used that to an extreme, and the end result is an unreliable Matchmaking system, and a Board that no longer reflects actual skill and ability because people are all over the place. So yes. I'm trying to preeempt what's been taking place for Seasons now because it's taking place every Off-Season without fail, not maybe, sort-of, kind-of, and it's stifling growth in the system and ruining the Matchmaking itself. Until it's separated or a better system implemented to stop it, I am for anything regulating it 100%. That is definitely the better of both scenarios.
  • rwhackrwhack Posts: 892 ★★★
    edited May 27
    I don’t know how guys in stone have perspective but if you’re in the top 20 you should probably play the top 20 or at least the top 40 some of the time.

    Factoring in prestige was ignorant. I know plenty of account with high prestige that could die against a two star in AW. Prestige had nothing to do with war.

    An alliance in the top 10 got back to back byes with full points. If you lose to an alliance that mods you get a loss. If you get a bye you get more points than anyone can in any war. Meanwhile we matched the same alliance back to back which isn’t supposed to happen.

    I think we could grab 3 random people in this thread and don’t a smidge better.

    I know a guy who just got a refund for the season due to matchmaking. Apple seems to agree.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 490 ★★★

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    So you think the system should be allowed to be manipulated and progress frozen just because the Top "pays the bills"? Disagree with that one.
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say anything about going back to ratings? I’ll give you time to find it....have you found it? Thought so...

    What I’m saying and HAVE BEEN saying is that this system is only minimally better than the old ratings system however it’s still flawed. What I want is to fix that flaw. What you want to do is squabble with people and try to wordplay with them which is just a waste of time.

    We can give all the sports analogies we want and either agree or disagree but if we’re making prestige the only thing that matters in this game for war and aq then it needs to affect the points achieved as well and not just decide who matches who.

    Unless you somehow turn out to be a Mod this whole time masquerading as a player I’m going to assume you got up to 16k posts by being purposely argumentative.

    I’m also not saying cater to spenders but if you’re giving them no incentive to spend in wars and they all have great rosters which can clear pretty much all content then that’s lost revenue....that’s just simple logic.

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★
    edited May 27

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    So you think the system should be allowed to be manipulated and progress frozen just because the Top "pays the bills"? Disagree with that one.
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say anything about going back to ratings? I’ll give you time to find it....have you found it? Thought so...

    What I’m saying and HAVE BEEN saying is that this system is only minimally better than the old ratings system however it’s still flawed. What I want is to fix that flaw. What you want to do is squabble with people and try to wordplay with them which is just a waste of time.

    We can give all the sports analogies we want and either agree or disagree but if we’re making prestige the only thing that matters in this game for war and aq then it needs to affect the points achieved as well and not just decide who matches who.

    Unless you somehow turn out to be a Mod this whole time masquerading as a player I’m going to assume you got up to 16k posts by being purposely argumentative.

    I’m also not saying cater to spenders but if you’re giving them no incentive to spend in wars and they all have great rosters which can clear pretty much all content then that’s lost revenue....that’s just simple logic.

    What you're saying is people should get what they want because they're spenders, no matter how detrimental it is. That I disagree with. The shifting that has taken/is taking place is much more damaging than Matches that are more even. Don't care if people agree or not. The system has become a mess because people have shifted and played it. That's caused ripple effects throughout.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 490 ★★★

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    So you think the system should be allowed to be manipulated and progress frozen just because the Top "pays the bills"? Disagree with that one.
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say anything about going back to ratings? I’ll give you time to find it....have you found it? Thought so...

    What I’m saying and HAVE BEEN saying is that this system is only minimally better than the old ratings system however it’s still flawed. What I want is to fix that flaw. What you want to do is squabble with people and try to wordplay with them which is just a waste of time.

    We can give all the sports analogies we want and either agree or disagree but if we’re making prestige the only thing that matters in this game for war and aq then it needs to affect the points achieved as well and not just decide who matches who.

    Unless you somehow turn out to be a Mod this whole time masquerading as a player I’m going to assume you got up to 16k posts by being purposely argumentative.

    I’m also not saying cater to spenders but if you’re giving them no incentive to spend in wars and they all have great rosters which can clear pretty much all content then that’s lost revenue....that’s just simple logic.

    What you're saying is people should get what they want because they're spenders, no matter how detrimental it is. That I disagree with. The shifting that has taken/is taking place is much more damaging than Matches that are more even. Don't care if people agree or not. The system has become a mess because people have shifted and played it. That's caused ripple effects throughout.
    Again, putting words in my mouth. How do you know what I’m trying to say better than myself....you must be really good

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 19,961 ★★★★★

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    So you think the system should be allowed to be manipulated and progress frozen just because the Top "pays the bills"? Disagree with that one.
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say anything about going back to ratings? I’ll give you time to find it....have you found it? Thought so...

    What I’m saying and HAVE BEEN saying is that this system is only minimally better than the old ratings system however it’s still flawed. What I want is to fix that flaw. What you want to do is squabble with people and try to wordplay with them which is just a waste of time.

    We can give all the sports analogies we want and either agree or disagree but if we’re making prestige the only thing that matters in this game for war and aq then it needs to affect the points achieved as well and not just decide who matches who.

    Unless you somehow turn out to be a Mod this whole time masquerading as a player I’m going to assume you got up to 16k posts by being purposely argumentative.

    I’m also not saying cater to spenders but if you’re giving them no incentive to spend in wars and they all have great rosters which can clear pretty much all content then that’s lost revenue....that’s just simple logic.

    What you're saying is people should get what they want because they're spenders, no matter how detrimental it is. That I disagree with. The shifting that has taken/is taking place is much more damaging than Matches that are more even. Don't care if people agree or not. The system has become a mess because people have shifted and played it. That's caused ripple effects throughout.
    Again, putting words in my mouth. How do you know what I’m trying to say better than myself....you must be really good

    I'm responding to what you yourself have said. They won't have a game because the spenders will quit. One of the most common threats on here. "Better do something because the spenders pay your bills!".
  • rwhackrwhack Posts: 892 ★★★

    Whether people want to admit it or not most of the revenue made on this game comes from people at the top. If you’re going with a system that rewards people at the bottom with the beat items in the game solely because they’re the best of the bottom (or middle) then people won’t have a game to play because all of the spenders will either slow down or quit.

    I spend here and there and almost always used to get deals that included the big boosts if it was decent, now is the complete opposite. I just stay away from those deals entirely.

    So you think the system should be allowed to be manipulated and progress frozen just because the Top "pays the bills"? Disagree with that one.
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say anything about going back to ratings? I’ll give you time to find it....have you found it? Thought so...

    What I’m saying and HAVE BEEN saying is that this system is only minimally better than the old ratings system however it’s still flawed. What I want is to fix that flaw. What you want to do is squabble with people and try to wordplay with them which is just a waste of time.

    We can give all the sports analogies we want and either agree or disagree but if we’re making prestige the only thing that matters in this game for war and aq then it needs to affect the points achieved as well and not just decide who matches who.

    Unless you somehow turn out to be a Mod this whole time masquerading as a player I’m going to assume you got up to 16k posts by being purposely argumentative.

    I’m also not saying cater to spenders but if you’re giving them no incentive to spend in wars and they all have great rosters which can clear pretty much all content then that’s lost revenue....that’s just simple logic.

    What you're saying is people should get what they want because they're spenders, no matter how detrimental it is. That I disagree with. The shifting that has taken/is taking place is much more damaging than Matches that are more even. Don't care if people agree or not. The system has become a mess because people have shifted and played it. That's caused ripple effects throughout.
    Again, putting words in my mouth. How do you know what I’m trying to say better than myself....you must be really good

    LOL
This discussion has been closed.