Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

DNA3000 · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.

But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.

None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.

If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.

But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
Unfortunately that's my point. It's not really because they fought their way up like that. One Season they had fair Matches and the next they were getting stonewalled. Would I be against them? No. I think there are also limitations to how far an Alliance can go in this system as well, and they would plateau much sooner than reaching a 40 Mil.

They never had fair matches. They had matches hand-picked to serve up a 50/50 competitor. But that wasn't fair to everyone else who had to fight harder foes.

Fair is everyone gets the same test and gets graded identically and then the grades are distributed onto the curve. Fair is not where everyone gets a test hand crafted to suit their own knowledge and the guy that gets the A is the dumbest guy in the class who aced a test about the names of the colors. It might have been fair to his abilities, but it wasn't fair to the class as a whole who got lower grades because one student got an easier test.

Anyone who had fair matches was facing basically the same level of competition as everyone else at or near their level. And if they were facing that kind of competition last season, they'd be having no trouble now, because they are getting the exact same level of competition. You can only get "stonewalled" now if you were *not* getting fair matches last season.

In a competition you don't judge fairness by what you want. You judge fairness by what everyone else is getting, and whether you're getting the same thing. You can't claim everyone was actually getting the same level of competition because by your own admission two different alliances with radically different prestige don't present the same level of competition. So by your own admission when an alliance says their fights were fair to everyone else because they fought competition of equal rating your own statements say that assertion is false: they can't say they faced equal competition just because war rating was identical, because you claim two alliances with the same war rating aren't always equal competition.

If they were facing a different level of competition as all other alliances of similar war rating, those were not fair competitions. They were different by definition.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.

But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.

None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.

If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.

But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
Unfortunately that's my point. It's not really because they fought their way up like that. One Season they had fair Matches and the next they were getting stonewalled. Would I be against them? No. I think there are also limitations to how far an Alliance can go in this system as well, and they would plateau much sooner than reaching a 40 Mil.
They never had fair matches. They had matches hand-picked to serve up a 50/50 competitor. But that wasn't fair to everyone else who had to fight harder foes.

Fair is everyone gets the same test and gets graded identically and then the grades are distributed onto the curve. Fair is not where everyone gets a test hand crafted to suit their own knowledge and the guy that gets the A is the dumbest guy in the class who aced a test about the names of the colors. It might have been fair to his abilities, but it wasn't fair to the class as a whole who got lower grades because one student got an easier test.

Anyone who had fair matches was facing basically the same level of competition as everyone else at or near their level. And if they were facing that kind of competition last season, they'd be having no trouble now, because they are getting the exact same level of competition. You can only get "stonewalled" now if you were *not* getting fair matches last season.

In a competition you don't judge fairness by what you want. You judge fairness by what everyone else is getting, and whether you're getting the same thing. You can't claim everyone was actually getting the same level of competition because by your own admission two different alliances with radically different prestige don't present the same level of competition. So by your own admission when an alliance says their fights were fair to everyone else because they fought competition of equal rating your own statements say that assertion is false: they can't say they faced equal competition just because war rating was identical, because you claim two alliances with the same war rating aren't always equal competition.

If they were facing a different level of competition as all other alliances of similar war rating, those were not fair competitions. They were different by definition.

What I said was within the way the system was, they earned what they earned fairly. I didn't say that was more fair than a system based on War Rating alone. The reason I suggested Prestige is exactly the reason I'm pointing out what is taking place now. One unfair turn doesn't make the other right. Sorry, but I disagree that these overpowered Matches are fair for them and I'm not going to see it any differently. There comes a point where people are being set up to lose by a system that is intended to place them in Matches appropriate to them. Fact is, switching it abruptly affects these people negatively.

Lady_Faeydra · July 2020

We also were matched with an Alliance that was stronger than us and easily beat us

DNA3000 · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.

But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.

None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.

If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.

But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
Unfortunately that's my point. It's not really because they fought their way up like that. One Season they had fair Matches and the next they were getting stonewalled. Would I be against them? No. I think there are also limitations to how far an Alliance can go in this system as well, and they would plateau much sooner than reaching a 40 Mil.
They never had fair matches. They had matches hand-picked to serve up a 50/50 competitor. But that wasn't fair to everyone else who had to fight harder foes.

Fair is everyone gets the same test and gets graded identically and then the grades are distributed onto the curve. Fair is not where everyone gets a test hand crafted to suit their own knowledge and the guy that gets the A is the dumbest guy in the class who aced a test about the names of the colors. It might have been fair to his abilities, but it wasn't fair to the class as a whole who got lower grades because one student got an easier test.

Anyone who had fair matches was facing basically the same level of competition as everyone else at or near their level. And if they were facing that kind of competition last season, they'd be having no trouble now, because they are getting the exact same level of competition. You can only get "stonewalled" now if you were *not* getting fair matches last season.

In a competition you don't judge fairness by what you want. You judge fairness by what everyone else is getting, and whether you're getting the same thing. You can't claim everyone was actually getting the same level of competition because by your own admission two different alliances with radically different prestige don't present the same level of competition. So by your own admission when an alliance says their fights were fair to everyone else because they fought competition of equal rating your own statements say that assertion is false: they can't say they faced equal competition just because war rating was identical, because you claim two alliances with the same war rating aren't always equal competition.

If they were facing a different level of competition as all other alliances of similar war rating, those were not fair competitions. They were different by definition.
What I said was within the way the system was, they earned what they earned fairly. I didn't say that was more fair than a system based on War Rating alone. The reason I suggested Prestige is exactly the reason I'm pointing out what is taking place now. One unfair turn doesn't make the other right. Sorry, but I disagree that these overpowered Matches are fair for them and I'm not going to see it any differently. There comes a point where people are being set up to lose by a system that is intended to place them in Matches appropriate to them. Fact is, switching it abruptly affects these people negatively.

That's a meaningless statement: "within the way the system was it was all fair." Within the way the current system is, all of the current match ups are fair. The alliances are claiming to have a certain rating, so now they have to prove it by matching against other alliances of the same rating. That's the current definition of fair. So within the way the system is, everyone is earning what they are earning fairly.

You're correct that one unfair turn doesn't justify another unfair turn. But that's also irrelevant, because what's happening here is one unfair turn is being replaced by a fair one. Whenever you change systems there will be disruption. That disruption should never be held against the correct system being put into place. It should rightly be held against the previous system that was broken, and everyone who supported it. They are the ones that are responsible.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.

But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.

None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.

If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.

But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
Unfortunately that's my point. It's not really because they fought their way up like that. One Season they had fair Matches and the next they were getting stonewalled. Would I be against them? No. I think there are also limitations to how far an Alliance can go in this system as well, and they would plateau much sooner than reaching a 40 Mil.
They never had fair matches. They had matches hand-picked to serve up a 50/50 competitor. But that wasn't fair to everyone else who had to fight harder foes.

Fair is everyone gets the same test and gets graded identically and then the grades are distributed onto the curve. Fair is not where everyone gets a test hand crafted to suit their own knowledge and the guy that gets the A is the dumbest guy in the class who aced a test about the names of the colors. It might have been fair to his abilities, but it wasn't fair to the class as a whole who got lower grades because one student got an easier test.

Anyone who had fair matches was facing basically the same level of competition as everyone else at or near their level. And if they were facing that kind of competition last season, they'd be having no trouble now, because they are getting the exact same level of competition. You can only get "stonewalled" now if you were *not* getting fair matches last season.

In a competition you don't judge fairness by what you want. You judge fairness by what everyone else is getting, and whether you're getting the same thing. You can't claim everyone was actually getting the same level of competition because by your own admission two different alliances with radically different prestige don't present the same level of competition. So by your own admission when an alliance says their fights were fair to everyone else because they fought competition of equal rating your own statements say that assertion is false: they can't say they faced equal competition just because war rating was identical, because you claim two alliances with the same war rating aren't always equal competition.

If they were facing a different level of competition as all other alliances of similar war rating, those were not fair competitions. They were different by definition.
What I said was within the way the system was, they earned what they earned fairly. I didn't say that was more fair than a system based on War Rating alone. The reason I suggested Prestige is exactly the reason I'm pointing out what is taking place now. One unfair turn doesn't make the other right. Sorry, but I disagree that these overpowered Matches are fair for them and I'm not going to see it any differently. There comes a point where people are being set up to lose by a system that is intended to place them in Matches appropriate to them. Fact is, switching it abruptly affects these people negatively.
That's a meaningless statement: "within the way the system was it was all fair." Within the way the current system is, all of the current match ups are fair. The alliances are claiming to have a certain rating, so now they have to prove it by matching against other alliances of the same rating. That's the current definition of fair. So within the way the system is, everyone is earning what they are earning fairly.

You're correct that one unfair turn doesn't justify another unfair turn. But that's also irrelevant, because what's happening here is one unfair turn is being replaced by a fair one. Whenever you change systems there will be disruption. That disruption should never be held against the correct system being put into place. It should rightly be held against the previous system that was broken, and everyone who supported it. They are the ones that are responsible.

That's not meaningless at all. People keep arguing from the point of view of a system that wasn't even in place at the time and saying they didn't earn their Rewards. They did.
Disruption is not what I call this. This is people being made to face consequences for something that was not of their own doing at all, and as much as you keep implying whoever supported this was to blame (me), I didn't make anyone do anything. I suggested it to stop manipulation of War Rating. It should have been stopped at the time they decided to freeze War Rating.
These people, their Season experience, and their time and effort, are all not just disruption. They're not Lab Rats.

DNA3000 · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:
I want to say this separately, because I think this is an important point. Debating whether a 6 million alliance can feasibly beat a 40 million alliance is missing the point completely. There's no bright line that says beyond this point the war is hopeless. I've fought wars that were hopeless from the start against alliances with *identical* prestige and alliance rating. You just look at the defense, you look at your own attackers, you make the honest calculation, and you know you're going to lose.

But conversely, we've beaten alliances I didn't think we'd beat. You just never know with absolute certainty. An alliance might have huge prestige but be full of 80 year olds with cataracts. They might live in an area currently undergoing an alien invasion and internet is spotty. They might have placed defenders but then decided to take Ramadan off. Or you might just have the best war of your life and play out of your mind on that day. I've seen that happen also.

None of us knows whether a 15 million alliance will win against a 16 million alliance, or a 20 million alliance, or a 30 million alliance. We don't know. So we play the game. We don't have to guess. We don't tell people who they can beat and who they can't. It is *unlikely* that a 6 million alliance will beat a 40 million alliance, but *if* the 6 million alliance beats 9 million alliances and moves up, and then beats 12 million alliances and moves up again, and then beats 25 million alliances and keeps moving up, who are we to say they have no shot at that 40 million alliance.

If we pick a random 6 and a random 40 and match them, it is going to be a bloodbath. But that never happens. In the current system that 6 isn't going to wake up tomorrow and face a 40. He's going to face another 6. But if he keeps beating all the 6s, he's going to face 8s. And if and only if he beats enough of the 8s, he's going to face 10s. And then 12s. And who are we to say at any point in this chain that it is impossible? Yes, it is very likely they are going to eventually get stopped. They'll discover they are really, really good, but at some point they will find they just can't consistently beat the 18s often enough to go higher.

But a 6 that matches against a 40 in the current system - once ratings settle down - must have kicked the snot out of a lot of 32s to get there. Would you bet against them if that was the case? I wouldn't.
Unfortunately that's my point. It's not really because they fought their way up like that. One Season they had fair Matches and the next they were getting stonewalled. Would I be against them? No. I think there are also limitations to how far an Alliance can go in this system as well, and they would plateau much sooner than reaching a 40 Mil.
They never had fair matches. They had matches hand-picked to serve up a 50/50 competitor. But that wasn't fair to everyone else who had to fight harder foes.

Fair is everyone gets the same test and gets graded identically and then the grades are distributed onto the curve. Fair is not where everyone gets a test hand crafted to suit their own knowledge and the guy that gets the A is the dumbest guy in the class who aced a test about the names of the colors. It might have been fair to his abilities, but it wasn't fair to the class as a whole who got lower grades because one student got an easier test.

Anyone who had fair matches was facing basically the same level of competition as everyone else at or near their level. And if they were facing that kind of competition last season, they'd be having no trouble now, because they are getting the exact same level of competition. You can only get "stonewalled" now if you were *not* getting fair matches last season.

In a competition you don't judge fairness by what you want. You judge fairness by what everyone else is getting, and whether you're getting the same thing. You can't claim everyone was actually getting the same level of competition because by your own admission two different alliances with radically different prestige don't present the same level of competition. So by your own admission when an alliance says their fights were fair to everyone else because they fought competition of equal rating your own statements say that assertion is false: they can't say they faced equal competition just because war rating was identical, because you claim two alliances with the same war rating aren't always equal competition.

If they were facing a different level of competition as all other alliances of similar war rating, those were not fair competitions. They were different by definition.
What I said was within the way the system was, they earned what they earned fairly. I didn't say that was more fair than a system based on War Rating alone. The reason I suggested Prestige is exactly the reason I'm pointing out what is taking place now. One unfair turn doesn't make the other right. Sorry, but I disagree that these overpowered Matches are fair for them and I'm not going to see it any differently. There comes a point where people are being set up to lose by a system that is intended to place them in Matches appropriate to them. Fact is, switching it abruptly affects these people negatively.
That's a meaningless statement: "within the way the system was it was all fair." Within the way the current system is, all of the current match ups are fair. The alliances are claiming to have a certain rating, so now they have to prove it by matching against other alliances of the same rating. That's the current definition of fair. So within the way the system is, everyone is earning what they are earning fairly.

You're correct that one unfair turn doesn't justify another unfair turn. But that's also irrelevant, because what's happening here is one unfair turn is being replaced by a fair one. Whenever you change systems there will be disruption. That disruption should never be held against the correct system being put into place. It should rightly be held against the previous system that was broken, and everyone who supported it. They are the ones that are responsible.
That's not meaningless at all. People keep arguing from the point of view of a system that wasn't even in place at the time and saying they didn't earn their Rewards. They did.
Disruption is not what I call this. This is people being made to face consequences for something that was not of their own doing at all, and as much as you keep implying whoever supported this was to blame (me), I didn't make anyone do anything. I suggested it to stop manipulation of War Rating. It should have been stopped at the time they decided to freeze War Rating.
These people, their Season experience, and their time and effort, are all not just disruption. They're not Lab Rats.

I have no recollection if you advocated for prestige based matching or not. Nor do I care. As far as I'm concerned, it is a factual statement that the previous match system was broken, it is a factual statement that the current system is more fair to the competition as a whole, and it is a factual statement that no one has presented a possible way to transition from the old one to the new one in a way that is any less painful, that isn't trivial to prove is also broken.

The fact that you have stated either confused or blatantly false things about the current situation is the only motivation I need to correct those statements. And to be honest, I'm not really trying to convince you of anything. I think it is more important for anyone who might still be conscious and reading to understand this isn't a case of players debating over angels dancing on pinheads. This isn't a complex indecipherable situation. And this isn't a subjective semantic debate over fairness.

It was easy to prove the previous system was broken. It was easy to demonstrate the bad things that would happen if it was implemented and left to persist. It was easy to demonstrate all the problems that would need to be solved eventually, and how painful that would be. And it is easy to understand now why this all had to happen. When you strip all the extraneous stuff out of the equation, it is a simple matter of deciding what competition means, and what the end result should be. And then, what's the best way to achieve it. And then, what's the most palatable way to implement it. And then we just have to get there. And of all the possible ways to get there, we pick the best one and do that. And while the method the devs used might not have been perfect, it is reasonably close to what's necessary.

As long as people are willing to strip the situation down to its simplest form and look at it objectively, I think they'll arrive at the same conclusion. My goal is to help *them* sketch that path out. That's all I can do, so that's all I am doing. The fact that you're an exemplar for most or all of the errors in thought regarding the old system, the new system, and the transition between them is partially a coincidence, and partially the fact you're willing to defend indefensible positions intractably.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?

Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.

Pulyaman · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.

I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.

xNig · July 2020

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.

You can’t judge rank based on the first 3 wars.

An alliance can lose the first 3 then win the next 9. Vice versa.

Rankings become more apparent usually after the 3rd week but it’s not confirmed until the final match is fought.

DNA3000 · July 2020

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
You can’t judge rank based on the first 3 wars.

An alliance can lose the first 3 then win the next 9. Vice versa.

Rankings become more apparent usually after the 3rd week but it’s not confirmed until the final match is fought.

Usually you have to be careful about extrapolating from the first few weeks because when an alliance has approximately the "right" rating, the more they lose the more likely they are to win the next one - because their rating went down and their match ups got easier. An alliance that goes 0-3 at the start is more likely to go 3-0 next week than continue the slide. So you get alliances randomly bouncing up and down at the start of the season, and it takes a while for the points to accumulate enough to dampen those swings.

But the exception are alliances with inflated rating from last season. They are more likely to lose at the start of the season, but since those are correction losses, they don't signal an increase in wins later. Once the slide ends that alliance is more likely to go 50/50 than to bounce back, so their early performance is more predictive of their eventual standing. Statistically if there are a lot of alliances like that in week 3, a lot of them will stay there through week twelve. It isn't certain for any one alliance of course, but we can guess that some percentage will follow that pattern.

Pulyaman · July 2020

DNA3000 said:

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
You can’t judge rank based on the first 3 wars.

An alliance can lose the first 3 then win the next 9. Vice versa.

Rankings become more apparent usually after the 3rd week but it’s not confirmed until the final match is fought.
Usually you have to be careful about extrapolating from the first few weeks because when an alliance has approximately the "right" rating, the more they lose the more likely they are to win the next one - because their rating went down and their match ups got easier. An alliance that goes 0-3 at the start is more likely to go 3-0 next week than continue the slide. So you get alliances randomly bouncing up and down at the start of the season, and it takes a while for the points to accumulate enough to dampen those swings.

But the exception are alliances with inflated rating from last season. They are more likely to lose at the start of the season, but since those are correction losses, they don't signal an increase in wins later. Once the slide ends that alliance is more likely to go 50/50 than to bounce back, so their early performance is more predictive of their eventual standing. Statistically if there are a lot of alliances like that in week 3, a lot of them will stay there through week twelve. It isn't certain for any one alliance of course, but we can guess that some percentage will follow that pattern.

That is why I was curious. The argument from the start was that smaller alliances were stealing the rewards of more deserving bigger alliances. It was true in some cases. By that logic, we should be seeing some corrections in reward tiers by now as I stated in case of one alliance. G3 to S3 in 3 wars.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

People are talking about systemic checks and balances as if there isn't another person on the other end of that.
Tell me. You're in an Alliance that has been Matching their Wars for some time now, and those Matches have been around the same strength as yours. For months, actually. Then, when Season 19 starts, you place your Defenders and when Attack starts, the Alliance is 3 and 4 times the size of yours. After months of equal Matches, you know there's no way in hell you're going to win no matter what you do. Tell me this. What do you think that does to your motivation to play? How does it feel to be faced with a situation like that? Do you think being told you didn't deserve the Wins you spent months getting is any kind of consolation, or do you think it's just a big ol' boot to the....
There was a choice made here, and that was to expend the experience of one demographic to appease the other. The entire Season was dedicated to that. It shouldn't have come at the expense of others. Not to the point where their experience was sacrificed. I would bet my shirt and all the contents in it that people would come to the Forum in droves if they were on the other end of that. They certainly came to complain about the Matchmaking and lower Allies getting bigger Rewards. I'm talking about the people on the other end of this. Not the Rewards, not the system, what they are experiencing as a result of this.

Chanfs · July 2020

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.

I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.

Pulyaman · July 2020

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.

Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats

I'm curious what their Matches were.

Pulyaman · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
I'm curious what their Matches were.

Don't see why that matters, it could have been a massacre of the other alliance. That is why I did not ask the specifics. We all know where we stand by now.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
I'm curious what their Matches were.
Don't see why that matters, it could have been a massacre of the other alliance. That is why I did not ask the specifics. We all know where we stand by now.

It matters in the long run. If there's temporary momentum made right now and then a falling after, there's something to be said for that.

Pulyaman · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
I'm curious what their Matches were.
Don't see why that matters, it could have been a massacre of the other alliance. That is why I did not ask the specifics. We all know where we stand by now.
It matters in the long run. If there's temporary momentum made right now and then a falling after, there's something to be said for that.

That depends on the size of the alliance and that is true of all growth, you go up and then you stop. I think you mean that they beat up some smaller alliances and are climbing now, if they meet a appropriate match up, they could fall down. But, since matchmaking is based on war rating, the fact that their ascend is so quick, means that they were getting rewards not proportionate to their skill. They will keep climbing till they reach the correct rating and then alternate losing and winning. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Onmix · July 2020

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats

We used to place in P2. Tier 3
In prestige wars we went lower and lower until we got to P4. Tier 4

Right now. We just had a Tier 1 war. We won’t stay there, but we climbed.
So yes. Some alliances are going up.

Sensei_Maat · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

naikavon said:
Nothing personal about it. It just is. If no one values it how can it matter?

In no way is that meant as an attack toward you. If you took it af one, I apologize.

Doesn't change its truth though.
Actually it does matter. We're here to discuss feedback on the game. While people may consider some more valid than others, the platform we are on is about respecting everyone's opinion equally. Something that's crucial in an adult discussion. We may not always agree, but we can still respect the person it's coming from. Unfortunately, that's not what happens most often. It usually ends up taking a turn south when people start calling others out or ignoring the points someone is making just because they don't like them, or have prejudice based on game progress. In terms of these conversations, we as Players have equal respect in participation.
Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
I'm curious what their Matches were.
Don't see why that matters, it could have been a massacre of the other alliance. That is why I did not ask the specifics. We all know where we stand by now.
It matters in the long run. If there's temporary momentum made right now and then a falling after, there's something to be said for that.
That depends on the size of the alliance and that is true of all growth, you go up and then you stop. I think you mean that they beat up some smaller alliances and are climbing now, if they meet a appropriate match up, they could fall down. But, since matchmaking is based on war rating, the fact that their ascend is so quick, means that they were getting rewards not proportionate to their skill. They will keep climbing till they reach the correct rating and then alternate losing and winning. Correct me if I am wrong though.
In theory. I'm more curious if we're seeing false momentum from beating Alliances not equipped enough and if the results will drop back to what they were previously, or some semblance of it. The number of Alliances that were misplaced wasn't enough to catapult people that much. Time will tell.

i think you grossly underestimate the amount of alliance misplaced under the old the system.

i don't think we could even begin to fully understand just how many small allies are sitting higher than they should be and just how much higher then they should be or the opposite, just how many large alliances are far lower than they should be.
the amount of 5-10mil allies that have been round t6 is massive.
the amount of 30mil allies around t12 is massive.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Sensei_Maat said:

GroundedWisdom said:

naikavon said:
Nothing personal about it. It just is. If no one values it how can it matter?

In no way is that meant as an attack toward you. If you took it af one, I apologize.

Doesn't change its truth though.
Actually it does matter. We're here to discuss feedback on the game. While people may consider some more valid than others, the platform we are on is about respecting everyone's opinion equally. Something that's crucial in an adult discussion. We may not always agree, but we can still respect the person it's coming from. Unfortunately, that's not what happens most often. It usually ends up taking a turn south when people start calling others out or ignoring the points someone is making just because they don't like them, or have prejudice based on game progress. In terms of these conversations, we as Players have equal respect in participation.
Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
I'm curious what their Matches were.
Don't see why that matters, it could have been a massacre of the other alliance. That is why I did not ask the specifics. We all know where we stand by now.
It matters in the long run. If there's temporary momentum made right now and then a falling after, there's something to be said for that.
That depends on the size of the alliance and that is true of all growth, you go up and then you stop. I think you mean that they beat up some smaller alliances and are climbing now, if they meet a appropriate match up, they could fall down. But, since matchmaking is based on war rating, the fact that their ascend is so quick, means that they were getting rewards not proportionate to their skill. They will keep climbing till they reach the correct rating and then alternate losing and winning. Correct me if I am wrong though.
In theory. I'm more curious if we're seeing false momentum from beating Alliances not equipped enough and if the results will drop back to what they were previously, or some semblance of it. The number of Alliances that were misplaced wasn't enough to catapult people that much. Time will tell.
i think you grossly underestimate the amount of alliance misplaced under the old the system.

i don't think we could even begin to fully understand just how many small allies are sitting higher than they should be and just how much higher then they should be or the opposite, just how many large alliances are far lower than they should be.
the amount of 5-10mil allies that have been round t6 is massive.
the amount of 30mil allies around t12 is massive.

I'm not sure I could agree with massive.

Corby11 · July 2020

GroundedWisdom said:

Sensei_Maat said:

GroundedWisdom said:

naikavon said:
Nothing personal about it. It just is. If no one values it how can it matter?

In no way is that meant as an attack toward you. If you took it af one, I apologize.

Doesn't change its truth though.
Actually it does matter. We're here to discuss feedback on the game. While people may consider some more valid than others, the platform we are on is about respecting everyone's opinion equally. Something that's crucial in an adult discussion. We may not always agree, but we can still respect the person it's coming from. Unfortunately, that's not what happens most often. It usually ends up taking a turn south when people start calling others out or ignoring the points someone is making just because they don't like them, or have prejudice based on game progress. In terms of these conversations, we as Players have equal respect in participation.
Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
I'm curious what their Matches were.
Don't see why that matters, it could have been a massacre of the other alliance. That is why I did not ask the specifics. We all know where we stand by now.
It matters in the long run. If there's temporary momentum made right now and then a falling after, there's something to be said for that.
That depends on the size of the alliance and that is true of all growth, you go up and then you stop. I think you mean that they beat up some smaller alliances and are climbing now, if they meet a appropriate match up, they could fall down. But, since matchmaking is based on war rating, the fact that their ascend is so quick, means that they were getting rewards not proportionate to their skill. They will keep climbing till they reach the correct rating and then alternate losing and winning. Correct me if I am wrong though.
In theory. I'm more curious if we're seeing false momentum from beating Alliances not equipped enough and if the results will drop back to what they were previously, or some semblance of it. The number of Alliances that were misplaced wasn't enough to catapult people that much. Time will tell.
i think you grossly underestimate the amount of alliance misplaced under the old the system.

i don't think we could even begin to fully understand just how many small allies are sitting higher than they should be and just how much higher then they should be or the opposite, just how many large alliances are far lower than they should be.
the amount of 5-10mil allies that have been round t6 is massive.
the amount of 30mil allies around t12 is massive.
I'm not sure I could agree with massive.

I don’t know how you can say I wouldn’t agree with “massive”when the evidence in this thread shows the scale of the problem, it’s full of postings showing miss matched battles which if the scale of the problem wasn’t so huge wouldn’t be the case and this would be a 2 page thread and not a 62 page thread. Also ref your constant point about fair fights, under the previous system if you were sat at the bottom of a prestige bracket you could only fight people higher in the bracket than yourself no matter how far you dropped conversely people in the top of the bracket can only fight people lower in the bracket regardless of how high they climbed so how can every fight be a fair fight? I know you can see the disparity in such a system so not sure why you insist on advocating for it. The only way any such system could be close to fair is if the brackets were minimal / many tiered and if the rewards were structured to coincide with the brackets and if that were the case none of us would be here complaining. A open competition should be ladder structured you fight the next person in strength above or below you to step up or down, yes that means teams at the bottom and middle can only get so far until they increase their strength but this should drive their ambition to grow, the competition shouldn’t be skewed to let them bypass the growth stage.

Pulyaman · July 2020

I actually wanted to know the rewards tier and not the war tier. But, they are related for calculation of points so they cannot be separated I suppose. Also, not every discussion has to turn into an argument.

GroundedWisdom · July 2020

Wasn't really arguing. I was just sharing my thoughts.

JollyHawk · July 2020

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats

We were in Tier 9 Low Gold 2 at the beginning of the season. After 3 wars we are Tier 5 rank 40 Gold 1.

TheTalents · July 2020

JollyHawk said:

Pulyaman said:

Chanfs said:

Pulyaman said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Pulyaman said:
Actually, I don't think there was any comment about the matchmaking aspect in the last system, it was about the rewards. Btw, how many alliances actually climbed the rewards tier this week?
Building up to this and in the Feedback Thread, people mentioned it a number of times. Then of course, there was the Alliance that said they started a baby Ally to be Matched with another just to take them out. It's been brought up.
As for your question, I'm not sure. We're pretty much the same, working our way out of a bad Season last Season. Just at the top of S1.
I think I was unclear. What I meant was we did not have such huge variations in alliance size in the previous system, the main issue was the rewards being received in comparison to smaller system. I know that the huge variation will settle down eventually and hopefully, the rewards will be satisfactory to everyone.
The reason I asked for the ranking was I am seeing smaller allies that were in G3 last season fall to S3 this week. My opinion was that majority of the unfair reward system was taking place in the gold tiers. I just wanted to see if anyone placed gold1 last season suddenly increased a tier to P4. It may be too early, but we could be seeing a correction even now.
I am in high prestige alliance that stuck in G1 for many season. Currently on top of P4 now. Probably getting P3 or possibly P2 at end of the season. Was stuck in between tier 5 and tier 6 for the longest time. Before all the prestige match making, the lowest we get is first of P3.
Thank you , this was the kind of data I was looking for. Though it does make it bad for smaller alliances, people who were in a rut are moving forward now. Congrats
We were in Tier 9 Low Gold 2 at the beginning of the season. After 3 wars we are Tier 5 rank 40 Gold 1.

We started at the bottom of Gold 2 and now we're 57 spots away from Gold 1 and we have a loss. So people are climbing fast.

Kabam Zibiit · July 2020

We appreciate those who have provided constructive feedback on this topic and can pass it along to the rest of the team. Since this thread has gone off-topic and become argumentative though, we will be closing it down.

Matchmaking Discussion [Merged Threads]

Comments