After new updated: Alliance War has became unbalanced & there's bugs/tricks

alliance_wars

#320

If close to you is them having teams full of capped 5* vs not… Where the extended spawn time makes you attack higher teams.
Again the math says you’re wrong… look at every match you created… All her hundreds of more points in power…
That’s how the game sets power, not me…
So the only example of even you put forth was your own assertion, which was in contrast to every ranking displayed…

If such examples convinced you that you’re correct despite seeing otherwise… so be it…

All the rest is just running at the mouth… I’d rather you had just addressed the actual #’s, that you posted.


#321

Sage advice. I should have taken it 5 posts ago. Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.


#322

What you should have done was not post an excuse as to why the math didn’t support your assertion in any of your 5 examples…
it looks desperate and pathetic.

Feel free to use your war to further prove my point… It was nice seeing you at least test my premise and then try to squirm out of your own post.
Classic…


#323

We’ll just have to agree to disagree there. Also, a little advice for the future: just because someone stops arguing with you doesn’t mean they agree with you. It just means this gets old:


#324

I actually agreed with what the photos, math and game ratings showed, just not your narration explaining what makes them even, despite those 3 things…

It was pretty funny, you must admit…
The oh, you guys must all build your bench while they build teams.

I said it before you… So it’s hard not to see it as… or do you think the 10 of us planned it to make it look.
Pathetic and predictable…


#325

@Balusticballsac please read/re-read the forum rules. Many of your recent remarks have been borderline or have crossed the line of forum etiquette. You stated that you wanted to have a serious discussion on your hypothesis. Throwing insults and sarcasm at others is not conducive to a serious discussion.

For your convenience, here is the link to the forum rules:


#326

You mean where I responded to him calling me a name, or where the other re-posted it, and then I responded?

Is responding to that, frowned upon by the community?

Thanks for sharing… enlightening read… I’ll forward it to them for you.


#327

I’ve re-read through the last 200 posts, and I’m having trouble finding what you’re pointing to? Do you mean where @General_Confusion said “…we have a newb who…”? That’s really more of a designation of inexperience than a dirty name. He was contrasting you with the many experienced players you’ve been arguing with.

And in case you were curious, my latin phrase translates as “people will believe what they want to believe.” It’s certainly not an insult. More of a statement of resignation.

In contrast, you’ve been rude, argumentative, snide and condescending to a wide swath of senior players over the course of this thread. It’s been interesting to watch as one by one, people like @LadySuzanne, @Kerridoc, @General_Confusion, and others tried to help you understand the system, then gave up. I stand by my comment that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.


#328

I called nobody anything and I said Name, not dirty name… and him calling me a noob was meant to be and insult…
just like you’re trying to insult the intelligence of people with that changing of what I said…

How do you know I’m not the senior player? You don’t, and if I call you out on your assumptions that not snide, it’s just a simple display of how easily things are twisted.

What I’ve said and how I’ve responded is there for everyone to read…
Now that we’ve clarified that I’m the senior player… I’ll expect a apology… in both English and Latin.


#329

@Balusticballsac you have emphasized many times that a players’ level is important. As such, I have compared your player level with mine. It appears that I am the senior player.

As the senior player, I concur with @Garanwyn s assessment of your posts.


#330

Now see he even confused you… As his take was that Lvl is not the indicator…so you’re agreeing with me…
please keep up…


#331

Judge you by your words? Fair enough.

Snide, sarcastic and condescending.

Also snide and sarcastic.

This is insulting to everyone who had been trying to discuss the subject with you up until that point.

Snide and insulting to someone explaining to you how the system could be gamed.

Calling someone’s comments a “crazy tangent” is actually insulting.

Calling someone silly is an insult. And the whole post is snide and condescending.

Resorting to insulting someone’s spelling instead of debating the merits of their posts is not in any way polite or constructive. You will note no one commented on your spelling or grammar despite the numerous issues.

I promise you there was nothing funny in that post. So to suggest that it shows the posters “[has] a sense of humor” based on it’s content is insulting.

Also sarcastic and insulting.

This is sarcastic, snide, and very dismissive.

This is super sarcastic and insulting. “Sort of like the mind…clearly you can have weak vs. fit.” Suggesting that the person you’re debating has a weak mind is very insulting.

Dismissing a post as just “running at the mouth” is quite insulting.

It was at this point in the discussion that @General_Confusion referred to you as a newb.

Referring to a post as desperate and pathetic is very insulting.

And finally you’ve been on the boards since all of October. I think newb was a fair characterization. I’ve been on the boards since December. I wouldn’t dispute it if someone called me a newb too.

So. No apologies will be forthcoming from me. In future, you will do better if you stop insulting and demeaning everyone who disagrees with you.

@Kerridoc, @JonahTheBard, and @Rook can feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken here.


#332

I never made it past my first reply as you did not show what I responded to…
That called out of context…

I hit you with a hammer, and then I show you screaming at me?

It’s starts to look desperate. Like real desperate… did I mention biased?
If I forget… allow me a moment…

Even my response to you was a joke about a lot…
Sorry if that joke hurt your feelings…
Sorry I laughed at you on my end…
The internet clearly got the best of my comedic side, and I took it too far…


#333

So your response to my pointing out all the places where you were rude, snide, sarcastic and condescending is to be rude, snide, sarcastic and condescending? I almost don’t know how to reply.

What I will say is, dude, I’m 42 and head up deep neural research at a fortune 100 company. Forum posts don’t hurt my feelings. They do, sometimes, irritate me. Feel free to laugh at me. I simply couldn’t care less.


#334

Moderator’s note

Let’s all take a deep breath and step back. Stop talking about each other and return to the topic of war matching,

To be clear, any further posts discussing other players will be removed.


#336

…so as I was saying earlier, I think it would be possible to assign a points system for different hero abilities, and to use that to make the algorithm even more fair.

I’d also add that it would provide a decent tweaking tool for juicing up the S1 heroes if SGG were so inclined. I’m really confident that such a system would show numerically that the S2, HOTM, event and seasonal heroes tend to overmatch their S1 counterparts by quite a bit.

If there’s any serious chance that SGG would be interested, I’d be happy to take a stab at it, then turn it over to the community to tear apart.


#337

They could use your rankings, or Anchor’s. But then they have to admit publicly that all 5* are not created equal, which I suspect isn’t where they want to go.


#338

Fair enough. I didn’t think there was a serious shot at it, but thought I’d throw it out there.


#339

I’m not sure admitting that would be a bad move. Just a couple thoughts off the top of my head:

  1. There have been many things vehemently argued for by the player base. Ex. Posting of summons odds. Once they were posted, the mob mentality ceased. We all know they aren’t created equal…it wouldn’t be a shock and may be appreciated.
  2. Heroes are already shown as not being equal. We have 1-5* heroes. Obviously the 1*s are not equal to the 5’s. Grading them within their star rank wouldn’t be much different.

Not sure those are reason enough for SG to do it, but I’d personally like to see a more granular rating for heroes.


#340

Do you not think that those skills change in each war setting? Bonus vs aid.
Also across a player set…

And then there is synergy and speed. The list goes on, with each being subjective.

As a gap is created no matter how small it compounds with every added player or player variant combination.

Not sure how they simply it… But to me they keep adding which places only more variants they must account for.

Maybe they match more like the pay system in titans works…top falling in a certain % next few occupy a certain % and so on.

Or break bigger teams into smaller skirmish type matches so the battlefield is divided into equal portions. At least that would draw a more clear picture and divide the data.

I think the smaller group match puts all teams closer.