Seems to me that you have gotten tangled in your own arguments.
Nobody can see the depth of power of any team of any alliance by the screen shots - because you can only see the defense team. All your numbers cannot make you see the depth of someone else’s roster.
Some players are lucky with heroes. Some are not. Some spend much on the game, but still don’t understand the basics. So they have great heroes, that they can’t use to their advantage, regardless of their player level, because they just don’t understand simple things like which colour is strong/weak against which other colour.
All your numbers will never account for that.
I hope that was your attempt at a really bad joke…
21 vs 1 is not going to sway even the slowest of the bunch.
But personally I’m embarrassed for you, if that helps.
Pay attention seriously you’re embarrassing yourself…
I have pointed out that below level 40’s gives a warped perspective…
Seriously you’re coming across as slow.
Are you?
Maybe get someone to help you understand.
On balance, I’m ok that you didn’t read it. It basically puts all the arguments together, and suspect that would have been upsetting to you. You wouldn’t have found it convincing, and I’ve been insulted enough for one night as it is.
Today we loose the war by a 1500 points difference. Our worst result ever. Fortunately one 4k player does not attack (they still have 18 attacks) so it can be worst in 20 minutes.
This is the problem… You can’t even see when you’re contradicting yourself…
I said developed depth matters and undeveloped depth, can’t kill 5* hero’s to propel a flip, like is often required.
TP.?
Team power, Total power…
either way TP includes the bench. So I’m saying in my first argument, it matters, however you slice it.
“Then it was they have better troops.“
I said it carries all higher or advantage of their troops throughout all 6 battles.
Do you disagree with that…
better yet, who brought troops up first in this conversation. It was actually you correct. Why lie?
“Then it was they have better levels.”
“And now he’s he’s arguing that it’s depth…”
You know this is smoke and mirrors…
as I’m actually saying the 2 go hand in hand.
Not, “then it was,” I didn’t get lost or confused, it remained, after “not me” brought up troops.
I know the 2 of you are together, from all the hearts and the mutual flags to delete my posts.
Again that’s not an insult as it fits… pathetic.
And my first argument was they should factor in levels…
You should stop the lies… Everyone reading this know that was my first and throughout argument…
You just brought up all that other stuff so I responded.
It looks like I used a confusing idiomatic english phrase, and I’m sorry for that. “Talking to your posts” = addressing your claims, not mine. I believe you will find that Witch agrees with me (it’s Witch’s like of my post that I’m pointing to in that picture), and is explaining that she/he thinks your posts are wrong. But feel free to verify that.
So at least admit you did bring up troops first…
and that you also posted a photo of only 5 players as a way to dispute, consolidation of power. And this entire time I’ve been saying that a team of 5 match does not show the consolidation.
Yet a better indicator of how strong an entire roster is by level.
At least be honest…
Witch may have thought she was agreeing with you… But as you see, that’s not what actually occurred…
That the problem if you don’t actually read your friends post’s and still comment…
You may accidentally confirm what the other person has been saying all along…
That’s not my fault…
Perhaps she can edit it for you to say the opposite of what she feels, so it actually agrees with you, since she likes you.
Please see above. I’m not re-opening my participation in the debate. But it was pretty clear to me that you were mis-reading who Witch was supporting in that post, so I thought I’d clarify for you.
If you take a look at the final two paragraphs of that post, you’ll see that Witch is pretty clearly in support of exactly what I was saying.
ETA: Since it seems important to you to have the last word in this discussion, I will leave your reply to this post un-commented-upon.
I appreciate you not trying to convince me… Because from your first post you matched only the teams of 5.
And this entire time I’ve been disputing that a team of 5 shows depth of power, at your repeated insistence and photos,
I hope instead that I, along with Witch’s help, have instead convinced you.
The problem in a nutshell is level is a poor predictor of actual roster strength. There are several ways of showing this, none of which appears satisfactory to my co-debater–since he can always say “but what about [next method]?” when I answer his previous objection. When I get to the end of his list of methods, he cycles back to the first one. Honestly it gets tiring.
People have been pointing out the flaw of assuming level=roster strength often to him, for a long time. See, for instance, this post from Kharee in October of last year:
Cycling through demonstrations gets old fast. I’m the latest person to decide that it’s not worth the effort.
Oh, and @Balusticballsac, not that it ought to matter, but I’m a man, not a woman.
So the problem is that matchmaking algorithm doesn’t count all the heroes for you, and exactly the opposite for him/her?
Sorry, i’m really trying to understand without reading your previous posts (a lot of flame in that) and to refresh both of you the starting point, which was before you both start derailed in personal attacks.
Not at all… there is a consolidation of power issue in the way it matches power on higher players say a 56, vs what is seen in a 40 or below…
As you might imagine one team the 56 has all 30 players built up…
while the 30, has a bunch of garbage waiting to advance…
yet the system sees no difference in those power ratings…
ultimately matching the 56 with the 30
So 2 garbage can equal a maxed out Elana.
The system sees it only as 755 power and will call it a perfect match…
so do they…
I on the other hand see it as an issue that causes mismatches to occur.
You can decide on your own of course. It’s realky that simple.
This is not the place for personal conversations and drama. Please stick to the conversation at hand without personal attacks. If it continues a cool down measure will be put in place.
I’m uninterested in continuing the debate with him, so no need to refresh me. None of my objections to the matching algorithm were touched on in this debate. It was 100% focused on the claim that high level players are somehow inherently stronger that their aggregate team power and troops would indicate. It’s easy to find weak lvl 50 players and strong lvl 35 players, but any instance of this has been summarily rejected.
The gist of seems to be that he believes that even though the total TP for both matched alliances is the same, the matchmaking doesn’t account for power distribution. One alliance may have 10 really strong players and 20 weak players, whereas the other alliance has 30 players that are somewhere in the middle. Supposedly, this results in the second alliance (the one where all players are around the same strength) is unlikely to win because they have no chance against the 10 strong players - they can’t reset the board and if they can’t reset the board they’re likely to lose.
So far a bit of a stretch, but not too bad. The problem most people have is with his proposed solution. He believes that by taking player levels into account this problem would be reduced. Players of a higher level are more likely to have better benches (e.g. the 10 players in the example above would be higher level). He would like the matchmaking to still use TP as it does now… but then also only match if levels are similar (no clue what he thinks should happen when there’s no match that seems fair both in terms of TP and levels). Also if levels correlated with strength (not that I think they do), not sure how it would make a difference either way .
That’s my take on his point of view, in the best light that I’m capable of, ignoring the many contradictions and position changes.
(they still have 18 attacks) so it can be worst in 20 minutes.
