AW is rediculous

Strategic

Our last AW my alliance won by 116 points only because of defender rating.

Today my alliance doesn't even bother because even though we placed even higher defenders the enemy placed pretty much only R4 5* duped with full suicides... so... yeah...
We don't use suicides, not that it matters with their defenders though.

So my question is: is kabam trying to force us to use full suicides now?
And what the F is the point to war if the winner is determined on the beginning???

Drummer16

Agreed on all points. No matter what, it always comes down to team with highest diversity and defender rating. It's not even fun anymore to play wars. I am in an alliance that doesn't require spending, and we are losing more often than not due to diversity or other teams just reviving and pushing thru all 3 BGs if it's a tough matchup.

Where is the SKILL at? Where is the competition? I don't enjoy AW anymore

Strategic

Drummer16 wrote: »

Agreed on all points. No matter what, it always comes down to team with highest diversity and defender rating. It's not even fun anymore to play wars. I am in an alliance that doesn't require spending, and we are losing more often than not due to diversity or other teams just reviving and pushing thru all 3 BGs if it's a tough matchup.

Where is the SKILL at? Where is the competition? I don't enjoy AW anymore

The thing is that 100% all 3 BGs is not even an issue. I wish it was. I'm talking about defender rating alone now being the ONLY deciding factor in AW.

Drummer16

I mean, yea, of course we all knew it would be. It was even prior to the nerf (making a value 1/3rd of what it was doesn't change anything when there is a cap on how high it can be). We knew everyone would get 150 diversity, get full exploration, 150 attacker kills...the only thing that is variable is defender rating lol.

This is why defender kills were so important! Those variable points could keep going up and up if they keep reviving. It was a risk and made it important to have strong defenders placed well... It was freakin interesting back then. It's just awful now...no skill, no strategy. Just place same defenders each week for diversity according to spreadsheet. You can even tell who is going to be on each of the nodes by their class.

What an improvement!! /sarcasm

_LivingDeadGirl

The nodes are just too much. Bleed/poison immune all over the place giving willpower + suicides the best defense you can give yourself. Excluding md.

I think diversity was a good idea, but a god awful headache to set in place. That's been a deciding factor in more wars than anything else lately.

DaMunk

They have absolutely destroyed war. I'm not sure what the thought process was regarding all the changes but it's like they don't even play the game. Lots of the changes recently have been that way.

Strategic

_LivingDeadGirl wrote: »

The nodes are just too much. Bleed/poison immune all over the place giving willpower + suicides the best defense you can give yourself. Excluding md.

I think diversity was a good idea, but a god awful headache to set in place. That's been a deciding factor in more wars than anything else lately.

The nodes are not too much. They are relatively very easy and that's the problem also. It makes everyone able to 100% all 3 BGs.
And diversity was a VERY bad idea because every alliance can diverse and be equal on points like I mentioned in my original post.
There has to be some NEW factor to determine victory or be a tie breaker.
For example just out of the top of my head 100%ing all 3 BGs first will give an extra bonus. Like 5000 points bonus. so even if both alliances are equal on points even if 1 alliance had less defender rating they can still win if they finish first.
Oh that's actually a good idea! I'm gonna add it to my OP.

Strategic

Damn it I can't edit!
Guess I'll make a new thread XD