Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
I'm afraid the majority is correct. It's all in the Points. They were ahead of you in other aspects. Exploration no longer gives the same amount that it used to. I can understand it's not fun to lose. I'd suggest paying attention to the scoring and getting to know it better. Makes it easier to gauge in the moment how things are going.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
Actually, no I wouldn't automatically think that. There's lots of ways to make a competition like this. For example, without knowing the specific details of how the game mode was constructed, I can easily conceive of an alliance war in which the *less* exploration the better. Suppose I make a map in which *every* node linked to the boss. Whichever side killed the boss after removing the fewest links wins. That's a very skill-focused type of competition that is very easy to envision, which means there's no obvious preference between high exploration being better, worse, or relatively neutral. The details of the game mode are everything.
Once you look at the maps and the scoring, it is obvious that individual node exploration is just a small component of winning. But before you look at the maps and the scoring, there's no way to know in advance what the point of the wars is.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
Terrible analogy. Races are a single goal, to cross the finish line first. AW is multifaceted with points earned from different sources. These sources are also there to help cut down on the match ending in a tie. They left 1 node up but the losing side died 11 more times than they did. They won fair and square. If the deaths were closer, that lone defender left could have won them the war.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
Terrible analogy. Races are a single goal, to cross the finish line first. AW is multifaceted with points earned from different sources. These sources are also there to help cut down on the match ending in a tie. They left 1 node up but the losing side died 11 more times than they did. They won fair and square. If the deaths were closer, that lone defender left could have won them the war.
It's actually a wonderful analogy, if slightly misplaced. Instead of a race, go with something like Canoe slalom. If you miss a gate, you take a 50 second time penalty, while just touching a gate only costs you 2 seconds.
For this war, OP's alliance with a 5 second lead before penalties (boss kills and exploration), and their opponents missed a gate (standing defender), costing them another 50 seconds, so were 55 seconds behind.
However, OP's alliance touched 30 more gates than the opponent's alliance, costing them a minute in time penalties. That's more than they were leading by, and so the opponents win.
Eek. That analogy makes me uncomfortable. Lol. It's not a race to the finish. It's a gauge on overall performance. Both in Placement (Diversity, Defenders Remaining), and in Attack (BG Clear, Exploration, Attack Bonus). The objective is not only to finish the Map, but to finish it with the most efficiency.
I think a better real world analogy would be boxing.
Boxer A and Boxer B 12 rounds. We all know a KO wins the match. But based on scoring even a boxer who has new. Knocked down can still win.
If a match between 2 boxers go to scoring the boxer with the best score wins.
Let’s break down what gets scored. Judges ringside score each round on a 10 point system. If you get knocked down you lose a point, get knocked down twice lose 2.
Now even if one boxer is ahead going into the last round they could technically, and some have, lose the fight. How do judges give points? A couple of ways. Aggression, aka attack kills. Ring generalship, aka diversity. Defense, aka defenders getting more than 3 kills.
So even though you were ahead in one category, the other boxer aka your war opponent out boxed you in every other category.
Boxing matches could heavily favor one boxer going into r10-12 and the boxer behind in the scorecard could land that one punch that KO’s the other. Sort of like they beat more defenders in less deaths than you.
Things are worth different amounts in every War scoring system they've ever had. Team A - 50 dunks, 100 points, the crowd goes WILD. Team B - 35 three pointers. Wins by 5. The crowd is silenced 🤔
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
Terrible analogy. Races are a single goal, to cross the finish line first. AW is multifaceted with points earned from different sources. These sources are also there to help cut down on the match ending in a tie. They left 1 node up but the losing side died 11 more times than they did. They won fair and square. If the deaths were closer, that lone defender left could have won them the war.
It's actually a wonderful analogy, if slightly misplaced. Instead of a race, go with something like Canoe slalom. If you miss a gate, you take a 50 second time penalty, while just touching a gate only costs you 2 seconds.
For this war, OP's alliance with a 5 second lead before penalties (boss kills and exploration), and their opponents missed a gate (standing defender), costing them another 50 seconds, so were 55 seconds behind.
However, OP's alliance touched 30 more gates than the opponent's alliance, costing them a minute in time penalties. That's more than they were leading by, and so the opponents win.
The reason why he said it was a poor analogy was because @DarkestDestroyer 's point was that normally people consider "winning" to be more important than "style points" (I'm paraphrasing) - the analogy of the race being that the point is to win the race, not to accumulate points during the race. But alliance wars are not like races because there's no victory condition except total points. Killing a boss is not a "win" nor is fully exploring the map. These seem like "wins" but they are just the means to an end, to score points.
In your analogy, the "style points" part actually directly affects the effective race time. It is closer to how wars are won because it doesn't matter who crosses the finish line first. What matters is total modified time, and only total modified time. Who cross first doesn't matter. Who passed through the gates the best doesn't matter. Who holds the best line doesn't matter. Final adjusted time matters, period.
Shouldn't the person that actually crosses the finish line first win, and all that other stuff is just tie breaker? No, because in the context of that kind of competition that would be nonsensical. It would mean that breaking the rules is a reasonable strategy if you cross the finish line first, because the penalties only matter if it is a tie, which it won't be if you just blow the gates.
In the same way, fully exploring the map in alliance war doesn't mean anything by itself, if you have to die a million times to do it. You have to balance exploring the map with not dying too much while doing it.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
you nailed it perfectly.. Thats exactly what i have been trying to say.. Alliance sneak in the win even without completing 100%.
Like I said I am not opposed to the point system, but the way points have been setup is what I am not able to justify in my head. For example if exploring 100% should offer some additional points vs some one who did 99%. This ways the onsu is more towards completing the War. Attack bonus, Diversity should just be an add on, required when there is a tie in terms of exploration or boss kill. Those should not be the deciding factor.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
you nailed it perfectly.. Thats exactly what i have been trying to say.. Alliance sneak in the win even without completing 100%.
Like I said I am not opposed to the point system, but the way points have been setup is what I am not able to justify in my head. For example if exploring 100% should offer some additional points vs some one who did 99%. This ways the onsu is more towards completing the War. Attack bonus, Diversity should just be an add on, required when there is a tie in terms of exploration or boss kill. Those should not be the deciding factor.
Diversity IS an add-on. Attack Bonus is directly linked to skill. Take down the Nodes without dying, and skill earns you more Points. In this case, they played better than you because they earned an extra 880 Points in Attack Bonus. That alone secured the Win. If not for that, your Diversity wouldn't have made a difference. If you're arguing that Attack Bonus should be a small factor, I'm going to have to disagree. That's a skill element in the scoring.
Basically the system rewards you fighting more skillfully though the map than just finishing regardless of how you did... anyone can revive over and over and get through the map. They died a lot less than you and had higher attack bonus despite skipping a defender! They lost full attack bonus on that remaining defender and still had better attack bonus. Attack bonus is a reflection of the skill fighting the defenders... seems that should be weighted pretty highly yes? Exploration seems a less important stat. There’s a lot of things flawed about the game and some of the shady moves that have been made. This is a clear legitimate loss though.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
you nailed it perfectly.. Thats exactly what i have been trying to say.. Alliance sneak in the win even without completing 100%.
Like I said I am not opposed to the point system, but the way points have been setup is what I am not able to justify in my head. For example if exploring 100% should offer some additional points vs some one who did 99%. This ways the onsu is more towards completing the War. Attack bonus, Diversity should just be an add on, required when there is a tie in terms of exploration or boss kill. Those should not be the deciding factor.
Attack bonus should just be an add on? Attack bonus and defenders remaining are the current closest analog to defender kills, which used to be the deciding factor in most wars prior to 14.0. At the time the 14.0 changes were introduced the largest single complaint was that the removal of defender kill points removed the largest metric of skill from alliance war, and this was considered enough of a problem to add attack bonus and defenders remaining to partially compensate for that. The idea that we'd go from defender kills being pre-eminent to being moderated with the attack bonus rules to being essentially eliminated as a determining factor for wins in many cases is unlikely to be palatable to most alliances given that fact.
More over, the devs were originally trying to reduce the percentage of wars that fully explored the map by making the maps more difficult. They aren't specifically targeting that goal any more, but you can bet that if 100% completion came with a significant point bonus they would significantly ratchet up the map difficulty to make it unlikely alliances could gain that bonus consistently. Somehow I doubt if people are going to be cheering that.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
Terrible Analogy but to use it anyway technically beating the boss is completing the race. But like @Demonzfyre said a race has one set goal and doesn't really include points where AW is determined on how many points you get from several sources.
Be a lot different if they got like 60% explore and won. However 99.4% vs 100% isn’t a real difference. Just like if you died 1 more time than they did the points difference would be low. You died A LOT more than they did to fully explore. You git soundly beat. Move forward
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
you nailed it perfectly.. Thats exactly what i have been trying to say.. Alliance sneak in the win even without completing 100%.
Like I said I am not opposed to the point system, but the way points have been setup is what I am not able to justify in my head. For example if exploring 100% should offer some additional points vs some one who did 99%. This ways the onsu is more towards completing the War. Attack bonus, Diversity should just be an add on, required when there is a tie in terms of exploration or boss kill. Those should not be the deciding factor.
Wow this thread is still going. It's one thing if you completed 100% and they did substantially less like 50-60% but we are talking about 100% versus 99.4%. If you think the other group missing a single node should award your group the win considering how much better the other team did in just about every other scoring metric then you really are just refusing to be logical.
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
you nailed it perfectly.. Thats exactly what i have been trying to say.. Alliance sneak in the win even without completing 100%.
Like I said I am not opposed to the point system, but the way points have been setup is what I am not able to justify in my head. For example if exploring 100% should offer some additional points vs some one who did 99%. This ways the onsu is more towards completing the War. Attack bonus, Diversity should just be an add on, required when there is a tie in terms of exploration or boss kill. Those should not be the deciding factor.
No one snuck in a win. Your opponent won fair and square. Would you have even created this thread if you won in this matter? In fact post your last 5 war results. I bet 1 million units you've won in this manner in the past and you are just salty you lost this time.
Boss kill is 20k points times your multiplier. Exploration is capped at 100% and as you can see, yours (and I think everyones is) 24000 points. Defender kills awards the least amount. Diversity has a cap as well.
Attack bonus can award the most. Full attack bonus is 240 points IIRC. Theres a total of just over 37000 points you can get. Attack bonus is worth more because it has the most skill. Exploration doesn't take skill. If you can take down all the defenders but die 10 times to each, that's not skill, that's just wearing the defender down until they run out of health. But if you can 1 shot every defender, that takes more skill.
So your thinking is completely wrong. Exploration will never award more than attack bonus. Next time, try not to die as much.
i think the point I am trying to make is, You take into account these Attack bonus or Diversity if u have tie, other wise it should be simple, Boss kill--> Exploration.. These points are not helping rather just a nuisance..
It is a nuisance when people don't agree with your complaint lol
Comments
Yes it’s not right based off the way points are accumulated, but if you finished it 100% the opposition couldn’t, then you would think logically that’s a win?
It’s like doing a race, you complete the race, the other driver didn’t make it to the end, but because he did a couple drifts he won, even though he didn’t finish the whole race.
But apart from that, you lost mate, like others have said, it’s the points for all the different things.
At least you didn’t draw and both get a loss, wait until that day!
Once you look at the maps and the scoring, it is obvious that individual node exploration is just a small component of winning. But before you look at the maps and the scoring, there's no way to know in advance what the point of the wars is.
You’ll find no sympathy in here.
For this war, OP's alliance with a 5 second lead before penalties (boss kills and exploration), and their opponents missed a gate (standing defender), costing them another 50 seconds, so were 55 seconds behind.
However, OP's alliance touched 30 more gates than the opponent's alliance, costing them a minute in time penalties. That's more than they were leading by, and so the opponents win.
Boxer A and Boxer B 12 rounds. We all know a KO wins the match. But based on scoring even a boxer who has new. Knocked down can still win.
If a match between 2 boxers go to scoring the boxer with the best score wins.
Let’s break down what gets scored.
Judges ringside score each round on a 10 point system. If you get knocked down you lose a point, get knocked down twice lose 2.
Now even if one boxer is ahead going into the last round they could technically, and some have, lose the fight. How do judges give points? A couple of ways. Aggression, aka attack kills. Ring generalship, aka diversity. Defense, aka defenders getting more than 3 kills.
So even though you were ahead in one category, the other boxer aka your war opponent out boxed you in every other category.
Boxing matches could heavily favor one boxer going into r10-12 and the boxer behind in the scorecard could land that one punch that KO’s the other. Sort of like they beat more defenders in less deaths than you.
Team A - 50 dunks, 100 points, the crowd goes WILD.
Team B - 35 three pointers. Wins by 5. The crowd is silenced 🤔
In your analogy, the "style points" part actually directly affects the effective race time. It is closer to how wars are won because it doesn't matter who crosses the finish line first. What matters is total modified time, and only total modified time. Who cross first doesn't matter. Who passed through the gates the best doesn't matter. Who holds the best line doesn't matter. Final adjusted time matters, period.
Shouldn't the person that actually crosses the finish line first win, and all that other stuff is just tie breaker? No, because in the context of that kind of competition that would be nonsensical. It would mean that breaking the rules is a reasonable strategy if you cross the finish line first, because the penalties only matter if it is a tie, which it won't be if you just blow the gates.
In the same way, fully exploring the map in alliance war doesn't mean anything by itself, if you have to die a million times to do it. You have to balance exploring the map with not dying too much while doing it.
Like I said I am not opposed to the point system, but the way points have been setup is what I am not able to justify in my head. For example if exploring 100% should offer some additional points vs some one who did 99%. This ways the onsu is more towards completing the War. Attack bonus, Diversity should just be an add on, required when there is a tie in terms of exploration or boss kill. Those should not be the deciding factor.
🐻
More over, the devs were originally trying to reduce the percentage of wars that fully explored the map by making the maps more difficult. They aren't specifically targeting that goal any more, but you can bet that if 100% completion came with a significant point bonus they would significantly ratchet up the map difficulty to make it unlikely alliances could gain that bonus consistently. Somehow I doubt if people are going to be cheering that.
🐻
Boss kill is 20k points times your multiplier.
Exploration is capped at 100% and as you can see, yours (and I think everyones is) 24000 points.
Defender kills awards the least amount.
Diversity has a cap as well.
Attack bonus can award the most. Full attack bonus is 240 points IIRC. Theres a total of just over 37000 points you can get. Attack bonus is worth more because it has the most skill. Exploration doesn't take skill. If you can take down all the defenders but die 10 times to each, that's not skill, that's just wearing the defender down until they run out of health. But if you can 1 shot every defender, that takes more skill.
So your thinking is completely wrong. Exploration will never award more than attack bonus. Next time, try not to die as much.