War Defender Diversity

Demonzfyre

Elohim16 said:

If only that were true. That's why I posted this. We don't die more.

You had to of unless you were incredibly less diverse than the other team. I have hard time understanding how you would of lost if you didn't die more than them.

Elohim16

I sincerely appreciate everyone explaining why they think diversity should exist as a strategic component of alliance wars. I just think it should exist only as a tie-breaker. I like the idea of placing defenders that would actually hurt my opponents, and for them to respond in kind. That's war.

Perhaps we can name it something else. Maybe it's the name that's throwing me off. How about "Alliance Waltz"? We've certainly danced around this topic enough. LOL

Elohim16

The way diversity works, I see it as a step away from allotting each champ with a number value, then basing victories on that as well. It's too subjective. Assuming a less diverse roster gives alliances an advantage is also subjective. We should at least agree that it would not always be the case.

But you can't argue who won more attack points. And in the event that the attack points match, then yes, break the tie by looking at diversity. Not totally fair, but many tie-break mechanisms come with their share of complaints. Look at the NFL. And the tennis US Open.

SiriusBreak

Elohim16 said:

Like I said before, don't die more than the other team and there won't be a reason for diversity to matter.

If only that were true. That's why I posted this. We don't die more.

Clearly you die enough that diversity is catching up with you and biting you in the rear though. So that means the wars are close. It takes 3 diversity to supersede 1 missing Attack Bonus (Attack Bonuses = 80 points, Diversity = 30 points). Let me ask you this @Elohim16 , what war tier are you in? If it's Tier 6 or lower, I can understand why you don't like diversity.

Truth is, overall the majority are good with diversity being part of AW scoring. There was a massive outcry the last time they mentioned removing it (this was a LONGTIME ago mind you) from the community against removing it. They left it alone. As another said, they likely won't try to remove it ever again.

So, with that said, maybe try utilizing more diversity, or try to clear the grid without losing any ABs. Maybe both? Or don't and keep losing. It's typically better to adjust to what's there instead of ask for it to be changed when many disagree. You can disagree with the majority here all day, doesn't mean it's gonna help your case, yah know?

My Alliance is in tier 4. Diversity can be clutch for us as wars are VERY close sometimes. It was a tie breaker for us not but 2 wars ago (both Alliances hit 461 AB). The reason I stated I can understand why you dislike diversity if you're in tier 6 or lower is because that's when it wasn't as useful for my crew. It still helped, but wasn't as clutch as it is now. Reason being, and again someone else already stated this, lower tier nodes aren't that strong. So the strong defenders aren't as effective, and the weaker defenders are that much worse.

However, it's still guaranteed points, and it did win us wars. There was an adjustment period with diversity for us. It slowly became more relevant as we grew/climbed the ranks. We've been running max diversity since tier 6. Overall, it's been more useful than harmful. You're decreasing the opponent's ability to have a perfect counter for every fight on their lane as every fight is different. You're increasing your overall point output. If you can afford to throw points away during the Season, then by all means, don't utilize high to full diversity. If you can't afford to throw away points, maybe try it. Who knows, maybe you'll like the outcome.

Lovejoy72

If we got rid of diversity wouldn’t we have to get rid of the current attack scoring as well? The current model doesn’t penalize you after three deaths on a single node. If we went back to max defenders, presumably we would have a lot more zero attacker scores as people depleted items to get past R2 6star korgs everywhere. Or whatever. Whole thing would just become an exhausting Pyrrhic victory, that would probably be best accounted for by total deaths of any kind.

Elohim16

I never said I wanted diversity to go anywhere. This isn't a suggestion thread. I just wanted to discuss it, generally so. Again, I'm fine with diversity as a tie-breaking tool.

zuffy

Post screenshots of wars you lose by diversity

Speeds80

I’ve done war placement and number crunching for a long time, when you get to tier 6 there are half a dozen defenders we allow duped at max level, at tier 7 or higher there aren’t enough serious nodes for them to get reliable deaths, it’s a balancing act. If a defender gets a kill at least 1/3 wars then its worth having them in

zuffy

Isn’t tier 6-9 the same?

Demonzfyre

Elohim16 said:

The way diversity works, I see it as a step away from allotting each champ with a number value, then basing victories on that as well. It's too subjective. Assuming a less diverse roster gives alliances an advantage is also subjective. We should at least agree that it would not always be the case.

But you can't argue who won more attack points. And in the event that the attack points match, then yes, break the tie by looking at diversity. Not totally fair, but many tie-break mechanisms come with their share of complaints. Look at the NFL. And the tennis US Open.

Again, that's why there are 5 scored categories. They are there to prevent ties.

I'd really like to see the final score of the war that made you want to create this post.

zuffy

Here is an example of our war, only 1BG war. The other alliance got 48 diversity while we have 34. We took advantage and only gave up 1 death but the spread is only 300 points. If we died more and lose the war, that is on us for not going with a better diversity and/or attack better.

DNA3000

Elohim16 said:

GluteusMaximus said:

Elohim16 said:

War should be about alliances putting their best fighters in the fray. In the event of a tie, defender diversity should break it, and understandably so. Losing to an opponent showcasing a weaker squad AND displaying a weaker performance in attack is absolutely ridiculous.

fun numbers:
1 attack bonus = 80pts
1 defender diversity bonus= 30pts

that means: 3 kills = +8 diverse defenders

if your "best" defenders or your "best" offensive showing can't offset that, then they weren't all that weaker to begin with, were they?

I really do understand the arguments/rationales. And I still disagree. Let’s reverse everything, saying that an alliance opponent used nothing but champs considered to be the weakest in the game, but they never used the same champ more than once. Then my alliance took it further and repeatedly used the five absolute weakest champs in the game. Do we get an advantage in doing so? Of course not.
It’s like arguing why golfers with sufficient handicaps should be able to beat Tiger Woods in a Major. Or a boxer wearing two pound gloves can be declared the winner when scoring fewer points in a bout. Or a tennis player can beat Roger Federer by winning two games to Federer’s six because of using a wooden racket. I understand the thinking, and I still say a victory goes to the victor. Not the one who came close to winning. In the event of a tie, I’m good with Federer losing the set because his opponent used a wooden racket. I’m good with a boxer losing if the points are tied, but one boxer wore heavier gloves. And if a guy who never parred a golf course is tied with the top of a leaderboard, I say give him the win.
Just let alliances go at each other, however they want. Diversity should be tie breakers.

I don't think you do understand the current system, because you analogize it to people deliberately using bad equipment. But no one deliberately places defenders that will put them at a disadvantage: they place defenders that will earn them the most points. Diverse defenders earn 30 points, so that's why we place them. If we think a defender will get a kill, since that is worth 80 points it is worth placing them instead even if they aren't diverse.

If you place "strong" defenders and your opponent places "weak" ones and they win, they didn't just win on diversity points. The score says they got more diversity points than you, but it was SKILL that earned them the win. Why? Because they killed your "strong" defenders while dying less often than you needed for them to lose. If you die six times and they die seven times you claim you're better, but they would argue that their seven deaths against your defense placement shows more skill than your six deaths against their diverse placement. And they would generally be correct.

When you say "just let alliances go at each other, however they want" fine. And how do you determine the winner? Who decides that normal node deaths are worth 80 points, but boss kills are worth 20,000 points? Who decides that just moving around the map is worth points, something that takes zero skill? Who decides what the score is going to be? There's nothing in "just let alliances go at each other" that says who wins. We need a scoring system for that. And that scoring system is mostly arbitrary: we decide what we want to value, and then we score that value. If you kill the boss but leave five nodes and we kill every node except the boss, why do you win? At some point you have to decide what is worth what, and there's no objective way to do that. The best you can do is make a scoring system that is acceptable to the majority of the competition. The current system is. Your implied one isn't (or at least it wasn't based on history).

In effect you're arguing against pass interference. Why is it legal for football players to hit each other, except receivers? And the answer is: because both the competition and the paying audience likes the forward pass, so the rules were changed to incentivize it. This is why the spitball is illegal, why kicking is not allowed in boxing, why only the goalie can use their hands in soccer, why there's a shot clock in basketball. In no competition are the competitors allowed to just "go at each other." We have rules, and the rules generally shape the competition into what we want for subjective value reasons. You might prefer the old system, but that's purely a subjective preference, and not one that it seems most others share. And that's ultimately why we don't do it anymore.

Aomine_Daiki10

Ever since diversity came in place I started having peace in AW, was getting tired of watching korg videos

DarkMalachi2

If Kabam installed a diversity tool in the game, it would probably alleviate some of the headaches.

DarkMalachi2

DNA3000 said:

Elohim16 said:

GluteusMaximus said:

Elohim16 said:

War should be about alliances putting their best fighters in the fray. In the event of a tie, defender diversity should break it, and understandably so. Losing to an opponent showcasing a weaker squad AND displaying a weaker performance in attack is absolutely ridiculous.

fun numbers:
1 attack bonus = 80pts
1 defender diversity bonus= 30pts

that means: 3 kills = +8 diverse defenders

if your "best" defenders or your "best" offensive showing can't offset that, then they weren't all that weaker to begin with, were they?

I really do understand the arguments/rationales. And I still disagree. Let’s reverse everything, saying that an alliance opponent used nothing but champs considered to be the weakest in the game, but they never used the same champ more than once. Then my alliance took it further and repeatedly used the five absolute weakest champs in the game. Do we get an advantage in doing so? Of course not.
It’s like arguing why golfers with sufficient handicaps should be able to beat Tiger Woods in a Major. Or a boxer wearing two pound gloves can be declared the winner when scoring fewer points in a bout. Or a tennis player can beat Roger Federer by winning two games to Federer’s six because of using a wooden racket. I understand the thinking, and I still say a victory goes to the victor. Not the one who came close to winning. In the event of a tie, I’m good with Federer losing the set because his opponent used a wooden racket. I’m good with a boxer losing if the points are tied, but one boxer wore heavier gloves. And if a guy who never parred a golf course is tied with the top of a leaderboard, I say give him the win.
Just let alliances go at each other, however they want. Diversity should be tie breakers.

I don't think you do understand the current system, because you analogize it to people deliberately using bad equipment. But no one deliberately places defenders that will put them at a disadvantage: they place defenders that will earn them the most points. Diverse defenders earn 30 points, so that's why we place them. If we think a defender will get a kill, since that is worth 80 points it is worth placing them instead even if they aren't diverse.

If you place "strong" defenders and your opponent places "weak" ones and they win, they didn't just win on diversity points. The score says they got more diversity points than you, but it was SKILL that earned them the win. Why? Because they killed your "strong" defenders while dying less often than you needed for them to lose. If you die six times and they die seven times you claim you're better, but they would argue that their seven deaths against your defense placement shows more skill than your six deaths against their diverse placement. And they would generally be correct.

When you say "just let alliances go at each other, however they want" fine. And how do you determine the winner? Who decides that normal node deaths are worth 80 points, but boss kills are worth 20,000 points? Who decides that just moving around the map is worth points, something that takes zero skill? Who decides what the score is going to be? There's nothing in "just let alliances go at each other" that says who wins. We need a scoring system for that. And that scoring system is mostly arbitrary: we decide what we want to value, and then we score that value. If you kill the boss but leave five nodes and we kill every node except the boss, why do you win? At some point you have to decide what is worth what, and there's no objective way to do that. The best you can do is make a scoring system that is acceptable to the majority of the competition. The current system is. Your implied one isn't (or at least it wasn't based on history).

In effect you're arguing against pass interference. Why is it legal for football players to hit each other, except receivers? And the answer is: because both the competition and the paying audience likes the forward pass, so the rules were changed to incentivize it. This is why the spitball is illegal, why kicking is not allowed in boxing, why only the goalie can use their hands in soccer, why there's a shot clock in basketball. In no competition are the competitors allowed to just "go at each other." We have rules, and the rules generally shape the competition into what we want for subjective value reasons. You might prefer the old system, but that's purely a subjective preference, and not one that it seems most others share. And that's ultimately why we don't do it anymore.

Your football rebuttal doesn't work because everything is balanced for both teams. We're talking about the probability of one team defeating the other by having a more "diverse" squad but scoring fewer points. Football fans wouldn't go for that. In the end, fans care about the score, and that both teams have equal scoring opportunities, regardless of their roster.