AW points scoring needs a complete overhaul

How pts are allocated in AW needs a complete overhaul.

You know the current point scoring system is flawed when your recent AW opponent takes 34 KO’s vs just 3 and yet we end up losing?

Stats below.

IMO every opponent KO should should result in a deduction of points.

We clearly flogged our opponent but we lost on matrix’s that don’t reflect just home much we did flog them.

Comments

This content has been removed.

They explored more and took down more of your Defenders. Defender Kills were removed for a reason, and I don't know why people still pay attention to them as much as they do. Attack Bonus is one aspect of it, and it rewards playing with the least amount of deaths. However, judging from your metrics, they used the majority to take down the Boss, and there are only 3 Attack Bonus for that Node. That's necessary because Bosses aren't easy kills, and they often require teamwork. Regardless of the amount of KOs, your Attack Bonuses aren't that far off, which means they played smartly as well.

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.

“War” has casualties. AW doesn’t reflect casualties and it should

They explored more and took down more of your Defenders. Defender Kills were removed for a reason, and I don't know why people still pay attention to them as much as they do. Attack Bonus is one aspect of it, and it rewards playing with the least amount of deaths. However, judging from your metrics, they used the majority to take down the Boss, and there are only 3 Attack Bonus for that Node. That's necessary because Bosses aren't easy kills, and they often require teamwork. Regardless of the amount of KOs, your Attack Bonuses aren't that far off, which means they played smartly as well.

34 KO’s is hardly playing smart...

I hope their Victory cleaned out their AW revives and health potions

Clear the map.

We had 2 “very low level” accounts in our squad which are mainly used as taxis hence why we didn’t complete the map

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.

Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...

Sure. But on the flipside of it, your defense took more casualties than their defense. You also could have used items to clear more of the map and explored more too.

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...

If War was gauged by how many people died, the Germans would have won WW2.

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...
If War was gauged by how many people died, the Germans would have won WW2.

You misspelled Russians.

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...
If War was gauged by how many people died, the Germans would have won WW2.
You misspelled Russians.

Including the deaths as a result of the Holocaust, I'm sure the Germans were responsible for much more death. In any event, this isn't real War. Defender Kills metrics were removed for a very specific reason and it was a process to get to a scoring tally that included skill, and yet didn't penalize people for trying or using Items. Adding scoring for them at this stage would be a mess.

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...
If War was gauged by how many people died, the Germans would have won WW2.

What a dumb thing to say.

I never said KO’s should be a deciding factor of AW, but it should be taken into account along with boss take down, % of map exploration and attack bonus.

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...
If War was gauged by how many people died, the Germans would have won WW2.
You misspelled Russians.
Including the deaths as a result of the Holocaust, I'm sure the Germans were responsible for much more death. In any event, this isn't real War. Defender Kills metrics were removed for a very specific reason and it was a process to get to a scoring tally that included skill, and yet didn't penalize people for trying or using Items. Adding scoring for them at this stage would be a mess.

Each KO should equal a 100pt deduction from the ally’s overall score. How hard is that to introduce?

Putting Defender Kills back into the current meta with Champs, Defense Tactics, and Nodes like we have now would be absolute pandemonium.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was called Alliance War and war has casualties...
Sure. But on the flipside of it, your defense took more casualties than their defense. You also could have used items to clear more of the map and explored more too.

Had our ally taken more KO’s then the result won’t be in question but they took 34 KO’s while we took just 3 yet we lost (even though we got the boss kill in and explored the majority of the map)

The Defense team we used...

Teams with solid defence should earn pts from each KO or the opposition losses points for each KO suffered.
This would make AW better than what it currently is. Easy peasy to implement

Our 2 bottom teams where used to taxi the higher levelled players - this was why we didn’t get 100% map completion

Not all allies are full of high end players

They defeated you guys by 360 points (minus victory bonus)..in a tight race everything helps. Next time explore the map a bit more.

It’s not a real war. It’s a video game. There are plenty of different ways the scoring system could work. We’ve had the current one for some time now, and everyone knows what it is. If you want to win wars, you should formulate your alliance and your strategy to ensure that you get the highest number of points that you can.

By all means advance arguments as to why the scoring system some change. But “we lost this war and I think we should have won it and if the scoring system was different we would have won it so I think the scoring system should be different” is just about the worst argument you can make.

So you have two accounts that are taxis. Great. They didn’t, and killed more defenders and explored more as a result. Why shouldn’t that be reflected in the score? Why shouldn’t it be determinative? It seems that you don’t want that to be determinative of the scores simply because it doesn’t benefit you. You must see how terrible an argument that is.

They defeated you guys by 360 points (minus victory bonus)..in a tight race everything helps. Next time explore the map a bit more.

Exactly this.

If you would have killed the 5 defenders of theirs still standing, you would have won.

They defeated you guys by 360 points (minus victory bonus)..in a tight race everything helps. Next time explore the map a bit more.

I’m well aware why we lost, Pal...did you also know water is wet?

It’s not a real war. It’s a video game. There are plenty of different ways the scoring system could work. We’ve had the current one for some time now, and everyone knows what it is. If you want to win wars, you should formulate your alliance and your strategy to ensure that you get the highest number of points that you can.

By all means advance arguments as to why the scoring system some change. But “we lost this war and I think we should have won it and if the scoring system was different we would have won it so I think the scoring system should be different” is just about the worst argument you can make.

So you have two accounts that are taxis. Great. They didn’t, and killed more defenders and explored more as a result. Why shouldn’t that be reflected in the score? Why shouldn’t it be determinative? It seems that you don’t want that to be determinative of the scores simply because it doesn’t benefit you. You must see how terrible an argument that is.

34 KO’s vs 3 KO’s and you still don’t get my point...

They defeated you guys by 360 points (minus victory bonus)..in a tight race everything helps. Next time explore the map a bit more.
Exactly this.

If you would have killed the 5 defenders of theirs still standing, you would have won.

Yes Pal, Tks for pointing out the obvious...again my whole point is KO’s are worth nothing

Why do you have such weak members, your alliance is not balanced, do you realize that the real problem was that, right?

surely you are used to winning thanks to the fact that you lower the prestige of your alliance with a couple of weak members and today that you lost you throw your tantrum.

Well the first 3 KOs from each defender are worth 80 points each...
Maybe they could make the mini bosses and main boss have more AB to lose (5 maybe?) but to go back to the years old system of every single death counts, no thanks.

It’s not a real war. It’s a video game. There are plenty of different ways the scoring system could work. We’ve had the current one for some time now, and everyone knows what it is. If you want to win wars, you should formulate your alliance and your strategy to ensure that you get the highest number of points that you can.

By all means advance arguments as to why the scoring system some change. But “we lost this war and I think we should have won it and if the scoring system was different we would have won it so I think the scoring system should be different” is just about the worst argument you can make.

So you have two accounts that are taxis. Great. They didn’t, and killed more defenders and explored more as a result. Why shouldn’t that be reflected in the score? Why shouldn’t it be determinative? It seems that you don’t want that to be determinative of the scores simply because it doesn’t benefit you. You must see how terrible an argument that is.
34 KO’s vs 3 KO’s and you still don’t get my point...

I do. I just think it’s a bad point. The disparity in KO numbers resulted in you getting more points for attack bonus. In areas where you didn’t perform as well as the other alliance, such as exploration and defenders remaining, you scored less. Overall you scored less, and lost. You want the KO disparity to count for more, but you’ve given no cogent reason why other than “we would have won if it did and I think we should have won”. You also don’t want to be penalised for areas of scoring that you didn’t do well in, but again for no other tangible reason other than it doesn’t benefit you because you have two weak alliance members. Your arguments are just nowhere near as good as you think they are.

Oops we lost:
Let's move the goal post and change the rules.

Why do you have such weak members, your alliance is not balanced, do you realize that the real problem was that, right?

surely you are used to winning thanks to the fact that you lower the prestige of your alliance with a couple of weak members and today that you lost you throw your tantrum.

A tantrum? Really? And Tks for the ally advice buddy...

It’s not a real war. It’s a video game. There are plenty of different ways the scoring system could work. We’ve had the current one for some time now, and everyone knows what it is. If you want to win wars, you should formulate your alliance and your strategy to ensure that you get the highest number of points that you can.

By all means advance arguments as to why the scoring system some change. But “we lost this war and I think we should have won it and if the scoring system was different we would have won it so I think the scoring system should be different” is just about the worst argument you can make.

So you have two accounts that are taxis. Great. They didn’t, and killed more defenders and explored more as a result. Why shouldn’t that be reflected in the score? Why shouldn’t it be determinative? It seems that you don’t want that to be determinative of the scores simply because it doesn’t benefit you. You must see how terrible an argument that is.
34 KO’s vs 3 KO’s and you still don’t get my point...
I do. I just think it’s a bad point. The disparity in KO numbers resulted in you getting more points for attack bonus. In areas where you didn’t perform as well as the other alliance, such as exploration and defenders remaining, you scored less. Overall you scored less, and lost. You want the KO disparity to count for more, but you’ve given no cogent reason why other than “we would have won if it did and I think we should have won”. You also don’t want to be penalised for areas of scoring that you didn’t do well in, but again for no other tangible reason other than it doesn’t benefit you because you have two weak alliance members. Your arguments are just nowhere near as good as you think they are.

They are about as good as your argument...

If you don’t fight at all you’ll have 0 KO’s 🙂

We won on attack bonus
We won on defender diversity
We lost on exploration and defenders remaining
We both got Boss KO’s

I know the metrics, but surely KO’s should also either attract or subtract points.
Again our opponent incurred 34 KO’s while we received just 3

And as for those who pile in on our ally ‘having weaker players’ we’ll I guess not everyone can be as good as you?

Quick Links