Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie?
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie.
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no?
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me.
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me. I get that, and maybe Kabam agrees. I just feel personally that it's hella demoralising to push to not lose, use items, use boosts and potions, and then get a tie which gives you the same points as a loss
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me. I get that, and maybe Kabam agrees. I just feel personally that it's hella demoralising to push to not lose, use items, use boosts and potions, and then get a tie which gives you the same points as a loss I'd feel differently if it wasn't just a 1 on 1. If you do better than some/most people but tie with 1, you deserve a reward. But in 1 on 1 war, the goal isn't to not lose. Your whole goal is to do better than your opponent. I don't think a reward should be given for just doing as well.
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me. I get that, and maybe Kabam agrees. I just feel personally that it's hella demoralising to push to not lose, use items, use boosts and potions, and then get a tie which gives you the same points as a loss I'd feel differently if it wasn't just a 1 on 1. If you do better than some/most people but tie with 1, you deserve a reward. But in 1 on 1 war, the goal isn't to not lose. Your whole goal is to do better than your opponent. I don't think a reward should be given for just doing as well. I see it more as how well you do.Losing < Drawing < Winning - that's just logic, ask any sports player they'd rather draw than lose, more points, more prizes whatever. But in MCOC, the points for Losing = Drawing < winningthat to me doesnt make sense, but of course, I respect your opinion in the matter. I think it's subjective whether you think drawing deserves more points
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me. I get that, and maybe Kabam agrees. I just feel personally that it's hella demoralising to push to not lose, use items, use boosts and potions, and then get a tie which gives you the same points as a loss I'd feel differently if it wasn't just a 1 on 1. If you do better than some/most people but tie with 1, you deserve a reward. But in 1 on 1 war, the goal isn't to not lose. Your whole goal is to do better than your opponent. I don't think a reward should be given for just doing as well. I see it more as how well you do.Losing < Drawing < Winning - that's just logic, ask any sports player they'd rather draw than lose, more points, more prizes whatever. But in MCOC, the points for Losing = Drawing < winningthat to me doesnt make sense, but of course, I respect your opinion in the matter. I think it's subjective whether you think drawing deserves more points While it deserves more points, because it would create massive collusion incentives, you can’t have it
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me. I get that, and maybe Kabam agrees. I just feel personally that it's hella demoralising to push to not lose, use items, use boosts and potions, and then get a tie which gives you the same points as a loss I'd feel differently if it wasn't just a 1 on 1. If you do better than some/most people but tie with 1, you deserve a reward. But in 1 on 1 war, the goal isn't to not lose. Your whole goal is to do better than your opponent. I don't think a reward should be given for just doing as well. I see it more as how well you do.Losing < Drawing < Winning - that's just logic, ask any sports player they'd rather draw than lose, more points, more prizes whatever. But in MCOC, the points for Losing = Drawing < winningthat to me doesnt make sense, but of course, I respect your opinion in the matter. I think it's subjective whether you think drawing deserves more points While it deserves more points, because it would create massive collusion incentives, you can’t have it How so? (I'm not disagreeing just by asking that to be clear) If winning gave more points wouldn't both alliances try to win? Or is it just in the interest of saving items. What I think of when I consider the collusion is that two alliances would agree to get the same attack bonus, diversity or whatever to force a draw. But then another alliance who isn't colluding would beat a different alliance, and they'd get more points, leaving the two colluding alliances behind. I'm genuinely curious here, not just disagreeing for the hell of it
Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie? Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie. I mean I get it, objectively, to tie you need to do better than losing. Performing better should get you more points no? I'm just one of those guys that doesn't want a trophy for a tie. Either win or lose in my book, and a tie leans more into lose for me. I get that, and maybe Kabam agrees. I just feel personally that it's hella demoralising to push to not lose, use items, use boosts and potions, and then get a tie which gives you the same points as a loss I'd feel differently if it wasn't just a 1 on 1. If you do better than some/most people but tie with 1, you deserve a reward. But in 1 on 1 war, the goal isn't to not lose. Your whole goal is to do better than your opponent. I don't think a reward should be given for just doing as well. I see it more as how well you do.Losing < Drawing < Winning - that's just logic, ask any sports player they'd rather draw than lose, more points, more prizes whatever. But in MCOC, the points for Losing = Drawing < winningthat to me doesnt make sense, but of course, I respect your opinion in the matter. I think it's subjective whether you think drawing deserves more points While it deserves more points, because it would create massive collusion incentives, you can’t have it How so? (I'm not disagreeing just by asking that to be clear) If winning gave more points wouldn't both alliances try to win? Or is it just in the interest of saving items. What I think of when I consider the collusion is that two alliances would agree to get the same attack bonus, diversity or whatever to force a draw. But then another alliance who isn't colluding would beat a different alliance, and they'd get more points, leaving the two colluding alliances behind. I'm genuinely curious here, not just disagreeing for the hell of it If 2 top alliances match early in the season, it would be smarter to take a 0-0 tie with 0 item use for half points. Also late in the season, when 2 alliances who are solidly in their bracket but could fall out with some losses match, again it’s smarter to take the half point tie.
I'd be more inclined to go similar to the 3 points for a win system, in which you are awarded 3 points for a win, and both teams are awarded 1 point for a tie. Instead of 25K each, it'd be closer to 10-15k each.