Should wars end in draw each ally gets 25k bonus points

Trap

Draw wars 25k bonus points each

Etjama

No

This isn't elementary school. A tie isn't a win.

Draconic_12

No

No! this can affect high-tier wars as they tie more often.

Etjama

No

JoshKosh557 said:

Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie?

Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie.

BitterSteel

Yes

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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?

Etjama

No

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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.

TitoBandito187

No

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

Why would this make a difference? woudlnt both sides still tie?

Still boosts your score which boosts your placement. Effectively rewarding a tie.

This ^^
And you know alliances would game the system and just tie each other on purpose as a result. Gotta win if you want the big points.

IKON

No

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.

BitterSteel

Yes

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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

Etjama

No

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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.

BitterSteel

Yes

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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 < winning

that 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

danielmath

No

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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 < winning

that 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

Etjama

No

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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 < winning

that 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

Again, if we're talking about more than 1 opponent I agree with you. Losing < Drawing < Winning.

But coming from a former chess fanatic, when it comes to 1v1's, it's a loss if it's not a win imo. I've played in tournaments and of course if I make it far then draw I'm happy. But if there's no tournament and I'm just playing 1 person, I walk away from a stalemate with the same feeling I get when I lose.

Definitely subjective, just my take.

The_Sentry06

Whatever it is, Ties in any game makes me feel worse than losing. Being sooo close to beating the opponent yet not being able is the worst.

BitterSteel

Yes

danielmath said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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 < winning

that 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

danielmath

No

BitterSteel said:

danielmath said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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 < winning

that 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.

BitterSteel

Yes

danielmath said:

BitterSteel said:

danielmath said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

BitterSteel said:

Etjama said:

JoshKosh557 said:

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 < winning

that 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.

Fair enough, I'm assuming every alliance would talk to each other, say their diversity and attack bonus and people would try and match them then?

TitoBandito187

No

Do what it takes to not tie. Maybe try a different strategy. Instead of full diversity, take the risk to double up a rough defender and hope for the kill, whatever you think is worth the risk to secure the win.

Ties happen, but if doing 3 Bgs, it's not likely that it's going to be an even war with every single matchup. People take the risk of not boosting or healing, etc.

A tie is no more guaranteed than a win or a loss (without colussion). When it happens, it happens and all you can do is try your best which is what everyone else who wants into win is trying to do too.

SummonerNR

Yes

IKON said:

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.

@Etjama , prior suggestion by IKON for doing 15k each (which between both teams would still only be 60% of the equivalent full blown Win by one of the teams) would be similar to plenty of other competitions. (the 10k would be a little too low I think)

Otherwise you’re saying that a team (in sports) could go 1 Win and 15 Losses (as example Football season, or even the “other” football), and they would have a better season record than a team that happened to Tie every single game (0 Wins, 0 Losses, 16 Ties).

I just don’t think 1 - 15 - 0 is better than 0 - 0 - 16.