I am concerned about the impact of smaller win bonuses on alliances that don't run three groups.Those win bonuses are a substantially bigger percentage of our total score, so if they get reduced in favor of more exploration points, it's going to put us at an even bigger disadvantage than we are now. Currently, a 2-group win is worth more points than a 3-group loss. With this change, those will flip, and those of us running fewer groups are going to start seeing our rankings drop.
But don't think that is coming at the expense of increased Explore (the Explore sounds like will directly offset the removal of “Defenders Remaining” points, although not sure it is an exact replacement).
What about the traditional game crash = 1 KO, 2 crashes = 2 KOs? Do we still keep this unique tradition?
In most of the wars we do (tier 6), there are rarely any defenders remaining, so the removal of surviving defender points has minimal impact. Each BG has somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 nodes, so 50 more points means an extra 5k or so points per group.Over the course of a 12 war season, these changes will give a 3-group alliance roughly 60k more (new) points than a 2-group alliance with an identical record and exploration—before factoring in modifiers. That amounts to a whole extra win (and more!) in the current system.
I'm guessing it's an unintended side effect, but why should a 2 BG alliance outrank a 3 BG alliance even with a couple more wins? A 3 BG alliance needs more depth to fight, and if I were Kabam I would always want to incentivize more alliances to use maximum battlegroups. If an alliance wants to take it easy, I understand that they still want g3 rewards (for example) but why should they pass the s1 ally that runs 3 BG and puts in work every single war?
The rationale behind changing exploration is ill-conceived. Let’s say that a team skips one lane in each pod in phase 2, and that they 100% phase 1. They leave 6 defenders standing and 8 nodes unexplored, assuming they skip lane 5. (I don’t have the map in front of me...apologies if that’s one off.)The net result for that in the current system is a 2700 point swing, 150*8=1200 for exploration, and 250*6=1500 for defenders remaining. In the new scoring system, the attackers lose 200*8=1600 and the defenders gain nothing. It’s only a 1600 point net swing. You forego possible attack bonuses on nodes you skip, but you might recoup those by being healthier when you fight shared nodes and minis. In other words, I think these changes hurt a boss rush that only hits one lane or one pod. Getting to 100% is less important, and now I think diversity is (again) more important by proxy, as are attack bonuses.
High ground seems like a direct quake nerf. Don’t understand why the need to nerf a champ that requires the most skill to play? Since shes only available as a 5* shes going to lose relevancy in story mode as healthpools continue to rise. Wish the team was more transparent about these controversial defense tactics
Great post @Zan0 , because previously Kabam stated over and over again that 100% exploring shouldn't be the meta. What has happened with that 😅.Boss rushes happens mostly I think in 2 occasions.1) Alliances are learning the nodes of a higher tier and it is too costly to lose the boss points so they skip some paths. After getting more experienced they will also 100%. I think a very healthy and sensible learning curve. 2)At the last week of the season, your officers did the math. You can't reach te upper breaket anymore and you have enough points that you don't have to win anymore. So you can play easy and save pots/boosts. Also I think healthy and normal behaviour.Why are you suddenly so bothered with Boss rushes Kabam?