Alliance War Points System feels wrong!

KrueLee

Watching the result of our last alliance war made our alliance wondering. We’re understanding how it works and where the points come from, BUT should this really result in a loss?

Panchulon21

Yes because the other alliance had more points scored than you guys. That’s all that matters.

Wasy1

Panchulon21 said:

Yes because the other alliance had more points scored than you guys. That’s all that matters.

No they didn't

Wasy1

Panchulon21 said:

Yes because the other alliance had more points scored than you guys. That’s all that matters.

Have you calculated?

KrueLee

Hm, in my opinion playing better than the opponents should be good for something.

mmmbanyas

If your alliance is talking about AW, now is a good time to talk about your diversity and why you didn’t explore 100%. Get your diversity up and explore 100% and you won’t have anything to question. Looks like only 25 people participated too so it seems like your alliance doesn’t take AW seriously.

Graves_3

KrueLee said:

Hm, in my opinion playing better than the opponents should be good for something.

Depends what you call as better. Clearly they were more committed since more people participated and they placed more defenders. They also explored more.

KrueLee

The calculation isn’t wrong, but it feels not to be fair if you loose by defeating the opponents more often in a shorter period of time while being 4 participants less

Crusaderjr

well the extra 30k points for winning is for the season ranking the rest is based off the match... seems you guys got screwed over the most off diversity cause lack of participation... which is honestly kinda dumb but thats what happens when theres lack of activity

KrueLee

mmmbanyas said:

If your alliance is talking about AW, now is a good time to talk about your diversity and why you didn’t explore 100%. Get your diversity up and explore 100% and you won’t have anything to question. Looks like only 25 people participated too so it seems like your alliance doesn’t take AW seriously.

We had new members unable to join😉

Wasy1

Graves_3 said:

KrueLee said:

Hm, in my opinion playing better than the opponents should be good for something.

Depends what you call as better. Clearly they were more committed since more people participated and they placed more defenders. They also explored more.

So kabam decides winner on commitment not on points? Yeah

KrueLee

Don’t get me wrong, I definitely know that our diversity wasn’t good, and why we lost! Additionally I know that exploration got more important since the last changes. But should it be impossible to win even by fighting better only because the alliance hasn’t enough members or some new guys who are unable to join?

Wasy1

Crusaderjr said:

well the extra 30k points for winning is for the season ranking the rest is based off the match... seems you guys got screwed over the most off diversity cause lack of participation... which is honestly kinda dumb but thats what happens when theres lack of activity

141150 points, winner
141730 points, lose the war

Only Kabam can do this

Graves_3

Wasy1 said:

Graves_3 said:

KrueLee said:

Hm, in my opinion playing better than the opponents should be good for something.

Depends what you call as better. Clearly they were more committed since more people participated and they placed more defenders. They also explored more.

So kabam decides winner on commitment not on points? Yeah

You said playing better than opponents. Your opponents had more points so objectively they were better than your alliance.

Crusaderjr

Wasy1 said:

Crusaderjr said:

well the extra 30k points for winning is for the season ranking the rest is based off the match... seems you guys got screwed over the most off diversity cause lack of participation... which is honestly kinda dumb but thats what happens when theres lack of activity

141150 points, winner
141730 points, lose the war

Only Kabam can do this

its actually 141750/141730 but ok....

ItsDamien

Wasy1 said:

Crusaderjr said:

well the extra 30k points for winning is for the season ranking the rest is based off the match... seems you guys got screwed over the most off diversity cause lack of participation... which is honestly kinda dumb but thats what happens when theres lack of activity

141150 points, winner
141730 points, lose the war

Only Kabam can do this

Not sure how you got those numbers but the ones who won, had more points before the 30k win bonus.

ItsDamien

KrueLee said:

Don’t get me wrong, I definitely know that our diversity wasn’t good, and why we lost! Additionally I know that exploration got more important since the last changes. But should it be impossible to win even by fighting better only because the alliance hasn’t enough members or some new guys who are unable to join?

Yes, because if you can’t explore more than your opponent regardless of the reason you shouldn’t win

KrueLee

Graves_3 said:

You said playing better than opponents. Your opponents had more points so objectively they were better than your alliance.

Sorry but no, they have been more, had a better diversity and spent l a lot of potions. That’s not fighting better, only better for $$$

ItsDamien

KrueLee said:

Sorry but no, they have been more, had a better diversity and spent l a lot of potions. That’s not fighting better, only better for $$$

They fought smarter. They played for the win and did so by using their revives and potions to do so.

KrueLee

That’s smart? And better? Lol we just don’t needed ours, these are still in the overflow 😉

Graves_3

KrueLee said:

Graves_3 said:

You said playing better than opponents. Your opponents had more points so objectively they were better than your alliance.

Sorry but no, they have been more, had a better diversity and spent l a lot of potions. That’s not fighting better, only better for $$$

You got to decide what you are comparing my friend. Better fighting or points? You seem to go back and forth between subjective and objective parameters. By points, you lost. Do better next time.

ItsDamien

KrueLee said:

That’s smart? And better? Lol we just don’t needed ours, these are still in the overflow 😉

Yeah it is smart, because they won.

Crusaderjr

KrueLee said:

That’s smart? Lol we just don’t needed our, these are still in the overflow 😉

seems to me you think you deserve the win even tho for this war you had less defenders and less people attacking, lowering all your overall points.

while the other team had full commitment and did more than yours...

this is more of a personal issue than a kabam issue... it sucks to lose but except it, get your team aligned and work on getting everyone committed to 100%

naikavon

KrueLee said:

Graves_3 said:

You said playing better than opponents. Your opponents had more points so objectively they were better than your alliance.

Sorry but no, they have been more, had a better diversity and spent l a lot of potions. That’s not fighting better, only better for $$$

The rules for war are known by both sides prior to an engagement. While I understand your point about your opponent's number of deaths, it's not like everyone is unaware that beyond 3 deaths the number is irrelevant.

Not for nothing, but history is full of occassions where a smaller army out fought a larger army... yet lost the battle. The amount of troops lost was far more, similar to this battle.

I'd advise, looking within, getting your diversity up, your participation up... do all that you can do to lessen the degree of variance and chance ( depending on your opponent to make mistakes).

It doesn't matter whether you agree with the current scoring or not, it's how things are run. You can use it to your advantage or have it take advantage of you. Your choice

KrueLee

My criticism is about the points system, I’m just missing the good old mcoc times, when the competition was about fighting good in a fighting game, not about being enough people or spending more money 😉

Crusaderjr

KrueLee said:

My criticism is about the points system, I’m just missing the good old mcoc times, when the competition was about fighting good in a fighting game, not about being enough people or spending more money 😉

by your logic you think 1 v 10 should be an even playing field where the 1 has the chance to beat the 10.... and you make it seem like kabam hasnt been sending everyone the same compensation... ok... good luck in this discussion folks xD im out

ItsDamien

KrueLee said:

My criticism is about the points system, I’m just missing the good old mcoc times, when the competition was about fighting good in a fighting game, not about being enough people or spending more money 😉

War has always been about having enough people, and especially has to do with having items to use. I don’t know what fantasy land you’ve been living in but it sounds a lot better than the reality. I hope you’re happy there.

KrueLee

Offending me personally tells me enough about you, and I guess you haven’t even been here before the times of diversity and attack bonus.

Worknprogress

KrueLee said:

That’s smart? And better? Lol we just don’t needed ours, these are still in the overflow 😉

Probably should have explored more of the map with them then...

Worknprogress

KrueLee said:

My criticism is about the points system, I’m just missing the good old mcoc times, when the competition was about fighting good in a fighting game, not about being enough people or spending more money 😉

When has exploring more of the map not been beneficial in war?

KrueLee

Worknprogress said:

Probably should have explored more of the map with them then...

None of us didn’t make it through the map😉 we had 29 members at the start of the AW, 1 guy on vacation and 3 new members unable to join.

Worknprogress said:

When has exploring more of the map not been beneficial in war?

Yes exploration has always been beneficial, and the loss was correct after the current points system. But should it be like this?

I’m not sure, maybe I’m misunderstood because I’m not writing in my own language.

Let’s compare it to soccer, one team has only 10 players because of a red card, should they automatically be unable to win because of missing about 10% of players (yes the 10% are not a perfect match but I think comparable to 25vs29)