This is why this may be our last War Season

By our, I mean my alliance.

When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.

I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?

Comments

Chatterofforums

Elephant in the room, if your only able to get 6 players in your alliance to place defenders, then I absolutely agree with your choice in stopping war. Sounds pointless if you can't even complete 1 BG.

Plus plenty of alliances don't do aw. I quit doing competitive AW years ago myself.

DaddyStarlord

By our, I mean my alliance.

When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.

I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?

Yes you are wrong for wanting a handicap. Find 10 members that will join. Simple there's literally thousands of people to recruit my guy. You can most definitely find 10 people that will join a war bg.

DaddyStarlord

By our, I mean my alliance.

When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.

I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?

If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo

SummonerNR

The points structure is such that 3 difference in Diversity is worth slightly more than 1 difference in Attack Bonus. Thus they won by 10 points.

While it is understandable that you feel beating “more” opponents should be worth some points, let’s consider the implications.

If you say that beating an opponent defender should give more points than just traveling past a node that was left empty, that would result in most of the map being left empty by most alliances from now on (with maybe just a few select hard nodes or bosses filled where they would hope to actually get some defensive kills from).

But perhaps Diversity could be adjusted a little bit to be more like a “percentage” unique amongst those that actually have placed, instead of currently as a “count” whereby a missing player really hurts (a minus 5 diversity because of that missing player).
Maybe a combination, percentage based, but with a lesser negative like a “minus 1” for a missing player instead of “minus 5”.

Rap

I fully understand your frustration. We have out played opponents in the attack and lost on diversity as well. All because we were down 3 players and matched 27 to 30. But! Our diversity was bad among those of us who placed.
We have been working on it.
Not crazy about it! But also not crazy about the idea of doing away with it and of fighting through a map with 10 things, 10 kitty prydes, and 10 moleman and korgs!

Panchulon21

The results look fine to me. You place lees folks, that’s on your Alliance. The missed spots you didn’t place; they still get full attack bonus when they pass by it

LordSmasher

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.

TyEdge

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.

We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.

LordSmasher

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.

I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.

phillgreen

Do what I did.

Create alts until you have enough 1 and 2* champs to place on defence. Seems stupid to get points for placing a 1* spidey but there is nothing else you can if you don't want to recruit.

Aburaees

You simply didn’t pick up enough attack bonuses to offset the diversity disadvantage.
Kill counts mean nothing on their own.
By placing less defenders you are depriving the opponent of kills, but you are giving them easy attack bonuses.
And no I don’t think you should get diversity points for empty defence slots…that’s not what diverse means.

TyEdge

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.

You’ve described a scenario where there is a penalty for nondiverse champs. That means you’d score better having 45 diverse and 5 empty nodes than 45 diverse and 5 more dupes. It discourages participation and rewards alliances who don’t place full defenses.

pseudosane

By our, I mean my alliance.

When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.

I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?
If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo

no need to be condescending

SummonerNR

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.
You’ve described a scenario where there is a penalty for nondiverse champs. That means you’d score better having 45 diverse and 5 empty nodes than 45 diverse and 5 more dupes. It discourages participation and rewards alliances who don’t place full defenses.

Maybe a %-based Diverse calculation could be based out of how many players participate in total (including those who only joined on attack)

So 45 Unique out of 45 placed would be 100% unique if only 9 people joined in all (whether on defense phase or only attack day).
But if a 10th person came for attack, then the Diversity % points for them would fall to 90% (45 out of 50, even though only 45 were placed on map and all of those 45 were unique, they lose that full diversity because someone joined later that had skipped placing. Same would apply to someone only placing 2 defenders and leaving their other 3 roster slots empty, the empties would count against them because they “should have / could have” placed more and that player was indeed present for at least some aspect of the war)

Typhoon

You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!

Whatevertoo

Elephant in the room, if your only able to get 6 players in your alliance to place defenders, then I absolutely agree with your choice in stopping war. Sounds pointless if you can't even complete 1 BG.

Plus plenty of alliances don't do aw. I quit doing competitive AW years ago myself.

It’s not an elephant, not for us lol - we have had more than ten people in the alliance, numerous times. Some people left the game, some people wanted bigger rewards but plenty more got kicked than not. Never mind the fact it’s hard to get decent players to join a small alliance in general. But really, it turns out we really only like the six of us. 🤷🏾‍♂️

Personally, I have been in and run other alliances. None of that is the point tho…the point is you shouldn’t HAVE to have a full alliance to have a fair shot at winning a part of a mobile game. That’s why there are handicaps in plenty other games.

Whatevertoo

By our, I mean my alliance.

Yes you are wrong for wanting a handicap. Find 10 members that will join. Simple there's literally thousands of people to recruit my guy. You can most definitely find 10 people that will join a war bg.
First, read the above response to the first person who replied, “my guy”. 😂

Secondly, NEITHER alliance had full BGs and I would expect there to be a handicap if I outnumbered THEM. If we won by Diversity but they beat the **** out of us in gameplay, I’D feel like they got cheated. Period. YOU may be ok with winning like that tho and that’s ok too 😬 That’s you and your morals, I get it.

Whatevertoo

Ooops, sorry “My guy”, I messed up the quote. 😔😂😂😂

Whatevertoo

The points structure is such that 3 difference in Diversity is worth slightly more than 1 difference in Attack Bonus. Thus they won by 10 points.

While it is understandable that you feel beating “more” opponents should be worth some points, let’s consider the implications.

If you say that beating an opponent defender should give more points than just traveling past a node that was left empty, that would result in most of the map being left empty by most alliances from now on (with maybe just a few select hard nodes or bosses filled where they would hope to actually get some defensive kills from).

But perhaps Diversity could be adjusted a little bit to be more like a “percentage” unique amongst those that actually have placed, instead of currently as a “count” whereby a missing player really hurts (a minus 5 diversity because of that missing player).
Maybe a combination, percentage based, but with a lesser negative like a “minus 1” for a missing player instead of “minus 5”.

Thanks for that, yes I understand the issues and agree with you. I remember when they first introduced Diversity and the problems they had with it’s fairness. Since they tweaked it, I was fine with it and still LIKE making players diversify.

I thought the same along the lines of what you said, some percentage based on missing players, but then it would have to be based solely on players placed during placement - which would in turn push teams to be sure EVERYONE places in time and not joining simply for the attack.

Whatevertoo

I fully understand your frustration. We have out played opponents in the attack and lost on diversity as well. All because we were down 3 players and matched 27 to 30. But! Our diversity was bad among those of us who placed.
We have been working on it.
Not crazy about it! But also not crazy about the idea of doing away with it and of fighting through a map with 10 things, 10 kitty prydes, and 10 moleman and korgs!

Same… I do like Diversity… and in my example, we had to face more than one Thing (one being the boss), 2 Dooms and 2 Nick Furys - and still beat em but lost 😡

We posted 2 Dooms so we expect to lose points for that, like you said.

Good luck getting your Diversity right, I remember the pain of trying to get near 30 people and personalities on the same page, as a leader and as an officer (too many times!) in this game.

Whatevertoo

You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!

Yep and I think that’s what (or one of the things) needs to be tweeked? How can the effort of beating a champ (especially outright and in one shot) in a fight be worth less than just simply placing a champ?

Whatevertoo

By our, I mean my alliance.

When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.

I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?
If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo
no need to be condescending

Thanks for that. He was wrong anyway but hey - HE’S ( his way of thinking, not him personally) part of the reason I don’t run bigger alliances anymore. 🤷🏾‍♂️

Whatevertoo

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.

Everything you said… except that last part wasn’t necessary in my opinion lol. I believe that exploit happened a lot before they tweeked War again.

Whatevertoo

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.
You’ve described a scenario where there is a penalty for nondiverse champs. That means you’d score better having 45 diverse and 5 empty nodes than 45 diverse and 5 more dupes. It discourages participation and rewards alliances who don’t place full defenses.
Maybe a %-based Diverse calculation could be based out of how many players participate in total (including those who only joined on attack)

So 45 Unique out of 45 placed would be 100% unique if only 9 people joined in all (whether on defense phase or only attack day).
But if a 10th person came for attack, then the Diversity % points for them would fall to 90% (45 out of 50, even though only 45 were placed on map and all of those 45 were unique, they lose that full diversity because someone joined later that had skipped placing. Same would apply to someone only placing 2 defenders and leaving their other 3 roster slots empty, the empties would count against them because they “should have / could have” placed more and that player was indeed present for at least some aspect of the war)

YESSSSS that is exactly what I thought out months ago! That would fix the issue I mentioned when I quoted you the first time too!
It would make leaders be sure people placed champs and not just jump in for the attack phase I think.

Whatevertoo

To answer the point of “just get more people”:

1) we like who we have
2) we had a full BG plenty of times, we either didn’t like the other players and they left or we kicked them, the other players left for bigger rewards or just plain quit the game.
3) not the point from my point on fairness anyways andddd

Lastly and MOST importantly - WE LIKE WHO WE HAVE. Shouldn’t need more people to even out gameplay. Hell we aren’t even complaining about or asking for better rewards…or less "Input Issues” 😂

Whatevertoo

Do what I did.

Create alts until you have enough 1 and 2* champs to place on defence. Seems stupid to get points for placing a 1* spidey but there is nothing else you can if you don't want to recruit.

We literally thought of the SAME thing months ago, when this first happened… because we like the small group we have Hahahaha Create **** accounts and place anything, I agree but the time and effort ( even if it’s only five minutes, but realistically it would still take some time to get even 5 champs per account AND then have diverse champs beyond the OG Spidey, Cap, Wolvey or Ironman they start you out with for EACH account…) I just think ( or hope) there’s a better way.

Whatevertoo

I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed.
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.

Imagine by using my example then.
Say we use your process:
I only came with 6 players on defense to their 8. I only duped one champ (Doom) so the rest of the 49 “spots” would count FOR me.
They duped 3 champs (one champ 3 times) so they would only have 43 “spots” counting for them.
Then say I brought 4 more people to fight on Attack?
Or just use the number of players from my War.
Basically, we would win most every time we met even if THEY killed more champs than us by a small margin. That’s how it was exploited when they first created Diversity if I remember correctly…I do know that it WAS exploited originally.

Did I even explain that corrrectly…?🤔🥺

GroundedWisdom

By our, I mean my alliance.

When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.

I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?
If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo
no need to be condescending

While the wording may be inconsiderate, there is some validity in the point.
Part of the scoring involves earning Points for what you place, via Diversity. People can play with the best they can muster, but playing with less Players means less Points. That's not the fault of the system.

naikavon

You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Yep and I think that’s what (or one of the things) needs to be tweeked? How can the effort of beating a champ (especially outright and in one shot) in a fight be worth less than just simply placing a champ?

I understand what you are saying here but if you think a little deeper it easily falls apart.

Consider for a moment, from an opponent's point of view. If me placing a defense gives you more points for beating them, what is my motivation to place a defense? Before you know it, war would be populated with empty maps on both sides and it becomes an exercise in walking to the end with no fights becuase I'm not going to give you more points to fight champs.

War would die. What would be the point? It certainly would not improve war.

Whatevertoo

You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!

Agreed, but this isn’t the first time this happened. In one War we faced 10 players who set defense, they lost 11 times (technically 9 because one champ got 5 kills) to our 2 and we lost then too… and they had dupes in that case too. The numbers were:

160 to 152 Attack Bonus
19 to 44 Diversity
Everything else equal in Clears and Explored
We killed 50 of theirs and you know the rest…

The first time it happened in a War, the defender kills were so lopsided in our favor, one of us put in a ticket with Kabam wondering if they had somehow used an exploit to win. Diversity just seems to reward too many points, but maybe that’s what makes it worth it to some players to do it at all? Just isn’t worth the effort or materials (Boosts) at this point if we see we are outnumbered overall - as it has already been mentioned someone lost when they were outnumbered with nearly 3 BGs full.

Again, I like Diversity and especially like the idea of it being useful as a tiebreaker but to us it rewards too much on its own