Look at the stats of my alliances loss. We only died 76 times....14 less than the starting total of 90. They died 135 times...45 times more than the starting total. We cleaned their clocks. We were clearly the better Alliance.
But in the current scoring format, because their defenders’ PI was 3000 points higher than ours they win by 4 points? It’s absurd. Defender Rating isn’t a performance stat. It’s a roster measurable. Defender Kills on the other hand are performance related. Obviously our defenders were too much for them to beat without multiple revives. Hence....this current format tends to reward the alliances that use items and got lucky with pulling high PI champs.
That’s like a baseball team getting 10 runned but getting the win becsuse they have a higher team batting average.
In most competitions, stats don't matter at all. We don't award wins for the most strike outs either. So what would you think about a war decided like this:
Most boss kills win
else Most exploration wins
else Most nodes won wins
else Highest defender diversity wins
else Highest defender rating wins
else Tie.
Definition of a node win: for every numbered node, whichever alliance captures that node with the fewest attacker losses wins the node. If both sides capture the node with the same amount of losses including zero, that node is declared a tie. If the node is unoccupied, the attacking side is defined to have captured that node if it is traversed with zero losses. A node that is not traversed at all is considered lost unless both sides fail to traverse the node, in which case the node is declared a tie.
In this version of war, no one wins on "stats" or points per se, unless everything is literally tied. It is all about victory conditions. The boss kill is the primary victory condition. Exploring the map is the second one. Defeating nodes with the least amount of losses is the third. After that, its down to placed defenses, but that's really deep in the tie breaker.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
I can't add anything to make this better. Just wanted to make sure the maximum amount of people have a chance to get as much enjoyment as me out of this post. Now I have to clean up the water I spit out when I read it.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
"Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before" your words about me.
No, you don't have a clue about me. You're the troll talking out of your &@! and making a judgment about someone you know nothing about, that has no basis in reality, What "cheap shot" have I taken at you besides calling out your BS here.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
"Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before" your words about me.
No, you don't have a clue about me. You're the troll talking out of your &@! and making a judgment about someone you know nothing about, that has no basis in reality, What "cheap shot" have I taken at you besides calling out your BS here.
You deserve the 0 respect you get.
The comment was rhetorical. You're right. I don't know what you've done. I wasn't implying you hadn't. It was sarcasm. What you're doing here is not appropriate either.
For that matter, using Boosts only goes so far. The PI can only be inflated so much. If Allies are making it a common practice, then it will still boil down to their Rating because you can only Boost so far. At 0.002 Points per PI, it's really not going to accumulate what I would call an unfair advantage.
So its based on roster and dupes not anything else. Sounds fair.
Actually, there are reasons why having it as a metric makes sense. Besides the fact that it aligns Allies in Tiers appropriate to their size and Rating, thus making the Matches more balanced over time, the Rating and Champs themselves are a reflection of putting work into the game. The larger Rosters have put more time and effort into their growth. Again, this is only a deciding factor when all other metrics are maximized, Exploration, Boss Kills, Diversity, Defenders Placed,....
The purpose of the most recent changes were to make the Map more difficult to complete. Inevitably, you will still have Allies that 100% everytime. That means some metric will have to account for a tie breaker. In the old system, 100% was not as common because people would stop and rely on Defender Kills. Now it's pretty much a required effort if the other Ally has completed, at least in the event that it's head-to-head. There is still a push to gain an advantage or match the other team.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
"Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before" your words about me.
No, you don't have a clue about me. You're the troll talking out of your &@! and making a judgment about someone you know nothing about, that has no basis in reality, What "cheap shot" have I taken at you besides calling out your BS here.
You deserve the 0 respect you get.
The comment was rhetorical. You're right. I don't know what you've done. I wasn't implying you hadn't. It was sarcasm. What you're doing here is not appropriate either.
Defending myself from baseless accusations and posts is only allowed by you? Spare me. Claiming sarcasm doesn’t ring true if you read your response to me. I don’t need to take your nonsense. Troll on, GW, get your last word in.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
"Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before" your words about me.
No, you don't have a clue about me. You're the troll talking out of your &@! and making a judgment about someone you know nothing about, that has no basis in reality, What "cheap shot" have I taken at you besides calling out your BS here.
You deserve the 0 respect you get.
The comment was rhetorical. You're right. I don't know what you've done. I wasn't implying you hadn't. It was sarcasm. What you're doing here is not appropriate either.
Defending myself from baseless accusations and posts is only allowed by you? Spare me. Claiming sarcasm doesn’t ring true if you read your response to me. I don’t need to take your nonsense. Troll on, GW, get your last word in.
Continuing to sling insults isn't helping anything. It was rhetorical and I'm sure you're quite aware of it. Your purpose in commenting was to insult me. I was displaying a point. If you took that as an implication, I apologize, but it wasn't at all. It was a rhetorical comment, sarcasm happens like that on the Forum all the time. That was not a dig at you. Anyone can read that. Calling people trolls and slinging insults is not appropriate. The reactions are your own responsibility.
Except for the fact that it wasn't spamming at all. It was a conversation. Of which I was not the only one participating. The term spam is applied too liberally to those we don't agree with, which the Ignore Feature can be used for by all means. However, making attacks and trying to abase people is not a proficient way to make a point. I've stated what I stated, and that was the extent of what I said. Trying to embarrass me somehow is not a debate, and I will not have my words twisted, so I clarified. That is one of the biggest problems with this community in general. People can't stand to disagree without resorting to more aggressive tactics. It's really discouraging that it always comes to a bully mentality. Sad, infact. It ruins debates. Make no mistake. I was not exposed for anything. I know what I said, and I'm not about to post screenshots, so I don't care who misinterpreted it. It's the idea that someone can be pushed out of the conversation using their experience in the game that is really not pertinent to the topic, and the sad part is, it only dilutes whatever point people are trying to make. I have experience organizing Wins. That's all we have to say. I'm not commenting on some arbitrary debate on War. I've had experience with both systems. I'm sorry if people refuse to accept that fact because they disagree with my stance, but it still remains true. The point is, it is not as extraneous to keep track of Diversity as is portrayed. It's the fact that people don't want it that's the real issue. Both systems require planning for Defense.
Any way you slice it, the new scoring is garbage. It rewards the alliances with deep pockets....which is nothing new for this game so we shouldn't be surprised.
As an officer in a top 10 UK alliance, often top 5 I can confirm that we win around 60-70% of our wars in tier 1, not enough to claim we nearly always win. Even if we wanted to drop to tier 2 we would have to lose a lot of wars to do so. We've lost 3 in a row and not dropped before. So to clarify, anyone winning nearly all their wars would find themselves in expert tier and remain there. Obviously I'm talking about a 30 person alliance running 3 battle groups though whereas GW doesn't have enough members in his alliance to run more than 1. I'm not sure what sort of points you get for winning 1 Battle group? Looking at his war rating it's not many.
You should probably also mention GW that your all encompassing knowledge of every tier in AW doesn't include fighting with or against rank 4 5*s seeing as none of your alliance appear to have any. Let's agree it's an all encompassing knowledge of fighting 1 Battle group with 4* defenders around tier 8 or so.
When the comment is made that I have no knowledge in Wars, I can state my experience. That doesn't mean I'm investing in who believes what. It means I'm stating that I'm not new at this. I'm not going to stop participating in the Thread regardless of any personal comments. People will just have to accept differences of opinions in a respectful way.
There are people with 6 month old accounts playing at a higher level of war than you. You're experience is neither extensive nor helpful. You make derogatory remarks about people not being able to organise 30 players when you only need to organise 10, most of which have rosters that Grant them 5 mediocre defenders if they are lucky. At your level the most you can do is throw in your best defenders and hope the 1 Battle group you face are worse. Stop pretending you know everything about the game and trying to make informative statements about what is best for it, you have no experience of the level that most people in here are discussing. Honestly, it's embarrassing that you continue to seek some form of recognition here.
I could care less about recognition. I was stating that I have experience organizing Wars. The comment was rhetorical and twisting it into derogatory is only creating an argument where there is none. The point that people are conveniently bypassing is both systems take preparation for Defense. It's not hard to keep track of Champs and make sure they're unique.
Doesn't matter. 10, 20, 30. You can make a list of Champs in the BG and count the doubles. If it's too much, assign an Officer to oversee a BG. That's why we have them. It's not hard to make sure there are unique Defenders. It's just not the same as relying on popular opinion based on Defender Kills.
We're moving the topic away from me. This is not a peeing contest. I know what I'm talking about. My Wars are calculated. I play within the abilities of what I have to work with, I open Wars when I know everyone will be available and have enough firepower, I organize everything, and we win as much as possible. Enough with the cheap shots. This is not a roast. Let's get back to the topic.
Doesn't matter. 10, 20, 30. You can make a list of Champs in the BG and count the doubles. If it's too much, assign an Officer to oversee a BG. That's why we have them. It's not hard to make sure there are unique Defenders. It's just not the same as relying on popular opinion based on Defender Kills.
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You don't seem to grasp the difference between what you experience with 1 Battle group against 4/40 defenders and what most of the people commenting in here experience which is 3 Battle groups against rank 4 defenders on much, much tougher nodes. You are qualified only to give your opinion of the alliance war experience at the very lowest level of play yet you continuously insert your opinion into discussions about the very highest level of play.
Comments
Fair enough.
In most competitions, stats don't matter at all. We don't award wins for the most strike outs either. So what would you think about a war decided like this:
Most boss kills win
else Most exploration wins
else Most nodes won wins
else Highest defender diversity wins
else Highest defender rating wins
else Tie.
Definition of a node win: for every numbered node, whichever alliance captures that node with the fewest attacker losses wins the node. If both sides capture the node with the same amount of losses including zero, that node is declared a tie. If the node is unoccupied, the attacking side is defined to have captured that node if it is traversed with zero losses. A node that is not traversed at all is considered lost unless both sides fail to traverse the node, in which case the node is declared a tie.
In this version of war, no one wins on "stats" or points per se, unless everything is literally tied. It is all about victory conditions. The boss kill is the primary victory condition. Exploring the map is the second one. Defeating nodes with the least amount of losses is the third. After that, its down to placed defenses, but that's really deep in the tie breaker.
I can't add anything to make this better. Just wanted to make sure the maximum amount of people have a chance to get as much enjoyment as me out of this post. Now I have to clean up the water I spit out when I read it.
"Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before" your words about me.
No, you don't have a clue about me. You're the troll talking out of your &@! and making a judgment about someone you know nothing about, that has no basis in reality, What "cheap shot" have I taken at you besides calling out your BS here.
You deserve the 0 respect you get.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The comment was rhetorical. You're right. I don't know what you've done. I wasn't implying you hadn't. It was sarcasm. What you're doing here is not appropriate either.
Actually, there are reasons why having it as a metric makes sense. Besides the fact that it aligns Allies in Tiers appropriate to their size and Rating, thus making the Matches more balanced over time, the Rating and Champs themselves are a reflection of putting work into the game. The larger Rosters have put more time and effort into their growth. Again, this is only a deciding factor when all other metrics are maximized, Exploration, Boss Kills, Diversity, Defenders Placed,....
The purpose of the most recent changes were to make the Map more difficult to complete. Inevitably, you will still have Allies that 100% everytime. That means some metric will have to account for a tie breaker. In the old system, 100% was not as common because people would stop and rely on Defender Kills. Now it's pretty much a required effort if the other Ally has completed, at least in the event that it's head-to-head. There is still a push to gain an advantage or match the other team.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Defending myself from baseless accusations and posts is only allowed by you? Spare me. Claiming sarcasm doesn’t ring true if you read your response to me. I don’t need to take your nonsense. Troll on, GW, get your last word in.
You know, I can't help it. This is just funny to me. I should get a defender kill for this.
Continuing to sling insults isn't helping anything. It was rhetorical and I'm sure you're quite aware of it. Your purpose in commenting was to insult me. I was displaying a point. If you took that as an implication, I apologize, but it wasn't at all. It was a rhetorical comment, sarcasm happens like that on the Forum all the time. That was not a dig at you. Anyone can read that. Calling people trolls and slinging insults is not appropriate. The reactions are your own responsibility.
I do have a sense of humor.
I see. So when other people comment constantly, it's not spam as long as they agree with the majority.
2- I found a problem. I keep pushing this new button but nothing is happening
You should probably also mention GW that your all encompassing knowledge of every tier in AW doesn't include fighting with or against rank 4 5*s seeing as none of your alliance appear to have any. Let's agree it's an all encompassing knowledge of fighting 1 Battle group with 4* defenders around tier 8 or so.
B: “That’s statistically impossible unless you are in the very best alliance (in our case this is MMXIV).”
A: “Statistics are not real.”
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You don't seem to grasp the difference between what you experience with 1 Battle group against 4/40 defenders and what most of the people commenting in here experience which is 3 Battle groups against rank 4 defenders on much, much tougher nodes. You are qualified only to give your opinion of the alliance war experience at the very lowest level of play yet you continuously insert your opinion into discussions about the very highest level of play.