Lame Tiebreaker in AW

Heisenberg750

Lost yesterday’s war cuz of stupid tiebreaker rule. Before going for fight duration, also need to check total Defender kills which would make more sense

Pikolu

Defender kills after 3 don't matter and shouldn't matter. The tie breaker has been well established and works fine.

xNig

If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

Hope you get what I mean.

Heisenberg750

@Pikolu How wont it matter ?? Giving more kills on a single mode means pure lack skill. How are u saying it should-not be considered ?if u cant kill a champ within 3 tries ten hw u are evn capable of having the victory ?? Seems u and ur ally gives lot of kill on a single node and very less capable of soloing the node lol

AverageDesi

xNig said:

If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

Hope you get what I mean.

That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig

xNig

AverageDesi said:

xNig said:

If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

Hope you get what I mean.

That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig

Because a 60% increase in attack does cause a decrease in fight time.

SidDDragon

Heisenberg750 said:

@Pikolu How wont it matter ?? Giving more kills on a single mode means pure lack skill. How are u saying it should-not be considered ?if u cant kill a champ within 3 tries ten hw u are evn capable of having the victory ?? Seems u and ur ally gives lot of kill on a single node and very less capable of soloing the node lol

Or it could be a lack of skill on ur part that despite them doing 3 extra fights,they were still faster than u guys.
The rules are same for everyone and have been made known before the start of the war. U participated in the war which means that u agreed to the said rules and now that things didn’t go ur way,u cry foul

AverageDesi

xNig said:

AverageDesi said:

xNig said:

If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

Hope you get what I mean.

That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig

Because a 60% increase in attack does cause a decrease in fight time.

No but why would them being faster imply an easier defense for OP?

TyEdge

I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

Dart1981

TyEdge said:

I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

This would change a lot of alliance's mindset and would have changed the potential outcome. I believe that a lot of alliances at the mid levels use boosts and potions only until they reach their 3rd loss, at which point they just use revives or use a less than ideal champ just to save item spend, they might die a few more times but they know it doesn't matter. If it mattered then it means more items or potentially iteming out at a later part of the map.

At the top, this wouldn't matter either because they are barely dieing once let alone 3 times to any single fight, they would still be judged on fight time.

I personally prefer this way but understand that losing on time is a gut wrencher and might not be preferred by everyone.

xNig

AverageDesi said:

xNig said:

AverageDesi said:

xNig said:

If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

Hope you get what I mean.

That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig

Because a 60% increase in attack does cause a decrease in fight time.

No but why would them being faster imply an easier defense for OP?

Just saying it’s probable.. but with suicides on offence likely means suicides on D, which means bleed/poison ticks plus recoil makes defenders easier to kill. I personally doubt players will spend units each war, switching in and out of suicides at G1 level.

xNig

TyEdge said:

I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

This way the alliance will be doubly penalized for the same mistakes, first with loss of AB, then from tie breaker.

MrSakuragi

Tiebreaker is fine the way it is. This probably doesn’t get brought up if you win.

ItsDamien

Wasn’t there a time where defensive kills mattered more after the first 3? And didn’t people complain about that? Could be a Mandela effect on my part.

FrostGiantLord

The OP is just trying to make excuses. Seems like a skill issue to me.

pseudosane

After 3 deaths on a node, the kills given on that node doesnt matter. They cleared the map faster than you which is why they won. Unfortunately this is something you have to keep track of, time is also a factor whenever this rare occurence happens.

Heisenberg750

@FrostGiantLord Great logic man. Seems giving more than 3 kills on a single node doesn’t comes under lack of skill according to u.

Heisenberg750

@SidDDragon lol u are saying finishing up faster is more skill full tan giving more than 3 kills in a same node (also on lot of nodes with more than 3 kills)??? Typical noob logic. Seems like u often give more kills in same node lol. No one agreed to any rules man u are just saying this cuz this rule favours u and ur noob alliance watever who specialises in lot of kills on diffrent nodes l

Heisenberg750

@Obsidiman_Jones Those 3 extra kills happened on a same node and so total 6kills on a single node brother. Also its not even a boss and minibosses node. I know its been there for a long time and Iam just saying when it comes to tie breaker, this extra kills also needs to be considered before going to fight duration which would make more sense. I am not saying extra kills should be considered as a main attack bonus points.

Pikolu

pseudosane said:

After 3 deaths on a node, the kills given on that node doesnt matter. They cleared the map faster than you which is why they won. Unfortunately this is something you have to keep track of, time is also a factor whenever this rare occurence happens.

In the very beginning, all deaths gave the other team points. To reduce the effectiveness of some defenders that can get 20 kills, kabam introduced attack bonuses. So instead of getting points when your defender gets kills, you instead lose points for dying. It is a more fair system and helps reduce frustration while keeping the gamemode competitive.

GroundedWisdom

Pikolu said:

pseudosane said:

After 3 deaths on a node, the kills given on that node doesnt matter. They cleared the map faster than you which is why they won. Unfortunately this is something you have to keep track of, time is also a factor whenever this rare occurence happens.

In the very beginning, all deaths gave the other team points. To reduce the effectiveness of some defenders that can get 20 kills, kabam introduced attack bonuses. So instead of getting points when your defender gets kills, you instead lose points for dying. It is a more fair system and helps reduce frustration while keeping the gamemode competitive.

There were a number of reasons for removing Defender Kills as a metric. Champs that could garner many kills was one of them. Another was it dissuaded Players from participating. I was present in the discussions on the Forum at the time, and it took some time for them to settle on a system of Attack Bonus so that it accounts for skill, but at the same time doesn't penalize Players from trying to complete the Map.
Adding it as a metric with the current system would be counterproductive.

SidDDragon

Heisenberg750 said:

@SidDDragon lol u are saying finishing up faster is more skill full tan giving more than 3 kills in a same node (also on lot of nodes with more than 3 kills)??? Typical noob logic. Seems like u often give more kills in same node lol. No one agreed to any rules man u are just saying this cuz this rule favours u and ur noob alliance watever who specialises in lot of kills on diffrent nodes l

So if my “noob” alliance favours from this rule and wins then what does that say about ur alliance which couldn’t win with the same set of rules?? 🤔🤔
But thanks for the laugh mate…I had a good time reading ur reply.

Heisenberg750

@SidDDragon doesn't favour cause being noob is tolerated to some level in AW ?? Wont it come to ur sense tat those extra kills should be considered as a factor when all other primary criteria ends up in tie??? So ur brain really that much empty tat this should be overlooked for fight duration ??

ItsDamien

Heisenberg750 said:

@SidDDragon doesn't favour cause being noob is tolerated to some level in AW ?? Wont it come to ur sense tat those extra kills should be considered as a factor when all other primary criteria ends up in tie??? So ur brain really that much empty tat this should be overlooked for fight duration ??

Beating fights faster is always more skilful than giving up an extra few deaths on a fight. The thing you’re not considering is that DESPITE having to spend more time in one fight due to those extra deaths, they still did everything else faster.

Heisenberg750

@ItsDamien I agree its skillfull but its not a primary criteria of defining the victory. Attacker kills are. So extra kills in tat attacker kills shouldnt be overlooked for Fight duration. Doesnt matter how many kills but attacker kills are kills. I know its a frustrating fact but it must not be ignored…

TyEdge

xNig said:

TyEdge said:

I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

This way the alliance will be doubly penalized for the same mistakes, first with loss of AB, then from tie breaker.

They aren’t being doubly penalized anymore than they’re being doubly penalized on time for restarting the fight.

The reality is this: the diversity counts differ from war to war and death counts vary wildly by tier 5. (We use 148 to dupe two elite defenders, but we know we just need to win by one bonus instead of tie). Elite alliances will almost never lose two, much less four, bonuses. Their wars get decided on time. Lesser alliances have so much scoring variation that ties will be exceedingly rare, and excess deaths are a better metric of performance IMO than time, so long as 40% team revives are 1 loyalty.

Heisenberg750

One more thing - this is a very rare situation which happens so none of here who are backlashing the post haven’t experienced this at all so yeah its a dumb thing
to make understand. Yeah u can continue with disagrees and backlashes

Greekhit

Heisenberg750 said:

Lost yesterday’s war cuz of stupid tiebreaker rule. Before going for fight duration, also need to check total Defender kills which would make more sense

If I was Kabam I would address that TIE situations not by time as the tie breaker in order to have a winner, but with points distribution for TIE.
Instead of having always a winner (even by measuring fight time to have one), in the rare occasion of a TIE, no 30k win bonus points for no one (since there is no clear winner) but 10k tie bonus points for both.
Same pointing system as it is at Football (Soccer), where the the win gives 3 points to winner and a tie gives 1 point to both teams.
It seems more fair to me.

Pikolu

Greekhit said:

Heisenberg750 said:

Lost yesterday’s war cuz of stupid tiebreaker rule. Before going for fight duration, also need to check total Defender kills which would make more sense

If I was Kabam I would address that TIE situations not by time as the tie breaker in order to have a winner, but with points distribution for TIE.
Instead of having always a winner (even by measuring fight time to have one), in the rare occasion of a TIE, no 30k win bonus points for no one (since there is no clear winner) but 10k tie bonus points for both.
Same pointing system as it is at Football (Soccer), where the the win gives 3 points to winner and a tie gives 1 point to both teams.
It seems more fair to me.

This would actually be very unfair and would increase the amount of shell alliances in the game.

A shell alliance is a top tier alliance that rotates between 2 alliances. They will Main Alliance A for one season and have alts in Alliance B doing war to drop their rating. Then next season they will all move to alliance B and have their alts go to alliance A to drop its rating. By doing this, they get easier matchups and avoid the actual top alliances.

The top alliances most wars have 0-2 deaths which causes a lot of ties, to offset this it is pretty much mandatory they max boost every fight to finish it as fast as possible so you win the tie breaker. If these alliances just got tie points because there is no tie breaker, then the shell alliances will take over all of Master tier AW and would ruin the gamemode.

Qwerty12345

Tie break is well established... but I think it instead should be: fewest items used

DNA3000

Heisenberg750 said:

One more thing - this is a very rare situation which happens so none of here who are backlashing the post haven’t experienced this at all so yeah its a dumb thing
to make understand. Yeah u can continue with disagrees and backlashes

I was there when defender kills was first invented and iterated and mutated into attacker bonuses. This gets into the subject of what people think is fair, and just reaching the point where they was general consensus on attacker bonus mechanics was extremely difficult. In fact, it was less consensus and more what people could live with. The devs are highly unlikely to reopen that discussion to try to resolve whether more kills or faster time is the better skill metric. The current state of war scoring is not based on what everyone thinks is fair, because there's zero consensus there. It is based on what people can live with, and most people can live with how it is now.

You might think defender kills should count as the stronger tie breaker, but you will open the can of worms that contains people who think all defender kills should count period. And that's going to be an exhausting yet completely fruitless discussion.