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.
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.
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.
We already did that. There should never be an incentive to not try.
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
Have experienced it and accepted as well.
They were faster and they won. What's so difficult to understand?
If you're in a hurdle race and someone trips over the same hurdle 6 times, while other trips 3 times but the first one finishes faster, who wins?
Clearly even after dying more they were skillful enough to finish faster.
Comments
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.
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.
They were faster and they won. What's so difficult to understand?
If you're in a hurdle race and someone trips over the same hurdle 6 times, while other trips 3 times but the first one finishes faster, who wins?
Clearly even after dying more they were skillful enough to finish faster.