It could be fixed by bring back defender kills. Alliances still need to trade off between defender ko and diversity, but it will benefit the more skilled ppl. It’s absurd that kabam kept saying they value fighting skills but didn’t even put it into consideration in AW
I understand the difficulty is high. I wasn't debating that. I said eventually, you will end up with a pool of Allies that can complete the Map, because it only works up to a certain point. Allies lose, they lose Rating, and they go down. You can prevent Allies from finishing the Map, but eventually you'll end up with a pool of Allies that can finish it, and those metrics will have to be considered again. It's not possible to prevent all Allies from completing the Map. You can beat out those who can't, and then you're left with the ones that can. Unless they choose to play that way regardless and take their chances after 100%.
So your advice is aimed at the alliances who want to be the top 5% of Tier 1? Don't ignore diversity or you won't be the highest rated alliance in the world? Useful, I'm sure MMX are following your posts with notebook in hand.
You seem to be stuck in this mindset that alliances should be winning every war. Probably because that's what your alliance, sorry... your Battle group, does right? Wins almost every war? My alliance faced our first fully diverse defence for weeks yesterday. They 100% our mystic defence and won. I guess that proves your point huh? Except it cost them 200 deaths to do it whereas we did the same and picked up our participation rewards for no cost. A victory to them no doubt in your eyes? Sustainable do you think? Worth the expense? These are your endorsed tactics after all so let's hear you telling the forums that 200 deaths per war is how it should be.
If they completed the Map using the metrics present, they earned the Win. Sorry, but it's not about how many times you die.
If they completed the Map using the metrics present, they earned the Win. Sorry, but it's not about how many times you die.
What's the point in replying if you don't even answer the question? We all know they 'earned' the win. My alliance knew we would lose before our first fight.
We also all know that it's not about how many times you die anymore, hence the amount of negative feedback regarding new AW.
That's not what I asked, as you are well aware.
Simply repeating these commandments of yours whilst throwing in the word metric at every opportunity is an odd use of your time.
So, one more time... I highlighted how an alliance diversifying against a mystic defence in tier 1 did indeed win at the cost of 200 deaths. As these are the tactics you endorse do you think this is how it should be, 3 times per week?
If they completed the Map using the metrics present, they earned the Win. Sorry, but it's not about how many times you die.
What's the point in replying if you don't even answer the question? We all know they 'earned' the win. My alliance knew we would lose before our first fight.
We also all know that it's not about how many times you die anymore, hence the amount of negative feedback regarding new AW.
That's not what I asked, as you are well aware.
Simply repeating these commandments of yours whilst throwing in the word metric at every opportunity is an odd use of your time.
So, one more time... I highlighted how an alliance diversifying against a mystic defence in tier 1 did indeed win at the cost of 200 deaths. As these are the tactics you endorse do you think this is how it should be, 3 times per week?
If you're going to question what I said, at least get the statement correct. I never said that anyone should do anything. I said eventually, the Diversity metrics will matter because it's not possible to stop all Allies from completing the Map, and eventually you're left with Allies in the same Tier that can. You can place who you want, but you can't escape the math of it. As for what I think should be, do I think Kills shouldn't be a metric? Yes. We all know that. They're not, and they haven't been for months. They've been removed. So paying attention to how many times the opponent died is irrelevant.
If it didn't involve skill, Allies wouldn't be placing blockades, no one would ever have to die or use Items, every Map would be 100%, and everyone would be in Tier 1. It doesn't require Kill metrics to have skill.
So you call skill not having to die or use Items. Hate to break it to you, but people were using Items before. If people take stock in being able to make it to the end without using Items, that's fine. Doesn't mean that anyone who uses Items doesn't have skill. There is a difference between what people focus on and what War is actually about. It's about working together to earn the most Points. For that matter, the Maps take skill to complete. The higher you go, the more skill it takes. What is not necessary is to penalize the opponent for dying to boost Ego.
Gw as usual 95% of people disagree with your statement, 95% of people want kills to matter again because we ranked up defenders and bought defensive masteries, sure we need to roll with what we've been given but the general consensus is war is much less fun now, and if they brought back defender kills we would enjoy it more
@GroundedWisdom you're making good points but to my understanding the main basis of your argument is flawed. From the quick reading I did because there is a lot on this thread you believe that eventually the pool of tier 1 alliance wars will end up with only alliances capable to 100% completing a map which is not true. The tier 1 of alliance wars can sustain a pool of alliances that never 100% maps so diversity is not a deciding factor indefinitely. In the current state of the game even top alliances are reigning in their spendings so with a strong enough defense like the mystic wall both alliances will not 100% the map a process that can continue indefinitely since 100% isn't required to keep your war rating up merely a win which can be obtained from any amount of exploration
Also, you say that what tier of alliance war you are in does not matter in the discussion when it actually plays a large role in the outcome of the argument. First off, with no experience in tier 1 alliance wars you will almost certainly have less credibility on the subject matter than those who have been in tier 1 for months actually experiencing the game mode first hand. You instantly you will be under more scrutiny from the community than them and since one of your main points was flawed you lost a lot of ground on getting your argument across to the community. Secondly, just understanding the way a system works while very important can actually translate differently to the practicality of a situation without experiencing it first hand. You can understand the US political system but that in no way would make you more credible or knowledgeable than a seasoned politician and it is the same situation here. You might think you know the ins and outs of what top tier alliance wars are but the seasoned players who have experienced it for months have a greater understanding of it than you.
Oh yeah, just a side note the bully mentality you reference with insecurity is also incorrect. Numerous recent studies on the psychology of bullying found that bullies tend to not have issues with insecurity and have the same if not more self-esteem than the average person.
So you call skill not having to die or use Items. Hate to break it to you, but people were using Items before. If people take stock in being able to make it to the end without using Items, that's fine. Doesn't mean that anyone who uses Items doesn't have skill. There is a difference between what people focus on and what War is actually about. It's about working together to earn the most Points. For that matter, the Maps take skill to complete. The higher you go, the more skill it takes. What is not necessary is to penalize the opponent for dying to boost Ego.
War is about death I've actually seen real war. Guess who won? Correct the guy who didn't die as much.
Also I never stated old war was skill based.
I want an actual skill based metric
No items furthest allaince wins
Lol enigmatics for nodes(they seem fun)
200k health and up on every node
Unblockable specials
No diversity
Skills needed to win
So you want War to be for a mere handful of the Player Base, and the rest of the population shouldn't matter. How about playing for keeps. If they die, they lose their Account. How does that work for you? I find your ideas unreasonable.
@GroundedWisdom you're making good points but to my understanding the main basis of your argument is flawed. From the quick reading I did because there is a lot on this thread you believe that eventually the pool of tier 1 alliance wars will end up with only alliances capable to 100% completing a map which is not true. The tier 1 of alliance wars can sustain a pool of alliances that never 100% maps so diversity is not a deciding factor indefinitely. In the current state of the game even top alliances are reigning in their spendings so with a strong enough defense like the mystic wall both alliances will not 100% the map a process that can continue indefinitely since 100% isn't required to keep your war rating up merely a win which can be obtained from any amount of exploration
Also, you say that what tier of alliance war you are in does not matter in the discussion when it actually plays a large role in the outcome of the argument. First off, with no experience in tier 1 alliance wars you will almost certainly have less credibility on the subject matter than those who have been in tier 1 for months actually experiencing the game mode first hand. You instantly you will be under more scrutiny from the community than them and since one of your main points was flawed you lost a lot of ground on getting your argument across to the community. Secondly, just understanding the way a system works while very important can actually translate differently to the practicality of a situation without experiencing it first hand. You can understand the US political system but that in no way would make you more credible or knowledgeable than a seasoned politician and it is the same situation here. You might think you know the ins and outs of what top tier alliance wars are but the seasoned players who have experienced it for months have a greater understanding of it than you.
Oh yeah, just a side note the bully mentality you reference with insecurity is also incorrect. Numerous recent studies on the psychology of bullying found that bullies tend to not have issues with insecurity and have the same if not more self-esteem than the average person.
When you're discussing matters that affect all Players, it does not matter what Tier someone is in. It's the same system for everyone. As for the whole idea on bullying, that's not what we're discussing here. Inappropriate is inappropriate no matter what context it's in, and it's not appropriate to abase people based on where they are in the game.
So you call skill not having to die or use Items. Hate to break it to you, but people were using Items before. If people take stock in being able to make it to the end without using Items, that's fine. Doesn't mean that anyone who uses Items doesn't have skill. There is a difference between what people focus on and what War is actually about. It's about working together to earn the most Points. For that matter, the Maps take skill to complete. The higher you go, the more skill it takes. What is not necessary is to penalize the opponent for dying to boost Ego.
War is about death I've actually seen real war. Guess who won? Correct the guy who didn't die as much.
Also I never stated old war was skill based.
I want an actual skill based metric
No items furthest allaince wins
Lol enigmatics for nodes(they seem fun)
200k health and up on every node
Unblockable specials
No diversity
Skills needed to win
So you want War to be for a mere handful of the Player Base, and the rest of the population shouldn't matter. How about playing for keeps. If they die, they lose their Account. How does that work for you? I find your ideas unreasonable.
How would my idea limit anyone from playing? Not a sine thing I mentioned would make it so you couldn't do it.. obviously the health bonus would scale with tiers . Otherwise I see no issue with those nodes in tier 20.
War is not about making it through the Map without dying. The entire reason they were removed according to the Mods is to remove the penalty for trying. I have other reasons I've stated in other Threads. What you're suggesting makes War ALL about penalty for dying and the only ones that will advance are those who don't die. It's unrealistic because that system would make War impossible to grow or advance, save for those who are able to refrain from dying. That's not at all reasonable, or the goal of Wars. Sorry.
That perspective is ignorant to the fact that War is for all Players and must encourage growth. Not some Darwinian Theory of survival for some. This is where we agree to disagree.
Ah ok I've only capped at tier 2 so I've not had to deal with Mystic Barrier yet
I would assume the reasoning behind not counting defender kills is well.. Kabam expects people to spend limitless money, but if that's the case they should also remove item cap
As for "getting better", well the conversation of Champs nerf or "random champion generator" could be brought up but its a topic that has been beat to death. How about attacker diversity? Kabam certainly never corrected that, certain Champs clearly give distinct advantages,. Irrelevant topic however so really who cares
I don't like wars anyways, never have, never will. I don't find most nodes to be fun or creative, I certainly don't like that even on garbage nodes it's like kabam ramps up abilities. All too often I've parried and as I slide in get parried, over and over until the dreaded corner pin. Another common thing with AW and AQ is a very subtle lag before opponent attacks which throws of fight timing and wrecking ball commence.
But hey that's just me I guess I need to "adapt,".. Or move on
Currently have 2 accounts. One in tier 4 and one in tier 1 war. All I can say is both are completely different. In tier 1, last 10 wars noone use diversity and it’s all about creating road blocks. In tier 4 we go full diversity all the way. Road blocks ain’t strong enough to stop a team from going a 100 percent in tier 2 or below. Just pointing out my perspective from what I see. Different tiers different strategies.
Berserk Irked is my tag so you know I ain’t bs. Upper tier 1 2700+ rating
Ok. For someone who doesn’t play Tier 1, please elaborate on “road blocks”. Thanks.
Before I comment, I see the diversity discussion as on topic. Since the OP was complaining about fighting a bunch of NCs and alliances being punished for lack of diversity.
They can if they want, but if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity. Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs. It's not really wise to ignore the metric because eventually it will lead to Losses.
@GroundedWisdom You put yourself in the firing line. By stating what you believe happens in higher tiers, you're being asked to state your credentials on why you made that statement.
I had a more substantial post planned and then scrapped it. It's like someone complaining about the complete lack of T4CC in the game, but they don't run map 5 or 6 or get substantial glory. Where you are in the game does matter and does affect the validity of your statements especially outside of the context of your own experience.
Before I comment, I see the diversity discussion as on topic. Since the OP was complaining about fighting a bunch of NCs and alliances being punished for lack of diversity.
They can if they want, but if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity. Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs. It's not really wise to ignore the metric because eventually it will lead to Losses.
@GroundedWisdom You put yourself in the firing line. By stating what you believe happens in higher tiers, you're being asked to state your credentials on why you made that statement.
I had a more substantial post planned and then scrapped it. It's like someone complaining about the complete lack of T4CC in the game, but they don't run map 5 or 6 or get substantial glory. Where you are in the game does matter and does affect the validity of your statements especially outside of the context of your own experience.
No. Someone.doesn't need to state where they are in the game by making mathematical statements about Wars. Diversity is a metric. Placing blockades will only work up to the point that Allies can complete the Map. Then you're left with Allies that can, and Diversity will have to be looked at. Unless they don't care about the Points. Either way that's what it will boil down to. I don't need to "cred up" to state that the Points are what they are. The metrics speak for themselves.
That perspective is ignorant to the fact that War is for all Players and must encourage growth. Not some Darwinian Theory of survival for some. This is where we agree to disagree.
So learning to be better isn't for all players?
Getting better isn't growth?
Getting better is for everyone. That's not the same as penalizing the efforts by Losses. What you're describing is a do-or-die scenario, and that's not about getting better at all. Just separating those who can and cannot complete the Map without KOs.
Before I comment, I see the diversity discussion as on topic. Since the OP was complaining about fighting a bunch of NCs and alliances being punished for lack of diversity.
They can if they want, but if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity. Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs. It's not really wise to ignore the metric because eventually it will lead to Losses.
@GroundedWisdom You put yourself in the firing line. By stating what you believe happens in higher tiers, you're being asked to state your credentials on why you made that statement.
I had a more substantial post planned and then scrapped it. It's like someone complaining about the complete lack of T4CC in the game, but they don't run map 5 or 6 or get substantial glory. Where you are in the game does matter and does affect the validity of your statements especially outside of the context of your own experience.
No. Someone.doesn't need to state where they are in the game by making mathematical statements about Wars. Diversity is a metric. Placing blockades will only work up to the point that Allies can complete the Map. Then you're left with Allies that can, and Diversity will have to be looked at. Unless they don't care about the Points. Either way that's what it will boil down to. I don't need to "cred up" to state that the Points are what they are. The metrics speak for themselves.
You didn't make a purely mathematical statement. You made an observation upon what is happening in higher tiers of war. If you read my other posts, you will see that I consistently make differentiations between qualitative and quantitative statements. It's like the whole defender rating is a tie breaker argument using Kabam's intent as an argument to what their implementation actually was.
If you had left your post simply as stated " if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity". That is entirely correct and purely mathematical.
You went on to say "Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs." That's an observation based on what?
You do also realise that the nodes get tougher as the tier increases.
Before I comment, I see the diversity discussion as on topic. Since the OP was complaining about fighting a bunch of NCs and alliances being punished for lack of diversity.
They can if they want, but if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity. Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs. It's not really wise to ignore the metric because eventually it will lead to Losses.
@GroundedWisdom You put yourself in the firing line. By stating what you believe happens in higher tiers, you're being asked to state your credentials on why you made that statement.
I had a more substantial post planned and then scrapped it. It's like someone complaining about the complete lack of T4CC in the game, but they don't run map 5 or 6 or get substantial glory. Where you are in the game does matter and does affect the validity of your statements especially outside of the context of your own experience.
No. Someone.doesn't need to state where they are in the game by making mathematical statements about Wars. Diversity is a metric. Placing blockades will only work up to the point that Allies can complete the Map. Then you're left with Allies that can, and Diversity will have to be looked at. Unless they don't care about the Points. Either way that's what it will boil down to. I don't need to "cred up" to state that the Points are what they are. The metrics speak for themselves.
You didn't make a purely mathematical statement. You made an observation upon what is happening in higher tiers of war. If you read my other posts, you will see that I consistently make differentiations between qualitative and quantitative statements. It's like the whole defender rating is a tie breaker argument using Kabam's intent as an argument to what their implementation actually was.
If you had left your post simply as stated " if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity". That is entirely correct and purely mathematical.
You went on to say "Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs." That's an observation based on what?
You do also realise that the nodes get tougher as the tier increases.
Based on how the system works and probability. An Ally loses, it loses Rating, and it goes down. Statistically, you will end up with Allies that can finish the Map. Eventually you will have beaten out those that cannot complete the Map and will end up with a pool of Allies that can. It doesn't matter what Tier I'm in. I have an understanding on how the entire system works. You can continue to beat out the Allies that cannot complete the Map and that leaves the ones that can in said Tier. It is a mathematical certainty that.the metrics WILL matter at some point because they exist. It's not just about Defender Rating. It's also about Diversity because it is a metric.
@GroundedWisdom To be fair, I don't disagree with your logic, that eventually you will meet an opponent that will 100% the map and beat you based on diversity if you have not maximised your own. I believe that to be the statistical likelihood given the way the matching system is supposed to work.
You will note that I have made no assessment on whether I think your statement about higher alliances is correct or not. I'm merely stating that if you are going to comment on the activity of higher alliances, you should be able to support that with credibility.
My turn to make a subjective statement. I feel that sacrificing best defenders for the sake of optimising diversity is a pessimistically defensive strategy. You're essentially saying from the outset, I expect my opponent to clear 100%. You're guarding against an inevitable mathematical loss by sacrificing the likely wins you would have leading up to it.
@GroundedWisdom To be fair, I don't disagree with your logic, that eventually you will meet an opponent that will 100% the map and beat you based on diversity if you have not maximised your own. I believe that to be the statistical likelihood given the way the matching system is supposed to work.
You will note that I have made no assessment on whether I think your statement about higher alliances is correct or not. I'm merely stating that if you are going to comment on the activity of higher alliances, you should be able to support that with credibility.
My turn to make a subjective statement. I feel that sacrificing best defenders for the sake of optimising diversity is a pessimistically defensive strategy. You're essentially saying from the outset, I expect my opponent to clear 100%. You're guarding against an inevitable mathematical loss by sacrificing the likely wins you would have leading up to it.
In a theoretical discussion pertaining to the War system, it is not necessary to back it up with what Tier someone is in. Nor is it pertinent to the discussion. If I had said "When I was in X Tier," that may make more sense, but it's still irrelevant. The question comes up to discredit someone's point of view based on where they are at in the game, and that's about it. It is not necessary to have experience in any part of the game to have an understanding of it. One simply needs knowledge. Many disagree, but the point of view is incredibly limited. The idea that only people at a certain point can register valid thoughts is, frankly, ignorant. Not directing that at anyone in particular, just that the mentality is limited. When discussing what happens in War, it is not necessary to provide credentials. Knowledge does not require experience. Nor do opinions. The fact is, I said the solution is temporary because eventually, Diversity will come into play when facing Allies that can complete the Map. I didn't say Allies should do one thing or the other. I said there's no removing the significance of the metrics. What they do with that is up to them.
Comments
If they completed the Map using the metrics present, they earned the Win. Sorry, but it's not about how many times you die.
What's the point in replying if you don't even answer the question? We all know they 'earned' the win. My alliance knew we would lose before our first fight.
We also all know that it's not about how many times you die anymore, hence the amount of negative feedback regarding new AW.
That's not what I asked, as you are well aware.
Simply repeating these commandments of yours whilst throwing in the word metric at every opportunity is an odd use of your time.
So, one more time... I highlighted how an alliance diversifying against a mystic defence in tier 1 did indeed win at the cost of 200 deaths. As these are the tactics you endorse do you think this is how it should be, 3 times per week?
If you're going to question what I said, at least get the statement correct. I never said that anyone should do anything. I said eventually, the Diversity metrics will matter because it's not possible to stop all Allies from completing the Map, and eventually you're left with Allies in the same Tier that can. You can place who you want, but you can't escape the math of it. As for what I think should be, do I think Kills shouldn't be a metric? Yes. We all know that. They're not, and they haven't been for months. They've been removed. So paying attention to how many times the opponent died is irrelevant.
Also, you say that what tier of alliance war you are in does not matter in the discussion when it actually plays a large role in the outcome of the argument. First off, with no experience in tier 1 alliance wars you will almost certainly have less credibility on the subject matter than those who have been in tier 1 for months actually experiencing the game mode first hand. You instantly you will be under more scrutiny from the community than them and since one of your main points was flawed you lost a lot of ground on getting your argument across to the community. Secondly, just understanding the way a system works while very important can actually translate differently to the practicality of a situation without experiencing it first hand. You can understand the US political system but that in no way would make you more credible or knowledgeable than a seasoned politician and it is the same situation here. You might think you know the ins and outs of what top tier alliance wars are but the seasoned players who have experienced it for months have a greater understanding of it than you.
Oh yeah, just a side note the bully mentality you reference with insecurity is also incorrect. Numerous recent studies on the psychology of bullying found that bullies tend to not have issues with insecurity and have the same if not more self-esteem than the average person.
So you want War to be for a mere handful of the Player Base, and the rest of the population shouldn't matter. How about playing for keeps. If they die, they lose their Account. How does that work for you? I find your ideas unreasonable.
When you're discussing matters that affect all Players, it does not matter what Tier someone is in. It's the same system for everyone. As for the whole idea on bullying, that's not what we're discussing here. Inappropriate is inappropriate no matter what context it's in, and it's not appropriate to abase people based on where they are in the game.
War is not about making it through the Map without dying. The entire reason they were removed according to the Mods is to remove the penalty for trying. I have other reasons I've stated in other Threads. What you're suggesting makes War ALL about penalty for dying and the only ones that will advance are those who don't die. It's unrealistic because that system would make War impossible to grow or advance, save for those who are able to refrain from dying. That's not at all reasonable, or the goal of Wars. Sorry.
I would assume the reasoning behind not counting defender kills is well.. Kabam expects people to spend limitless money, but if that's the case they should also remove item cap
As for "getting better", well the conversation of Champs nerf or "random champion generator" could be brought up but its a topic that has been beat to death. How about attacker diversity? Kabam certainly never corrected that, certain Champs clearly give distinct advantages,. Irrelevant topic however so really who cares
I don't like wars anyways, never have, never will. I don't find most nodes to be fun or creative, I certainly don't like that even on garbage nodes it's like kabam ramps up abilities. All too often I've parried and as I slide in get parried, over and over until the dreaded corner pin. Another common thing with AW and AQ is a very subtle lag before opponent attacks which throws of fight timing and wrecking ball commence.
But hey that's just me I guess I need to "adapt,".. Or move on
Ok. For someone who doesn’t play Tier 1, please elaborate on “road blocks”. Thanks.
@GroundedWisdom You put yourself in the firing line. By stating what you believe happens in higher tiers, you're being asked to state your credentials on why you made that statement.
I had a more substantial post planned and then scrapped it. It's like someone complaining about the complete lack of T4CC in the game, but they don't run map 5 or 6 or get substantial glory. Where you are in the game does matter and does affect the validity of your statements especially outside of the context of your own experience.
No. Someone.doesn't need to state where they are in the game by making mathematical statements about Wars. Diversity is a metric. Placing blockades will only work up to the point that Allies can complete the Map. Then you're left with Allies that can, and Diversity will have to be looked at. Unless they don't care about the Points. Either way that's what it will boil down to. I don't need to "cred up" to state that the Points are what they are. The metrics speak for themselves.
Getting better is for everyone. That's not the same as penalizing the efforts by Losses. What you're describing is a do-or-die scenario, and that's not about getting better at all. Just separating those who can and cannot complete the Map without KOs.
You didn't make a purely mathematical statement. You made an observation upon what is happening in higher tiers of war. If you read my other posts, you will see that I consistently make differentiations between qualitative and quantitative statements. It's like the whole defender rating is a tie breaker argument using Kabam's intent as an argument to what their implementation actually was.
If you had left your post simply as stated " if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity". That is entirely correct and purely mathematical.
You went on to say "Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs." That's an observation based on what?
You do also realise that the nodes get tougher as the tier increases.
Based on how the system works and probability. An Ally loses, it loses Rating, and it goes down. Statistically, you will end up with Allies that can finish the Map. Eventually you will have beaten out those that cannot complete the Map and will end up with a pool of Allies that can. It doesn't matter what Tier I'm in. I have an understanding on how the entire system works. You can continue to beat out the Allies that cannot complete the Map and that leaves the ones that can in said Tier. It is a mathematical certainty that.the metrics WILL matter at some point because they exist. It's not just about Defender Rating. It's also about Diversity because it is a metric.
You will note that I have made no assessment on whether I think your statement about higher alliances is correct or not. I'm merely stating that if you are going to comment on the activity of higher alliances, you should be able to support that with credibility.
My turn to make a subjective statement. I feel that sacrificing best defenders for the sake of optimising diversity is a pessimistically defensive strategy. You're essentially saying from the outset, I expect my opponent to clear 100%. You're guarding against an inevitable mathematical loss by sacrificing the likely wins you would have leading up to it.
In a theoretical discussion pertaining to the War system, it is not necessary to back it up with what Tier someone is in. Nor is it pertinent to the discussion. If I had said "When I was in X Tier," that may make more sense, but it's still irrelevant. The question comes up to discredit someone's point of view based on where they are at in the game, and that's about it. It is not necessary to have experience in any part of the game to have an understanding of it. One simply needs knowledge. Many disagree, but the point of view is incredibly limited. The idea that only people at a certain point can register valid thoughts is, frankly, ignorant. Not directing that at anyone in particular, just that the mentality is limited. When discussing what happens in War, it is not necessary to provide credentials. Knowledge does not require experience. Nor do opinions. The fact is, I said the solution is temporary because eventually, Diversity will come into play when facing Allies that can complete the Map. I didn't say Allies should do one thing or the other. I said there's no removing the significance of the metrics. What they do with that is up to them.