Attack bonus gives advantage to higher rated alliance
SonikGold
Member Posts: 32 ★
We faced an alliance that was rated a million more than us. We beat them in every metric except attack bonus / defender kills. They had stronger champs, simple as that. There should be no bonus for defeating a defender on the first attempt and no penalty for failing to defeat them. You're already limited on revives / potions. We keep getting matched with alliances a million+ more than us. At least improve matching and match us with a closer rated alliance. We're currently 4.7 mil. It would seem reasonable to match with 4.5 - 5 mil alliances. Also, if there's going to be a bonus it should be for full participation in attack phase. We had full participation while they had one that never participated in attack phase.
8
Comments
Saying you beat them in every metric except attack bonus is meaningless, because attack bonus is the critical metric that measures attacker performance. That's like saying you beat an opposing football team in every metric except touchdowns.
On the contrary if you pay to win in war you’ll lose out on attacker bonus
You don't understand what a metric is. Defeating the boss is the touchdown, which is a metric. Exploration is a metric, total yards. Attack bonus is like number of first downs, another metric. Every line is a different metric.
This is our 4th loss in a row. I don't think we've ever lost 4 in a row until the recent changes. We've never gone an entire series of war without a single win.
I understand what a metric is enough to have fought for the metric you're currently complaining about, across four iterations of alliance war. When I specifically fought for a metric to replace defender kill points, which is what the attacker bonus is, my argument was that most of the complaints surrounding the 15.0 AW was that nearly all of the competitive measurement which decided wars were tied up in the per-attack performance metric of defender kill points which were lost. Sure, exploration and boss kills were still there, but those statistics were far more likely to result in a tie than defender kills. A metric that ends up tied most of the time is not analogous to touchdowns in football. It is analogous to the pre-revised extra point before the NFL changed it by increasing the distance they are kicked from - specifically because they were almost always successful, and thus not a good measure of competition.
Attacker bonus is the metric that replaces defender kill points, and it is less likely to generate ties and more likely to be sensitive to the performance of the attacking alliance. In that respect, it is the core scoring element of the game, and more analogous to touchdowns than first downs. You don't usually win on first downs. You often win on attacker bonus.
Its bold to say something like "you don't understand what a metric is" when you don't understand how the scoring systems function in the current version of alliance war. Attacker bonus points and defender remaining points are the key area of points most strongly measuring attacker performance and thus most driven by competition. They more than any other change returned active competition to alliance war. AW isn't perfect, but it is now competitive and those points are the center of that competition.
Hate to sound harsh but sounds like your alliance needs to get better at fighting.
This is pretty close to the old defender kill metric and is very much based on skill once again (thank God).
You guys are dying too much, simple as that.
And it's impossible to match you to an alliance that will have exactly equal champs for you to fight. There's gonna be some that are a bit stronger and some that are weaker.
That's what WAR is all about.
Boss kills are the touchdowns. That's why they're 20k each. I understand the system fine. I don't agree with it. There should be no bonus for attack and no points for defender kills like there used to be. Points for defenders remaining is fine. Defender diversity is fine. You fought for attacker bonus so you will defend it forever. If it's a tie then you should both get victory rewards and war points, and the next match be against a tougher opponent, but it's unlikely to be a tie. One of our recent wars had NC for every node on boss island except the boss. That's just ridiculous. Participation during attack phase should matter. That should be part of the bonus points.
Congratulations. I'd like to see the breakdown in your history. One of the members of the opposition I actually had recently kicked. I don't know all their skill level but I know his and his skill wasn't better.
We did die too much. Thanks captain obvious! It's not impossible to improve matchmaking. All we've been getting are stronger ones. I don't know all the metrics they use to match, but they need improvement. I've felt that way since I started playing this game.
How about we just eliminate revives all together then???
I'm not for that at all. Revives have nothing to do with Attack Bonus, first of all. Secondly, that's one of the purposes of setting it up that way. It encourages skill, but doesn't penalize using Resources. That's not what Defender Kills were about. It might have been how some gauges whether to use them or not. No logical setup is going to penalize using Resources. They are there for a reason. This whole idea of shaming Allies for using them needs to go. We had them before the changes, and we have them after.
You don't have to use revives. Pretend they don't exist. Poof! They are "eliminated". Problem solved!
Seems like you don’t do well with constructive criticism. It also seems like you’re employing a sort of spreading of the alternatives strategy to justify your points:
- Your alliance had full participation and your AW opponent didn’t? That should have factored into the results.
- Your alliance did better with diversity and exploration but worse with attacker points and defender kills? Only diversity and exploration should matter and skill should not be rewarded for clearing nodes without losing attackers.
- Your alliance has lost 4 AWs in a row, which never happened before recent changes? All of those losses are due to recent changes and have nothing to do with your alliance possibly having a few bad attacker phases or opponents outplaying your alliance.
- Your alliance only lost because your opponent “had better defenders”? This implies defender placement is irrelevant, which all players should know is false (e.g., Spider-Gwen on sp1 biased node, Hyperion on all or nothing node, Stark Spidey/Gwenpool on power shield node, duped Juggs on stun immune node, Agent Venom on enhanced abilities node)
An old alliance mate said “AQ is where you earn, AW is where you learn”. AW can have a steep learning curve, sometimes losses are good because you learn new defender placement ideas or that defenders you thought did well are not as strong as you thought. As for NC as a defender, parry and only attack him when he’s stunned. If he’s stun immune or on a limber node bring an attacker like Iceman/Black Widow/Crossbones/Elektra so it’s easier to get him to switch to swashbuckling mode.
Holding your alliance accountable for their AW performance instead of assigning blame to outside factors isn’t always easy but is sure to make you guys stronger in the long run. Best of luck in future AWs.
I do fine with CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. What's constructive about you die too much, and your alliance needs to get better at fighting? How is that constructive???
I disagree with how war is currently setup. No one has offered any real constructive criticism. I'd say you've offered the closest, but not everyone has the champs you mentioned. Some of that's luck, they spent tons of money, or a combination of the two and lots of grinding in the arena.
I'd like to see war have no revives or potions, or at least no revives and get rid of attack bonus. That would be a much greater test of skill. Fight until you KO! I still feel there should be points for each participant joining attack phase.
Anyway, thanks for the well wishes.
That doesn't level the playing field.
It wasn't the pay to play that won though. If you read the original post they lost on attack bonus meaning that the the opponent was more efficient at getting first chance kills on attack. That is not pay to play...unbalanced matchup, maybe, but definitely not a pay to play.
In a way it would though. Without revives and potions you probably would have stalled out and lost more resoundingly. You drew a tough war. They beat you. Adjust your strategy and monitor the stats real time (I always am checking defender kills, exploration, etc.) and hopefully next time you will win.
Die less, win more.
This is a really good point. At some point you have to take ownership of your war real-time. If you ever want to reach higher tiers of war then you have to be checking the stats and the data real-time.
The new system with attacker bonus awards the more efficient team. It takes the skill element of the prior defender kill system but takes out the over the top kill numbers of the extremely good defenders.
Now it is more about strategy to use diverse defenders or go with defenders that can stop them from getting their attack bonus. It involves more strategy.
Last war we tied with 100% exploration and had exact same attack bonus. We lost on diversity.
Win some - lose some.