I think they finally got War right. They have eliminated the "buy a war win" and added in a metric for Skill. That's the very Metric you want eliminated. Your alliance needs to focus on better game planning. Choose or assign the paths best suited for each players strong suite.
How about we just eliminate revives all together then???
You don't have to use revives. Pretend they don't exist. Poof! They are "eliminated". Problem solved!
That doesn't level the playing field.
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.
Even if that were the case, I'd still rather it be that way. With this current system people will just use potions before revives to help get the kill. The assumption that they beat us purely on skill is false. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. What they did beat us on is less tries, but like I said, that could be cause they're using potions earlier on / more potions and less revives. I've never been one to use a lot of potions or revives, and I don't spend units on them.
I don't understand why you think you should get points for participation. Almost every AW that we have been in has the 10th guy stay back for mop up duty. Last war, I was the chosen one to stay behind. The other 9 did 100% exploration and I didn't get to participate. Why would we get penalized for it.
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.
I said join attack phase. Their 10th player never even joined attack phase. I understand staying back. That's what I did, but everyone should at least join.
I find it amusing that you didn’t post the defender kills/attack bonus stats here. Other than the people who are content on just spending their way through war (ie pay to win), it seems almost total agreement that the new system is the most fair version of alliance wars (more fair might be having the attack kill bonus having more than just 3 possible bonuses). Complaining bc u lost to an alliance that killed your champs more skillfully is not going to endear you to many people here. If your guys aren’t one-shotting nearly all defenders in the war tier u are currently in, u need to find better players. And, if your opponents are always one-shorting your defenders, u need better defenders and better placement. That’s it.
Are you blind? Attack bonus is in the pic, and you can only show so much in the stats at once. That's why I didn't show boss clears because it's obvious we both cleared the same.
Complaints like this are what led to “diversity wars”. The other team attacked better and died less. You didn’t win in every other metric, because clearly you tied in boss kills which you didn’t bother to include in the ss.
Die less, win more.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
I think they finally got War right. They have eliminated the "buy a war win" and added in a metric for Skill. That's the very Metric you want eliminated. Your alliance needs to focus on better game planning. Choose or assign the paths best suited for each players strong suite.
How about we just eliminate revives all together then???
You don't have to use revives. Pretend they don't exist. Poof! They are "eliminated". Problem solved!
That doesn't level the playing field.
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.
Even if that were the case, I'd still rather it be that way. With this current system people will just use potions before revives to help get the kill. The assumption that they beat us purely on skill is false. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. What they did beat us on is less tries, but like I said, that could be cause they're using potions earlier on / more potions and less revives. I've never been one to use a lot of potions or revives, and I don't spend units on them.
Then you need to adjust your strategy. People complained about the first iteration of wars (too hard, too many of the same champs). People complained about the second iteration of wars (too easy if it is a diversity war, too much skewed towards the higher rated alliance). The truth is that the third iteration, while not perfect, actually works very well. I've been a part of a war that hinged on who killed the boss the best and we lost unfortunately due to it. But we will make adjustments to who we place to try and ensnare our opponent next time. A difference of a million in rating really is not that much. Just tweak your attack strategy or your defense.
Its garbage only the pay to play wins in . this game
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.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. They could be buying potions to keep their health high.
Complaints like this are what led to “diversity wars”. The other team attacked better and died less. You didn’t win in every other metric, because clearly you tied in boss kills which you didn’t bother to include in the ss.
Die less, win more.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Yes, that means they are more effective. Not all points are weighted the same in war. So, it is not a 1 to 1 ratio among point measurements.
Complaints like this are what led to “diversity wars”. The other team attacked better and died less. You didn’t win in every other metric, because clearly you tied in boss kills which you didn’t bother to include in the ss.
Die less, win more.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Yep. You tied in the most important (skill), lost in the 2nd most important (skill), then won in the rest (participation).
Had you crushed them in explore and barely lost in attacker, then there would be an argument. As is, you’re complaining that they fought better than your ally.
Unless you’re simply complaining about matchmaking, which is white noise. You would have lost these wars anyway due to defender rating before the new scoring was put in place.
There's a lot to read in this thread...and it's too much to cover it all, but my thoughts are the following:
I like the attack bonus based on its emphasis on skill.
As many have said, the AW matching has not changed. The more you win, the harder the fights are that you get. This is the sole reason why War Rating exists and is used for matching. It's only natural that you will encounter higher alliances that will have stronger champs with which it will be easier for them to get the attack bonus. It's the nature of the challenge.
I understand it's difficult to lose 4 in a row. I think it's better to analyze how your team could improve? How to fight in a way that gets a higher attack bonus and perhaps some improvements to defense line-up to aid diversity and overall defense choices for each node.
Attack bonus may favor stronger alliances, but how about the fact that attacker kills no longer add to the score? Before you gave the enemy points for every death you had on offense. If there were a lot of deaths on nodes, that would probably be even more hurtful to a weaker alliance's total score if they had to revive a lot. I think it was 100 points per death if I remember correctly.
There's a thrill to challenging tougher alliances and coming close or on top. I do understand the concept of "levelling the playing field", but over-levelling it can be a problem too and takes the thrill out of it. A stronger alliance will have many advantages going into a war. It's all about how you overcome those advantages.
Maybe this doesn't seem helpful to you, but I hope it does add some perspective. I hope your next war goes better...unless it's against my alliance, that is!
@Tiemilios, great analysis of the relevant points. One thing regarding matches against harder opponents is that you learn a lot. I am a part of an alliance that lost to CORE. And it was not even really that close to be honest. But we learned a lot. Their placement and their attack strategy was better organized.
Complaints like this are what led to “diversity wars”. The other team attacked better and died less. You didn’t win in every other metric, because clearly you tied in boss kills which you didn’t bother to include in the ss.
Die less, win more.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Yep. You tied in the most important (skill), lost in the 2nd most important (skill), then won in the rest (participation).
Had you crushed them in explore and barely lost in attacker, then there would be an argument. As is, you’re complaining that they fought better than your ally.
Unless you’re simply complaining about matchmaking, which is white noise. You would have lost these wars anyway due to defender rating before the new scoring was put in place.
How is it they beat you in "skill" if your defenders are weaker than their's and their attackers are stronger than your's? That's not skill. Now if it was vice versa then that's skill.
There's a lot to read in this thread...and it's too much to cover it all, but my thoughts are the following:
I like the attack bonus based on its emphasis on skill.
As many have said, the AW matching has not changed. The more you win, the harder the fights are that you get. This is the sole reason why War Rating exists and is used for matching. It's only natural that you will encounter higher alliances that will have stronger champs with which it will be easier for them to get the attack bonus. It's the nature of the challenge.
I understand it's difficult to lose 4 in a row. I think it's better to analyze how your team could improve? How to fight in a way that gets a higher attack bonus and perhaps some improvements to defense line-up to aid diversity and overall defense choices for each node.
Attack bonus may favor stronger alliances, but how about the fact that attacker kills no longer add to the score? Before you gave the enemy points for every death you had on offense. If there were a lot of deaths on nodes, that would probably be even more hurtful to a weaker alliance's total score if they had to revive a lot. I think it was 100 points per death if I remember correctly.
There's a thrill to challenging tougher alliances and coming close or on top. I do understand the concept of "levelling the playing field", but over-levelling it can be a problem too and takes the thrill out of it. A stronger alliance will have many advantages going into a war. It's all about how you overcome those advantages.
Maybe this doesn't seem helpful to you, but I hope it does add some perspective. I hope your next war goes better...unless it's against my alliance, that is!
Appreciate it and I agree there is a thrill to close matches like that
Complaints like this are what led to “diversity wars”. The other team attacked better and died less. You didn’t win in every other metric, because clearly you tied in boss kills which you didn’t bother to include in the ss.
Die less, win more.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Yep. You tied in the most important (skill), lost in the 2nd most important (skill), then won in the rest (participation).
Had you crushed them in explore and barely lost in attacker, then there would be an argument. As is, you’re complaining that they fought better than your ally.
Unless you’re simply complaining about matchmaking, which is white noise. You would have lost these wars anyway due to defender rating before the new scoring was put in place.
How is it they beat you in "skill" if your defenders are weaker than their's and their attackers are stronger than your's? That's not skill. Now if it was vice versa then that's skill.
Skill is killing stuff without dying. They killed more stuff without dying. I can’t imagine the difference in attackers and defenders was THAT great over a 1 mil ally difference. However, I’ll bow out because this is now a matchmaking issue and not an attacker bonus issue. Good luck next War.
Complaints like this are what led to “diversity wars”. The other team attacked better and died less. You didn’t win in every other metric, because clearly you tied in boss kills which you didn’t bother to include in the ss.
Die less, win more.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Yep. You tied in the most important (skill), lost in the 2nd most important (skill), then won in the rest (participation).
Had you crushed them in explore and barely lost in attacker, then there would be an argument. As is, you’re complaining that they fought better than your ally.
Unless you’re simply complaining about matchmaking, which is white noise. You would have lost these wars anyway due to defender rating before the new scoring was put in place.
How is it they beat you in "skill" if your defenders are weaker than their's and their attackers are stronger than your's? That's not skill. Now if it was vice versa then that's skill.
being +/- 1M is a pretty fair fight. especially when you consider that it's spread out over 30 players.
i'd be willing to bet it was about close to the same number of 4*s and 5*s on either side.
The attack bonus is a brilliant addition. Killing your target the 1st time is proof of skill and SHOULD in fact be rewarded. It's EXACTLY what I, and many others were hoping for. AW used to be pay to play all the way. Just keep throwing your champs at the opposition, and revive til they get K.O.ed. Now you have to get it done the 1st time, or risk losing points. Deep pockets mean less in War now. Granted, you can potion up between battles, but that's strategy too. They earned the win however it may have been done. You could just as easily be assuming they potioned up between battles. Who said they did? More over, who cares? You have the same option to do so and I guess chose not too. Personally, I think they finally have War in a good place for the 1st time in awhile. I don't see anyone agreeing with the removal of attack bonus points either. So perhaps take the advice of others and work on making sure your Alliance mates drop their targets without getting K.O.ed. There's no reason to remove a bonus for having skills in attack. Being salty about losing to that bonus only reinforces that you all need more practice. We've taken on Alliances that were over 2 million in rating higher than us and won. We've also lost to Alliances that were 1 million less than us in rating with the new system. Rating means less in the grand scheme now. AW is based more on skill now, as it should be. So an Alliance with low rating doesn't get penalized for their numbers anymore, nor does an Alliance with high rating get a bonus for it. They've done a great job at leveling the playing field in my humble opinion. I'm not sure why anyone could see otherwise. The only issue we've EVER ran into was people modding and it was OBVIOUS that it was happening. Cheating is the only thing I have problem with. Other than that, I tip my hat to those that beat us in the skill and strategy arenas. They were better than us. Clean and clear.
You fought for attacker bonus so you will defend it forever.
I fought for it because it was logical and satisfied the complaints of the vast majority of players complaining about the changes to AW. I was certainly not alone in asking for major changes to AW: my contribution was crystalizing those complaints into something specific. And actually, I didn't specifically fight for attacker bonus points: I fought for a replacement for defender kill points that better differentiated alliances based on attacker performance: the ability to kill defender nodes better than their opponents. Attacker bonus points were one of six different options discussed to replace them.
By in large most people seem to prefer AW with them than without them and they satisfy the primary requirement for competitive AW: that the wars are decided on the battlefield by the best attackers as often as possible. In your war, your alliance was not the best attackers, so you lost. That's actually what most people seem to want the result to be. Good luck trying to get that reversed. It only took two major game revisions and five AW updates to get it added in the first place.
I'm also not defending the change, I'm explaining it to you. I'm not required to defend it, as it is not a feature that currently appears to require defending. It is a feature the devs have already added and has majority support. My defending it wouldn't put it on any stronger footing than it already has.
So your alliance members died more than your opponents and now you’re crying because that’s unfair and you lost? Get a grip mate. The more skilled alliance deserves to win and that was clearly your opponents this time.
Come back this war, analyse who’s dying repeatedly and help them fight better, then maybe you’ll win more.
So when it works on your favor you are fine with it, but flip it around and all of a sudden it's broke? How many times have you faced alliances that were under you by a huge amount? And if you say never, you are lying.
Lol we are a 7 mil alliance that regularly fight and beat 11 mil alliances. The scoring is finally right. Kabaam finally fixed war dont give them any ideas to change anything just stop dying lol.
You people are missing the point. Attack bonus is not exactly based on actual skill. It's based on awarding the team with higher pi an unfair advantage. The team with higher pi attackers are likely to die less therefore are granted an unfair advantage over a team of attackers with less pi who are likely to die quicker especially against high pi defenders. That's bull.
For example ;
I could fight like absolute **** with a 5* 4/5 duped Iceman against an unduped 4* 3K pi Karnak and beat the Karnak on the first try and not lose points on attack bonus.
If the game is going to give an advantage to higher pi alliances in attack bonus it should do the same for alliances with lower pi that actually have to use more skill in defeating the opponent.
Attack bonus should also be based on actual skill such as high numbered combos during a fight. That would give an advantage to attackers with less pi because it would take longer to kill the defender, so it would be based on more actual skill in playing.
You people are missing the point. Attack bonus is not exactly based on actual skill. It's based on awarding the team with higher pi an unfair advantage. The team with higher pi attackers are likely to die less therefore are granted an unfair advantage over a team of attackers with less pi who are likely to die quicker especially against high pi defenders. That's bull.
For example ;
I could fight like absolute **** with a 5* 4/5 duped Iceman against an unduped 4* 3K pi Karnak and beat the Karnak on the first try and not lose points on attack bonus.
If the game is going to give an advantage to higher pi alliances in attack bonus it should do the same for alliances with lower pi that actually have to use more skill in defeating the opponent.
Attack bonus should also be based on actual skill such as high numbered combos during a fight. That would give an advantage to attackers with less pi because it would take longer to kill the defender, so it would be based on more actual skill in playing.
We all get the point fine. You are expressing a preference the game doesn't honor. This game is a progressional game that rewards players who progress by leveling and by increasing their roster size and rank. Within those parameters this game hands out content that requires players to complete combat tasks with no handicapping - players with weaker rosters are not compensated for that disadvantage. That is the core of the game players must accept everywhere else besides AW.
Within AW, most players interested in strong competition have advocated for those two principles to be maintained. Players with larger and stronger rosters should be allowed to maintain that advantage, and then without regard to any advantage or disadvantage in roster every player should be judged by the results they can produce, not the amount of effort it takes them to produce those efforts.
We want to recognize and reward skill, but we simultaneously do not want to take away the advantages players build up in obtaining and ranking up champions. In every part of the game, if you can do more with a combination of skill and roster, you get the exact same rewards as someone that can do the same thing with a different amount of skill and roster but that generate the same results.
For players with equal roster, higher skill should win. But stronger roster opens doors. If you have a stronger roster than another player, you are allowed and encouraged to press that advantage. That intrinsic advantage is mitigated in many ways where necessary. For example, AW matchmaking uses win/loss record to roughly match alliances with similar ability to defeat opposing alliances. Arena events sometimes limit which champions can be used within them. But absent those exceptions, if another alliance kills you more easily than you can kill them because their roster is just much stronger than yours, they won fairly because in this game that advantage is always "fair."
If you cannot accept these two basic principles - that the game rewards stronger roster as a primary progressional goal and that within that boundary the game rewards players that can generate better results with that roster - then this is simply not the game for you.
So when it works on your favor you are fine with it, but flip it around and all of a sudden it's broke? How many times have you faced alliances that were under you by a huge amount? And if you say never, you are lying.
First of all, I've never complained about any previous version of war before. This isn't the first time we've lost a war, but it is the first time we've lost that I felt was unjust. I'm sure that's why many people complained about diversity points, although I have never had an issue with that. I'm not a sore loser, and don't mind facing stronger alliances, provided it's not a constant stream of one sided wars. I'm sure there have probably been mismatches in our favor before, but they are far fewer than the ones against us. But like I said, I've never complained prior until this revision, and we didn't make it up to tier 7 because we suck or just luck.
You people are missing the point. Attack bonus is not exactly based on actual skill. It's based on awarding the team with higher pi an unfair advantage. The team with higher pi attackers are likely to die less therefore are granted an unfair advantage over a team of attackers with less pi who are likely to die quicker especially against high pi defenders. That's bull.
For example ;
I could fight like absolute **** with a 5* 4/5 duped Iceman against an unduped 4* 3K pi Karnak and beat the Karnak on the first try and not lose points on attack bonus.
If the game is going to give an advantage to higher pi alliances in attack bonus it should do the same for alliances with lower pi that actually have to use more skill in defeating the opponent.
Attack bonus should also be based on actual skill such as high numbered combos during a fight. That would give an advantage to attackers with less pi because it would take longer to kill the defender, so it would be based on more actual skill in playing.
We all get the point fine. You are expressing a preference the game doesn't honor. This game is a progressional game that rewards players who progress by leveling and by increasing their roster size and rank. Within those parameters this game hands out content that requires players to complete combat tasks with no handicapping - players with weaker rosters are not compensated for that disadvantage. That is the core of the game players must accept everywhere else besides AW.
Within AW, most players interested in strong competition have advocated for those two principles to be maintained. Players with larger and stronger rosters should be allowed to maintain that advantage, and then without regard to any advantage or disadvantage in roster every player should be judged by the results they can produce, not the amount of effort it takes them to produce those efforts.
We want to recognize and reward skill, but we simultaneously do not want to take away the advantages players build up in obtaining and ranking up champions. In every part of the game, if you can do more with a combination of skill and roster, you get the exact same rewards as someone that can do the same thing with a different amount of skill and roster but that generate the same results.
For players with equal roster, higher skill should win. But stronger roster opens doors. If you have a stronger roster than another player, you are allowed and encouraged to press that advantage. That intrinsic advantage is mitigated in many ways where necessary. For example, AW matchmaking uses win/loss record to roughly match alliances with similar ability to defeat opposing alliances. Arena events sometimes limit which champions can be used within them. But absent those exceptions, if another alliance kills you more easily than you can kill them because their roster is just much stronger than yours, they won fairly because in this game that advantage is always "fair."
If you cannot accept these two basic principles - that the game rewards stronger roster as a primary progressional goal and that within that boundary the game rewards players that can generate better results with that roster - then this is simply not the game for you.
You're already rewarded with an advantage by leveling and ranking up when you're the stronger alliance. So many keep talking about measuring skill when attack bonus doesn't do a great job of that. Combo bonus is a brilliant measure of skill, much better than attack bonus! You should be given so many points per hit for your highest combo. Seems you're more interested in having the advantage than really measuring skill lol
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.
You were matched with an alliance 1m higher than you in total ranking -- that suggests that you play better than alliances with similar total PI, so you should be matched up against alliances like the one you just fought.
In MCOC's AW matching system -- when you win, you get harder matches; when you lose, you get easier matches. In the long run, wins and losses will be similar; but it is a feature, not a bug, that you're given a chance to compete against alliances with higher PI if you do well against alliances with similar total PI.
There are problems with the AW matching system (new alliances take far too long to reach the right war rating), but IMO this not one of them.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Even if that were the case, I'd still rather it be that way. With this current system people will just use potions before revives to help get the kill. The assumption that they beat us purely on skill is false. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. What they did beat us on is less tries, but like I said, that could be cause they're using potions earlier on / more potions and less revives. I've never been one to use a lot of potions or revives, and I don't spend units on them.
I said join attack phase. Their 10th player never even joined attack phase. I understand staying back. That's what I did, but everyone should at least join.
Are you blind? Attack bonus is in the pic, and you can only show so much in the stats at once. That's why I didn't show boss clears because it's obvious we both cleared the same.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Then you need to adjust your strategy. People complained about the first iteration of wars (too hard, too many of the same champs). People complained about the second iteration of wars (too easy if it is a diversity war, too much skewed towards the higher rated alliance). The truth is that the third iteration, while not perfect, actually works very well. I've been a part of a war that hinged on who killed the boss the best and we lost unfortunately due to it. But we will make adjustments to who we place to try and ensnare our opponent next time. A difference of a million in rating really is not that much. Just tweak your attack strategy or your defense.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. They could be buying potions to keep their health high.
Yes, that means they are more effective. Not all points are weighted the same in war. So, it is not a 1 to 1 ratio among point measurements.
Yep. You tied in the most important (skill), lost in the 2nd most important (skill), then won in the rest (participation).
Had you crushed them in explore and barely lost in attacker, then there would be an argument. As is, you’re complaining that they fought better than your ally.
Unless you’re simply complaining about matchmaking, which is white noise. You would have lost these wars anyway due to defender rating before the new scoring was put in place.
Maybe this doesn't seem helpful to you, but I hope it does add some perspective. I hope your next war goes better...unless it's against my alliance, that is!
How is it they beat you in "skill" if your defenders are weaker than their's and their attackers are stronger than your's? That's not skill. Now if it was vice versa then that's skill.
Appreciate it and I agree there is a thrill to close matches like that
Skill is killing stuff without dying. They killed more stuff without dying. I can’t imagine the difference in attackers and defenders was THAT great over a 1 mil ally difference. However, I’ll bow out because this is now a matchmaking issue and not an attacker bonus issue. Good luck next War.
To beat story quest, and earn more points in arena lol
being +/- 1M is a pretty fair fight. especially when you consider that it's spread out over 30 players.
i'd be willing to bet it was about close to the same number of 4*s and 5*s on either side.
I fought for it because it was logical and satisfied the complaints of the vast majority of players complaining about the changes to AW. I was certainly not alone in asking for major changes to AW: my contribution was crystalizing those complaints into something specific. And actually, I didn't specifically fight for attacker bonus points: I fought for a replacement for defender kill points that better differentiated alliances based on attacker performance: the ability to kill defender nodes better than their opponents. Attacker bonus points were one of six different options discussed to replace them.
By in large most people seem to prefer AW with them than without them and they satisfy the primary requirement for competitive AW: that the wars are decided on the battlefield by the best attackers as often as possible. In your war, your alliance was not the best attackers, so you lost. That's actually what most people seem to want the result to be. Good luck trying to get that reversed. It only took two major game revisions and five AW updates to get it added in the first place.
I'm also not defending the change, I'm explaining it to you. I'm not required to defend it, as it is not a feature that currently appears to require defending. It is a feature the devs have already added and has majority support. My defending it wouldn't put it on any stronger footing than it already has.
Come back this war, analyse who’s dying repeatedly and help them fight better, then maybe you’ll win more.
For example ;
I could fight like absolute **** with a 5* 4/5 duped Iceman against an unduped 4* 3K pi Karnak and beat the Karnak on the first try and not lose points on attack bonus.
If the game is going to give an advantage to higher pi alliances in attack bonus it should do the same for alliances with lower pi that actually have to use more skill in defeating the opponent.
Attack bonus should also be based on actual skill such as high numbered combos during a fight. That would give an advantage to attackers with less pi because it would take longer to kill the defender, so it would be based on more actual skill in playing.
We all get the point fine. You are expressing a preference the game doesn't honor. This game is a progressional game that rewards players who progress by leveling and by increasing their roster size and rank. Within those parameters this game hands out content that requires players to complete combat tasks with no handicapping - players with weaker rosters are not compensated for that disadvantage. That is the core of the game players must accept everywhere else besides AW.
Within AW, most players interested in strong competition have advocated for those two principles to be maintained. Players with larger and stronger rosters should be allowed to maintain that advantage, and then without regard to any advantage or disadvantage in roster every player should be judged by the results they can produce, not the amount of effort it takes them to produce those efforts.
We want to recognize and reward skill, but we simultaneously do not want to take away the advantages players build up in obtaining and ranking up champions. In every part of the game, if you can do more with a combination of skill and roster, you get the exact same rewards as someone that can do the same thing with a different amount of skill and roster but that generate the same results.
For players with equal roster, higher skill should win. But stronger roster opens doors. If you have a stronger roster than another player, you are allowed and encouraged to press that advantage. That intrinsic advantage is mitigated in many ways where necessary. For example, AW matchmaking uses win/loss record to roughly match alliances with similar ability to defeat opposing alliances. Arena events sometimes limit which champions can be used within them. But absent those exceptions, if another alliance kills you more easily than you can kill them because their roster is just much stronger than yours, they won fairly because in this game that advantage is always "fair."
If you cannot accept these two basic principles - that the game rewards stronger roster as a primary progressional goal and that within that boundary the game rewards players that can generate better results with that roster - then this is simply not the game for you.
First of all, I've never complained about any previous version of war before. This isn't the first time we've lost a war, but it is the first time we've lost that I felt was unjust. I'm sure that's why many people complained about diversity points, although I have never had an issue with that. I'm not a sore loser, and don't mind facing stronger alliances, provided it's not a constant stream of one sided wars. I'm sure there have probably been mismatches in our favor before, but they are far fewer than the ones against us. But like I said, I've never complained prior until this revision, and we didn't make it up to tier 7 because we suck or just luck.
You're already rewarded with an advantage by leveling and ranking up when you're the stronger alliance. So many keep talking about measuring skill when attack bonus doesn't do a great job of that. Combo bonus is a brilliant measure of skill, much better than attack bonus! You should be given so many points per hit for your highest combo. Seems you're more interested in having the advantage than really measuring skill lol
So you want a war where you can pay to win?