Bonus Points for Available Item Usage in AW?

dkatryl

We all have the standard 15 possible items to use in AW, split between revives, potions, or whatever. Many people complain about fighting wars against "Spenders", suggesting they would have won had the other team not revived their way to victory.

Would it be beneficial, much like diversity/win bonus/defenders left/etc, to give bonus points based on how many available items are left? Especially as that would be more of a performance based metric than, for example, which team had the strong PI defenders, a metric that is more based on the arbitrary prestige rating than how good the defender is.

Addyos

There are nine paths in an AW map. Theoretically it can be cleared by nine players alone, with the last member possibly having nothing to do and therefore not spend any items.

I raise this point because let's suppose an ally had a member leave during AW, leaving a Battlegroup short one member. This BG still manages to clear its map with its 9 remaining members. The opposing BG had its full complement of 10 members and also utilized only 9 members to clear all paths. They get extra points not available to the first BG because the remaining member didn't fight and didn't use any items as a result, and these extra points could become the tiebreaker.

Also, an alliance that are usually short a few members will always have this disadvantage perpetually as the opposing alliances will always have more members than them to get extra points from less items used.

In short, awarding points for less items used can become a significant disadvantage to alliances that for one reason or another don't have a full complement of 30 members. This might be a good idea, but it can also decide wars from the beginning just like Defender Diversity and Rating used to do.

DTMelodicMetal

Great idea on paper but it would probably lead to even more AW piloting. Further improving AW to be genuinely competitive, fun, and fair won’t be possible until piloting ends.

dkatryl

@Addyos While I can understand what you are saying, technically, if Team A 100% the map with only the required minimum of 9 players, and the 10th one did nothing, while Team B used all 10 players, and they both used the same amount of items, doesn't that mean that Team A inherently played better, as they were a man down the entire time?

Team B, after all, could have alternated players on one of the paths, sharing the load, and maybe not required as many items, where team A took a gamble and it paid off.

As to teams with less than 10 players, it could work like the 240 bonus for kills. Each loss removes 80, until after 3 losses, 0 bonus points. So, assign some number for max potential, for example, 150*30, or 4500. Each time an item is used, subtract 10 from that. If you only have, say, 29 players, you still start with 4500, but since there are 15 items that obviously can't be used by an active player, they would get at least 150 points for the 15 unused.

As to piloting, I hear that, but with the 240 kill bonus per node, the temptation to pilot is already there. If players are willing to cheat, they already have enough incentive.

Again, I'm not suggesting these points would be huge, like Boss kills and exploration, but more a tie breaker type thing, such as diversity and such, that is performance based.

NastyEfnNate

I like the idea. And being down a player wouldn’t mean anything if u treat item use like attacker bonus. U start with 450 items to use whether u have 30 or 28 players. Works the same as attacker bonus. Lose a fight lose an attack bonus. Use an item lose an item bonus

Cujo999

dkatryl wrote: »

We all have the standard 15 possible items to use in AW, split between revives, potions, or whatever. Many people complain about fighting wars against "Spenders", suggesting they would have won had the other team not revived their way to victory.

Would it be beneficial, much like diversity/win bonus/defenders left/etc, to give bonus points based on how many available items are left? Especially as that would be more of a performance based metric than, for example, which team had the strong PI defenders, a metric that is more based on the arbitrary prestige rating than how good the defender is.

There are some big issues with this.

First, this would just make the piloting issues in AW even worse. We're not just talking deaths, but now we're talking about losing points for using heal pots to top off champs.

Second, most of us have had a disconnect issue in AW. So, with this rule in place, not only do you lose 50% of your health and your attack bonus, but you also lose points for healing your champ up for something totally out of your control.

Finally, Kabam is a business. Rules/scoring that discourage players from spending really don't make much business sense. As a noted YouTuber once said, "A ftp game without whales is a dead game.".

Shrimkins

Unfortunately this will probably never happen. Why would kabam put a system in place that discourages spending?

Grimmbear

Only if you plan on paying for players to have the same type of pots. Unfair if people spend to get l4 pots and l2 revives and others only have lvl2s and lvl1s

Cujo999

Grimmbear wrote: »

Only if you plan on paying for players to have the same type of pots. Unfair if people spend to get l4 pots and l2 revives and others only have lvl2s and lvl1s

Also a fair point. Going off of the OP's point, someone that uses one L4 pot to top off a champ should get more points than someone that used 10 L1's, even though the person that used the L4 got a lot more health back.

Plus, if we're talking about measuring skill, what about boosts? Shouldn't the guy clearing his lanes with 4/40 4*'s get more points than the guy clearing his lanes with 4/55 5*'s?

Rixob

Sounds like a really good idea, but this would compromise Kabams bottom line, which is profit. I am alllll for it though. Nothing like seeing your defense wreck people and watching them heal just to fail again haha

DTMelodicMetal

If Kabam thought profits would increase from banning AW pilots this issue would’ve been directly addressed by now