Too many wars decided by Defender Diversity

I'm in an above average alliance that has bounced everywhere from Tier 5 down to Tier 12 in Alliance Wars. Recently, we've been stuck below Tier 8 because we can't win wars even when we finish all three groups 100%. 5 of our last 10 wars have been decided by Attack Bonus and Defender Diversity, with the latter being the real deciding factor.

Are other alliances finding themselves in the same situation? Does anyone know if Kabam is planning a revamp of Alliance Wars for Season 2?

Comments

Hulksmasshh

Working as intended

GroundedWisdom

That's pretty much the intended purpose of Diversity. When it comes down to a tie, it decides what tips the scale.

Deadbyrd9

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

EvilEmpire

Yeah more defender kill bonuses would be nice and less diversity

roastedbagel

I mean attack bonus *is* what's supposed to decide a war for the most part. It's like defender kills. Diversity is a tie breaker. Up your diversity if you're losing due to it the last 5 wars maybe?

danielmath

if one alliance has higher diversity and equals your attack bonus, shouldn't you lose? It means they died the same amount against a tougher defense - they performed better

Raganator

Will you have the same complaint when you reach levels where everyone is at 150 diversity and wars are decided by one or two kills?

BDLH

it's still a pretty lame system TBH. Even at pretty high tiers up on expert nodes, most teams don't seem to go to 150 diversity since a strong R4 defender that has a high kill chance is worth using as a non-unique champ. That's basically our policy, any decent R4's keep and lose a tiny bit of diversity since they just need to have a 40% kill chance pass 1 diversity difference (80 atk bonus loss X 0.4 =32 vs 30 for diversity). Most wars are won within 1% difference based more on deaths than diversity to me since most teams have similar strats. We have yet to see a 150 diversity team since most feel it's ok to keep a 2nd R4 Dorm or Medusa on various nodes and sacrifice 30 points since they have a decent chance to get a kill. "Heavy diversity" teams we're seeing are in the 140-145 range, maybe when you're in the top 10 and people boost the hell up for every node and almost never die they actually go all the way to 150, but up to around 300 range, there are only heavy diversity, not full diversity that I've seen.

The part I think is lame is the 3 cap on losing points on deaths. If you die more than 3X to the same node that is a bigger indicator that your team was less organized and performed significantly lower if a single node can stop you that hard. You should be penalized even more if you die more than 3 times, not negated to 0 penalty after 3 deaths. We won today's war by just 3 attacker bonus points, but the other team died 12 more deaths than we did. Since 3 hard nodes stumped them and got them 3-10X, it almost evened out the score completely when it shoudn't have been that close. The absolute only reason to have the 3 cap is to encourage endless spending after you've already died 3X there is ZERO penalty to buy your way through and attempt to buy a win.

No competitive team vs team game has this twisted logic in it so MCOC can never really reach an E-sport type of game even though it carries one of the most prized themes (Marvel). It's still a pay to win fake competition like the dissaster they tried to host to make it look "competive." Even if they ever fixed the countless bugs that cause many of the deaths at high ranks since players rarely just flat out miss a parry or stop blocking mid-combo, when you remove the concept of fair competition no true competitor can take the game seriously.

LeNoirFaineant

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

2StarKing

Diversity is a choice. Go 100% diversity then it won't be why you lost. The bottom line is, if your team is dying, diversity is not reason for losing. I'll bet if your team had a few less deaths, diversity would not have played a factor.

NevvB

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Happened to us last week. Dropped to plat3.

Miike pretty much told us it was our fault for starting matchmaking too late.

GroundedWisdom

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

NevvB

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

wrong.

GroundedWisdom

Actually, it's not wrong. As per the statement and comments made by Adora. It wasn't that they missed one or two because they started late. They started Matchmaking the moment it opened and didn't find a Match by the time It closed. There is a difference in situations, as much as people think it was favoritism.

NevvB

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Actually, it's not wrong. As per the statement and comments made by Adora. It wasn't that they missed one or two because they started late. They started Matchmaking the moment it opened and didn't find a Match by the time It closed. There is a difference in situations, as much as people think it was favoritism.

If you actually look at the amount of points they have, if they missed wars for a whole cycle, there is no way they would have the amount they have right now.

GroundedWisdom

Right, so they issued a statement to do what they wanted anyway and lie. Suspicious much? They wouldn't even bother saying anything if they were giving preferential treatment. They wouldn't draw attention to it. The paranoia is not even logical. Lol.

Hulksmasshh

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

Wrong it was 2 wars missed not an entire week. And while their situation was unique, they were given preferential treatment. But I have no problem to the solution Kabam provided and think it is fair for all.

GroundedWisdom

Hulksmasshh wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

Wrong it was 2 wars missed not an entire week. And while their situation was unique, they were given preferential treatment. But I have no problem to the solution Kabam provided and think it is fair for all.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/341784#Comment_341784

Hulksmasshh

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Hulksmasshh wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

Wrong it was 2 wars missed not an entire week. And while their situation was unique, they were given preferential treatment. But I have no problem to the solution Kabam provided and think it is fair for all.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/341784#Comment_341784

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/51407/regarding-alliance-wars-matchmaking#latest

GroundedWisdom

Hulksmasshh wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Hulksmasshh wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

Wrong it was 2 wars missed not an entire week. And while their situation was unique, they were given preferential treatment. But I have no problem to the solution Kabam provided and think it is fair for all.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/341784#Comment_341784

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/51407/regarding-alliance-wars-matchmaking#latest

I see what you're saying. I meant they couldn't find a Match. Technically, they missed the entire cycle. I was saying out of 3 potential Matches in the cycle. They may do 2 a cycle. What I was really pointing out in the comment was it wasn't the same as people who missed out because of the delay but still fought. They didn't get to fight at all.

Jaffacaked

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Hulksmasshh wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Hulksmasshh wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

Or you could be like our alliance and have 2 2+ hour searches and not being able to get a third match in when you are 15th in plat 2

@Deadbyrd9 that isn't possible. Kabam stated unequivocally that this Issue only affected That One Certain Alliance.

Not really. They didn't fight a War the entire week cycle because they spent the entire time searching.

Wrong it was 2 wars missed not an entire week. And while their situation was unique, they were given preferential treatment. But I have no problem to the solution Kabam provided and think it is fair for all.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/341784#Comment_341784

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/51407/regarding-alliance-wars-matchmaking#latest

I see what you're saying. I meant they couldn't find a Match. Technically, they missed the entire cycle. I was saying out of 3 potential Matches in the cycle. They may do 2 a cycle. What I was really pointing out in the comment was it wasn't the same as people who missed out because of the delay but still fought. They didn't get to fight at all.

Back pedal much. When your wrong your wrong there is no technically about it

GroundedWisdom

If you're going to jump in Threads randomly to try and pick fights with me, you might want to be clear first.
Its very clear what I meant. A week is 3 potential Wars. I'm not aware of how many they run per cycle. The 5 days we are available to Match is what I meant by a week. The bottom line is they started when it opened and didn't Match the entire time.

Jaffacaked

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

If you're going to jump in Threads randomly to try and pick fights with me, you might want to be clear first.
Its very clear what I meant. A week is 3 potential Wars. I'm not aware of how many they run per cycle. The 5 days we are available to Match is what I meant by a week. The bottom line is they started when it opened and didn't Match the entire time.

Not picking a fight just stating a fact so don't appreciate bring called out for that(again). An as for jumping in thread's randomly that's how people become part of the thread an conversation, I don't see an invite only option for these threads

GroundedWisdom

Save the rub. You've done the same thing to me ever since the Forum began. It's no big secret, to me or anyone else for that matter. At one time, you were advocating because you still see me on your Ignore Feature. Yet you make an effort to interact with me every chance you get. I have no issues with anyone participating. What I have an issue with is people seeking me out to cause a reaction. Frankly, it's gone on long enough. Keep fighting the good fight. I'm going back to ignoring it. Just know I can see what you're doing.

GroundedWisdom

In any case, back to the topic. Diversity is meant to tip the scale. It was said to be meant as closer to a tie breaker during the iterations. It's been lowered to reflect that. Some were focused on how it wasn't a literal tie breaker because there are still Ties, but I believe it wasn't meant to prevent them completely. In Wars higher up, it's more of a determining factor because Exploration and full Bonus is pretty common. As for both sides taking a Loss in the event of an actual Tie, that's a different subject.

YoMoves

There's really a simple way to make a real tiebreaker.

Since the highest tier wars always 100% anyways, simply give one extra point to the team who completed the entire map fastest. One point will decide the victor.

Granted, this doesn't solve the possibility of neither side exploring 100% and exploring the same amount with the same deaths, but the odds of that are simply astronomical, as opposed to a recent tie game my alliance had with another at 14 deaths apiece.

Defender diversity is not a tiebreaker at the top levels because each alliance always places 150 diversity. We need a surefire, inescapable tiebreaker to prevent as many ties as humanly possible, and I believe the '1 point for fastest map completion' would be it. It doesn't affect score in any way EXCEPT in the case of a tie score. It's the most ideal option in my thoughts.

GroundedWisdom

The suggestion of Timed Fights came up during the War Changes as well. I wouldn't have an issue with it. To the best of my knowledge however, they may not be able to yet. I know they're looking at ways of counting the Fights only for Legends Runs. If it's along the same lines, maybe they could extend that to BG Completion.

Plantesan

YoMoves wrote: »

There's really a simple way to make a real tiebreaker.

Since the highest tier wars always 100% anyways, simply give one extra point to the team who completed the entire map fastest. One point will decide the victor.

Granted, this doesn't solve the possibility of neither side exploring 100% and exploring the same amount with the same deaths, but the odds of that are simply astronomical, as opposed to a recent tie game my alliance had with another at 14 deaths apiece.

Defender diversity is not a tiebreaker at the top levels because each alliance always places 150 diversity. We need a surefire, inescapable tiebreaker to prevent as many ties as humanly possible, and I believe the '1 point for fastest map completion' would be it. It doesn't affect score in any way EXCEPT in the case of a tie score. It's the most ideal option in my thoughts.

Sounds like that would be an interesting idea, but also sounds like another load of stress for any bg’s having to deal with waiting on people.

In regards to the OP, it’s just how the game works these days. A lot of alliances had to make that adjustment to diversity...just make sure to push for the map clears, and don’t die too many times *shrug*

Snizzbar

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm going back to ignoring it. Just know I can see what you're doing.

Watch out Jaffa he's going to IGNORE you, and he can SEE what you're DOING.

GroundedWisdom

Plantesan wrote: »

YoMoves wrote: »

There's really a simple way to make a real tiebreaker.

Since the highest tier wars always 100% anyways, simply give one extra point to the team who completed the entire map fastest. One point will decide the victor.

Granted, this doesn't solve the possibility of neither side exploring 100% and exploring the same amount with the same deaths, but the odds of that are simply astronomical, as opposed to a recent tie game my alliance had with another at 14 deaths apiece.

Defender diversity is not a tiebreaker at the top levels because each alliance always places 150 diversity. We need a surefire, inescapable tiebreaker to prevent as many ties as humanly possible, and I believe the '1 point for fastest map completion' would be it. It doesn't affect score in any way EXCEPT in the case of a tie score. It's the most ideal option in my thoughts.

Sounds like that would be an interesting idea, but also sounds like another load of stress for any bg’s having to deal with waiting on people.

In regards to the OP, it’s just how the game works these days. A lot of alliances had to make that adjustment to diversity...just make sure to push for the map clears, and don’t die too many times *shrug*

Good point. That could potentially lead to pressure on people to move.