Disregarding most of this thread. Same **** different day.
I like defender diversity being the tiebreaker. Gives an excuse to place some of those bad rank ups, or to rank up someone you were on the fence about. Death to Magik!
The scoring system is a little funky, but to get rid of this issue you have to max diversity. By doing so you eliminate diversity as being a "tie breaker" it will then come down to attack bonus, which is now determining the victor in higher tiers. Its almost the same as defender kills but not quite. I just lost a war form attack bonus. We won diversity, exploration, and had 1 defender remaining. (tookout boss noded) and we lost by attack bonus because they had 13 more defender kills. Sooooo yeah
I strongly believe that at least the boss/mini-boss nodes should work on a different attack bonus system than the rest of the map, to help counter-balance diversity (and truly make it a limited-role tie-breaker).
We generally clear our bosses within 0-3 deaths (tier 4). Our opponents have been dying up to 20+ times to ours (the minimum in my bg has been 9 in the last 5 wars).
If the whole system is designed to 'encourage people to try' then that's one thing- and I can understand it being frustrating if an entire battlegroup is held up by one regular node (although on a side note, I would argue that this would be the only way to stop alliances expecting 100% exploration as the standard). But nobody is going to avoid killing a boss based on losing some additional attack bonus, given the potential points available.
I think allowing additional points for bosses would be a fairer reflection of the relative 'skill' of each alliance, and keep the emphasis on attack, whilst minimising the role of diversity (but allowing it to remain relevant in very close wars).
I strongly believe that at least the boss/mini-boss nodes should work on a different attack bonus system than the rest of the map, to help counter-balance diversity (and truly make it a limited-role tie-breaker).
We generally clear our bosses within 0-3 deaths (tier 4). Our opponents have been dying up to 20+ times to ours (the minimum in my bg has been 9 in the last 5 wars).
If the whole system is designed to 'encourage people to try' then that's one thing- and I can understand it being frustrating if an entire battlegroup is held up by one regular node (although on a side note, I would argue that this would be the only way to stop alliances expecting 100% exploration as the standard). But nobody is going to avoid killing a boss based on losing some additional attack bonus, given the potential points available.
I think allowing additional points for bosses would be a fairer reflection of the relative 'skill' of each alliance, and keep the emphasis on attack, whilst minimising the role of diversity (but allowing it to remain relevant in very close wars).
A small counterpoint to that, I kind of enjoy not having to beef up the boss, and boss nodes. Can be creative and try to hide your good defenders on different nodes. Adds a little more to placement.
I agree, there is no way that mini bosses and bosses have the same attack bonus as every other node. that means when people lose the full attack bonus on a boss or mini, they can die as many times as they want. by doing that that makes the scoring system misleading. because you can have an alliance with wayyy more defense kills but less attack bonus because of minis and bosses.
I don’t think you will see 20+ deaths if that changes. I have about 20 alliance revives so if we ever go above 3 deaths on a node (hasn’t happened yet in my bg), I would just revive and not heal. Potions are harder to keep than revives
I think it’s great that they have the same. That’s where my alliance usually wins it’s wars anyway. Kabam is trying to encourage to fight a node. They don’t people not attacking if it hurts their alliance every single time they try. That’s just how this system was designed
There is a risk/reward happening with current wars. Here is how I see it:
- You have 100% diversity and depending on your alliance you place some bad champs.
- You place the strongest defenders you have and hope to get kills with them instead of diversity.
- You mix diversity and defenders.
- You die less(I would be surprised if you said you 1 shot absolutely everything).
- Depending on how good the alliance you face is they could change the champs they bring or the lanes they take.
- Sometimes defenders get kills sometimes they don't.
- Some alliances pilot(cheating) and you get screwed.
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.
That was the most BS post ever by Kabam. Fixing 1 alliance that got shafted because they were top tier and then act like it affected no other alliances. It literally happened to us the 1st 3 weeks of the season. We missed 3 wars because of it.
Comments
A common strategy is putting who you would normally put as a boss on another node and weaker versions on boss nodes. This maximizes unique kills.
I like defender diversity being the tiebreaker. Gives an excuse to place some of those bad rank ups, or to rank up someone you were on the fence about. Death to Magik!
We generally clear our bosses within 0-3 deaths (tier 4). Our opponents have been dying up to 20+ times to ours (the minimum in my bg has been 9 in the last 5 wars).
If the whole system is designed to 'encourage people to try' then that's one thing- and I can understand it being frustrating if an entire battlegroup is held up by one regular node (although on a side note, I would argue that this would be the only way to stop alliances expecting 100% exploration as the standard). But nobody is going to avoid killing a boss based on losing some additional attack bonus, given the potential points available.
I think allowing additional points for bosses would be a fairer reflection of the relative 'skill' of each alliance, and keep the emphasis on attack, whilst minimising the role of diversity (but allowing it to remain relevant in very close wars).
A small counterpoint to that, I kind of enjoy not having to beef up the boss, and boss nodes. Can be creative and try to hide your good defenders on different nodes. Adds a little more to placement.
- You have 100% diversity and depending on your alliance you place some bad champs.
- You place the strongest defenders you have and hope to get kills with them instead of diversity.
- You mix diversity and defenders.
- You die less(I would be surprised if you said you 1 shot absolutely everything).
- Depending on how good the alliance you face is they could change the champs they bring or the lanes they take.
- Sometimes defenders get kills sometimes they don't.
- Some alliances pilot(cheating) and you get screwed.
Good luck!