How on Earth is this possible?
BowlSheet
Member Posts: 115 ★
I totally get that we lost the match. The win is virtually guaranteed to whichever team has the most participants thanks to redundant scoring that essentially rewards the team with the most participants.
So, naturally, we lost the Explored bonus, the Defenders Remaining bonus, and the Defender Diversity bonus. However, out of the opposing team's 30 characters (10 participants) we have 26 defender kills. Honestly, I don't remember that many of them dying, but you can see the numbers in the report. Out of our 15 characters (only 5 participants) we only got killed 4 times. Seems legit.
So, how on Earth did we lose the attack bonus?? I can see that we only killed 23 of their 45 nodes, while they killed 16 of our 25 nodes. 51% vs 64%. But that is a Defenders Remaining win.
If they only killed us 4 times and we had 23 successful attacks (85% win rate), how do they win with 26 deaths and 16 successful attacks (38% win rate)?
The attack bonus for a node is linear so it doesn't matter if 3 deaths are on one node or on several. Each loss is 80 points. The only time it matters is 4 or more losses on a node because there is no further loss of bonus after the 3rd loss.
Given that the opposing team only had 4 defender kills, it is impossible that we lost more than 320 points and it is possible that we only lost 240. Given that we had 26 defender kills (I had 17 on one node and 1 one a second; plus 2 teammates had 5 and 3 kills, in some unknown distribution), it is impossible for the other team to have lost less than 320 points (800, actually, if we assume that all losses occurred on 4 nodes)).
Therefore, if we had 23 kills with a max bonus loss of 320 points and they had 16 kills with a minimum bonus loss of 320 points, I don't see how it is possible for them to have won the Attacker bonus. With 7 more kills, we had the highest possible bonus. And with the least number of Attacker deaths, we lost the least amount of Attacked bonus.
What am I missing? Or were we just Kabammed?
2
Comments
Uh nope. Not what I said. We only do 1 group. I have 7 members. 5 participated. They had full participation: 10 people = 30 attackers. I was pretty clear on the number of people participating. No empty rooms. Please know what you're saying before you get snarky.
Well, the whole premise of a "match making" is to level the playing field. It's actually the text book definition of the word "match". Equity. Similarity.
If they only wanted us to be in big active alliances with 29 other people, they wouldn't allow Alliance Wars with only 1 group. If your ally isn't active enough to fill 3 groups, then you're not active enough to make them money. And the reason Kabam would encourage equity in matches is that if they discouraged smaller allies from playing...that leads to less people playing and thus does not help them make money.
Regardless, our alliances were pretty closely matched. However we only had 5 members and they had 10 playing. It's clear by the kill counts that we had much more skill. They got the win just because they had extra players. The win shouldn't be guaranteed to the team with more players. The game should be based on skill. That's why the United States Marines are awesome.They are the FEW, the proud. Not the many, the bad aims. You should be able to win with skill and not cannon fodder.
I say that as someone who has run war with 5 in a BG, there is really no point other than to participate and I'm old enough to be part of the generation that didn't win just for showing up.
The win isn't guaranteed to the team with the more players. The win is guaranteed to the team that does the most to win. Wars are not won by the side with the most skilled soldiers. They are won by the side that actually defeats the other side. And in war, one side does not get to complain the other side showed up with more guys.
Your not showing (most important #1 objective) info thinking you would keep that fact hidden no one would notice. not counting on the fact we all know this game.
They had 3bg or @ least 2bg cleared.
While you had 0 maybe 1 bg cleared.
So STFU. Don't pretend to be any kind of victim of wrong doing.
You lost fair and square. Learn from it & grow.
Life ain't fair I hear?
You guys are clearly more skilled or active. But you went in TERRBLY HANDICAPED with half the number if people needed to fill up one bg.
Piece of advise, dont do aw until you have at least 8 people.
You must be a Navy guy. Marines get it done.
It actually is guaranteed. All the bonus metrics are geared towards size of team. Plus, that is my precise experience. Every time we had less numbers we lost. Every time it was even numbers, it was up in the air. Every time we had more participants, we won. Data beats opinion.
Nah, brah. Mama is wrong again. We had the BG cleared. I'm not hiding anything. That part of the screen was unimportant to my discussion. Also, there was only 1 BG, as was stated. It doesn't look like you know this game after all.
We've beaten alliances with 30 full members using only 28 attackers in the past. Those data points directly contradict the conjecture that the win is *guaranteed* for the team with more players. You are at a disadvantage if you bring fewer players. If you bring sufficiently fewer players that disadvantage could be insurmountable if the difference between your skill level and your opponents is insufficiently high. But the game doesn't simply hand the win to the alliance with the most participants.
At best, all you can say is that the win is guaranteed to any alliance that faces your alliance with at least one more member. But that's a statement about your alliance, not alliance war.
After seeing how easily we cleared and how difficult it was for them, yes! I just never paid attention to size before. Our previous losses, the size disparity seemed coincidental, so I never really paid attention.
At best, I can say this applies in a 1 BG situation. A 3 BG situation like you describe is significantly different.
You're presupposing that in the situations I'm mentioning, the full battlegroup(s) were able to compensate for the not full one. You're mistaken. In those wars we won, every single battlegroup cleared 100%, and thus every single battle group regardless of amount of players would have beaten their opposing battlegroup in a single battlegroup war. If a battlegroup of 9 can score more points than a battlegroup of 10 in any war, then regardless of surrounding circumstances that proves the number of players does not predetermine the winner of the war.
You're presupposing that you are a credible source of data. You sound a lot like you're making stuff up, though. So we will have to agree to disagree.
It's only whiny nonsense because you lack the faculty to understand my position.
And are you talking about serious topics like "Annual downtime numbers"? I mean, seriously. I am laughing so hard right now. Thank you for that.