**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Over this AW scoring system.
DirkManhood
Posts: 63
So as you can see below, we lost to diversity. Am I the only one who hates this. I was so happy when they were going to get rid of it, but didn’t want to give out rank down tickets, so they said f it and kept it. I want change. We had more attack raiting and more defender kills, but since we didn’t have different champs we lost. It was an undeserving loss and I’m super tired of it. All I want is for defender kills to contribute points, again something Kabam doesn’t want since they’ll lose out on this pay to play style of AW. Seriously I’m over it and I want change. I know I’m not the only one. 
-1
Comments
Honestly the only solution I see is make defender synergy works (so ppls will bring the synergy champ in as defenders) and remove defender diversity but that 6 fury Medusa boss or that unstoppable indestructible hulk with a bar of power below 20% will most likely be more than the player base asked for.
Unfortunately even though op clearly did better with attack bonus, a main reason is also due to better (but duplicate) defenders. Change is needed eventually but right now just have to play by the rules...
Sorry, but diversity wasn't the culprit here. Their alliance was just better than yours.
You are definitely not the only one. However, the current AW rules are an attempt to balance a lot of different positions, none of which are overwhelmingly supported. Every change made has at least as large a contingent of players that oppose it as support it. The current trade off is balancing the points you get from diversity with the points you lose from placing an easier defense that the opponent can rack up higher attacker bonuses. That's close enough for most players to deal with. There will always be corner cases, but even those corner cases are a matter of perspective. As @AxeCopFire points out, you didn't just lose to diversity. You lost because you placed a less diverse and presumably stronger defense than your opponents, but you didn't leverage that advantage into enough points. 24 more duplicate defenders but only eight more attacker bonuses either means their attackers were actually better than yours, score notwithstanding, or your alliance wasted defender slots on non-duplicate defenders that were nevertheless not very strong.
You didn't just lose on diversity points. Those points generally come with a cost. Your opponent paid that cost, and you didn't take sufficient advantage. That's the actual way diversity points function in AW.
This is dead on, you took a risk that they would die more because you put harder defenders and you were wrong.
This is 100 true
Especially in tier “1” wars
Diversity between 148 vs 150
The 148 has an eextra...2...medusa/imiw/korg/dorm
Having 2 korgs for example in 1 bg is oretty tough when compared to just 1 korg in 1bg. Hence why “you” are sacricing a dicersity point for a much better “duplicate” defender
An extra “duplicate” why do people double up op defenders.?
To
Get
More
Kills with harder defenders
If kabam set “all” alliances to 150 both alliance
Then it would all go down to whoever basically...dies less!!
No, he's saying when the other side puts twenty-four more "garbage" defenders than you, you're supposed to come up with more than eight more attacker bonuses than them. Diversity counts for 30 points per defender. To make up for twenty-four diverse defenders requires only nine additional attacker bonuses (technically: ten to win, nine to tie). You only managed to get eight against all those "garbage" defenders, so you lost.
With 100% exploration, there are 495 attacker bonuses possible. Your alliance got 459, and thus incurred 36 bonus-reducing deaths (you actually died 39 times, but three of those deaths were against defenders that already had been reduced to zero bonus). So there were opportunities to get those two attacker bonuses. Diversity alone did not decide the fight.
Yes, what I'm saying and what everyone else is saying is that you should do that thing that the alliance that just beat you did, because the thing that you did clearly didn't work.
Do 150 diversity if you dont want to lose by diversity
You can put 3 iron man iw in 1 path and lose 2 diversity cause u chose to have 3 same champs.
But go ahead put 3 imiw in 1 path in the same bg, best believe if someone atacks with a corvus and skilled your 3 imiws will all get destroyed so those 3 imiws will recieve penalty for duplicate champs and get full attack bonus
Then boom wasted 2 diversity for having duplicates but u took chance on duplicate champions
Alot of alliances in tier1 have 150 diversity.
If both alliances 150 diversity, 100% all 3 bg
Then it all goes down to deaths
One more attacker bonus would have made it a tie at 145,280. Two more would have given you the win at 145,360 to 145280.
Alternatively, three more diverse defenders would have made it 145, 290 to 145,280 which would have also given you the win, assuming the other side did not get any more attacker bonuses. It is impossible to know if that would have happened or not, which is why the question of whether to place diverse or strong as possible or something in the middle is not a question with one right answer. It is part of the strategic planning of fighting an alliance war.
The strategy in tier 6 (where I think the OP is based on rating) is a little different than in tier 1 because your expectations for the opponent are different. 3x100% is not guaranteed: it is probably 85% to 90% of the time. And you generally get a mix of attackers where some are very strong and some are only moderately strong. An IMIW on the wrong path gets destroyed, but on the right path can stil rack up a gigaton of kills. Diversity is still a strategic choice at or near that tier, because you can still prevent 100% with a strong enough defense, unlike in tier 1 where you have to presume the other side is going to get 100% with relatively few deaths essentially all of the time, so sacrificing diversity might not generate any return (except forcing the other side to spend a few more potions).
Aaaaaaaaaaanf this solves OP question
He is not in an allaince who is on tier1
But theu decided to have more “duplicate” defenders than there opponet.
There opponet also died alot less fighting all those duplicate(about 20+) champs while they thad to deal with less than there opponet
Let me bring my corvus, i was slay a full path of imiw. And then suddently ur 3 imiw on 1 path , then you get any defender kills from it but thats the sacrifice “you” took tonyour diversity for “potential” defender kills.
Wars are won on points.
If you choose to ignore how the point system is designed, that's on you.
If you have 2 magiks on defense and they kill absolutely no one, the higher the tier you are in the more likely that you are going to lose that war if the opponents diversity is higher.
There is well over 100 champs in the game now.
Having 49-50 unique champs per bg isn't that difficult.
So what if you put a r2 hulkbuster on a stupid node that wouldn't have gotten a kill anyway.
That hulkbuster just earned you more points that the r4 magik that would have gotten creamed by Blade anyway.
Go diverse, get as many kills as you can and don't die.
That means that hopefully you are placing at least 22 elite defenders. The big problem you have is, there aren't 22 nodes on the map that make even the most elite defenders hard. Definitely not in tier 6.
In tier 6 there is maybe only 10 to 15 nodes that are actually difficult. The rest are fodder.
Is what it looks like to me. They played better....
In my experience, being in an alliance that fights at or near that tier, and especially as the placement officer for my BG, excluding boss nodes there's about eight nodes that I think you'll get most of your kills on, and another dozen nodes that aren't hard nodes but aren't garbage nodes that you can still place the right defender on in the right war and cause problems.
At the end of the previous season I placed Groot in what I thought was a diversity placement and he got more than one kill. I assumed it was a fluke until it happened twice more. I came to realize that because people expect to fight a very specific limited set of champs on the node I was placing on, Groot was a surprise that caught them off guard. And because you don't see him often any more, in tier 6 the element of surprise still matters. I'm certain he would have been destroyed in the blink of an eye in tier 3, but the attackers in the mid-range of 6-10 are not experts at everything. It isn't really about the node or the defender, it is really about the competition. And sometimes the competition varies wildly within the same opponent alliance in the same war: it seems we often draw the best attackers from the opposing side in our battlegroup, while the exact same defender on the exact same node in a different battlegroup stops them cold.