It's garbage. Now I can't use my Night Crawler on defense because 3 other people in my battle group have one? Whoever thought up this new AW system needs to be canned. Hopefully that means it was Kabam Miike
This came bc of all the people whining and complaining about mystic defenders and mystic dispersion. Or complaining war was getting stale bc people had to face spidey or nc tile after tile. So kabam "fixed" it. Now quality of defenses is totally meaningless. The fact that three people in you bg have placed an nc tells me you guys need to have a talk with your teammates. They likely just cost you a win bc they refuse to follow the new reality.
Just read the announcement to double check, the system intended was diversity across ALL BGs.
Problem here is, like what others have already mentioned, having diversity across all BGs makes defender diversity much harder to score in, along with assembling the desired defense. Not only that, but if defender diversity is throughout the entire alliance, I think it will be even harder or near impossible to win against an alliance with no defenders provided they 100% all our BGs.
I say keep the current system, this is one of those times it's a good mistake. If you want to revert to your intended system, then I recommend you also do something about the current problems like how an alliance can have a good chance at winning with no defenders on their board.
Just read the announcement to double check, the system intended was diversity across ALL BGs.
Problem here is, like what others have already mentioned, having diversity across all BGs makes defender diversity much harder to score in, along with assembling the desired defense. Not only that, but if defender diversity is throughout the entire alliance, I think it will be even harder or near impossible to win against an alliance with no defenders provided they 100% all our BGs.
I say keep the current system, this is one of those times it's a good mistake. If you want to revert to your intended system, then I recommend you also do something about the current problems like how an alliance can have a good chance at winning with no defenders on their board.
I have done the math. If they change defender diversity to across all bgs, as opposed to diversity within bg (as it seems to be scoring now), it is literally impossible to win a war under the current number of diverse champs in the game in a 3 bg war. If it changes to how intended, either zero defenders in 3 bgs or only run 1 or 2 bg wars
Doesn't it make sense to keep it per BG? If it's across the entire alliance people will just place as many unique defenders as possible and leave the rest of the map empty. Do not revert this. It would be very foolish.
Doesn't it make sense to keep it per BG? If it's across the entire alliance people will just place as many unique defenders as possible and leave the rest of the map empty. Do not revert this. It would be very foolish.
Under the current system of the game, correct. It would be most beneficial to place only nondiverse defenders and not place a full defense for all bgs bc there aren't 121 diverse champs.
But when kabam releases that 122nd champ (if u include og vision, red deadpool, thanos, and kang), they can sell champs like red deadpool, kang, and og vision again so that other alliances can catch up (I say 122 bc thanos I doubt will ever be sold)
Yeah, I realized my flaw later. As long as you are placing only nondiverse defenders u should win. So an alliance that places 5 diverse defenders should beat an alliance that places zero defenders.
Yeah, you're right. I realized my mistake in a different post. Totally diverse defenders always beats a zero defense. I was thinking about it from the 150 defender standpoint.
Doesn't it make sense to keep it per BG? If it's across the entire alliance people will just place as many unique defenders as possible and leave the rest of the map empty. Do not revert this. It would be very foolish.
Under the current system of the game, correct. It would be most beneficial to place only nondiverse defenders and not place a full defense for all bgs bc there aren't 121 diverse champs.
But when kabam releases that 122nd champ (if u include og vision, red deadpool, thanos, and kang), they can sell champs like red deadpool, kang, and og vision again so that other alliances can catch up (I say 122 bc thanos I doubt will ever be sold)
Yeah I get how the scoring works. We're already placing 50 unique defenders in each BG. If they make it unique per alliance as it seemed they originally intended then we'll have to go and drop defenders. This way we only place up to the 106 champs released so far and not place up to a full 150 as any repeat champs would hurt our score. I can't imagine Kabam intends for us to actually place a smaller defense.
Just saying it would be stupid to revert this. Keep the diversity per BG @Kabam Zibiit
If they keep the diversity per bg then the game becomes pay to win. Whoever can afford the most resources/champs can get the higher defender rating and win before the match starts.
Not a very fair system. It completely negates skill and rewards money spent.
If they keep the diversity per bg then the game becomes pay to win. Whoever can afford the most resources/champs can get the higher defender rating and win before the match starts.
Not a very fair system. It completely negates skill and rewards money spent.
It's already like this. The only way around it is to give us back defender kills.
Another simple solution to prevent zero defensive placement is to scale victory rewards on defensive placement percentage instead of exploration percentage, or a combination of both.
If you want full rewards, you have to place at least 85% of total defenders allowed. If a team places 0 defenders, they net 0 victory rewards. Then amp up participation rewards to be like in the original release of war, where even if you lost you got the current victory rewards.
This solves two problems, losing to 0 defense strategy, and increasing rewards to make war worthwhile.
Hey there, for those of you saying that you experienced higher than possible defender diversity points or that you got defender diversity points from multiple instances of the same Champion (even the same Champs in different Battlegroups or at different star rankings), could you send me any information or screenshots you might have demonstrating this?
Given this information, are you going to go back thru all wars and adjust the diversity scores to make sure everyone got the result they deserved ? This is almost like the skirmish rewards all over again. I'm sure there is at least one case where an alliance lost based on diversity not being applied correctly. It's not that hard to picture this happening if one alliance avoided using a 4* and 5* of the same champ in the same bg while another team did and gained more diversity points. It's not likely, but there could have been artificially inflated diversity scores that affected outcomes, especially in close wars.
Personally, I think the system should stay as is, on a per bg basis but not count different star ratings as diverse champs.
Comments
This came bc of all the people whining and complaining about mystic defenders and mystic dispersion. Or complaining war was getting stale bc people had to face spidey or nc tile after tile. So kabam "fixed" it. Now quality of defenses is totally meaningless. The fact that three people in you bg have placed an nc tells me you guys need to have a talk with your teammates. They likely just cost you a win bc they refuse to follow the new reality.
Problem here is, like what others have already mentioned, having diversity across all BGs makes defender diversity much harder to score in, along with assembling the desired defense. Not only that, but if defender diversity is throughout the entire alliance, I think it will be even harder or near impossible to win against an alliance with no defenders provided they 100% all our BGs.
I say keep the current system, this is one of those times it's a good mistake. If you want to revert to your intended system, then I recommend you also do something about the current problems like how an alliance can have a good chance at winning with no defenders on their board.
I have done the math. If they change defender diversity to across all bgs, as opposed to diversity within bg (as it seems to be scoring now), it is literally impossible to win a war under the current number of diverse champs in the game in a 3 bg war. If it changes to how intended, either zero defenders in 3 bgs or only run 1 or 2 bg wars
Under the current system of the game, correct. It would be most beneficial to place only nondiverse defenders and not place a full defense for all bgs bc there aren't 121 diverse champs.
But when kabam releases that 122nd champ (if u include og vision, red deadpool, thanos, and kang), they can sell champs like red deadpool, kang, and og vision again so that other alliances can catch up (I say 122 bc thanos I doubt will ever be sold)
Yeah, I realized my flaw later. As long as you are placing only nondiverse defenders u should win. So an alliance that places 5 diverse defenders should beat an alliance that places zero defenders.
Yeah, you're right. I realized my mistake in a different post. Totally diverse defenders always beats a zero defense. I was thinking about it from the 150 defender standpoint.
Yeah I get how the scoring works. We're already placing 50 unique defenders in each BG. If they make it unique per alliance as it seemed they originally intended then we'll have to go and drop defenders. This way we only place up to the 106 champs released so far and not place up to a full 150 as any repeat champs would hurt our score. I can't imagine Kabam intends for us to actually place a smaller defense.
Just saying it would be stupid to revert this. Keep the diversity per BG @Kabam Zibiit
Not a very fair system. It completely negates skill and rewards money spent.
It's already like this. The only way around it is to give us back defender kills.
If you want full rewards, you have to place at least 85% of total defenders allowed. If a team places 0 defenders, they net 0 victory rewards. Then amp up participation rewards to be like in the original release of war, where even if you lost you got the current victory rewards.
This solves two problems, losing to 0 defense strategy, and increasing rewards to make war worthwhile.
Given this information, are you going to go back thru all wars and adjust the diversity scores to make sure everyone got the result they deserved ? This is almost like the skirmish rewards all over again. I'm sure there is at least one case where an alliance lost based on diversity not being applied correctly. It's not that hard to picture this happening if one alliance avoided using a 4* and 5* of the same champ in the same bg while another team did and gained more diversity points. It's not likely, but there could have been artificially inflated diversity scores that affected outcomes, especially in close wars.
Personally, I think the system should stay as is, on a per bg basis but not count different star ratings as diverse champs.