I thought losing a war by Diversity was, bad but winning by Diversity also sucks

Last week we lost by Diversity and we cursed a lot.
We've just won an AW. The opponent was stronger and explored 99% while we did 97%
Result: our diversity was 112, theirs 95
So we won by placing Luke Cage and leaving NC on the bench
It doesn't make sense

Comments

chunkyb

Everything about diversity is awful and runs counter to competition from what I've seen.

Nexus_UY_Scuti

Why would winning suck? You still get the rewards right?

I would choose to win due to diversity over losing due to OP defenders any time of the day.

Sighsohard

Nexus_UY_Scuti wrote: »

Why would winning suck? You still get the rewards right?

I would choose to win due to diversity over losing due to OP defenders any time of the day.

Cuz war used to be fun. The only fun part of the game really since everything else is a walkthrough.

That could be true. If there was such a thing as OP defenders, which there isnt. You just need some advice or practice.... most likely both

DNA3000

Nexus_UY_Scuti wrote: »

Why would winning suck? You still get the rewards right?

I would choose to win due to diversity over losing due to OP defenders any time of the day.

For many people, how they win is at least as important as whether they win.

RagamugginGunner

Diversity is the worst ideal in a long line of terrible ideas the Dev team has implemented.

RickyTickyTaffy

Why defender diversity anyway? I would be more skill based with attacker diversity.

Everyone complains about how easy the new map is and there is no skill involved so bring in Luke Cage for attack and see how you do.

Svain

RickyTickyTaffy wrote: »

Why defender diversity anyway? I would be more skill based with attacker diversity.

Everyone complains about how easy the new map is and there is no skill involved so bring in Luke Cage for attack and see how you do.

Somebody on the opposing team did bring Luke Cage this last war, we were all a bit perplexed.

GroundedWisdom

That's the whole point of Diversity. We use Champs that we weren't using before.

Jmoneysteck

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

That's the whole point of Diversity. We use Champs that we weren't using before.

not really we jist throw our useless champs on some nodes

GroundedWisdom

Jmoneysteck wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

That's the whole point of Diversity. We use Champs that we weren't using before.

not really we jist throw our useless champs on some nodes

You're using them. Can't be that useless.

Sighsohard

It's utter laziness. Instead of spending time to "fix" their broken useless champs they incentivize us to use them regardless of their quality.

My guess is they're jumping to 6 star champs for a very obvious reason. They will release these 6*s slower and make all of them useful. To avoid the game being overrun with useless champs and creating a stagnant environment. Like the one we we are currently in. Also with the elimination of **** champs you can say goodbye to awesome champs. Balance

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mr_Platypus

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Jmoneysteck wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

That's the whole point of Diversity. We use Champs that we weren't using before.

not really we jist throw our useless champs on some nodes

You're using them. Can't be that useless.

Yeah you’re right, you make the pathetic champs with 0 use crucial for war, but in the process make the defensively solid champs that you used valuable resources on (the stuff you still don’t get a whole lot of even at endgame). Excellent pay off, didn’t want the T4cc anyway.

C4LH3LH4

It is not just the useless champions, there are champions like SL, SW and CA that are great on attack, but very predictable on defense.
It takes time for a mature player to learn the do's and don' ts, it seems this knowledge is useless as you may win by placing the wrong characters

GroundedWisdom

Mr_Platypus wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Jmoneysteck wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

That's the whole point of Diversity. We use Champs that we weren't using before.

not really we jist throw our useless champs on some nodes

You're using them. Can't be that useless.

Yeah you’re right, you make the pathetic champs with 0 use crucial for war, but in the process make the defensively solid champs that you used valuable resources on (the stuff you still don’t get a whole lot of even at endgame). Excellent pay off, didn’t want the T4cc anyway.

From what I understand, a large number of End-Game have expiring Cats because they consider many Champs not worth Ranking. Seems like a reason to use them.
There were certain Champs that performed better on certain Nodes. They weren't crucial to War. They were part of a strategy. One that was created by the Players. Contrary to the belief of some, when you Rank a Champ, its use is not limited to War.
"Pathetic" is an opinion. As a design, they didn't set out to create 90 some "pathetic" Champs and the rest "useful". The game has changed since Wars began. Champs have been introduced, metrics have changed, and the drive to gain 5* Shards has increased. That meant Players filled the BGs with multiples of the same Champs to secure their position and win Shards. That's all the choice of the Players. Unfortunately, the excess of that has created problems for the system overall. Everyone plays the same system. Not just people who are accumulating Wins using said formula.
TL:DR - The "pathetic" Champs are not really pathetic. They're not part of the formula in the old system that was used to reap Rewards securely.

Mr_Platypus

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Mr_Platypus wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Jmoneysteck wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

That's the whole point of Diversity. We use Champs that we weren't using before.

not really we jist throw our useless champs on some nodes

You're using them. Can't be that useless.

Yeah you’re right, you make the pathetic champs with 0 use crucial for war, but in the process make the defensively solid champs that you used valuable resources on (the stuff you still don’t get a whole lot of even at endgame). Excellent pay off, didn’t want the T4cc anyway.

From what I understand, a large number of End-Game have expiring Cats because they consider many Champs not worth Ranking. Seems like a reason to use them.
There were certain Champs that performed better on certain Nodes. They weren't crucial to War. They were part of a strategy. One that was created by the Players. Contrary to the belief of some, when you Rank a Champ, its use is not limited to War.
"Pathetic" is an opinion. As a design, they didn't set out to create 90 some "pathetic" Champs and the rest "useful". The game has changed since Wars began. Champs have been introduced, metrics have changed, and the drive to gain 5* Shards has increased. That meant Players filled the BGs with multiples of the same Champs to secure their position and win Shards. That's all the choice of the Players. Unfortunately, the excess of that has created problems for the system overall. Everyone plays the same system. Not just people who are accumulating Wins using said formula.
TL:DR - The "pathetic" Champs are not really pathetic. They're not part of the formula in the old system that was used to reap Rewards securely.

That’s the point of war! You use what will win them! Don’t get me wrong, I’ve won all but 1 war since these changes so I’m not even mad due to a bunch of losses, I am a little annoyed that of the 5 champs I had ranked for defence only 2 are decent-ish to use for quests, but at the end of the day, when my spidergwen, fixit, ‘flix DD, groot and Luke cage earn more points together than an alliance mates night crawler that somehow got 10 kills then changes are needed.

If people are bad and can’t handle a couple night crawlers then they don’t deserve to win a war, they need to get good.

I hope one day you’ll see why we think changes to the current system are needed but you come across as a “my opinion is the only opinion that matters and everyone else’s is wrong” person so I won’t hold my breath waiting on that.