AW scoring is still broken!

"Both teams 100% will not happen as often, as it should be a rarity so defender kill points are not needed" this is what we were told regarding the buffed nodes in aw after this last patch... well guess what..

Comments

Mr_Platypus

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Actually, based on their comment that Defender Rating and Diversity are intended to be tie breakers, that's exactly how it's performed.

Except every war comes down to this.
Pretty sure they didn’t intend for every. Single. War T4 - T1 to be decided by defender rating

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Actually, based on their comment that Defender Rating and Diversity are intended to be tie breakers, that's exactly how it's performed.

Um...they have stated more than once that it's meant to be a tie breaker in the rare cases that a tie breaker is needed. Also that both sides 100%ing the map is meant to be a rare occurrence. It's simply not true that it is working as intended.

No matter what system is in place, Allies are going to 100% the Map. Especially the higher up you go. Now, there may be room to adjust so that the Map is not as easily completed. However, what is being shown is that the case is as was intended. If Allies are losing because of small differences in Defender Rating and Diversity, they are in fact tie breakers. Not a huge defining metric.

@GroundedWisdom Kabam has stated more than once that War is not working as intended, and that the "tie breaker" was not meant to be the #1 factor in war as it currently is. I guess you actually disagree with Kabam's take on the current system lol. This is an absurd debate though. Kabam and the rest of the player base all agree that it isn't working as intended lol.

Also, if every war we play is determined by defender rating, and allies actually decide whether to push for 100% based entirely on defender rating, than how is it not a huge defining metric? It's OK, Kabam isn't done changing War and maybe they'll get it right in the end. You don't have to defend all the stops along the way...

GroundedWisdom

I didn't say the system was "working as intended". I said Defender Rating and Diversity were performing as their objective stated. You can't get much closer to a tie breaker than the small differences we've seen posted. It's not a major factor when it's around 200 Points variation or so. That aspect is as it is intended to be. There are further changes going to be made no doubt. They've said it themselves. If you're saying that it's broken because Allies are losing because of a few Points difference due to Defender Rating and Diversity, that's not the case. They're tie breakers. The real issue is people are losing because of those metrics, and that's bound to happen as long as they are metrics.

LeNoirFaineant

I'm out man. You are arguing semantics and the discussion is going nowhere. A metric which functionally predetermines the outcome of every war is no longer functioning as a tiebreaker but as the primary scoring metric. Whether or not it is still technically a tiebreaker is irrelevant. You made the claim that it's functioning as intended which is clearly wrong, and that it's not functioning as a huge defining metric, which is also clearly wrong. But if you can't or won't see that there's nothing left to say.

GroundedWisdom

It's not the primary scoring metric. Both systems were predetermined. There was literally only so far Allies could go in the old system. Therefore it was predetermined by the Matchmaking. It's not semantics. It's the point of the Thread. When it's stated that Allies are losing to these metrics so the system is broken, that's only a half truth. Tie breakers are just that. Something that tips the scale. It's not predetermined that Allies will finish 100%. The probability is higher as you go up in Tiers, based on things like Rosters, Resources, experience, etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will still be Wars where both sides complete the Map, most often the higher up you go. In those cases, the metrics in question will be the push that sets it over the edge. The real defining metrics are the largest ones. Those are not Defender Rating and Diversity.

WOK

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

It's not the primary scoring metric. Both systems were predetermined. There was literally only so far Allies could go in the old system. Therefore it was predetermined by the Matchmaking. It's not semantics. It's the point of the Thread. When it's stated that Allies are losing to these metrics so the system is broken, that's only a half truth. Tie breakers are just that. Something that tips the scale. It's not predetermined that Allies will finish 100%. The probability is higher as you go up in Tiers, based on things like Rosters, Resources, experience, etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will still be Wars where both sides complete the Map, most often the higher up you go. In those cases, the metrics in question will be the push that sets it over the edge. The real defining metrics are the largest ones. Those are not Defender Rating and Diversity.

Here's another take on the argument of tie breaker and how I understand it would be applied, not just in MCOC but in any form of competition. And TBH, I'm a bit shocked that anyone would still be trying to argue any different.

You state that D rating and Diversity are performing as intended as tie breakers.
To my knowledge from all my life experiences and education, tie breakers in any form of competetive event have never come into play UNLESS there is an outright tie. It has never had a direct role in a scoring formula deciding a winner before a possible tie AND become a tie breaker in the event of one both at the same time. And here in lies the problem.

#1. Diversity cannot be a tie breaker because hypothetically, if everything else INCLUDING D rating was precisely the same for both Allys(100% completion, atk kills etc...) With diversity being equal as well, how does diversity become a tie breaker??

#2. D rating is the only thing that is actually playing the part of a tie breaker right now, because since the removal of D kill points, every metric can be matched by both sides equally everytime each ally chooses to do. And since winning is the primary objective of I would hope each and every ally, that essentially produces every single war final to become a tie.......which then is decided by D rating and D rating alone.

And the weak argument of "its not predetermined that allies will 100%" is really a moot point, because thats really not the main focus, which is that every metric in the scoring now CAN be maxed and matched, and the ONLY scoring metrics that were "unknown variables" were D rating and D kills, which has been reduced to being only one now.

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

It's not the primary scoring metric. Both systems were predetermined. There was literally only so far Allies could go in the old system. Therefore it was predetermined by the Matchmaking. It's not semantics. It's the point of the Thread. When it's stated that Allies are losing to these metrics so the system is broken, that's only a half truth. Tie breakers are just that. Something that tips the scale. It's not predetermined that Allies will finish 100%. The probability is higher as you go up in Tiers, based on things like Rosters, Resources, experience, etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will still be Wars where both sides complete the Map, most often the higher up you go. In those cases, the metrics in question will be the push that sets it over the edge. The real defining metrics are the largest ones. Those are not Defender Rating and Diversity.

This is just not true on any level. With defender kills the old system wasn't predetermined. You are simply wrong.

GroundedWisdom

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

It's not the primary scoring metric. Both systems were predetermined. There was literally only so far Allies could go in the old system. Therefore it was predetermined by the Matchmaking. It's not semantics. It's the point of the Thread. When it's stated that Allies are losing to these metrics so the system is broken, that's only a half truth. Tie breakers are just that. Something that tips the scale. It's not predetermined that Allies will finish 100%. The probability is higher as you go up in Tiers, based on things like Rosters, Resources, experience, etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will still be Wars where both sides complete the Map, most often the higher up you go. In those cases, the metrics in question will be the push that sets it over the edge. The real defining metrics are the largest ones. Those are not Defender Rating and Diversity.

This is just not true on any level. With defender kills the old system wasn't predetermined. You are simply wrong.

Sure it was. It was predetermined by the strength and type of Champs placed. All that had to be done was place the same Champs who gain the most Kills and the opponent would inevitably keep trying until they lost from Defender Kills, or give up because they were giving you more Points. Essentially the Matches were determined by the variant in strength. Same way these are determined. Difference is there is no penalty for KO'ing now.

LeNoirFaineant

No, you are wrong. We beat lots of alliances who were much stronger by being more skilled and dying less. As soon as you bring back skill into the equation it isn't predetermined. Surely you can see this.

GroundedWisdom

In any event, I'm not getting into another debate about Defender Kills. They were removed. Going forward, it's probably best to look outside of them. What I pointed out was that Defender Rating is acting as a tie breaker in the instances shown. Quite literally.

LeNoirFaineant

LOL the topic has revolved around them because their removal is what broke war. But that doesn't change the fact that you alleged that both systems were predetermined and clearly that's false.

Also, quite literally it was pointed out that acting as a "tie breaker" in the vast majority of wars, at least on the higher levels was never the intent. But we are again going in circles because whether or not the term "tie breaker" can technically be applied isn't relevant. I would love to see an actual rebuttal of the point made above. Can you defend your claim that both systems were predetermined?

GbSarkar

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

No, you are wrong. We beat lots of alliances who were much stronger by being more skilled and dying less. As soon as you bring back skill into the equation it isn't predetermined. Surely you can see this.

Give up man. His alliance probably doesn't even do AW

GroundedWisdom

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

LOL the topic has revolved around them because their removal is what broke war. But that doesn't change the fact that you alleged that both systems were predetermined and clearly that's false.

It has not broken War. It's made the metrics different. Wars are about working as a team to gain the most Points. Not about a personal measure of skill based on not dying. Those metrics used to include Defender Kills. Now it does not. If we could move past revolving the discussion around them, we might have more suggestions to improve it. They're gone. They created problems. The only thing to look at is now. If they were coming back, it would have been done by now.

LeNoirFaineant

Can you defend your claim that both systems were predetermined @GroundedWisdom?

LeNoirFaineant

Didn't think so.

GroundedWisdom

The Matchmaking is what predetermines it. In this case, Defender Rating is what tips the scale. In the old system, you were inevitably Matched with Allies that afforded Defender Kills and guaranteed a Loss. You had Matches that were varied in strength between Allies and created situations where it was impossible to win because of either not completing, or losing because of Defender Kills. In both cases, the Matchmaking determines whether you will win or not. Just different metrics determining that Win or Loss.

WOK

Also would like to add that the previous war scoring with inclusion of D kills greatly aleviated the problem that can and has arisen from the scoring to be maxed and decided by D rating alone and the idea of every result being "predetermined". How that was acheived is in the following.

Currently it cant be argued that other than D rating, every scoring metric has a guaranteed ceiling. Whether those limits can be acheived or not is being argued to death but the underlying point is that THEY CAN be achieved if an ally makes a determination to do so in order to have a chance at victory.

Unless they create node buffs that can literally guarantee 10 players for each BG at maximum rating for their champs(every atk champ 5* rank 4/55) reviving and using all 15 items each still will not have a shot at clearing the map, there is always the window of opportunity for every alliance to achieve 100% with victory as the primary objective, which again leads to every result ending in a tie.

When D kills were a scoring metric, indeed it also had a guaranteed ceiling for points. 30 players using all 15 items each being a revive would amount to a max of 1440 D kills possible for each team, no more no less.
The obviously vital yet ignored quality of D kills in the scoring metric is the fact that this "ceiling" worked the other way around. Rather than max it, it was in each allys interest towards victory to be as far from it as possible, and to strategize the most powerful method to drive the other team closer to it was the goal. Whether that could be acheived could not be "predetermined" and could not be figured out on a spreadsheet with absolute numbers. It was left to chance with our AI controlled Defense to rack up kills and STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY OUR PLAYING SKILL in atk to not hand over kills to the opponent. This gave US THE PLAYERS more direct control over our own success/failure and the current system absolutely does not in any way.

I'm pretty confident that it is not possible to spreadsheet into absolute numbers these 2 factors(opponents deaths and our deaths) also resulting as being equal each time if they were integrated back into scoring.

LeNoirFaineant

What? Seriously, what? In the old system, as I already said, we beat alliances who were millions of points higher then us by being more skilled and dying less. If we had screwed up and died more, the other alliance would have won. They certainly had a scoring advantage, but how is that predetermined? The all important variable was skill. So far, you haven't defended your claim. It isn't just different metrics, it's different skill levels lol.

GroundedWisdom

This conversation is going nowhere.

LeNoirFaineant

Defend your claim and maybe it can go somewhere... or if you retracted it that would be progress lol

GroundedWisdom

I've made my points. Your comments are highlighting the issues I've just presented. I'm moving on now. I'm tired of conversations that revolve around Defender Kills. You've just ignored the points I made and argued that I haven't backed up my claim. Moving on.

LeNoirFaineant

You made an objectively false claim that both systems were predetermined. I pointed out the error in your claim. You are moving on because it's going nowhere. I think it went somewhere that you don't want to go lol.

GroundedWisdom

I backed up my claim with a reason. It's not my responsibility to justify it when you don't agree.

LeNoirFaineant

@WOK nice posts.

LeNoirFaineant

What reason was it again? Maybe I'm stupid. One version had a scoring system that weighted skill level, which varies. One has only defender rating as the tipping point all things being equal. How are both equally predetermined? I don't think you backed up your claim. Maybe I missed something.

GroundedWisdom

I'm done. I'm not going around in circles.

LeNoirFaineant

Yes, you are. The circle is the result of failing to defend your position...

LeNoirFaineant

Still waiting

WOK

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

The Matchmaking is what predetermines it. In this case, Defender Rating is what tips the scale. In the old system, you were inevitably Matched with Allies that afforded Defender Kills and guaranteed a Loss. You had Matches that were varied in strength between Allies and created situations where it was impossible to win because of either not completing, or losing because of Defender Kills. In both cases, the Matchmaking determines whether you will win or not. Just different metrics determining that Win or Loss.

As I understand and see Matchmaking currently, it still places opponents together that have somewhat large differences in their alliance rating( which is a fairly conclusive look into their D rating) which affords the higher rated alliance the tie breaker and guarantees the loss for the opponent. So than would it be fair to say that it still is impossible to win because of either not completing, or losing because of Defender Rating??

GroundedWisdom

I'm not engaging in it any further. I've said what I want to say. The issue with Defender Kills is not skill. It's gaining Wins with them. You want them back. I agree with them being removed. Regardless of what point I make, you're going to refute it. The cycle never ends. I've given my reasons.