**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.
Comments
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
@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...
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.
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.
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?
Give up man. His alliance probably doesn't even do AW
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.
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.
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??