@WOK the difference is that in the old system the team with the large disadvantage still had a way to win if they were skilled. In the current system it is literally impossible if both sides are committed to clearing. The outcome is predetermined based on the disparity.
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.
How exactly is fighting better so that you don't die not a skill?
@GroundedWisdom , My point being that you claim the previous system was broken and D kills being ths main problem, but you dont percieve the new system as broken when you yourself state that "in both cases matchmaking determines whether you will win or not. Just different metrics......."
Actually, based on their comment that Defender Rating and Diversity are intended to be tie breakers, that's exactly how it's performed.
Ummmm no. Diversity is meant be the tie breaker according to kabam not defender rating.
I feel compelled to actually create an account to post because am fed up having to spend so much time looking through threads for information due to you in almost all of them arguing with people. Please can you stop this as many of my alliance members have given up on coming to the forum because they too were absolutely fed up seeing you de rail threads by arguing, it took one guy 45 minutes before going through a thread to find the information needed because you were arguing for over 30 pages of that thread.
I want to be clear that this is not a personal attack but a plea on the behalf of my alliance to stop making this place extremely difficult to find an exchange information @GroundedWisdom
You've said what you wanted to say without answering the point but you are determined to have the last word lol. Still going in circles until you quit or explain how they are equally predetermined.
@LeNoirFaineant , I wholeheartedly agree with you. The old system even with its faults, was still a more "fair" scoring system that allowed us to have more control in our own success or failure as I mentioned earlier.
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.
If defender rating an diversity were performing as their objective stated then that's is the very definition of "working as intended"
@GroundedWisdom I would respect and applaud an admission that the claim that both systems were equally predetermined is wrong. Admitting that you are wrong is good! Better to get it right than to have to be right. That's some grounded wisdom for you. Can't respect simply bowing out with zero support for your position. But I can accept if you can really be done and not reply lol.
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.
Unfortunately, the debate over D kills is a direct product made by the current system, and many great ideas have been given by those that are Pro D kills, that could help fix the problem that did not include defender kills. BTW, those that oppose D kills have yet to suggest any ideas to help fix the problem in any of the threads I kept up with regarding AW.
This is the last time I'm going to explain it and if my explanation is not sufficient, there's nothing I can offer you. The Matchmaking is what predetermines the possibility of Wins and Losses. There are only so many Points you can gain from any Match. In the current system, the Points come from different metrics. Skill is irrelevant in the old system because even in the instances that both Allies had 0 Defender Kills and 100% Completion, the Matches were predetermined. Only it was more complex than that because the Matchmaking predetermined your Win or Loss with metrics that would penalize your efforts. Quite literally there were Matches being made that Players had to KO because they were two and three times their Ally strength. Placing the Defenders that amassed the most Kills was the defining metric of Wars. Therefore it was War Roulette, and whether you had the chance to win or not was determined by the Match you were dealt. Which quite often was varied from your own strength, due to Allies being in Tiers that were much higher than their own strength. It was predetermined because of the Matchmaking, and the Tiers were mismatched. No matter which system you're talking about, the Match determines the outcome, whether you opt to complete the Map or give up because of Defender Kills being too high. The system has balanced more now. Our last 10-15 Wars were within our own Ally Rating. Which makes for a more fair chance. This is because of the Defender Rating metric being a tie breaker. That's literally the last time I'm going over it. Sorry if you disagree.
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.
Unfortunately, the debate over D kills is a direct product made by the current system, and many great ideas have been given by those that are Pro D kills, that could help fix the problem that did not include defender kills. BTW, those that oppose D kills have yet to suggest any ideas to help fix the problem in any of the threads I kept up with regarding AW.
I've offered suggestions in the actual War Thread.
There were zero wars ever that had 100% completion and no defender kills, so that's not a thing. There was no such thing as placing defenders that amassed the most kills, because some people could defeat the opponent without dying. You could do a better job of placement which might get you more kills. If a certain defender automatically resulted in a kill, you would have a marginal point, but you have actually made my point. Because some people are able to beat said node without dying and some are not, the outcome in the old system wasn't predetermined. If you can explain to me how that's false I promise I will admit I am wrong. I like to get it right rather than needing to be right.
The outcome WAS predetermined because the Match was not in sync with the capability of the Ally. That's what I just outlined. You call it skill. That's really not the focus of War. That is the focus that Players created, and that's what created the issues that led to the removal of Defender Kills. Allies were sacrificing making an effort because their Kills were digging them a hole, and naturally Players always placed the Champs that gained the most Kills because they gained the most Points. It's not really about skill. It's about Points.
I respect your opinion and your right to voice them whether I or others agree to them or not. And I would hope and trust that you also apply the same respect to me and others here that would appreciate you making arguments with less ambiguity and clearly supported with some substantial ideas or suggestions to support them.
The reason I choose to engage in debate with you is to support the threads topic of AW scoring being broken when you make statements that are the contrary, causing the topic to appear to have less credibilty than it rightfully deserves.
I respect your opinion and your right to voice them whether I or others agree to them or not. And I would hope and trust that you also apply the same respect to me and others here that would appreciate you making arguments with less ambiguity and clearly supported with some substantial ideas or suggestions to support them.
The reason I choose to engage in debate with you is to support the threads topic of AW scoring being broken when you make statements that are the contrary, causing the topic to appear to have less credibilty than it rightfully deserves.
When the example provided is that the system is broken because someone lost due to a marginal difference in Defender Rating or Diversity, it is worth pointing out that their intentions are for those metrics to be tie breakers, so that is as is intended. Nowhere did I say there were no issues anywhere.
If it was predetermined by one alliance not being good, then you are equivocating when you say that both systems were predetermined. The current system is predetermined by one alliance having a better defensive rating even though the other alliance is more skilled. The previous system is predetermined by which alliance has more skill lmao. But even that's not true because one might be better at placement in the old system and beat a more skilled opponent. But in the case where it was predetermined because one alliance was more skilled despite being at a disadvantage, that's the situation that we want. That's war. So to say they are the same is to equivocate on what predetermined means. No one complains that losing to a truly better opponent is a predetermined outcome. That's how war should work. And that aspect of matchmaking hasn't changed. Still waiting...
Leave the conversation by all means lol. Also I'm not baiting a response. I am asking you to defend a position you took which you are unable to defend because it's wrong lol. Objective reasons showing the difference between the two systems have been provided with no counter.
When the example provided is that the system is broken because someone lost due to a marginal difference in Defender Rating or Diversity, it is worth pointing out that their intentions are for those metrics to be tie breakers, so that is as is intended. Nowhere did I say there were no issues anywhere.
I agree and I believe everyone agrees with you that defender rating and diversity are metrics intended to be tie breakers and I suppose they are working "as intended". Working "as intended" does not give an "all clear" that the system is not broken(as explained in my previous post on the actual role of Tie Breakers in competition).
Diversity margins cannot be considered as broken because it can be equaled. If someone lost due to less points in diversity, that is an error made by the team, not the scoring being broken. Arguments of losses or wins by a marginal difference in D rating is the reason many believe AW is broken.
It may have something to do with the majority of the world populations understanding of what Defines victory in a war.
Maybe with what defines competition.
Then again maybe with what defines "tie breaker" and the idea of the frequency of tie breakers occuring in any type of competitive event.
BTW, all of these have been directly or indirectly established by the games "environment" and/or by explanations and rules set forth by Kabam.
Might have to do with statements made by Kabam regarding problems they are still working to resolve and that it would take some more iterations to get it right. Which in of itself indicates to me that its broken.
IMO, its a combination of all the above, and the Screenshots of the scoring is merely the simplest way to illustrate that we see its broken and we are frustrated as hell.
Comments
How exactly is fighting better so that you don't die not a skill?
Ummmm no. Diversity is meant be the tie breaker according to kabam not defender rating.
I feel compelled to actually create an account to post because am fed up having to spend so much time looking through threads for information due to you in almost all of them arguing with people. Please can you stop this as many of my alliance members have given up on coming to the forum because they too were absolutely fed up seeing you de rail threads by arguing, it took one guy 45 minutes before going through a thread to find the information needed because you were arguing for over 30 pages of that thread.
I want to be clear that this is not a personal attack but a plea on the behalf of my alliance to stop making this place extremely difficult to find an exchange information @GroundedWisdom
If defender rating an diversity were performing as their objective stated then that's is the very definition of "working as intended"
Unfortunately, the debate over D kills is a direct product made by the current system, and many great ideas have been given by those that are Pro D kills, that could help fix the problem that did not include defender kills. BTW, those that oppose D kills have yet to suggest any ideas to help fix the problem in any of the threads I kept up with regarding AW.
I've offered suggestions in the actual War Thread.
I respect your opinion and your right to voice them whether I or others agree to them or not. And I would hope and trust that you also apply the same respect to me and others here that would appreciate you making arguments with less ambiguity and clearly supported with some substantial ideas or suggestions to support them.
The reason I choose to engage in debate with you is to support the threads topic of AW scoring being broken when you make statements that are the contrary, causing the topic to appear to have less credibilty than it rightfully deserves.
When the example provided is that the system is broken because someone lost due to a marginal difference in Defender Rating or Diversity, it is worth pointing out that their intentions are for those metrics to be tie breakers, so that is as is intended. Nowhere did I say there were no issues anywhere.