GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
WOK wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » I'm done. You're going to have to respect that.
WOK wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I'm done. You're going to have to respect that. 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » WOK wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I'm done. You're going to have to respect that. 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.
WOK wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I'm done. You're going to have to respect that. 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.