**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.
Options
Alliance Wars Discussion 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Fair enough.
In most competitions, stats don't matter at all. We don't award wins for the most strike outs either. So what would you think about a war decided like this:
Most boss kills win
else Most exploration wins
else Most nodes won wins
else Highest defender diversity wins
else Highest defender rating wins
else Tie.
Definition of a node win: for every numbered node, whichever alliance captures that node with the fewest attacker losses wins the node. If both sides capture the node with the same amount of losses including zero, that node is declared a tie. If the node is unoccupied, the attacking side is defined to have captured that node if it is traversed with zero losses. A node that is not traversed at all is considered lost unless both sides fail to traverse the node, in which case the node is declared a tie.
In this version of war, no one wins on "stats" or points per se, unless everything is literally tied. It is all about victory conditions. The boss kill is the primary victory condition. Exploring the map is the second one. Defeating nodes with the least amount of losses is the third. After that, its down to placed defenses, but that's really deep in the tie breaker.
I can't add anything to make this better. Just wanted to make sure the maximum amount of people have a chance to get as much enjoyment as me out of this post. Now I have to clean up the water I spit out when I read it.
"Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before" your words about me.
No, you don't have a clue about me. You're the troll talking out of your &@! and making a judgment about someone you know nothing about, that has no basis in reality, What "cheap shot" have I taken at you besides calling out your BS here.
You deserve the 0 respect you get.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The comment was rhetorical. You're right. I don't know what you've done. I wasn't implying you hadn't. It was sarcasm. What you're doing here is not appropriate either.
Actually, there are reasons why having it as a metric makes sense. Besides the fact that it aligns Allies in Tiers appropriate to their size and Rating, thus making the Matches more balanced over time, the Rating and Champs themselves are a reflection of putting work into the game. The larger Rosters have put more time and effort into their growth. Again, this is only a deciding factor when all other metrics are maximized, Exploration, Boss Kills, Diversity, Defenders Placed,....
The purpose of the most recent changes were to make the Map more difficult to complete. Inevitably, you will still have Allies that 100% everytime. That means some metric will have to account for a tie breaker. In the old system, 100% was not as common because people would stop and rely on Defender Kills. Now it's pretty much a required effort if the other Ally has completed, at least in the event that it's head-to-head. There is still a push to gain an advantage or match the other team.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Defending myself from baseless accusations and posts is only allowed by you? Spare me. Claiming sarcasm doesn’t ring true if you read your response to me. I don’t need to take your nonsense. Troll on, GW, get your last word in.
You know, I can't help it. This is just funny to me. I should get a defender kill for this.
Continuing to sling insults isn't helping anything. It was rhetorical and I'm sure you're quite aware of it. Your purpose in commenting was to insult me. I was displaying a point. If you took that as an implication, I apologize, but it wasn't at all. It was a rhetorical comment, sarcasm happens like that on the Forum all the time. That was not a dig at you. Anyone can read that. Calling people trolls and slinging insults is not appropriate. The reactions are your own responsibility.
I do have a sense of humor.
I see. So when other people comment constantly, it's not spam as long as they agree with the majority.
2- I found a problem. I keep pushing this new button but nothing is happening
You should probably also mention GW that your all encompassing knowledge of every tier in AW doesn't include fighting with or against rank 4 5*s seeing as none of your alliance appear to have any. Let's agree it's an all encompassing knowledge of fighting 1 Battle group with 4* defenders around tier 8 or so.
B: “That’s statistically impossible unless you are in the very best alliance (in our case this is MMXIV).”
A: “Statistics are not real.”
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You don't seem to grasp the difference between what you experience with 1 Battle group against 4/40 defenders and what most of the people commenting in here experience which is 3 Battle groups against rank 4 defenders on much, much tougher nodes. You are qualified only to give your opinion of the alliance war experience at the very lowest level of play yet you continuously insert your opinion into discussions about the very highest level of play.