Alliance War Points System feels wrong!

Watching the result of our last alliance war made our alliance wondering. We’re understanding how it works and where the points come from, BUT should this really result in a loss?

Comments

zuffy

Probably should have explored more of the map with them then...
None of us didn’t make it through the map😉 we had 29 members at the start of the AW, 1 guy on vacation and 3 new members unable to join.

When has exploring more of the map not been beneficial in war?
Yes exploration has always been beneficial, and the loss was correct after the current points system. But should it be like this?

I’m not sure, maybe I’m misunderstood because I’m not writing in my own language.

Let’s compare it to soccer, one team has only 10 players because of a red card, should they automatically be unable to win because of missing about 10% of players (yes the 10% are not a perfect match but I think comparable to 25vs29)

Problem with this comparison, in soccer, the only point system is the goal. Whomever has more goals win. AW has more than 1 point system to win.

KrueLee

Right, most comparisons aren’t perfect😅

xNig

Probably should have explored more of the map with them then...
None of us didn’t make it through the map😉 we had 29 members at the start of the AW, 1 guy on vacation and 3 new members unable to join.

When has exploring more of the map not been beneficial in war?
Yes exploration has always been beneficial, and the loss was correct after the current points system. But should it be like this?

I’m not sure, maybe I’m misunderstood because I’m not writing in my own language.

Let’s compare it to soccer, one team has only 10 players because of a red card, should they automatically be unable to win because of missing about 10% of players (yes the 10% are not a perfect match but I think comparable to 25vs29)

You guys didn't win cause you didn't score more points. Simple as that.

Using your soccer analogy, the 10 player team will win if they scored more goals than the 11 player team.

Crusaderjr

Let’s compare it to soccer, one team has only 10 players because of a red card, should they automatically be unable to win because of missing about 10% of players (yes the 10% are not a perfect match but I think comparable to 25vs29)

You guys didn't win cause you didn't score more points. Simple as that.

Using your soccer analogy, the 10 player team will win if they scored more goals than the 11 player team.
he also mentioned 1 person was on vacation and 3 couldnt join. so add that to the analogy, so 1 soccer player went on vacation during the game and now take 3 more players out of joining cause previous players were inactive or whatever now its around 5v11..... so i think its clear with less people you can do less both in a soccer game and in a mobile game... @KrueLee

KrueLee

Sorry @Crusaderjr I can’t hear you 🙃

Yes your right, we did less

KrueLee

I get what you are telling me @xNig . All I’m wondering about is, if quantity should beat quality 😉

The_Sentry06

You explored less and had less diversity. The other ally clearly deserved to win.

The_Sentry06

It's like asking for act exploration rewards just because you did completion cheaply. No, you have to do the hard work and actually explore it.

KrueLee

Yes I know, our diversity wasn’t good and we haven’t been enough to explore as much as our opponents.

My question was if it should be like this. As soon as one opponent has less members a victory becomes almost impossible, because diversity (if both do it perfect) and exploration can’t be won. No matter if you defeat more opponents, offensive and defensive.

Seems like you guys are happy with this system, I got that.

Championcritic

Watching the result of our last alliance war made our alliance wondering. We’re understanding how it works and where the points come from, BUT should this really result in a loss?

In your screenshot, if you minus the 30k bonus from winning the war,

Your Ally: 141730
Opponent: 141750

well ok, since you say got 3 new members unable to join, clearly you are at a disadvantage, but it's something you gotta live with. The points here is black and white, no room for debate here.

KrueLee

Please check what I posted right above @Championcritic

Crusaderjr

Yes I know, our diversity wasn’t good and we haven’t been enough to explore as much as our opponents.

My question was if it should be like this. As soon as one opponent has less members a victory becomes almost impossible, because diversity (if both do it perfect) and exploration can’t be won. No matter if you defeat more opponents, offensive and defensive.

Seems like you guys are happy with this system, I got that.

theres a 2 bg option if you cant have consistency with people staying or activity. so your 20 v 20 will be more your alley.

Championcritic

Probably should have explored more of the map with them then...
None of us didn’t make it through the map😉 we had 29 members at the start of the AW, 1 guy on vacation and 3 new members unable to join.

When has exploring more of the map not been beneficial in war?
Yes exploration has always been beneficial, and the loss was correct after the current points system. But should it be like this?

I’m not sure, maybe I’m misunderstood because I’m not writing in my own language.

Let’s compare it to soccer, one team has only 10 players because of a red card, should they automatically be unable to win because of missing about 10% of players (yes the 10% are not a perfect match but I think comparable to 25vs29)

Please check what I posted right above @Championcritic

I did, and i have edited my comment

KrueLee

@Championcritic 👍

KrueLee

I know @Crusaderjr , but a 2bg victory results in less season points than a 3 bg loss, but that’s not what I tried to talk about 😊

GroundedWisdom

They beat you in both Diversity and Exploration. There are a number of metrics at play in War. Duration is only used as a Tie Breaker. Outside of Attack Bonus, Defender Kills are moot.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Llessur

well the extra 30k points for winning is for the season ranking the rest is based off the match... seems you guys got screwed over the most off diversity cause lack of participation... which is honestly kinda dumb but thats what happens when theres lack of activity
141150 points, winner
141730 points, lose the war

Only Kabam can do this

171,750
- 30,000
_________
141,750

141,750>141,730

KrueLee

Right, @GroundedWisdom and @GluteusMaximus i know exactly how it works, my question was if it should be like this, maybe you haven’t read the whole thread

Mr_Platypus

How else would it work? The system works perfectly well enough and you’re acting like you had no chance because of the way points are calculated, but all you had to do was have 1 more diversity champ placed and you would’ve won.

Typhoon

Your points < their points.

Syence

xNig

Sorry @Crusaderjr I can’t hear you 🙃

Yes your right, we did less

Actually, the only reason why you killed more than your opponent is cause they had more defenders placed, ie, you had more to kill.

They killed less cause you had guys who did not/were unable to place, and this isn’t reflected in the “killed” statistic.

TrashyPanda

The switch from DKills to ABonus was one of the best changes ever for AW.

Good thing that happened several years ago.

Agent_X_zzz

Yes because the other alliance had more points scored than you guys. That’s all that matters.
No they didn't

bruh they literally did before win bonus it was 141,730 to 141,750 pts.

Agent_X_zzz

My criticism is about the points system, I’m just missing the good old mcoc times, when the competition was about fighting good in a fighting game, not about being enough people or spending more money 😉

money has nothing to do with this, really makes 0 sense whatsoever when people always bring up "money" quite hilarious and sad really. You took the L because you did not clear more map then they did, and they had more diversity. Focus on diversity as well as getting more people to join to win. Nothing to do with money

zuffy

With kabam giving us alliance war compensation, more reasons to use items 🤣

Coppin

Probably should have explored more of the map with them then...
None of us didn’t make it through the map😉 we had 29 members at the start of the AW, 1 guy on vacation and 3 new members unable to join.

When has exploring more of the map not been beneficial in war?
Yes exploration has always been beneficial, and the loss was correct after the current points system. But should it be like this?

I’m not sure, maybe I’m misunderstood because I’m not writing in my own language.

Let’s compare it to soccer, one team has only 10 players because of a red card, should they automatically be unable to win because of missing about 10% of players (yes the 10% are not a perfect match but I think comparable to 25vs29)

Yeah 10% is not a perfect match since 1 out of 11 is not 10%...

TyEdge

Yes, it should be like this. You were missing 13% of your group. You chose to run 3bg knowing you’d likely lose (but get points for a bg clear) instead of running your best 20 in 2bg war and trying to increase the odds of a win.

Also, despite the nonsense Kabam mentioned with the scoring changes, you probably would’ve lost by even more in the old scoring. Kabam’s changes made it disadvantageous to rush one path/one pod, but they actually made it easier to overcome skipping defenders.

Championcritic

Right, @GroundedWisdom and @GluteusMaximus i know exactly how it works, my question was if it should be like this, maybe you haven’t read the whole thread

What you are saying is vaguely similar to like, Oh, you study super hard into the night for a final exam tomorrow, then you overslept and missed the start of the exam by 30 mins. Should they still let you in to take the test? most probably that's not gonna happen even though you feel like you deserve a chance to take the exam you studied for. Likewise here, there is a score system and you lost in some areas, nothing you can do about it.

RavenKeeper

This is a stupid post.

1) Your diversity is trash. Get that diversity up to score more points

2) You guys didn't even 100% the map. Of course, neither did your opponent, however, they explored more of the map than you did.

3) Y'all had 25 people place. Even ONE more person placing or ONE more attack bonus would've won you the war.

Yes, this should result in a loss. It's obvious you guys didn't commit to the war, and although this other team obviously didn't either, they did moreso than you did. They won fair and square.