How was this a tie?

I thought the whole point of defender rating was to settle ties. And since our rating was higher that means we should have won right? Even if we didn’t I can’t believe a tie means only Kabam wins. We both drop points and no one gets winner rewards? Come on. Please explain this to me.

Comments

RWW12

I see what you’re saying and I appreciate the insight of introducing other designs as better and not just different. I do think from a design standpoint as well as a player standpoint the idea of “rewarding” a tie by not reducing rating is beneficial to all. It’s easy to do from a designer standpoint and it’s a satisfying result for us as players.
As for your suggestions for an improved scoring system for war, I saw your original post before and I agreed with you. There’s some good metrics in there that would be easily measured. However, I think the node victory metric is a little too close to the defender kills concept for them to implement it. It would cause some hesitation on the players part in their decision to spend resources, which we all know is the real reason they won’t count defender kills.

DNA3000

RWW12 wrote: »

I see what you’re saying and I appreciate the insight of introducing other designs as better and not just different. I do think from a design standpoint as well as a player standpoint the idea of “rewarding” a tie by not reducing rating is beneficial to all. It’s easy to do from a designer standpoint and it’s a satisfying result for us as players.
As for your suggestions for an improved scoring system for war, I saw your original post before and I agreed with you. There’s some good metrics in there that would be easily measured. However, I think the node victory metric is a little too close to the defender kills concept for them to implement it. It would cause some hesitation on the players part in their decision to spend resources, which we all know is the real reason they won’t count defender kills.

I don't agree with the idea that the purpose behind removing defender kill points was to encourage spending money, because that makes the original node reductions nonsensical. But let's say you're right and they do want to encourage spending money with the AW changes. The node win idea doesn't discourage spending money because it encourages alliances to fight over every single node. If you give up on a node, you're potentially handing a tie breaker to the other side. And if you don't spend to get past that node, you are also forfeiting all the nodes beyond it that you don't get to. There is absolutely no penalty for spending your brains out and defeating a node. It is always better to attack than not attack, and always advantageous to spend past a node than walk away.

Just like now, only with better tie breakers.

Tempest

xNig wrote: »

Now that you mentioned it..

If Defender Ratings are meant to be a tie-breaker, shouldn't the alliance with lower rating win since they fought through a higher rated defense? Just saying

Yes but no.. Because then it would be a race to the bottom with people placing weak or no defense to score more points.. It shouldn't be a metric at all. The tie breaker should be defender kills which of course we know they refuse to bring back...

unknown

This content has been removed.