**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.
This is why this may be our last War Season
Whatevertoo
Posts: 65 ★
By our, I mean my alliance.
When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.
I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?
When the War started, it was our 6 players placed vs their 8 players placed. They had another person join after placement, which I don’t care about honestly. What bothers me is, even though we were out numbered we still managed to die less, kill more but still lost the War…because of Diversity. Even though we only had ONE “dupe” (Doom), they had 2 Dooms, 3 Things and 2 Nicks…and that’s not even getting in to the fact there were 3 losses that were AI inflicted (input issues - not as an excuse), because even those bonuses may not have been enough in points to win.
I actually LIKE the idea behind Diversity in the game and War in particular, but when an alliance beats MORE opponents by a lot and loses less overall, it shouldn’t lose the battle in my opinion. That basically means there is no way for a smaller alliance to win in a battle if the other alliance simply outnumbers you, because there is only but so much bonus you get per node. Am I wrong for wanting a handicap somehow to even it out?
11
Comments
Plus plenty of alliances don't do aw. I quit doing competitive AW years ago myself.
While it is understandable that you feel beating “more” opponents should be worth some points, let’s consider the implications.
If you say that beating an opponent defender should give more points than just traveling past a node that was left empty, that would result in most of the map being left empty by most alliances from now on (with maybe just a few select hard nodes or bosses filled where they would hope to actually get some defensive kills from).
But perhaps Diversity could be adjusted a little bit to be more like a “percentage” unique amongst those that actually have placed, instead of currently as a “count” whereby a missing player really hurts (a minus 5 diversity because of that missing player).
Maybe a combination, percentage based, but with a lesser negative like a “minus 1” for a missing player instead of “minus 5”.
We have been working on it.
Not crazy about it! But also not crazy about the idea of doing away with it and of fighting through a map with 10 things, 10 kitty prydes, and 10 moleman and korgs!
There should be a fixed diversity that is then reduced by the number of duplicated defenders. That way a player not placing a defence doesn't instantly create a 5 diversity penalty.
Create alts until you have enough 1 and 2* champs to place on defence. Seems stupid to get points for placing a 1* spidey but there is nothing else you can if you don't want to recruit.
Kill counts mean nothing on their own.
By placing less defenders you are depriving the opponent of kills, but you are giving them easy attack bonuses.
And no I don’t think you should get diversity points for empty defence slots…that’s not what diverse means.
So 45 Unique out of 45 placed would be 100% unique if only 9 people joined in all (whether on defense phase or only attack day).
But if a 10th person came for attack, then the Diversity % points for them would fall to 90% (45 out of 50, even though only 45 were placed on map and all of those 45 were unique, they lose that full diversity because someone joined later that had skipped placing. Same would apply to someone only placing 2 defenders and leaving their other 3 roster slots empty, the empties would count against them because they “should have / could have” placed more and that player was indeed present for at least some aspect of the war)
Personally, I have been in and run other alliances. None of that is the point tho…the point is you shouldn’t HAVE to have a full alliance to have a fair shot at winning a part of a mobile game. That’s why there are handicaps in plenty other games.
I thought the same along the lines of what you said, some percentage based on missing players, but then it would have to be based solely on players placed during placement - which would in turn push teams to be sure EVERYONE places in time and not joining simply for the attack.
We posted 2 Dooms so we expect to lose points for that, like you said.
Good luck getting your Diversity right, I remember the pain of trying to get near 30 people and personalities on the same page, as a leader and as an officer (too many times!) in this game.
It would make leaders be sure people placed champs and not just jump in for the attack phase I think.
1) we like who we have
2) we had a full BG plenty of times, we either didn’t like the other players and they left or we kicked them, the other players left for bigger rewards or just plain quit the game.
3) not the point from my point on fairness anyways andddd
Lastly and MOST importantly - WE LIKE WHO WE HAVE. Shouldn’t need more people to even out gameplay. Hell we aren’t even complaining about or asking for better rewards…or less "Input Issues” 😂
Say we use your process:
I only came with 6 players on defense to their 8. I only duped one champ (Doom) so the rest of the 49 “spots” would count FOR me.
They duped 3 champs (one champ 3 times) so they would only have 43 “spots” counting for them.
Then say I brought 4 more people to fight on Attack?
Or just use the number of players from my War.
Basically, we would win most every time we met even if THEY killed more champs than us by a small margin. That’s how it was exploited when they first created Diversity if I remember correctly…I do know that it WAS exploited originally.
Did I even explain that corrrectly…?🤔🥺
Part of the scoring involves earning Points for what you place, via Diversity. People can play with the best they can muster, but playing with less Players means less Points. That's not the fault of the system.
Consider for a moment, from an opponent's point of view. If me placing a defense gives you more points for beating them, what is my motivation to place a defense? Before you know it, war would be populated with empty maps on both sides and it becomes an exercise in walking to the end with no fights becuase I'm not going to give you more points to fight champs.
War would die. What would be the point? It certainly would not improve war.
160 to 152 Attack Bonus
19 to 44 Diversity
Everything else equal in Clears and Explored
We killed 50 of theirs and you know the rest…
The first time it happened in a War, the defender kills were so lopsided in our favor, one of us put in a ticket with Kabam wondering if they had somehow used an exploit to win. Diversity just seems to reward too many points, but maybe that’s what makes it worth it to some players to do it at all? Just isn’t worth the effort or materials (Boosts) at this point if we see we are outnumbered overall - as it has already been mentioned someone lost when they were outnumbered with nearly 3 BGs full.
Again, I like Diversity and especially like the idea of it being useful as a tiebreaker but to us it rewards too much on its own