You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Agreed, but this isn’t the first time this happened. In one War we faced 10 players who set defense, they lost 11 times (technically 9 because one champ got 5 kills) to our 2 and we lost then too… and they had dupes in that case too. The numbers were:
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
The important point you are ignoring here is that you killed more of their defenders then they killed yours solely because they placed more defenders compared to you. Kill count is not an accurate estimate of how well you performed since someone may not place defense and just join attack to give somebody zero attacker kills while getting 50 for themselves.
You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Yep and I think that’s what (or one of the things) needs to be tweeked? How can the effort of beating a champ (especially outright and in one shot) in a fight be worth less than just simply placing a champ?
I understand what you are saying here but if you think a little deeper it easily falls apart.
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.
That isn’t what it is now? Lol Kidding… a little. I wish I had taken a pic of our defenses before anyone started moving on either side - they’re champs were so much more OP than ours…loaded with at least nine r2 6*s to our one (we only have 2 in the alliance and we didn’t even use the other in our attack) and at least twice as many r5 5*s. We have no idea who we are going to face when we place to begin with, so to your point, why do we bother now? When we made the complaint about how lopsided our kills were against a better defense, Kabam’s response was that sometimes you will get placed against a much stronger alliance as part of the matchmaking process. Knowing that why do we place at all? Because we have beaten much stronger alliances before - mainly because they pretty much duped the hell out of the strongest defenders. If they hadn’t done that tho, even being that we were better skilled at the game, they would have won. Our placement was better and/or they weren’t as skilled as us, but it doesn’t matter because they simply had more players.
Now, there are many various ways to help you beat champs in this game and all things being even, even coming from their point of view, I don’t see how they won. I don’t want stronger defenses to mean less, I want better skill (and possibly resources if you use boosts) to mean the same and not less. A handicap would do that and is the reason you make them…to even the playing field, not make it easier to exploit.
Anddd it just occurred to me, Diversity in itself IS a handicap…?
You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Yep and I think that’s what (or one of the things) needs to be tweeked? How can the effort of beating a champ (especially outright and in one shot) in a fight be worth less than just simply placing a champ?
I understand what you are saying here but if you think a little deeper it easily falls apart.
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.
That isn’t what it is now? Lol Kidding… a little. I wish I had taken a pic of our defenses before anyone started moving on either side - they’re champs were so much more OP than ours…loaded with at least nine r2 6*s to our one (we only have 2 in the alliance and we didn’t even use the other in our attack) and at least twice as many r5 5*s. We have no idea who we are going to face when we place to begin with, so to your point, why do we bother now? When we made the complaint about how lopsided our kills were against a better defense, Kabam’s response was that sometimes you will get placed against a much stronger alliance as part of the matchmaking process. Knowing that why do we place at all? Because we have beaten much stronger alliances before - mainly because they pretty much duped the hell out of the strongest defenders. If they hadn’t done that tho, even being that we were better skilled at the game, they would have won. Our placement was better and/or they weren’t as skilled as us, but it doesn’t matter because they simply had more players.
Now, there are many various ways to help you beat champs in this game and all things being even, even coming from their point of view, I don’t see how they won. I don’t want stronger defenses to mean less, I want better skill (and possibly resources if you use boosts) to mean the same and not less. A handicap would do that and is the reason you make them…to even the playing field, not make it easier to exploit.
Anddd it just occurred to me, Diversity in itself IS a handicap…?
They won becuase despite placing 10 more defenders for you to kill, you *only* managed to kill 1 more defender. 10 extra tries netted you 1 bonus kill. That's not outplaying the other side.
War is about skill. But it's about strategy too. And rosters. And in this case army size (ie number of participants). All of that should and does factor into war.
I do understand that from your point of view you needlessly suffer disadvantages that you consider unfair. But in the end, how you choose to play, can and does have consequences. In this case, due to your ally size you lost a close war. Consider, that adding just 1 more player may have tipped the balance in your favor.
You can do more, you choose not to and that is fine but you have to accept the consequences of those actions as a result
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?
If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo
no need to be condescending
While the wording may be inconsiderate, there is some validity in the point. 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.
Nah, they were just being a douche but it didn’t bother me because I’ve been there and done that - and it’s possible he was someone I kicked at some point in my other alliances, 😂 who knows.
But to your point, you agree then, that we should create bum accounts and just place 2*s to even things out? That wouldn’t bother you if you were on the other side of that and lost to someone placing TWENTY 2 star champs…? Because technically, we had more Diversity - they simply had more players. The math escapes me, but I think even if we hadn’t died at all we STILL would have lost that War?…and they duped how many more than our one dupe? They DIDN’T diversify more than us, they diversified a few more players than we could even muster. That’s not right if ur aiming for more diversity either.
We could also just go another route and open the alliance and let some low level players join to place but not fight - but I was that guy when I first started this game and it sucked to be me not being able to play a portion and important part of the game. Not the worse thing that could happen, getting rewards for doing essentially nothing, but it did suck because I didn’t feel like I was truly contributing andddd yes, ego.
Orrrrr….maybe Kabam could make a system that works for everyone big or small…? Too much to ask?
I didn't say you shouldn't run a War. Nor did I suggest that you make dummy Accounts. I'm simply saying it's something you need to accept if you're playing with a handicap.
You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Agreed, but this isn’t the first time this happened. In one War we faced 10 players who set defense, they lost 11 times (technically 9 because one champ got 5 kills) to our 2 and we lost then too… and they had dupes in that case too. The numbers were:
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
The important point you are ignoring here is that you killed more of their defenders then they killed yours solely because they placed more defenders compared to you. Kill count is not an accurate estimate of how well you performed since someone may not place defense and just join attack to give somebody zero attacker kills while getting 50 for themselves.
Nope, didn’t miss that point at all. I still died less even if we posted the same amount of defenders - THAT’S the point. I think you may be missing that in all of my talking… I do tend to ramble
They won becuase despite placing 10 more defenders for you to kill, you *only* managed to kill 1 more defender. 10 extra tries netted you 1 bonus kill. That's not outplaying the other side.
What ? Are you looking at the stat for “Defender Kills” and thinking that means how many defenders were killed ? You can easily see that both sides were 100% Explored, so they did defeat every defender. Nope, it means how many times the opponents lost a fight to one of your defenders. So they didn’t have 10 extra tries. And you get Attack Bonus whether or not you actually fight anyone on a node.
You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Yep and I think that’s what (or one of the things) needs to be tweeked? How can the effort of beating a champ (especially outright and in one shot) in a fight be worth less than just simply placing a champ?
I understand what you are saying here but if you think a little deeper it easily falls apart.
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.
That isn’t what it is now? Lol Kidding… a little. I wish I had taken a pic of our defenses before anyone started moving on either side - they’re champs were so much more OP than ours…loaded with at least nine r2 6*s to our one (we only have 2 in the alliance and we didn’t even use the other in our attack) and at least twice as many r5 5*s. We have no idea who we are going to face when we place to begin with, so to your point, why do we bother now? When we made the complaint about how lopsided our kills were against a better defense, Kabam’s response was that sometimes you will get placed against a much stronger alliance as part of the matchmaking process. Knowing that why do we place at all? Because we have beaten much stronger alliances before - mainly because they pretty much duped the hell out of the strongest defenders. If they hadn’t done that tho, even being that we were better skilled at the game, they would have won. Our placement was better and/or they weren’t as skilled as us, but it doesn’t matter because they simply had more players.
Now, there are many various ways to help you beat champs in this game and all things being even, even coming from their point of view, I don’t see how they won. I don’t want stronger defenses to mean less, I want better skill (and possibly resources if you use boosts) to mean the same and not less. A handicap would do that and is the reason you make them…to even the playing field, not make it easier to exploit.
Anddd it just occurred to me, Diversity in itself IS a handicap…?
They won becuase despite placing 10 more defenders for you to kill, you *only* managed to kill 1 more defender. 10 extra tries netted you 1 bonus kill. That's not outplaying the other side.
War is about skill. But it's about strategy too. And rosters. And in this case army size (ie number of participants). All of that should and does factor into war.
I do understand that from your point of view you needlessly suffer disadvantages that you consider unfair. But in the end, how you choose to play, can and does have consequences. In this case, due to your ally size you lost a close war. Consider, that adding just 1 more player may have tipped the balance in your favor.
You can do more, you choose not to and that is fine but you have to accept the consequences of those actions as a result
In this War you are correct, in the 3 other losses the margins were larger and we still lost because of the way Diversity is scored. As I stated before, I’ve run bigger alliances before this, going back to the days before they allowed you to even r2 a six star. The scoring has always been horrible…and as it was pointed out there is at least one easy way around the issue that takes away from the “sportsmanship” of the game that we rejected initially (create 4 more accounts just to place). Or open the alliance and let lower level accounts place but not play in War (which would ALSO make our War matchups EASIER btw) but that sux to do to other players.
Overall I agree with what you say though. We will prob just stop doing War for a while after this season or until they change the way Diversity is scored (IF).
They won becuase despite placing 10 more defenders for you to kill, you *only* managed to kill 1 more defender. 10 extra tries netted you 1 bonus kill. That's not outplaying the other side.
What ? Are you looking at the stat for “Defender Kills” and thinking that means how many defenders were killed ? You can easily see that both sides were 100% Explored, so they did defeat every defender. Nope, it means how many times the opponents lost a fight to one of your defenders. So they didn’t have 10 extra tries. And you get Attack Bonus whether or not you actually fight anyone on a node.
My bad. I said defender but meant attacker.
When I talk about 10 extra times to kill, that's simply looking at it from the op's point of view, not from how it actually works. I was simply operating under the op's logic. I should have been clearer in that regard
I’m missing the point where this is a problem? You can’t expect to win wars placing 6 people. Especially if you can’t figure out a diversity plan for 6 people. The war points system is pretty good at this point.
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?
If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo
no need to be condescending
While the wording may be inconsiderate, there is some validity in the point. 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.
Nah, they were just being a douche but it didn’t bother me because I’ve been there and done that - and it’s possible he was someone I kicked at some point in my other alliances, 😂 who knows.
But to your point, you agree then, that we should create bum accounts and just place 2*s to even things out? That wouldn’t bother you if you were on the other side of that and lost to someone placing TWENTY 2 star champs…? Because technically, we had more Diversity - they simply had more players. The math escapes me, but I think even if we hadn’t died at all we STILL would have lost that War?…and they duped how many more than our one dupe? They DIDN’T diversify more than us, they diversified a few more players than we could even muster. That’s not right if ur aiming for more diversity either.
We could also just go another route and open the alliance and let some low level players join to place but not fight - but I was that guy when I first started this game and it sucked to be me not being able to play a portion and important part of the game. Not the worse thing that could happen, getting rewards for doing essentially nothing, but it did suck because I didn’t feel like I was truly contributing andddd yes, ego.
Orrrrr….maybe Kabam could make a system that works for everyone big or small…? Too much to ask?
I didn't say you shouldn't run a War. Nor did I suggest that you make dummy Accounts. I'm simply saying it's something you need to accept if you're playing with a handicap.
My bad, I misunderstood.
Handicap - But that’s my point, I thought….there’s an absence of a working handicap for outnumbered alliances - small or big (whether 6 against 8 or 27 against 30). I don’t know if you have ever had to try recruiting for an alliance, but sometimes there just aren’t players for the moment. Sometimes real life happens to people and they can’t play for a War or two or a few (technically you only have to place in 5 Wars to get season rewards anyways, right?). There are plenty of reasons for an Ally to be outnumbered at any given time and I think Diversity rewards too many points in cases where placement is uneven. Which is why it would also be important to have a point system that discourages low placement and more attackers. Right now tho, if we see we are outnumbered after we already committed champs to War ( that could possibly be used for other parts of the game ), there really is no incentive for us to even want to “fight” knowing we will prob lose, even in a case where neither team loses a fight and they have a ton of dupes. MAYBE if season rewards were better overall, but they aren’t - not for the resources we put in to win. I get your point now I think, so not playing War really is the best way not to get disappointed if we are going to stand pat with our number of players…as I said in the beginning of this thread hahahaha
You killed 10 more defenders than they did, true. But your attack bonus on those 40 defenders was only 1 greater than your opponent. Not a winning recipe my friend! It's not all about quantity!
Yep and I think that’s what (or one of the things) needs to be tweeked? How can the effort of beating a champ (especially outright and in one shot) in a fight be worth less than just simply placing a champ?
I understand what you are saying here but if you think a little deeper it easily falls apart.
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.
Anddd it just occurred to me, Diversity in itself IS a handicap…?
Settle down, Donald.
Diversity strengthens alliances by encouraging a range of rankups / sig-ups that can be used in other content. It also alleviates the burden of feeling obligated to do certain specific ones that are already “spoken for.”
It also preserves some of the difficulty of the defenders by limiting the times attackers get to fight them and makes war less repetitive.
8 diversity or 3 kills. If you think your champ (on an available placement) is good enough to have a 37.5% chance at a kill, it’s possibly worth a dupe.
Also, many champs that would’ve been defensive rankups only are now starting for me in battlegrounds. I could retire if I had a dollar for every time Pun 2099 was banned.
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” 😂
I'm sorry but no. If you choose to keep a core of 6 people and you place 30 defenders and your opponent places 40 defenders, there shouldn't be any equalizer. War is designed to be for 10 people. The map doesn't change sizes because you want to run with a smaller group.
What you're asking for is if you bring 6 guys to play 11 on 11 football. You want special concessions because you can't/won't bring a full team. That's not how it works.
If you screenshot, you only lost by 10 points which is astonishing because they have 8. So either they decided to double on lanes and not use 2 others to explore empty nodes or they just don't care enough.
I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed. 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.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.
Imagine by using my example then. 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…?🤔🥺
No. That's not how it works at all. There was not exploit for diversity, ever. There were a lot of assumptions of exploit but it was because people didn't understand scoring.
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?
If you can't find atleast 10 members, you shouldn't be running an alliance lmaoo
no need to be condescending
While the wording may be inconsiderate, there is some validity in the point. 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.
Nah, they were just being a douche but it didn’t bother me because I’ve been there and done that - and it’s possible he was someone I kicked at some point in my other alliances, 😂 who knows.
But to your point, you agree then, that we should create bum accounts and just place 2*s to even things out? That wouldn’t bother you if you were on the other side of that and lost to someone placing TWENTY 2 star champs…? Because technically, we had more Diversity - they simply had more players. The math escapes me, but I think even if we hadn’t died at all we STILL would have lost that War?…and they duped how many more than our one dupe? They DIDN’T diversify more than us, they diversified a few more players than we could even muster. That’s not right if ur aiming for more diversity either.
We could also just go another route and open the alliance and let some low level players join to place but not fight - but I was that guy when I first started this game and it sucked to be me not being able to play a portion and important part of the game. Not the worse thing that could happen, getting rewards for doing essentially nothing, but it did suck because I didn’t feel like I was truly contributing andddd yes, ego.
Orrrrr….maybe Kabam could make a system that works for everyone big or small…? Too much to ask?
I didn't say you shouldn't run a War. Nor did I suggest that you make dummy Accounts. I'm simply saying it's something you need to accept if you're playing with a handicap.
My bad, I misunderstood.
Handicap - But that’s my point, I thought….there’s an absence of a working handicap for outnumbered alliances - small or big (whether 6 against 8 or 27 against 30). I don’t know if you have ever had to try recruiting for an alliance, but sometimes there just aren’t players for the moment. Sometimes real life happens to people and they can’t play for a War or two or a few (technically you only have to place in 5 Wars to get season rewards anyways, right?). There are plenty of reasons for an Ally to be outnumbered at any given time and I think Diversity rewards too many points in cases where placement is uneven. Which is why it would also be important to have a point system that discourages low placement and more attackers. Right now tho, if we see we are outnumbered after we already committed champs to War ( that could possibly be used for other parts of the game ), there really is no incentive for us to even want to “fight” knowing we will prob lose, even in a case where neither team loses a fight and they have a ton of dupes. MAYBE if season rewards were better overall, but they aren’t - not for the resources we put in to win. I get your point now I think, so not playing War really is the best way not to get disappointed if we are going to stand pat with our number of players…as I said in the beginning of this thread hahahaha
If they would have been fully diverse, you would have lost by even more points. They placed 8 dupes on defense because if they were supposed to be 40 spots for diversity and that is 30 points for each diverse defender. So 8 of their defenders didn't get points for placement. They died 6 times and you died 5.
They can explore more of the map because they have more attackers than you. Empty nodes equal full attack bonus. You can't expect Kabam to give you an advantage because you choose to play short.
I’m missing the point where this is a problem? You can’t expect to win wars placing 6 people. Especially if you can’t figure out a diversity plan for 6 people. The war points system is pretty good at this point.
As I stated before, if it were a lack of Diversity between the of us, we should have won there too. We only duped ONE champ and they duped Three - one of those was duped 3 Times. They didn’t play better and didn’t have better Diversity.
I died less and killed more than they did overall. Simple. But because they had more people I lost…because of how Diversity is scored. That is my problem and in my opinion they could fix the scoring while keeping Diversity.
For perspective, because people are getting hung up on our 6 players only Alliance - I THINK that even if we were one BG in an alliance of 26 players and the other 2 BGs were dead even with the opposing alliance in diversity and wins/losses, we STILL would have lost simply because they had THREE more points in Diversity but STILL had less Diversity than we did in general. If someone that is better at math can tell me… but I’m pretty sure that holds up - which is crappy to us. It’s a waste of time and resources to us in our opinion, so we probably won’t play another season unless the scoring changes…even if we get more people, make dummy accounts, merge with another alliance, etc.
I have no clue how many different people have to explain this is to op is so many different ways. I'll stick with my original statement, which is you should just follow through on your threat of stopping aw for your alliance, again, if you can barely get half of one BG to place defenders, your alliance clearly isn't ready for aw.
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” 😂
I'm sorry but no. If you choose to keep a core of 6 people and you place 30 defenders and your opponent places 40 defenders, there shouldn't be any equalizer. War is designed to be for 10 people. The map doesn't change sizes because you want to run with a smaller group.
What you're asking for is if you bring 6 guys to play 11 on 11 football. You want special concessions because you can't/won't bring a full team. That's not how it works.
If you screenshot, you only lost by 10 points which is astonishing because they have 8. So either they decided to double on lanes and not use 2 others to explore empty nodes or they just don't care enough.
Technically, no it was designed for 30 players. It’s just broken into 3 separate BGs. I made an example of what would happened if I had been just one of 3 BGs. Say we happened to be short that day and COULDN’T place 4 more people for whatever reason ( life, REAL War, etc…it happens ). But like I said before, we choose not to populate the other 4 spots w dummy accounts, which I am guessing you think we should do then? That would solve our problem completely, so we wouldn’t have to change our core at all. 🤔
I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed. 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.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.
Imagine by using my example then. 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…?🤔🥺
No. That's not how it works at all. There was not exploit for diversity, ever. There were a lot of assumptions of exploit but it was because people didn't understand scoring.
There was and they changed it to what it is today. Ask around…or simply start a post asking and you’ll see. And, sfrom your other two posts, I gather you didn’t fully read or understand some things I said:
AGAIN, I LIKE the idea behind Diversity and the system itself - I don’t like the scoring and am definitely not alone in that. AGAIN, I have run bigger/full alliances for months at a time and this STILL would have been (and was) an issue for me. When you play better and are more “Diverse”, you shouldn’t lose.
I have no clue how many different people have to explain this is to op is so many different ways. I'll stick with my original statement, which is you should just follow through on your threat of stopping aw for your alliance, again, if you can barely get half of one BG to place defenders, your alliance clearly isn't ready for aw.
True, I agree, we should stop if we’re not willing to go through making dummy accounts.
6 is more than half and we ALL place, there’s only six of us to begin with.
My alliance kicked a$$ and still lost. This is only the closest most recent loss, where being outnumbered cost us. The losses to kill differences were more staggering in the other Wars. But I do appreciate you trying to help, as many times as you have. 🙏🏾👍🏾
I have no clue how many different people have to explain this is to op is so many different ways. I'll stick with my original statement, which is you should just follow through on your threat of stopping aw for your alliance, again, if you can barely get half of one BG to place defenders, your alliance clearly isn't ready for aw.
True, I agree, we should stop if we’re not willing to go through making dummy accounts.
6 is more than half and we ALL place, there’s only six of us to begin with.
My alliance kicked a$$ and still lost. This is only the closest most recent loss, where being outnumbered cost us. The losses to kill differences were more staggering in the other Wars. But I do appreciate you trying to help, as many times as you have. 🙏🏾👍🏾
I'm not going to argue with you on the subject as many are and it's like watching people argue with a brick wall.
I appreciate everyone’s response to this post ( maybe one exception 😂) and thank you all for indulging my opinion, whether you agreed or not. Thank you 🙏🏾
I don't like that diversity works by counting the unique defenders placed. 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.
We’ve already had war scoring that rewarded not placing. It gets exploited and messes with the competitive balance of the game. You’re describing a scenario that would award max diversity for an empty map. That’s nonsense.
I'm trying to work out how you would exploit it as if the other side place a full diverse defence then you would automatically lose.
Imagine by using my example then. 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…?🤔🥺
No. That's not how it works at all. There was not exploit for diversity, ever. There were a lot of assumptions of exploit but it was because people didn't understand scoring.
There was and they changed it to what it is today. Ask around…or simply start a post asking and you’ll see. And, sfrom your other two posts, I gather you didn’t fully read or understand some things I said:
AGAIN, I LIKE the idea behind Diversity and the system itself - I don’t like the scoring and am definitely not alone in that. AGAIN, I have run bigger/full alliances for months at a time and this STILL would have been (and was) an issue for me. When you play better and are more “Diverse”, you shouldn’t lose.
As far as I'm aware, there was no "diversity exploit." I followed the alliance war changes extremely closely during the period of time when they iterated all of these changes, and I'm unaware of any such thing. Points were adjusted for things during iteration, but not to fix "exploits." There were a few times points were changed because the points system generated unpalatable results. That's not the same thing.
You describe winning even if the opponent killed more champs by a small margin and refer to that as an exploit. That's not an exploit. That's intentional. Diversity is intended to provide a small to moderate net benefit to players placing diverse defenders. This small to moderate net benefit is *explicitly* intended to overcome a commensurate small advantage in attacker kills. That's what it is there for: to act in those close matches.
You also focus on duplicated defenders. But defender diversity rewards diverse defenders. It is not intended to penalize duplicated defenders. If you place 30 defenders with one dup and the opponent places 50 defenders with three dups, they are not "less diverse." You have 29 unique defenders and they have 47. They have more, period. Defender diversity points are not defender non-diversity penalties.
A lot of people don't like how diversity scoring works. But a lot of people do. When war was iterated initially, I wasn't a fan of it, but I also recognized that *none* of the war scoring mechanisms attempted, and for that matter none of the war scoring mechanisms even possible at all could achieve unanimity. Defender diversity scoring solves many problems, creates few, and was the most reasonable compromise among the different sides in scoring at the time.
If you think you have a better idea, propose it. You will probably discover that as much as you think a lot of people don't like diversity scoring, even more people are probably not going to like your idea either. War scoring is a compromise, and defender diversity points are a compromise among many different scoring perspectives. It isn't here because it is perfect, it is here because every other option gets set on fire faster.
I have no clue how many different people have to explain this is to op is so many different ways. I'll stick with my original statement, which is you should just follow through on your threat of stopping aw for your alliance, again, if you can barely get half of one BG to place defenders, your alliance clearly isn't ready for aw.
True, I agree, we should stop if we’re not willing to go through making dummy accounts.
6 is more than half and we ALL place, there’s only six of us to begin with.
My alliance kicked a$$ and still lost. This is only the closest most recent loss, where being outnumbered cost us. The losses to kill differences were more staggering in the other Wars. But I do appreciate you trying to help, as many times as you have. 🙏🏾👍🏾
I'm not going to argue with you on the subject as many are and it's like watching people argue with a brick wall.
Wrote my last post before I saw this. I DO really appreciate your opinion and you hadn’t been offensive I don’t think ( the brick wall thing was funny to me)… so you weren’t the one I was referring to. Enjoy the forum 👍🏾
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” 😂
I'm sorry but no. If you choose to keep a core of 6 people and you place 30 defenders and your opponent places 40 defenders, there shouldn't be any equalizer. War is designed to be for 10 people. The map doesn't change sizes because you want to run with a smaller group.
What you're asking for is if you bring 6 guys to play 11 on 11 football. You want special concessions because you can't/won't bring a full team. That's not how it works.
If you screenshot, you only lost by 10 points which is astonishing because they have 8. So either they decided to double on lanes and not use 2 others to explore empty nodes or they just don't care enough.
Technically, no it was designed for 30 players. It’s just broken into 3 separate BGs. I made an example of what would happened if I had been just one of 3 BGs. Say we happened to be short that day and COULDN’T place 4 more people for whatever reason ( life, REAL War, etc…it happens ). But like I said before, we choose not to populate the other 4 spots w dummy accounts, which I am guessing you think we should do then? That would solve our problem completely, so we wouldn’t have to change our core at all. 🤔
For perspective, because people are getting hung up on our 6 players only Alliance - I THINK that even if we were one BG in an alliance of 26 players and the other 2 BGs were dead even with the opposing alliance in diversity and wins/losses, we STILL would have lost simply because they had THREE more points in Diversity but STILL had less Diversity than we did in general. If someone that is better at math can tell me… but I’m pretty sure that holds up - which is crappy to us. It’s a waste of time and resources to us in our opinion, so we probably won’t play another season unless the scoring changes…even if we get more people, make dummy accounts, merge with another alliance, etc.
No, you are bad at math. They had a possiblity of placing 40 unique defenders but they chose to place 32 unique. You had an opportunity to place 30 unique and placed 29. They gifted you 240 points in diversity by only placing 31 unique defenders. When I say gifted, I mean they could of had an extra 240 points if fully diverse. They closed the gap for you.
Losing on merit (exploration etc) due to having less active attackers is valid but losing to a "participation award" merely because they placed more defenders is why we created alts too.
It doesnt take long to end up with diverse champs as long as the alts are the slightest bit active in alliance events if the main accounts are active enough.
I think it comes down to what is expected while only running wars with limited people.
If you are not running a full 10 (and opponents didn’t either), neither side has a right to claim that something was unfair and that they should have won the war.
It is what it is, when running short-staffed. If you win, Great. If you lose, Oh Well. Take what rewards come (keep in mind any ancillary rewards like Solo Objectives, Solo War Points Event, etc), and be satisfied.
If you are really that bent up about a certain war's outcome, then you need to be in a fuller alliance. If you aren’t wanting to be in a fuller alliance, then be glad for whatever rewards happed to come your way.
@Whatevertoo i stopped reading this thread halfway through, super boring, but I appreciate your follow through responding to everyone’s comments. Keep fighting the good fight. 🤓
Comments
Kidding… a little. I wish I had taken a pic of our defenses before anyone started moving on either side - they’re champs were so much more OP than ours…loaded with at least nine r2 6*s to our one (we only have 2 in the alliance and we didn’t even use the other in our attack) and at least twice as many r5 5*s. We have no idea who we are going to face when we place to begin with, so to your point, why do we bother now? When we made the complaint about how lopsided our kills were against a better defense, Kabam’s response was that sometimes you will get placed against a much stronger alliance as part of the matchmaking process. Knowing that why do we place at all? Because we have beaten much stronger alliances before - mainly because they pretty much duped the hell out of the strongest defenders. If they hadn’t done that tho, even being that we were better skilled at the game, they would have won. Our placement was better and/or they weren’t as skilled as us, but it doesn’t matter because they simply had more players.
Now, there are many various ways to help you beat champs in this game and all things being even, even coming from their point of view, I don’t see how they won. I don’t want stronger defenses to mean less, I want better skill (and possibly resources if you use boosts) to mean the same and not less. A handicap would do that and is the reason you make them…to even the playing field, not make it easier to exploit.
Anddd it just occurred to me, Diversity in itself IS a handicap…?
War is about skill. But it's about strategy too. And rosters. And in this case army size (ie number of participants). All of that should and does factor into war.
I do understand that from your point of view you needlessly suffer disadvantages that you consider unfair. But in the end, how you choose to play, can and does have consequences. In this case, due to your ally size you lost a close war. Consider, that adding just 1 more player may have tipped the balance in your favor.
You can do more, you choose not to and that is fine but you have to accept the consequences of those actions as a result
Nope, it means how many times the opponents lost a fight to one of your defenders.
So they didn’t have 10 extra tries.
And you get Attack Bonus whether or not you actually fight anyone on a node.
Overall I agree with what you say though. We will prob just stop doing War for a while after this season or until they change the way Diversity is scored (IF).
When I talk about 10 extra times to kill, that's simply looking at it from the op's point of view, not from how it actually works. I was simply operating under the op's logic. I should have been clearer in that regard
Handicap - But that’s my point, I thought….there’s an absence of a working handicap for outnumbered alliances - small or big (whether 6 against 8 or 27 against 30). I don’t know if you have ever had to try recruiting for an alliance, but sometimes there just aren’t players for the moment. Sometimes real life happens to people and they can’t play for a War or two or a few (technically you only have to place in 5 Wars to get season rewards anyways, right?). There are plenty of reasons for an Ally to be outnumbered at any given time and I think Diversity rewards too many points in cases where placement is uneven. Which is why it would also be important to have a point system that discourages low placement and more attackers. Right now tho, if we see we are outnumbered after we already committed champs to War ( that could possibly be used for other parts of the game ), there really is no incentive for us to even want to “fight” knowing we will prob lose, even in a case where neither team loses a fight and they have a ton of dupes. MAYBE if season rewards were better overall, but they aren’t - not for the resources we put in to win. I get your point now I think, so not playing War really is the best way not to get disappointed if we are going to stand pat with our number of players…as I said in the beginning of this thread hahahaha
Diversity strengthens alliances by encouraging a range of rankups / sig-ups that can be used in other content. It also alleviates the burden of feeling obligated to do certain specific ones that are already “spoken for.”
It also preserves some of the difficulty of the defenders by limiting the times attackers get to fight them and makes war less repetitive.
8 diversity or 3 kills. If you think your champ (on an available placement) is good enough to have a 37.5% chance at a kill, it’s possibly worth a dupe.
Also, many champs that would’ve been defensive rankups only are now starting for me in battlegrounds. I could retire if I had a dollar for every time Pun 2099 was banned.
What you're asking for is if you bring 6 guys to play 11 on 11 football. You want special concessions because you can't/won't bring a full team. That's not how it works.
If you screenshot, you only lost by 10 points which is astonishing because they have 8. So either they decided to double on lanes and not use 2 others to explore empty nodes or they just don't care enough.
They can explore more of the map because they have more attackers than you. Empty nodes equal full attack bonus. You can't expect Kabam to give you an advantage because you choose to play short.
I died less and killed more than they did overall. Simple. But because they had more people I lost…because of how Diversity is scored. That is my problem and in my opinion they could fix the scoring while keeping Diversity.
It’s a waste of time and resources to us in our opinion, so we probably won’t play another season unless the scoring changes…even if we get more people, make dummy accounts, merge with another alliance, etc.
AGAIN, I LIKE the idea behind Diversity and the system itself - I don’t like the scoring and am definitely not alone in that. AGAIN, I have run bigger/full alliances for months at a time and this STILL would have been (and was) an issue for me. When you play better and are more “Diverse”, you shouldn’t lose.
6 is more than half and we ALL place, there’s only six of us to begin with.
My alliance kicked a$$ and still lost. This is only the closest most recent loss, where being outnumbered cost us. The losses to kill differences were more staggering in the other Wars. But I do appreciate you trying to help, as many times as you have. 🙏🏾👍🏾
You describe winning even if the opponent killed more champs by a small margin and refer to that as an exploit. That's not an exploit. That's intentional. Diversity is intended to provide a small to moderate net benefit to players placing diverse defenders. This small to moderate net benefit is *explicitly* intended to overcome a commensurate small advantage in attacker kills. That's what it is there for: to act in those close matches.
You also focus on duplicated defenders. But defender diversity rewards diverse defenders. It is not intended to penalize duplicated defenders. If you place 30 defenders with one dup and the opponent places 50 defenders with three dups, they are not "less diverse." You have 29 unique defenders and they have 47. They have more, period. Defender diversity points are not defender non-diversity penalties.
A lot of people don't like how diversity scoring works. But a lot of people do. When war was iterated initially, I wasn't a fan of it, but I also recognized that *none* of the war scoring mechanisms attempted, and for that matter none of the war scoring mechanisms even possible at all could achieve unanimity. Defender diversity scoring solves many problems, creates few, and was the most reasonable compromise among the different sides in scoring at the time.
If you think you have a better idea, propose it. You will probably discover that as much as you think a lot of people don't like diversity scoring, even more people are probably not going to like your idea either. War scoring is a compromise, and defender diversity points are a compromise among many different scoring perspectives. It isn't here because it is perfect, it is here because every other option gets set on fire faster.
None of what you said is accurate.
Losing on merit (exploration etc) due to having less active attackers is valid but losing to a "participation award" merely because they placed more defenders is why we created alts too.
If you are not running a full 10 (and opponents didn’t either), neither side has a right to claim that something was unfair and that they should have won the war.
It is what it is, when running short-staffed.
If you win, Great.
If you lose, Oh Well.
Take what rewards come (keep in mind any ancillary rewards like Solo Objectives, Solo War Points Event, etc), and be satisfied.
If you are really that bent up about a certain war's outcome, then you need to be in a fuller alliance.
If you aren’t wanting to be in a fuller alliance, then be glad for whatever rewards happed to come your way.