Lame Tiebreaker in AW

Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
in General Discussion
Lost yesterday’s war cuz of stupid tiebreaker rule. Before going for fight duration, also need to check total Defender kills which would make more sense
«1

Comments

  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,330 ★★★★★
    If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

    Hope you get what I mean.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    edited April 2023
    @Pikolu How wont it matter ?? Giving more kills on a single mode means pure lack skill. How are u saying it should-not be considered ?if u cant kill a champ within 3 tries ten hw u are evn capable of having the victory ?? Seems u and ur ally gives lot of kill on a single node and very less capable of soloing the node lol
  • AverageDesiAverageDesi Member Posts: 5,260 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

    Hope you get what I mean.

    That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,330 ★★★★★
    AverageDesi said:

    xNig said:

    If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

    Hope you get what I mean.

    That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig
    Because a 60% increase in attack does cause a decrease in fight time.
  • AverageDesiAverageDesi Member Posts: 5,260 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    AverageDesi said:

    xNig said:

    If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

    Hope you get what I mean.

    That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig
    Because a 60% increase in attack does cause a decrease in fight time.
    No but why would them being faster imply an easier defense for OP?
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Member Posts: 3,116 ★★★★★
    I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.
  • Dart1981Dart1981 Member Posts: 230 ★★★
    TyEdge said:

    I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

    This would change a lot of alliance's mindset and would have changed the potential outcome. I believe that a lot of alliances at the mid levels use boosts and potions only until they reach their 3rd loss, at which point they just use revives or use a less than ideal champ just to save item spend, they might die a few more times but they know it doesn't matter. If it mattered then it means more items or potentially iteming out at a later part of the map.

    At the top, this wouldn't matter either because they are barely dieing once let alone 3 times to any single fight, they would still be judged on fight time.

    I personally prefer this way but understand that losing on time is a gut wrencher and might not be preferred by everyone.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,330 ★★★★★
    AverageDesi said:

    xNig said:

    AverageDesi said:

    xNig said:

    If they spent 1.3k less seconds, they are, overall, 21.6 mins faster, which could mean they have more suicides defenders placed, which directly translates to an overall easier defence for your alliance.

    Hope you get what I mean.

    That does not make sense. Why would the opposing ally being faster on attack imply suicides on their defense? @xNig
    Because a 60% increase in attack does cause a decrease in fight time.
    No but why would them being faster imply an easier defense for OP?
    Just saying it’s probable.. but with suicides on offence likely means suicides on D, which means bleed/poison ticks plus recoil makes defenders easier to kill. I personally doubt players will spend units each war, switching in and out of suicides at G1 level.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,330 ★★★★★
    TyEdge said:

    I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

    This way the alliance will be doubly penalized for the same mistakes, first with loss of AB, then from tie breaker.
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Member Posts: 5,626 ★★★★★
    Wasn’t there a time where defensive kills mattered more after the first 3? And didn’t people complain about that? Could be a Mandela effect on my part.
  • FrostGiantLordFrostGiantLord Member Posts: 2,057 ★★★★
    The OP is just trying to make excuses. Seems like a skill issue to me.
  • pseudosanepseudosane Member, Guardian Posts: 3,978 Guardian
    After 3 deaths on a node, the kills given on that node doesnt matter. They cleared the map faster than you which is why they won. Unfortunately this is something you have to keep track of, time is also a factor whenever this rare occurence happens.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    @FrostGiantLord Great logic man. Seems giving more than 3 kills on a single node doesn’t comes under lack of skill according to u.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    edited April 2023
    @SidDDragon lol u are saying finishing up faster is more skill full tan giving more than 3 kills in a same node (also on lot of nodes with more than 3 kills)??? Typical noob logic. Seems like u often give more kills in same node lol. No one agreed to any rules man u are just saying this cuz this rule favours u and ur noob alliance watever who specialises in lot of kills on diffrent nodes l
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    edited April 2023
    @Obsidiman_Jones Those 3 extra kills happened on a same node and so total 6kills on a single node brother. Also its not even a boss and minibosses node. I know its been there for a long time and Iam just saying when it comes to tie breaker, this extra kills also needs to be considered before going to fight duration which would make more sense. I am not saying extra kills should be considered as a main attack bonus points.
  • PikoluPikolu Member, Guardian Posts: 7,721 Guardian
    pseudosane said:

    After 3 deaths on a node, the kills given on that node doesnt matter. They cleared the map faster than you which is why they won. Unfortunately this is something you have to keep track of, time is also a factor whenever this rare occurence happens.

    In the very beginning, all deaths gave the other team points. To reduce the effectiveness of some defenders that can get 20 kills, kabam introduced attack bonuses. So instead of getting points when your defender gets kills, you instead lose points for dying. It is a more fair system and helps reduce frustration while keeping the gamemode competitive.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,566 ★★★★★
    Pikolu said:

    pseudosane said:

    After 3 deaths on a node, the kills given on that node doesnt matter. They cleared the map faster than you which is why they won. Unfortunately this is something you have to keep track of, time is also a factor whenever this rare occurence happens.

    In the very beginning, all deaths gave the other team points. To reduce the effectiveness of some defenders that can get 20 kills, kabam introduced attack bonuses. So instead of getting points when your defender gets kills, you instead lose points for dying. It is a more fair system and helps reduce frustration while keeping the gamemode competitive.
    There were a number of reasons for removing Defender Kills as a metric. Champs that could garner many kills was one of them. Another was it dissuaded Players from participating. I was present in the discussions on the Forum at the time, and it took some time for them to settle on a system of Attack Bonus so that it accounts for skill, but at the same time doesn't penalize Players from trying to complete the Map.
    Adding it as a metric with the current system would be counterproductive.
  • SidDDragonSidDDragon Member Posts: 1,183 ★★★
    Heisenberg750 said:

    @SidDDragon lol u are saying finishing up faster is more skill full tan giving more than 3 kills in a same node (also on lot of nodes with more than 3 kills)??? Typical noob logic. Seems like u often give more kills in same node lol. No one agreed to any rules man u are just saying this cuz this rule favours u and ur noob alliance watever who specialises in lot of kills on diffrent nodes l

    So if my “noob” alliance favours from this rule and wins then what does that say about ur alliance which couldn’t win with the same set of rules?? 🤔🤔
    But thanks for the laugh mate…I had a good time reading ur reply.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    edited April 2023
    @SidDDragon doesn't favour cause being noob is tolerated to some level in AW ?? Wont it come to ur sense tat those extra kills should be considered as a factor when all other primary criteria ends up in tie??? So ur brain really that much empty tat this should be overlooked for fight duration ??
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Member Posts: 5,626 ★★★★★
    Heisenberg750 said:

    @SidDDragon doesn't favour cause being noob is tolerated to some level in AW ?? Wont it come to ur sense tat those extra kills should be considered as a factor when all other primary criteria ends up in tie??? So ur brain really that much empty tat this should be overlooked for fight duration ??

    Beating fights faster is always more skilful than giving up an extra few deaths on a fight. The thing you’re not considering is that DESPITE having to spend more time in one fight due to those extra deaths, they still did everything else faster.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    @ItsDamien I agree its skillfull but its not a primary criteria of defining the victory. Attacker kills are. So extra kills in tat attacker kills shouldnt be overlooked for Fight duration. Doesnt matter how many kills but attacker kills are kills. I know its a frustrating fact but it must not be ignored…
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Member Posts: 3,116 ★★★★★
    edited April 2023
    xNig said:

    TyEdge said:

    I think total kills should be the first tiebreaker then time second, but whatever.

    This way the alliance will be doubly penalized for the same mistakes, first with loss of AB, then from tie breaker.
    They aren’t being doubly penalized anymore than they’re being doubly penalized on time for restarting the fight.

    The reality is this: the diversity counts differ from war to war and death counts vary wildly by tier 5. (We use 148 to dupe two elite defenders, but we know we just need to win by one bonus instead of tie). Elite alliances will almost never lose two, much less four, bonuses. Their wars get decided on time. Lesser alliances have so much scoring variation that ties will be exceedingly rare, and excess deaths are a better metric of performance IMO than time, so long as 40% team revives are 1 loyalty.
  • Heisenberg750Heisenberg750 Member Posts: 97 ★
    One more thing - this is a very rare situation which happens so none of here who are backlashing the post haven’t experienced this at all so yeah its a dumb thing
    to make understand. Yeah u can continue with disagrees and backlashes
  • GreekhitGreekhit Member Posts: 2,820 ★★★★★
    edited April 2023
    Heisenberg750 said:

    Lost yesterday’s war cuz of stupid tiebreaker rule. Before going for fight duration, also need to check total Defender kills which would make more sense

    If I was Kabam I would address that TIE situations not by time as the tie breaker in order to have a winner, but with points distribution for TIE.
    Instead of having always a winner (even by measuring fight time to have one), in the rare occasion of a TIE, no 30k win bonus points for no one (since there is no clear winner) but 10k tie bonus points for both.
    Same pointing system as it is at Football (Soccer), where the the win gives 3 points to winner and a tie gives 1 point to both teams.
    It seems more fair to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.