**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Comments
Even if that were the case, I'd still rather it be that way. With this current system people will just use potions before revives to help get the kill. The assumption that they beat us purely on skill is false. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. What they did beat us on is less tries, but like I said, that could be cause they're using potions earlier on / more potions and less revives. I've never been one to use a lot of potions or revives, and I don't spend units on them.
I said join attack phase. Their 10th player never even joined attack phase. I understand staying back. That's what I did, but everyone should at least join.
Are you blind? Attack bonus is in the pic, and you can only show so much in the stats at once. That's why I didn't show boss clears because it's obvious we both cleared the same.
I didn't include because that was obvious. So technically you are correct. We tied in one metric, lost in one metric, and beat them in all the rest. Is that better???
Then you need to adjust your strategy. People complained about the first iteration of wars (too hard, too many of the same champs). People complained about the second iteration of wars (too easy if it is a diversity war, too much skewed towards the higher rated alliance). The truth is that the third iteration, while not perfect, actually works very well. I've been a part of a war that hinged on who killed the boss the best and we lost unfortunately due to it. But we will make adjustments to who we place to try and ensnare our opponent next time. A difference of a million in rating really is not that much. Just tweak your attack strategy or your defense.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. They could be buying potions to keep their health high.
Yes, that means they are more effective. Not all points are weighted the same in war. So, it is not a 1 to 1 ratio among point measurements.
Yep. You tied in the most important (skill), lost in the 2nd most important (skill), then won in the rest (participation).
Had you crushed them in explore and barely lost in attacker, then there would be an argument. As is, you’re complaining that they fought better than your ally.
Unless you’re simply complaining about matchmaking, which is white noise. You would have lost these wars anyway due to defender rating before the new scoring was put in place.
Maybe this doesn't seem helpful to you, but I hope it does add some perspective. I hope your next war goes better...unless it's against my alliance, that is!
How is it they beat you in "skill" if your defenders are weaker than their's and their attackers are stronger than your's? That's not skill. Now if it was vice versa then that's skill.
Appreciate it and I agree there is a thrill to close matches like that
Skill is killing stuff without dying. They killed more stuff without dying. I can’t imagine the difference in attackers and defenders was THAT great over a 1 mil ally difference. However, I’ll bow out because this is now a matchmaking issue and not an attacker bonus issue. Good luck next War.
To beat story quest, and earn more points in arena lol
being +/- 1M is a pretty fair fight. especially when you consider that it's spread out over 30 players.
i'd be willing to bet it was about close to the same number of 4*s and 5*s on either side.
I fought for it because it was logical and satisfied the complaints of the vast majority of players complaining about the changes to AW. I was certainly not alone in asking for major changes to AW: my contribution was crystalizing those complaints into something specific. And actually, I didn't specifically fight for attacker bonus points: I fought for a replacement for defender kill points that better differentiated alliances based on attacker performance: the ability to kill defender nodes better than their opponents. Attacker bonus points were one of six different options discussed to replace them.
By in large most people seem to prefer AW with them than without them and they satisfy the primary requirement for competitive AW: that the wars are decided on the battlefield by the best attackers as often as possible. In your war, your alliance was not the best attackers, so you lost. That's actually what most people seem to want the result to be. Good luck trying to get that reversed. It only took two major game revisions and five AW updates to get it added in the first place.
I'm also not defending the change, I'm explaining it to you. I'm not required to defend it, as it is not a feature that currently appears to require defending. It is a feature the devs have already added and has majority support. My defending it wouldn't put it on any stronger footing than it already has.
Come back this war, analyse who’s dying repeatedly and help them fight better, then maybe you’ll win more.
For example ;
I could fight like absolute **** with a 5* 4/5 duped Iceman against an unduped 4* 3K pi Karnak and beat the Karnak on the first try and not lose points on attack bonus.
If the game is going to give an advantage to higher pi alliances in attack bonus it should do the same for alliances with lower pi that actually have to use more skill in defeating the opponent.
Attack bonus should also be based on actual skill such as high numbered combos during a fight. That would give an advantage to attackers with less pi because it would take longer to kill the defender, so it would be based on more actual skill in playing.
We all get the point fine. You are expressing a preference the game doesn't honor. This game is a progressional game that rewards players who progress by leveling and by increasing their roster size and rank. Within those parameters this game hands out content that requires players to complete combat tasks with no handicapping - players with weaker rosters are not compensated for that disadvantage. That is the core of the game players must accept everywhere else besides AW.
Within AW, most players interested in strong competition have advocated for those two principles to be maintained. Players with larger and stronger rosters should be allowed to maintain that advantage, and then without regard to any advantage or disadvantage in roster every player should be judged by the results they can produce, not the amount of effort it takes them to produce those efforts.
We want to recognize and reward skill, but we simultaneously do not want to take away the advantages players build up in obtaining and ranking up champions. In every part of the game, if you can do more with a combination of skill and roster, you get the exact same rewards as someone that can do the same thing with a different amount of skill and roster but that generate the same results.
For players with equal roster, higher skill should win. But stronger roster opens doors. If you have a stronger roster than another player, you are allowed and encouraged to press that advantage. That intrinsic advantage is mitigated in many ways where necessary. For example, AW matchmaking uses win/loss record to roughly match alliances with similar ability to defeat opposing alliances. Arena events sometimes limit which champions can be used within them. But absent those exceptions, if another alliance kills you more easily than you can kill them because their roster is just much stronger than yours, they won fairly because in this game that advantage is always "fair."
If you cannot accept these two basic principles - that the game rewards stronger roster as a primary progressional goal and that within that boundary the game rewards players that can generate better results with that roster - then this is simply not the game for you.
First of all, I've never complained about any previous version of war before. This isn't the first time we've lost a war, but it is the first time we've lost that I felt was unjust. I'm sure that's why many people complained about diversity points, although I have never had an issue with that. I'm not a sore loser, and don't mind facing stronger alliances, provided it's not a constant stream of one sided wars. I'm sure there have probably been mismatches in our favor before, but they are far fewer than the ones against us. But like I said, I've never complained prior until this revision, and we didn't make it up to tier 7 because we suck or just luck.
You're already rewarded with an advantage by leveling and ranking up when you're the stronger alliance. So many keep talking about measuring skill when attack bonus doesn't do a great job of that. Combo bonus is a brilliant measure of skill, much better than attack bonus! You should be given so many points per hit for your highest combo. Seems you're more interested in having the advantage than really measuring skill lol
So you want a war where you can pay to win?