Which alliance is the stronger alliance for alliance war (AW)?

Which alliance is the stronger alliance for alliance war (AW)?

Alliance A has 30 members. Each member has 8 (for AW, 5 for defense and 3 for offense) + 3 (for AQ) + 5 (for regular quests) = 16 heroes. Each member has an average member rating of 88k. The alliance has a total rating of 30 * 88k = 2.64 million. The average rating of the top 5 heroes of each member is 6000.

Alliance B also has 30 members. The average member has 261 heroes with an average member rating of 416k. The alliance has a total rating of 12.4 million. The average rating of the top 5 heroes of each member is also 6000.

For simplicity, assume that the average skill level of each member is identical for all involved and the strategy they used for hero placement on defense is also identical.

Comments

Rex28

wow

Primmer79

sounds like someone got beat by an alliance who sells their champs.

Adamdrt2006

Well since having maxed out 2* or 3* that dont get used in this situuation it all comes down to skill and what there top champs are

Shrimkins

In theory they are pretty much the same. Even though your scenario is pointless, it does point out that total alliance rating is an idiotic way of determining "fair" matchups.

NastyEfnNate

Yes

BattlecryGWJ

Given the specific instance (an alliance war at that very moment), the alliances would be evenly matched, but even in just the near term alliance B would have at least a slight advantage as they have greater flexibility in their options for defenders to address changing game meta.

For instance, the introduction of Blade reduced the value of a number of defenders, so alliance B has more options to immediately modify their defense to be less impacted by the new champion.

VandalSavage

I find it interesting that the community to date do not think that alliance A has a chance, being shutout 22 to nothing so far after 22 votes in. I can see why the women basketball lovers thinks its pointless.

Each member of alliance A top 5 heroes average 6k. This means the remaining 11 heroes on the roster average (88 - 6*5) / (16-5) = 5.2k per hero. This means each member of alliance A can bring attackers in AW with a hero average of 5.2k. This is a rough equivalent of a R5 4-star.

Each member of alliance B top heroes also average 6k. This means their remaining 256 heroes average (416 - 6*5) / (261-5) = 1.5k per hero (a rough equivalent of a 3-star hero or a R2 4-star).

Last time I checked, 5.2 is greater than 1.5. Not only is 5.2 greater than 1.5 but also alliance B is sending out R2 4-stars to battle R5 4-stars which are then powered up even more by nodes.

Math sucks, I know. So from now on, 1.5 is greater than 5.2.

You people did an excellent job in determining that alliance A has no chance. Awesome job. Give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.

However, the correct answer is "It is not possible to determine an accurate answer." Just under 50% got it right.

Due to the large fat fluffy inflated roster of each member of alliance B, you have no idea of the PI of the 3 heroes they could use for attack in AW. That's why it is not possible to determine an accurate answer.

All you know for sure is the average PI of their top 5 heroes and nothing else, which is more info than you would get in a real AW scenario. In the actual game that nobody here apparently plays, you can only see their top 4, not 5, heroes. And that is only if you spend the effort to look. Most will not since it is much easier to cry in the forums.

However, I look forward to more crybaby threads polluting the forum about how unfair the AW matchup is and their tears being supported with more screenshots of their alliance being outgunned 2 to 1 in alliance rating. Hugs all around.

It is easier to blame their failures on alliance rating than poor skill, poor choice of heroes to use, bad luck on WiFi connection, running 3 battle groups when the alliance only has 25 members or one guy out of 10 in a battle group was simply not feeling it that day (and the rest of buttercup alliance saw that and wept accordingly).

I mean nobody places 3-stars as defenders anymore, right? Nobody does that.

Just blame it on alliance rating. It's easier.

My favorite, though, is when the alliance has members that simply "sets up shop" in AW and does nothing great. Sometimes, they don't even show up to attack. At best, they just get themselves killed on purpose after getting a kill or maybe 2 to make it look like they are trying -- at best -- but in reality, they are only there to pick up the participation ribbon. But nobody wants to say this because, as we all know, there are no freeloaders in the game.

GbSarkar

VandalSavage wrote: »

I find it interesting that the community to date do not think that alliance A has a chance, being shutout 22 to nothing so far after 22 votes in. I can see why the women basketball lovers thinks its pointless.

Each member of alliance A top 5 heroes average 6k. This means the remaining 11 heroes on the roster average (88 - 6*5) / (16-5) = 5.2k per hero. This means each member of alliance A can bring attackers in AW with a hero average of 5.2k. This is a rough equivalent of a R5 4-star.

Each member of alliance B top heroes also average 6k. This means their remaining 256 heroes average (416 - 6*5) / (261-5) = 1.5k per hero (a rough equivalent of a 3-star hero or a R2 4-star).

Last time I checked, 5.2 is greater than 1.5. Not only is 5.2 greater than 1.5 but also alliance B is sending out R2 4-stars to battle R5 4-stars which are then powered up even more by nodes.

Math sucks, I know. So from now on, 1.5 is greater than 5.2.

You people did an excellent job in determining that alliance A has no chance. Awesome job. Give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.

However, the correct answer is "It is not possible to determine an accurate answer." Just under 50% got it right.

Due to the large fat fluffy inflated roster of each member of alliance B, you have no idea of the PI of the 3 heroes they could use for attack in AW. That's why it is not possible to determine an accurate answer.

All you know for sure is the average PI of their top 5 heroes and nothing else, which is more info than you would get in a real AW scenario. In the actual game that nobody here apparently plays, you can only see their top 4, not 5, heroes. And that is only if you spend the effort to look. Most will not since it is much easier to cry in the forums.

However, I look forward to more crybaby threads polluting the forum about how unfair the AW matchup is and their tears being supported with more screenshots of their alliance being outgunned 2 to 1 in alliance rating. Hugs all around.

It is easier to blame their failures on alliance rating than poor skill, poor choice of heroes to use, bad luck on WiFi connection, running 3 battle groups when the alliance only has 25 members or one guy out of 10 in a battle group was simply not feeling it that day (and the rest of buttercup alliance saw that and wept accordingly).

I mean nobody places 3-stars as defenders anymore, right? Nobody does that.

Just blame it on alliance rating. It's easier.

My favorite, though, is when the alliance has members that simply "sets up shop" in AW and does nothing great. Sometimes, they don't even show up to attack. At best, they just get themselves killed on purpose after getting a kill or maybe 2 to make it look like they are trying -- at best -- but in reality, they are only there to pick up the participation ribbon. But nobody wants to say this because, as we all know, there are no freeloaders in the game.

You could have just posted this essay as the OP instead of turning it into some pointless poll which people would obviously not pay any attention to. Would have saved you the effort of bumping it again 1 month after creating it to vent you frustrations about some imaginary poster who was whining about alliance rating.

P.S. just because the average rating of the rest of the champs is low, it doesn't mean that all the champs are low rated. Keep that in mind the next time you do your "math"