How on Earth is this possible?

BowlSheet · 2018-06-18T04:38:51+00:00

<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/wf/jr64w14xpouf.png" alt="jr64w14xpouf.png" srcset="https://us.v-cdn.net/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,width=10/https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/wf/jr64w14xpouf.png 10w,…

BowlSheet

I totally get that we lost the match. The win is virtually guaranteed to whichever team has the most participants thanks to redundant scoring that essentially rewards the team with the most participants.

So, naturally, we lost the Explored bonus, the Defenders Remaining bonus, and the Defender Diversity bonus. However, out of the opposing team's 30 characters (10 participants) we have 26 defender kills. Honestly, I don't remember that many of them dying, but you can see the numbers in the report. Out of our 15 characters (only 5 participants) we only got killed 4 times. Seems legit.

So, how on Earth did we lose the attack bonus?? I can see that we only killed 23 of their 45 nodes, while they killed 16 of our 25 nodes. 51% vs 64%. But that is a Defenders Remaining win.

If they only killed us 4 times and we had 23 successful attacks (85% win rate), how do they win with 26 deaths and 16 successful attacks (38% win rate)?

The attack bonus for a node is linear so it doesn't matter if 3 deaths are on one node or on several. Each loss is 80 points. The only time it matters is 4 or more losses on a node because there is no further loss of bonus after the 3rd loss.

Given that the opposing team only had 4 defender kills, it is impossible that we lost more than 320 points and it is possible that we only lost 240. Given that we had 26 defender kills (I had 17 on one node and 1 one a second; plus 2 teammates had 5 and 3 kills, in some unknown distribution), it is impossible for the other team to have lost less than 320 points (800, actually, if we assume that all losses occurred on 4 nodes)).

Therefore, if we had 23 kills with a max bonus loss of 320 points and they had 16 kills with a minimum bonus loss of 320 points, I don't see how it is possible for them to have won the Attacker bonus. With 7 more kills, we had the highest possible bonus. And with the least number of Attacker deaths, we lost the least amount of Attacked bonus.

What am I missing? Or were we just Kabammed?

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

BowlSheet

Ah crud. Yup. Forgot about that. Just another way to guarantee the win for the team with the most participants. The other group really stunk. But because they had more players, they automatically won. Great scoring system!

TacoScotty

Well originally they did attacker kills and top tiers would just not place all defenders to prevent other team from scoring points. This system prevents that.

unknown

This content has been removed.

SuperFarz

A lot of text that confused me. What you need to do know is that EVERY node regardless if there is an champion placed gives attack bonus. So it’s not just the attack champions killed you are counting but also every node also they covered in between. Stick with 1 man BG as adviced.

ShadPrince

Also, if all the deaths came from a single node then they only lose 3 attack bonuses.

unknown

This content has been removed.

BowlSheet

TheThingsThing wrote: »

BowlSheet wrote: »

Ah crud. Yup. Forgot about that. Just another way to guarantee the win for the team with the most participants. The other group really stunk. But because they had more players, they automatically won. Great scoring system!

Probably next time do 1 group if you don't have the players.
Also step back and appreciate what you just said. You may as well have said "I was better than all 30 of them, but I'm penalized cause it's just me and 2 other empty rooms thanks kabam!"

Uh nope. Not what I said. We only do 1 group. I have 7 members. 5 participated. They had full participation: 10 people = 30 attackers. I was pretty clear on the number of people participating. No empty rooms. Please know what you're saying before you get snarky.

BowlSheet

Fredhorst23 wrote: »

This is a weird thread to me. Mostly because Yeah, obviously the advantage is for the team with the most players in a war. I can't think of any reason that wouldn't be the case or any reason kabam would encourage otherwise. They want you to be in big alliances playing with 29 other people. It helps them make money. Is there a particular reasoning behind expecting a level playing field? If my alliance was going up against a top tier alliance I wouldn't expect kabam to adjust the scoring because our p.i. was so much lower.

Well, the whole premise of a "match making" is to level the playing field. It's actually the text book definition of the word "match". Equity. Similarity.

If they only wanted us to be in big active alliances with 29 other people, they wouldn't allow Alliance Wars with only 1 group. If your ally isn't active enough to fill 3 groups, then you're not active enough to make them money. And the reason Kabam would encourage equity in matches is that if they discouraged smaller allies from playing...that leads to less people playing and thus does not help them make money.

Regardless, our alliances were pretty closely matched. However we only had 5 members and they had 10 playing. It's clear by the kill counts that we had much more skill. They got the win just because they had extra players. The win shouldn't be guaranteed to the team with more players. The game should be based on skill. That's why the United States Marines are awesome.They are the FEW, the proud. Not the many, the bad aims. You should be able to win with skill and not cannon fodder.

phillgreen

You are better off recruiting until you have 15 members then running a full BG, first in first served but you are at a distinct disadvantage not having a full BG unless the other ally really sucks, gets stopped early and don't clear the boss node when you do.

I say that as someone who has run war with 5 in a BG, there is really no point other than to participate and I'm old enough to be part of the generation that didn't win just for showing up.

phillgreen

Having had a glance at your ally, I think you are more annoyed that you outmatch your opponent on paper but not against sheer weight of numbers in the War.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

BowlSheet wrote: »

Regardless, our alliances were pretty closely matched. However we only had 5 members and they had 10 playing. It's clear by the kill counts that we had much more skill. They got the win just because they had extra players. The win shouldn't be guaranteed to the team with more players. The game should be based on skill. That's why the United States Marines are awesome.They are the FEW, the proud. Not the many, the bad aims. You should be able to win with skill and not cannon fodder.

The win isn't guaranteed to the team with the more players. The win is guaranteed to the team that does the most to win. Wars are not won by the side with the most skilled soldiers. They are won by the side that actually defeats the other side. And in war, one side does not get to complain the other side showed up with more guys.

Bear3

Yes 1 bg war isn’t really intended for 5 people to participate in... id expect to lose with 5. People need to have 10 or shouldn’t expect much chance to win. Plains and simple.

Dk_Dre

BowlSheet wrote: »

I totally get that we lost the match. The win is virtually guaranteed to whichever team has the most participants thanks to redundant scoring that essentially rewards the team with the most participants.

So, naturally, we lost the Explored bonus, the Defenders Remaining bonus, and the Defender Diversity bonus. However, out of the opposing team's 30 characters (10 participants) we have 26 defender kills. Honestly, I don't remember that many of them dying, but you can see the numbers in the report. Out of our 15 characters (only 5 participants) we only got killed 4 times. Seems legit.

So, how on Earth did we lose the attack bonus?? I can see that we only killed 23 of their 45 nodes, while they killed 16 of our 25 nodes. 51% vs 64%. But that is a Defenders Remaining win.

If they only killed us 4 times and we had 23 successful attacks (85% win rate), how do they win with 26 deaths and 16 successful attacks (38% win rate)?

The attack bonus for a node is linear so it doesn't matter if 3 deaths are on one node or on several. Each loss is 80 points. The only time it matters is 4 or more losses on a node because there is no further loss of bonus after the 3rd loss.

Given that the opposing team only had 4 defender kills, it is impossible that we lost more than 320 points and it is possible that we only lost 240. Given that we had 26 defender kills (I had 17 on one node and 1 one a second; plus 2 teammates had 5 and 3 kills, in some unknown distribution), it is impossible for the other team to have lost less than 320 points (800, actually, if we assume that all losses occurred on 4 nodes)).

Therefore, if we had 23 kills with a max bonus loss of 320 points and they had 16 kills with a minimum bonus loss of 320 points, I don't see how it is possible for them to have won the Attacker bonus. With 7 more kills, we had the highest possible bonus. And with the least number of Attacker deaths, we lost the least amount of Attacked bonus.

What am I missing? Or were we just ****?

Dk_Dre

you didn't have a battle group cleared& they did but still you are trying to cover up these facts Lol grow up kid. Your an idiot thinking too make a post about "being cheated out of a win".

Your not showing (most important #1 objective) info thinking you would keep that fact hidden no one would notice. not counting on the fact we all know this game.

They had 3bg or @ least 2bg cleared.
While you had 0 maybe 1 bg cleared.
So STFU. Don't pretend to be any kind of victim of wrong doing.

You lost fair and square. Learn from it & grow.

Outsider75

BowlSheet wrote: »

Ah crud. Yup. Forgot about that. Just another way to guarantee the win for the team with the most participants. The other group really stunk. But because they had more players, they automatically won. Great scoring system!

Life ain't fair I hear?
You guys are clearly more skilled or active. But you went in TERRBLY HANDICAPED with half the number if people needed to fill up one bg.
Piece of advise, dont do aw until you have at least 8 people.

BowlSheet

Fredhorst23 wrote: »

@BowlSheet difference is the marines go into combat fully prepared for their enemy, and your alliance simply did not. If half the marines showed up they'd lose. I understand your frustration but it should be with the 5 guys who didn't show up, not the matchmaking process.

You must be a Navy guy. Marines get it done.

BowlSheet

DNA3000 wrote: »

BowlSheet wrote: »

Regardless, our alliances were pretty closely matched. However we only had 5 members and they had 10 playing. It's clear by the kill counts that we had much more skill. They got the win just because they had extra players. The win shouldn't be guaranteed to the team with more players. The game should be based on skill. That's why the United States Marines are awesome.They are the FEW, the proud. Not the many, the bad aims. You should be able to win with skill and not cannon fodder.

The win isn't guaranteed to the team with the more players. The win is guaranteed to the team that does the most to win. Wars are not won by the side with the most skilled soldiers. They are won by the side that actually defeats the other side. And in war, one side does not get to complain the other side showed up with more guys.

It actually is guaranteed. All the bonus metrics are geared towards size of team. Plus, that is my precise experience. Every time we had less numbers we lost. Every time it was even numbers, it was up in the air. Every time we had more participants, we won. Data beats opinion.

BowlSheet

Dk_Dre wrote: »

you didn't have a battle group cleared& they did but still you are trying to cover up these facts Lol grow up kid. Your an idiot thinking too make a post about "being cheated out of a win".

Your not showing (most important #1 objective) info thinking you would keep that fact hidden no one would notice. not counting on the fact we all know this game.

They had 3bg or @ least 2bg cleared.
While you had 0 maybe 1 bg cleared.
So STFU. Don't pretend to be any kind of victim of wrong doing.

You lost fair and square. Learn from it & grow.

Nah, brah. Mama is wrong again. We had the BG cleared. I'm not hiding anything. That part of the screen was unimportant to my discussion. Also, there was only 1 BG, as was stated. It doesn't look like you know this game after all.

Appleisgod

Did you expect to win with 5 people?

DarthPhal

So run a full team. Problem solved

DNA3000

BowlSheet wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

BowlSheet wrote: »

Regardless, our alliances were pretty closely matched. However we only had 5 members and they had 10 playing. It's clear by the kill counts that we had much more skill. They got the win just because they had extra players. The win shouldn't be guaranteed to the team with more players. The game should be based on skill. That's why the United States Marines are awesome.They are the FEW, the proud. Not the many, the bad aims. You should be able to win with skill and not cannon fodder.

The win isn't guaranteed to the team with the more players. The win is guaranteed to the team that does the most to win. Wars are not won by the side with the most skilled soldiers. They are won by the side that actually defeats the other side. And in war, one side does not get to complain the other side showed up with more guys.

It actually is guaranteed. All the bonus metrics are geared towards size of team. Plus, that is my precise experience. Every time we had less numbers we lost. Every time it was even numbers, it was up in the air. Every time we had more participants, we won. Data beats opinion.

We've beaten alliances with 30 full members using only 28 attackers in the past. Those data points directly contradict the conjecture that the win is *guaranteed* for the team with more players. You are at a disadvantage if you bring fewer players. If you bring sufficiently fewer players that disadvantage could be insurmountable if the difference between your skill level and your opponents is insufficiently high. But the game doesn't simply hand the win to the alliance with the most participants.

At best, all you can say is that the win is guaranteed to any alliance that faces your alliance with at least one more member. But that's a statement about your alliance, not alliance war.

BowlSheet

Appleisgod wrote: »

Did you expect to win with 5 people?

After seeing how easily we cleared and how difficult it was for them, yes! I just never paid attention to size before. Our previous losses, the size disparity seemed coincidental, so I never really paid attention.

BowlSheet

DNA3000 wrote: »

We've beaten alliances with 30 full members using only 28 attackers in the past. Those data points directly contradict the conjecture that the win is *guaranteed* for the team with more players. You are at a disadvantage if you bring fewer players. If you bring sufficiently fewer players that disadvantage could be insurmountable if the difference between your skill level and your opponents is insufficiently high. But the game doesn't simply hand the win to the alliance with the most participants.

At best, all you can say is that the win is guaranteed to any alliance that faces your alliance with at least one more member. But that's a statement about your alliance, not alliance war.

At best, I can say this applies in a 1 BG situation. A 3 BG situation like you describe is significantly different.

DNA3000

BowlSheet wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

We've beaten alliances with 30 full members using only 28 attackers in the past. Those data points directly contradict the conjecture that the win is *guaranteed* for the team with more players. You are at a disadvantage if you bring fewer players. If you bring sufficiently fewer players that disadvantage could be insurmountable if the difference between your skill level and your opponents is insufficiently high. But the game doesn't simply hand the win to the alliance with the most participants.

At best, all you can say is that the win is guaranteed to any alliance that faces your alliance with at least one more member. But that's a statement about your alliance, not alliance war.

At best, I can say this applies in a 1 BG situation. A 3 BG situation like you describe is significantly different.

You're presupposing that in the situations I'm mentioning, the full battlegroup(s) were able to compensate for the not full one. You're mistaken. In those wars we won, every single battlegroup cleared 100%, and thus every single battle group regardless of amount of players would have beaten their opposing battlegroup in a single battlegroup war. If a battlegroup of 9 can score more points than a battlegroup of 10 in any war, then regardless of surrounding circumstances that proves the number of players does not predetermine the winner of the war.

BowlSheet

DNA3000 wrote: »

You're presupposing that in the situations I'm mentioning, the full battlegroup(s) were able to compensate for the not full one. You're mistaken. In those wars we won, every single battlegroup cleared 100%, and thus every single battle group regardless of amount of players would have beaten their opposing battlegroup in a single battlegroup war. If a battlegroup of 9 can score more points than a battlegroup of 10 in any war, then regardless of surrounding circumstances that proves the number of players does not predetermine the winner of the war.

You're presupposing that you are a credible source of data. You sound a lot like you're making stuff up, though. So we will have to agree to disagree.

unknown

This content has been removed.

BowlSheet

Fredhorst23 wrote: »

I'm sticking to my guns here. Preparedness gets more points than anything else. Get an alliance of 30 active people. That's your fastest route to success. It's this kind of complaint that lets kabam brush aside serious topics as whining nonsense.

It's only whiny nonsense because you lack the faculty to understand my position.

And are you talking about serious topics like "Annual downtime numbers"? I mean, seriously. I am laughing so hard right now. Thank you for that.

muddy17

Let me get this straight... Your crying because u went a full bg for war and 5 ppl attacked.. And they had 10... Well exploration wins wars buddy not just boss kills..