**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
AW Diversity should be only be the tie braker.
Farseer123456789
Posts: 54 ★
I get that diversity encourages people to not just place IronmanIW, Medussas and MODOKs. However in terms of points it should count the least and decide a tie. Case in point we lost a war where we clearly out skilled our opponents. We even had one of our guys not get a chance to place their defenders due to work. So our opponents had to fight less defenders. We cleared ball the bgs, had higher exploration and attacker bonus, yet lost. The balance in the score sheet needs to be changed.
1
Comments
1. "So our opponents had to fight less defenders." That's not how war works: you don't get credit for making it easier on your opponents. If you don't place defenders that doesn't mean the opponents should get less credit for defeating you, that means you get penalized for not showing up.
2. Diversity does in fact count the least. You get only 30 points per diverse defender. You get up to 240 points for defeating a defender: 80 points per attack bonus. That doesn't count the points you earn for exploring the node. So in terms of "balance" diversity is only worth one eighth of a full kill: it can't get much lower without disappearing entirely.
3. Maybe diversity should have been just a tie breaker when it was first introduced, but that ship has sailed. Diversity in the current iteration of war cannot simply be removed or relegated to a tie-breaker only because diversity works in conjunction with attack bonus: they are inseparable. Placing the strongest possible defenders decreases your opponent's likely attack bonus, so the incentive is to place a few strong defenders everywhere. But if you go overboard and do that to a high degree, you will eventually lose a lot of diversity points. So there's a cost-benefit analysis that goes into when to place strongly and when to place diversely that forces players to think strategically about what the best balance is, rather than only placing for maximum diversity or only for maximum strength. It is imperfect, but it at least creates an opportunity for strategic thinking on defense.
If you remove all diversity points and use diversity only for ties, then you strongly incentivize placing only the absolute strongest defenders everywhere, and forfeit the rare occasional tie in favor of doing everything possible to eliminate attacker bonuses. You also make war more costly for all attackers, because defenses will become far stronger as there would no longer be an incentive to place anything but the toughest defenders.
The bottom line is that it is easy to characterize this war as you beating them on exploration and attack bonus and "only" losing on diversity, but that's misleading. You *barely* beat them on exploration and *barely* beat them on attack bonus while they *whomped* you on diversity. Alternatively, the way most experienced alliance war fighters are likely to look at this is that your opponents placed an almost fully diverse defense which means they didn't place very many duplicates of the hardest defenders, and yet you could only scrape up eight more attack bonuses against what had to be a much weaker defense. That means you didn't prove yourself to be the better attackers given the current rules of war.
They had slightly more deaths taking on a significantly harder defence. If they placed 100 diversity you definitely would have lost.
It is hard to say that with certainty; what is certain is one side chose their defensive strategy better. One side went for a lot of diversity points thinking the other side wouldn't be able to take advantage of that, and they were right. The other side placed strongly thinking they would get a lot more defender kills, and they were wrong.
This has led to wars where they have narrowly beat us on attack bonus that we have been able to scrape through because of diversity.
I think you underestimate the hours of planning that go into getting good diversity. Need to colate everyones rosters, work out who hat the best what and so on and so on. Everytime someone ranks someone new you may need to switch around 3 or 4 peoples defence to make it fit without losing diversity.
This is a huge effort and should be rewarded.
I have lost so many hours of gameplay cus i have spent the time strategising and planing defence. This deserves to pay off with potential wins cus of it.
at 143070 from my experience you would be very lucky to win anyway.
we are scroing approx over 145000 every war and sometimes still narrowly lose. i think every war this season if we had of scored under 145k we would have lost.
and we are currently only t10 with a WR of 1300.
we started the season at t14 with a WR of 1000
so count yourself lucky that 143k almost got you a win.