Maybe I missed a notice about an amendment (there have been a few!) In this war I defeated a 3500+ team for 50 points and a 3600+ team for 48 points! I was still under the impression that points were allocated based on the defense team power. I was aware that matchmaking was being done based on the best 30 heroes of your roster but was not aware of a change to the points allocation method. Have I missed something or has this been an unannounced change?
Points are not based on TP, but the teams health pool. Not something new. 
Sorry repeating what I said is not an answer. When did it change from the defense team power in relation to the whole alliance to something else. I can not find any reference in the change logsâŚ
As far as I know it was never defense team power. I canât recall not seeing health as the driver of points. I was picking apart this disparity (when using attacks) from day one of AW it feels like. Then I got less selfish and go for the higher TP/challenge teams.
From the start of alliance wars a teamâs point value has always been based on that teams total health points as a percentage of the total alliance health points.
(Team Defense Health points / total alliance defense health points) * 1000 is the formula for âAvailable Pointsâ.
âVictory Pointsâ are now âAvailable Pointsâ divided by 2 and rounded up.
itâs never been proportional to team power, only team health (including adjustment from troops), even as far back as first beta.
the 20 points down to 10 is the âminimum bonus points possibleâ, but not the actual bonus points for each team⌠it could have been worded better.
Well I certainly felt stupid having not noticed a fundemental part of the Wars after all this time. Then I went back to the Alliance War Overview of Feb. 22nd. It stated that âA fixed amount of points is distributed between the members of the Alliances depending on the strength of each member.â
Granted it does not say team power but neither does it say team health. Since team power is actually the rating method that is shown by SG I think it was a reasonable inference that that is what was meant by the term âstrengthâ! I would wager that most mid to lower Alliances would not be aware of this distinction, just as my Alliance was not aware.
Danteâs reassurance that it had been this way right from the beta testing and others blatantly stating that I had missed the obvious is only obvious if you have been involved in the inner circle of beta testing or of those in the know. Of course Iâm sure some forum post could be found where this has been mentioned. However the basic mechanics of the Wars should have been more clearly stated by SG as information important to everybody not just those who deemed worthy.
In general I have found the E&P community to be generally supportive allowing for the personalities involved. However I have found the way that this query was dismissed, including by some seen as leaders in this community, as rude and insulting.
2 Likes
I think youâre reading in too much in the answers given. Really.
When I wrote that the points are based on HP and not TP, and that was not something new, I didnât suggest you were stupid, and I was not trying to be rude. Nor do I experience anybody else here being rude. I (also) never stated that the point system was obvious, and/or that you missed something obvious. I myself assumed the point system to be TP-based earlier.
I was just stating the fact. I was at work, where Iâm not supposed to spend time on E&P forum, and wanted to give you an answer. I wrote two quick, simple statements containing the information you actually needed. I was not trying to be rude. I even put a winking smiley there to let you know.
You are ABSOLUTELY right when arguing that SGâs wording would indicate points being based on TP rather than HP. Thatâs SG for you. A lot of people probably still assume this. That doesnât mean theyâre stupid. My guess is that even a bunch of beta testers assume this.
Thereâs no secret/special inner circle of beta testers - we are often left in the dark, making it hard to actually test certain aspects and mechanics. Thereâs no special group deemed worthy getting special treatment, information-wise. Not that I know of, anyway. Some of us spend a lot of time figuring things out by ourselves, and sharing that information in chats and on the forum. Sometimes a staff might answer or clarify something in a thread, to great joy for anybody noticing it. Sometimes a staff might pop in to the ingame chat rooms and answer or clarify something, to great joy for anybody noticing it.
Your query was not dismissed - it was based on a non-factual assumption, which was not your fault, and answered as such. You were given both facts, some background and associated information. And I donât think anybody meant to be rude. And nobody accused you of missing something obvious. Because itâs not obvious. And nobody did accuse you of it. Or I missed it, in which case theyâre just mean, because itâs not something obvious.
(Sorry for any bad englishâŚ)
Oh, I couldâve used a better wording here: âPoints were never based on TP âŚâ to put it into proper context.
I can see how you assumed I was maybe only refering to the change you thought had been introduced, and not to the fact that points were never based on TP.
Thanks for the reply Ornery. Agreed sometimes the reading is in the interpretation on the motive of the writer. Hoverevr I have to disagree on some fundamental points.
Yes my belief was based on a inference of the information given, not the accurate facts. The facts were then presented without any background or associated information.
I donât think anyone set out to be rude but neither did anyone explain how this misinterpretation could have happened and that it should have been obvious (after all it had been that way since the beta testing and players had been taking this into account right from the start of the wars) Except for those that had not had this clarified.
(The majority of us!)
That kind of apologizing response is something you might hope to expect from anyone actually responsible for the misunderstanding. Like SG. 
But you wonât get many answers from SG here.
I didnât think this was such a serious matter that you actually needed a background - you thought it was one way, and was told it was another way. Then other people actually contributed with a background. If you had some underlying thoughts regarding either the points or your perceived change in the points system, it wouldâve helped if you included these in your post.
You feel that you were somehow judged for not knowing about the point system, and I donât think you were. I really donât mean to sound harsh.
Try to see the forum and threads like a place for discussion. If you want something clarified - say so. It would be impossible for people to always take everything into account when responding. Some people just want a yes/no answer, others want more context.
Just a couple of points and then I think this could be put to bedâŚ
Agreed this was not such a serious matter. The difference between using team health and team power is so negligible that I hadnât even noticed it until now. However to say I didnât need the background is not fair. Surely it should be my call whether the background is important and not for others to decide for me?
I still do not see where other people contributed any background. Defining the formula used or how the bonus points were changed were not background.
I never suggested that the inner circle of beta testers were secret or special. Just that they have an insight that others do not have. I do follow the forums looking for information about upcoming changes from beta testers and recognise that they are also limited by the fact SG may change things between testing and release.
You have suggested I should see forums and threads as a place for discussion, if I wanted something clarified -say so. I thought that is what I was doing when I started this thread. What I was missing was discussion - all I received was statements of fact.
Anyway as we have both mentioned different people have different needs and personalities and it just goes to show how different people can interpret what is written.
Thanks to all who at least did respond. I now know how the points are allocated and how I missed it originally.
Yes. This certainly is (and was) way, way past this issues bedtime.
(By the way - if youâd done a forum search, youâd have found the question already being answered.)
I tried a forum search first and came up with lots of weird and wacky threads. The answer may have been in there but it wasnât obviousâŚ
One more add - crystal clear, easy to interpret language is not a strong suit of this game, at timesâŚthis is an example of one of those times.
Agreed, and thanks for your contributionâŚ
There is clearly something wrong with wars when your teams clear the board not once, but two 1/2 teams away from twice and the other team clears it once and we lose. Not only that, but because of this, the respawn timers allowed them to pick on the worst teams in the alliance and make up a 800 point deficit. You need to either fix this or stop wars. It just makes it not fun and frustrating.
Thank you for clarifying this @Ornery and @Dante2377. We noticed the same thing in my alliance a few months back. I had the war def team with the highest âpowerâ rating but my team was worth a few points less than the 2nd place power-rated team. We both noticed it but had no idea why it was, until now. Thx Again and a great day/night to you two!