IMPROVEMENT: AW points awarded more fairly



My proposal is: All participants get double points upon the kill instead of awarding all bonus points to last player.

Current system:
-defending team is worth 30 points
-player A kills most of the team and gets 20 points
-player B kills the rest using some low lvl heroes and gets 10+30 points

-defending team is worth 30 points
-player A gets 20 points
-player B kills the rest and gets 10 points
-bonus points for kill: player A gets 20 bonus points, player B gets 10 bonus points


Why? Just curious, it doesn’t matter which individual position you end up, loot tier is either winner or looser. I tell all my members just repeatedly individual points don’t matter. Some people are better at taking out tanks and some like mopping up. I only look at participation, not at points (well certain people are just really really bad at raiding and war, so I notice their points ofcourse and plan to coach them :wink: ).


I also do not see why you would change this.
As @Konijntje already mentions it doesn’t matter who scores what points. Teampoints decide if you win or lose and there is no better/bigger/more reward for scoring more points.

I enjoy it to weaken up opponents that I for sure can not beat. But I want to take out a few of the team so somebody else can come and clean the last members of that team. I am not a big scoring person in wars but try to make sure we down the most players we can.


Morning, @zodd. I am very competitive so sort of disagree with @Konijntje and @HarryDeB. Yes, in the end it is the total score that counts but at the same time, but when you take a team down to 1 hero with 9 hit points left, it would be nice to get some of the bulk of the credit. I totally understand where you are coming from in that regard. But, the war is a team effort so basically the idea is to take them out when you can, weaken them when you can’t so the next alliance member can help increase the total war score.


It doesn’t matter to the alliance, but it does to individuals. Believe me, members check top attackers and evaluate their performance/contribution based on points. When the war is lost and their score is low they are frustrated (well, even when it’s won). Or when they appear as top attacker after the war, they are proud of themselves. This is the truth. You can tell them thousand times that it doesn’t matter, but it does to them. This is why individual score should be a more accurate metric.

Other option would be to completely remove individual scoring and to display just number of hits. Attack history can contain % of hp damage instead of points. And every team can be worth 100 points (you can’t kill anyone more than 3 times without reset so current point distribution is pointless anyway).


As a lower member on my awesome Alliance’s totem pole, I am in total agreement that points distribution needs to change.

I fully contribute, yes, but I can only take maybe one team out on my own, and it’s best for the team effort that I clean up for the last 5 turns.

I know that points don’t matter, but I hate being nearer the top of the leaderboard, because I didn’t earn that place…the person who left me a half-dead Rigard to finish off does!

We’ve had a few competitive people grumble, and rightfully so, because the whole idea of leaderboards is meant to visually reward players for their real-time contribution…and the current AW “leaderboards” are not that.

I hope to see changes made to the system so people finally end up correctly placed per their actual contribution!


It’s ironic right? When AW started I had 30 heroes. 15 of them were maxed 3* but it was enough to do cleanups and score over 300 points. Fast forward I have 5 teams of 70/80 and it’s much harder to get high score because I attack full teams, often over 4.1k TP with my B/C teams around 3.6k. Last week I scored over 400 but it’s because we were matched against weaker alliance with lots of targets around 3.7k. But most of the last wars were against top 10 alliances (including Departed). Killing Guin tank is worth 9 points, killing the rest 60…


@zodd Ironic, indeed! :slightly_frowning_face: