“I’d like to better understand what you’re saying here:”
I appreciate the dialogue. Believe me, I’m happy to discuss (though I was busy at work, so sorry for the lack of an immediate reply).
"1. Are you saying you think an attacker who beats a 4000 TP defense with a 3500 TP attacking team should get more points than an attackers who beats the same 4000 TP defense with a 4000 TP attacking team? (ETA: I’m not saying I necessarily disagree. It would certainly at least add another interesting element to the attacking strategy.)
2. How does it “make losses hurt less for those higher teams?”
I think the two posts that followed our posts earlier explained it (we start in different scoring tiers by team power, limiting points per win for lower team powers and advantaging higher team powers because they can get more for wins to start and for a loss combined with the 4 loss limit being much more hurtful to the lower team).
I do think that if team power is representative of the overall difficulty of the match for the player (TP 4000 being a supposed superior team to TP 3500, for example), then if TP 3500 beats TP 4000, they should get more for it. That just seems logical to me…but that also isn’t how this is working either. More on that in a minute.
“Where are you getting this from? What do you mean by “tiers?””
Again, I think Draco and shmup-o have it covered, but I’ll try to add.
It became evident last tournament due to screwing around and connecting some dots that it isn’t our teams that we field that matter, but rather where the system decided to place us. I offer 2 pieces of evidence:
Havok333 in response to my inquiry informed me that he received 598 points for a win over a 3 hero defense team. This was in line with the point totals they had received for defeating other full 5 hero teams.
I played corner Aife with a 1* troop as my defense. I did this on purpose, and I was attacked over 30 times. All losses. Others played similar less full defenses as well on purpose or by accident.
Havok’s response combined with a lack of complaints anywhere about players losing points to less than full defense squads (i.e., “ban this SG because I lost points on an attack because they didn’t field a team”) would point to the player themself being assigned a value on defense at the start of the tournament and it doesn’t matter what defense they set because it changes nothing.
In other words, if I set a 5 hero defense all made out of fully leveled 5*, it has the exact same value to the attacker as if I set one 1* hero with a 1* troop.
But wait, it gets dumber. Ex: I set that one 1* hero/1* troop defense, and the computer decides it’s worth 620 points if it is defeated because it reads my best five as 3700 TP.
Player B at a max 2700 TP, sets the exact same corner one 1* hero/1* troop defense, but the system decides that because the player is TP 2700, it’s only worth 520 points to defeat it.
How can that be? What sense does that make at all? All things being equal, a single 1* hero should be harder to beat at a lower team power, yet they’re worth less because…reasons?
And yes, it’s anecdotal. But this is a forum that, as I pointed out elsewhere, will demand compensation on a 20 second server outage because amazingly every alliance was just about to kill a 12* Titan and that ruined it and it escaped.
A four day tourney with a bunch of teams with less heroes than the full count on defense and crickets on lost points attacking because of less than full defenses. So I think we can start to draw some conclusions there.
'I dunno about all that. I mean, look at European professional soccer. There’s the whole promotion/relegation thing. Or look at college football, where a team like Boise St. can go undefeated and still not get a spot in the playoffs. Neither of those are perfect comparisons, but neither is your NHL example…"
Fair enough (BTW, I tend to think the NCAA is hopelessly corrupt…but that’s going way off topic).
“But I don’t understand what you mean by the , “can’t make up ground due to losses” part of the comment. If you don’t win all your attacks, then how can you make an argument that you should still be competing for a top spot?”
Obviously, if you lose regularly and early, you don’t deserve a top spot. My issue is that in this system, 23-2 could wind up behind 21-4 or 20-4 simply because of scoring despite facing similar difficulty for the level that the players are at.
For example, a player that went 25-0 and started at 500 points for their first win and got 4 additional points for each subsequent win (504, 508, etc.) would finish the tournament on attack with around 13,300 points. If their defense was meh, and they only picked up another 2000 in defense over the 5 days, they finish at a total of 15,300 points as a final score.
The top player on the board just over halfway through day 4 has 15,778 points. And there’s still half of day 4 and all of day 5 left.
So this player in the example needs 25-0 and a good defense to have a prayer, and if they take a single loss or two (likely), there’s almost no way to gain that back. That just seems backwards in about every way one can imagine.
I hope that this helps to clarify where I’m coming from. I have a 3700 team and I’m fine in this tourney (1 percent; a good day tomorrow solidifies it), and I have an arsenal behind it for 3* tourney’s, but I really wish they would balance the scoring. It just feels so out of whack to me (the matching is fine; it appears they’ve fixed that).
In any case, thanks for the conversation.