What defense do you have?
Day 1: Attacks 3-2 (bad luck there) : 1 defense (lost)
Day 2: Attacks 5-0 (really good luck): 1-7 defense
Day 3: Attacks 5-0 (really, really good luck. Iām doomed on Day 4, I fear): 0-3 defense thus far.
Safe to say, I will have an E on all four days of defense. Attack has me in top 5% at the moment.
1 Like
Defence team Agwe-Kiril-Wilbur+11-Caedmon-Sabina+10
Day 1 - 2W-0L (A grade)
Day 2 - 0W-1L (still A grade)
Now with result 11-2 in attack (spare two flags to fill my next hero chest) and 2-1 in defence Iām in top 1%
Third day:
Defence: 1-0 Grade A
Attack: 11-4
I was attacked the night of day 1 and luckily won that. Havenāt seen any more attacks since.
One thing that I donāt understand, is the points you get for your attacks. On one team with 3451 points I won and got 596 points. This team had 10 class levels in total on all its hereos. Another team with 3609 points, beat him and got 595 pointsā¦ this last player had 42 class levels in totalā¦ it is very strange pointing systemā¦
Hi Barry,
i have boldtusk as tanā¦ 4-70+11 team: chao 4-70 caedmon 4-70+9 boldtusk 4-70+11 triton 4-70+10 rigard 4-70+10 and iāM grade eā¦ like you attacked so many times that i canāt cout it anymore and loosing 9 out of 10 attacks against my teamā¦
i did as wellā¦ boldtusk 4-70+11 thought it would be a good choiceā¦ but grade e and countless lossesā¦
1 Like
Be happy to, and this may get lengthy, so please stick with it.
The match-making is fixed. The scoring is not, and itās causing (imho) a major imbalance. If you look at the leaderboard, youāll notice not one person below a commander level 36 is on it.
Given that some players below that have gone 10-0 and would have solid defenses, how is that possible?
The answer is that the system is slotting difficulty points not based on your own teamās relative ability to match against a defense but rather by what the system deems a defense to be worth.
We can see this with Gee333 above. Before they took losses on attack, they were 568, 575, and then 544 after the losses. However, that came after 3 losses in a row, which means that they were Gee333ās first losses of the tourney because you only get 4, and their load out screen makes it clear that they only have 3 losses and not none, ruling out a gem reset. I would guess they are a top squad around 3400-ish based on scoring.
Comparatively, Iām running a 3600-ish squad pushing 3700 as a max team score. My wins are 598-602 a piece so far, before losses, and even after two losses yesterday, I was in that range.
Now, the rationale given is that once a defense is beaten, the difficulty drops, so it is worth less. Ok, letās run with that. If we assume all defenses fresh out of the gate are worth 600-ish points regardless of team power/commander level, this means that Gee333 had the unfortunate luck of drawing teams that weāre already beaten several times by the time they faced them while I had the great luck of facing teams two days in a row that had never been attacked/barely been attacked, especially when I attacked yesterday about 10 hours into day 2.
Ok, maybe thatās possible. Small sample size and all that. Somewhat unfair, but not a real issue, I suppose, assuming it was even across the board and 2400 TP teams were picking up 600 points for wins as well. But Iām not seeing that anywhere.
My theory is that I think it more likely that the computer reads the top 5 of a team and sets a value for the defense with only minor changes for losses. This starting value is the issue because it tiers the tournament.
Put another way:
Team A has a max TP of 2400. They start drawing teams worth just over 500 points a win. They go 5-0 and finish with a score of 2524.
Team B has a max TP of 3700. They start drawing teams with a max starting score of 598. They go 5-0 and wind up with a score of 2991 day 1.
Thatās a 467 point difference in score for two different players playing at their relative difficulty level. Over 4 days, assuming this stayed the same and all attacks are won, you would see an over 1800 point difference over the course of the tourney.
Team A would then have a harder time placing into a higher tier not because of player ability, but because of factors with the scoring system. Since weāre all on the same flag count, team A has no way to gain ground and move up and is capped at a certain score regardless of what they do.
It seems incredibly unlikely to me that there is no one out of the million plus players in this tournament below level 36 that has managed to go 10-0 facing high value opponents while having a decent A/B defense. If the value on everything was equal and relative, we should be seeing a mix of players of all levels in the top 100. We arenāt.
And if the response is āwell, how come some level 30ās are hanging around level 70ās thenā, well, there are only so many 4* characters and commander level 30 plus has them and theyāre leveled. Iāve got 17 fully ascended and Iām a 36, which is more than enough to match up in attacks. In other words, levels are different, but theyāre in the same pool because of star restrictions (in a 5* tourney, this wouldnāt be the case in all likelihood).
Commander level 20 plus is probably getting them, but probably doesnāt have the mats yet to ascend enough of them. So they face teams relative to them, but which arenāt worth as much even though they should be because the player canāt control that.
Tl;Dr: it seems that these tournaments are biased in scoring towards those who best meet the requirements rather than having an even scoring system that allows all players the equal opportunity to reach the top tiers based on their wins/losses at their difficulty level. This creates an imbalance where the rich get richer and furthers disparity (and frustration) because there are no ways around it; you have your max tier because your score is artificially capped, and thatās it, which is a problem for an equal playing field for all.
Day 1: 3:3 Grade B
Day 2: 7:10 Grade C
Day 3: 9:8 Grade C
Overall: 19:21 (40 attacks) 47.5%
Score: 10.126 Top 1% currently at rank 1.451
My tournament defense won 14 times and lost 27 times, that makes 41 recorded attacks overall.
You cant get much fairer than allowing a FTP like myself to be able to place in a good tier on every 3 and 4 star event like we have had so far. Yes I have been playing awhile, but my selection of heros are for the most part standard and all non-emblemed. Anyone has a chance to do this.
A level 25 player will not have a strong as a roster making it less likely for the 4*, but they should have no issue with the 3* event. Iām not sure how fairer they can make it while allowing competition.
Your explanation is the basis of something I have been demanding on this tournaments:
Show us the board around the last player who is making into top 1%!
Why would I be interested in knowing who is in first place? This tournaments are not like events were only first place gets the best loot.
In tournaments you can be at 10000th position and still get the best tier loot. And Iām pretty sure that position doesnāt need a perfect 20/20 attack.
If we can know how many points are needed to enter into top 1% we will avoid so many frustration of people seeing that top 100 players get a lot of points, more than any other can achieve
I donāt doubt anyone can get into a good tier, though what one considers good is relative.
Placement isnāt my argument, though.
Iām wondering why weāre seemingly OK with a scoring system that handicaps a percentage of the players negatively each tournament before they even fight a battle because they start at a place where they canāt score as many points as someone else simply because their roster isnāt developed as much as someone else.
Battle 1: Team A fights a team that is 100 TP below them. They are 2500 TP; opposition is 2400. They get 500 for the win.
Team B fights a team 100 TP below them. They are 3600; opposition is 3500. They get 600 points for the win.
Team C fights a team 100 points lower than them. They are 4100; the opposition is 4000. They get 650 points for the win.
The relative difficulty of the opposition to the player in each scenario is the same, yet Team C earns 150 points more than Team A. Further, Team A and B have no mechanism in play to gain ground on C. If all attacks are equal, Team A is likely to finish quite a bit behind B and C for no other reason than what? They arenāt as developed?
That isnāt competition. Thatās tiering and then giving a handout.
And if you think that this isnāt a big deal, consider this:
Day 3, The number 1 player has 10783 points. The 99th has 10711, so a 72 point difference. I have 8013 for a 2770 point difference and am ranked 73397. If 50-70 points is 100 slots, then this handicap largely prevents some players from ever getting into the 1 percent tier simply because of where they start.
And this is before we even get to how restrictions inherently help the haves already; please SG, make the next one of these 5* fast Mana no purple allowed. We need that.
There are ways to get better scoring without hand waving and saying āwell, everyone will get their turn for the big rewards some timeā, which just strikes me as wanting to come up with a reason to hope something will work when it clearly doesnāt, at least for everyone.
Also, forgot to completely update my stuff:
Day 3: 12-3 attack, 8013 points. Rank 73397/10 percentile.
Defense: corner Aife, 0-28 defense. Grade E. No team lower than 3389 TP has attacked me.
The plea goes out again: if you have beaten Aife senseless, what did you get for it? Give me the score and a photo. It would illuminate quite a bit. Thanks.
Yeah, more transparency would help. I donāt know why they wonāt provide it, and I definitely donāt think you need the 20/20 attack, but the more you lose, the more the defense has to cover you, which is a problem.
Moose, in your example, if Team A and Team B both win all 20 raids (or letās say the same number whatever it is) Team B should finish generously ahead of Team A. Because they are a better team. Team A should not have the opportunity to get a Top 100 score, becauseā¦they have a relatively weak team. Iām sorry, all other things being even, better teams should place higher. That is how competitions work.
The idea that weaker teams should have the opportunity to place higher than well-developed teams is completely asinine. You want to place better? Build a better ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā team. I took the time and patience to build up a strong, solid bench of 4 stars and have been applying emblems to the most strategic ones. Yes, I should have the opportunity at the better loot.
1 Like
And you want a raid tournament that rewards the āhavesā? Do a 5 star tournament without purple so everyone with Guin is virtually guaranteed 900 points a day. There is no situation I can even think of that rewards spenders more.
I would love to see that picture too.
Now your 1-woman defense, just an Aife in a corner and no one else, just 1 hero, gets attacked 28 times.
Maybe more because after 5 attacks per day the 1 hour filter gets activated.
And a defense like mine, with all 5 heroes, 4* fully maxed, gets only 3 attacks in the whole tournament so far.
And with 6 of this tournaments make me wonder: Why there is still so much randomness on attack distribution?
If the system allows your 1 woman defense to be found by that many opponents. Why not just adding a counter for how many times a defense is found, so that no defense can be found again until everyone gets the same number in their counters?
That will totally ensure everyone gets the same amount of attacks, no matter if itās your solely Aife or any standard 5-man team.
Opportunity to place higher than a more well developed team, no matter how well that team performs. I guess the only solution is to continue the tournament until everyone has picked up a loss on attack. Well, rumor is the devs will add another day to the tournament anyway. But riddle me this. Bigger players attack bigger defenses, and get more points for it. But smaller defenses get attacked by smaller attacks, yet they score every bit as well for a successful defense.