edit: as shown below, the part of the premis of conceding less is flawed. However, given the lack of consistent correlation between team power and points awarded, if alliances are able to repeatedly target teams with low team power and high points awarded, they may be able to gain a significant number of points on net.
I haven’t yet seen a discussion on this, apologies if there already is, and please advise if there already is one.
What do you guys think? Is there a case for developing war defense teams that consist of a (potentially attacky type of) tank backed up by glass (or, more specifically, soft centred) cannons?
I’m asking this because, in war, points seem to be awarded not directly in proportion to team power but more specifically in proportion to the health points of fielded heroes. (I’m guessing that they do things this way to make things easier with the math/s).
I was curious to check how things worked so, during the last two wars, I conducted the following in-alliance survey:
Key-
TeamPower
Initial letters of members’ player names
Bonus points for victory (first war - 20 opted in)
/ Max Current available points (second war - 19 opted in)
Bonus points for victory (second war…)
Total health points (second war…)
4617 Ma 32 / 60 30 7919
4765 JG 31 / 59 30 7818
4682 wo 31 / 59 30 7783
4538 *M 31 / 58 29 7668
4608 T.I 30 / 56 28 7457
4582 Sp 30 / 56 28 7390
4236 Dr 30 / 56 28 7300
4104 Ra 29 / 55 28 7230
4352 Ju 29 / 54 27 7181
4376 pa - / 53 27 6934
4078 Ja 28 / 52 26 6903
4004 bu 27 / 52 26 6810
4193 Wa 27 / 51 26 6682
4089 .RE 26 / 50 25 6608
4063 Ge 27 / 51 25 6620
4057 Ru 27 / 50 25 6601
3622 De 26 / 49 25 3627
3263 6th 20 / 39 19 5010
3779 Il - 50 25 6605
With similarities to those drawn from the first war, here are some comparisons that I drew from the second war:
one alliance member’s defence team will concede 60+30 points for tp 4617 while another’s just 59+30 points for tp 4765 with a proportionate difference of, ((60+30)/4617)/((59+30)/4765), 4.3%.
one member’s defense team concedes 58+29 for tp 4538 while another’s just 56+28 points for tp 4608 with a proportionate difference of, ((58+29)/(4538)/((56+28)/(4608), 5.1%
one member’s defense team will concede 56+28 for tp 4236 while another’s just 54+27 for tp 4352 with a proportionate difference of, ((56+28)/(4236)/((54+27)/(4352), 6.5%;
one member’s team conceded 52+26 for tp 4078 while another’s just 50+25 points for tp 4089 and 26 with a proportionate difference of, ((52+26)/(4078)/((50+25)/(4089), 4.2%, or, according to first war relevant data, (28/4078)/(26/4089), 8%.
In consideration that most wars are won by small margins, the stats above look pretty significant and it seems to me that they may call for a slight paradigm shift. Instead of solely fielding teams that a difficult to kill, we may be better fielding teams that can provide the greatest possible defence for as practicably low number of health points as possible.
What are the practical implications on all this on teams to develop and to target?
Which heroes would best/better service a soft-centred glass cannon role by having proportionately great strength in attacks and shielding in relation to their health point totals?