So far, our alliance is 7-0 in alliance wars, but only 2 or 3 of them have been competitive. The other 4 or 5 (I can’t remember the exact number), the opponent decided to have most of their defense teams composed of one weak hero with only a few teams with an actual serious defense team. These matchups have resulted in complete routs. The points just end up getting distributed to the actual defense teams and therefore when they are defeated, we win a ton of points.
I can understand this happening in the first couple of alliance wars with teams thinking they are gaming the system and not realizing that this is a bad strategy. However, at this point, I don’t know why teams are still doing this. Are teams trying to lose on purpose?
The overwhelming majority just don’t understand, the vast majority of players aren’t on Line / Forums / whatever. It’s only a tiny fraction of us that participate here.
They see some other alliance do it, they see there’s only a few points gained from that, and then they try it themselves not understanding why and either they get blown out and re-evaluate, or win and continue.
It’s just going to take a while for people to work through it and it may not ever 100% go away. People don’t learn from other’s mistakes, but yes this is a poor strategy.
As has been established here and elsewhere the one hero strategy seems like people are just shooting themselves in the foot. The only thing I think we can do is try to prevent our own alliances from falling into this trap. Myself and a co-leader from my own alliance prevented a different member from attempting exactly this not too long ago. The other unfortunate problem is that sometimes alliances see a victory from this same flawed strategy and replicate it because of that. The only thing we can do is keep winning wars against this “Strategy” sometimes repetition is the only solution to the problem.
I also feel we should keep discussing it on the threads here just on the off chance that someone sees the discussion, even if they don’t reply, and maybe lessen the problem one player at a time too.
I think @Revelate is right: it’s about information. In a pure game theory environment without extra communication like this then flawed strategies will persist for several iterations, depending on how widespread they are and how faulty they prove to be. How quickly they die off will depend mostly on how consistently effective opponents are at defeating them.
The extra communication offered by the forum and apps like Line should vastly accelerate this process, though, so I’m going to assume it we’ll stop seeing it pretty quickly, unless there’s some other aspect to it that we haven’t identified. (Some sort of protest, maybe?)
Even in a theoretical game theory environment with purely rational actors, a few victories will keep a flawed strategy around for a surprisingly long time, because the noise of each victory will drown out the signal of more than one loss. In a real life environment, where humans are victims of confirmation bias as well as dozens of other perceptive and analytical failings, this is exacerbated even further.
So please, do not lose to this silly tactic, or it may never go away entirely.
I have not fought in a war for a while, summer job, that being said I think wars have changed and as others have said something has changed in the formula that is the best guess I can give you in response.