New Alliance Wars Matchmaking System & Season 8 Details

145791035

Comments

  • Tjk602Tjk602 Posts: 52
    What if we want wars and just have two week off season versus one week off and one preseason? I prefer the rewards
  • I don’t like the idea of starting wars at 11am pst.

    That is time when most people in my alliance are either at work, in school, or sleeping (because they either work graveyard shift or evening to middle of the night).

    Most of wars we’ve done have been started around 5pm pst because that time fits best with the largest number of our members.

    Most of our members are in USA though we have at least one in UK and in the past we have had members in Australia and India too.

    Starting wars at 11am will mean vast majority of our members won’t be able to fight in wars for several hours after they begin nor for several hours before they end.

    Also, not being able to fight at beginning and end of a war, will have result of fewer energy to use in the war because there is less energy accumulation when fight times are contiguous than when a long time at work (or other) is between them. As it has been, we sometimes don’t have enough energy to reach the boss. Starting at 11am will make this much more common unless wait time for energy is reduced.
  • MaatManMaatMan Posts: 958
    Tjk602 wrote: »
    What if we want wars and just have two week off season versus one week off and one preseason? I prefer the rewards

    Wars probably need to be down to allow for the new system to come into place properly.
    It wont be available till after the new update.
    But moat importantly i dare say this is to combat tanking to try and ensure alliances start off the new season under new matchmaking as close to where they finish this season as possible

  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    MaatMan wrote: »
    @xNig look at the amount of comments here saying the timing is an issue. Does that not show you it is an issue for many people.
    everyone should work together.
    The game should allow flexibility in your life.

    Keep the timing as they plan to but reduce / remove linked nodes.
    Have only links linking minis.
    That way pths can be taken as peeps are available but bosses still cant be cleared till everyone is done.
    Surely this has gotta benifit everyone.
    @Kabam Miike is removing linked nodes on paths something that can be looked at?
    That way everyone gets the benifit of these improvements but without potential timezpne issues

    It’s only the vocal minority that basically says it’s an issue. What about those that aren’t saying anything?

    To put it into perspective, after you eat at a restaurant, how likely are you to post a good review compared to a bad one should the experience go either way?
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    edited February 4
    MaatMan wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    MaatMan wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    MaatMan wrote: »
    Andrewkole wrote: »
    Also I hear what people are saying about the start times.. but every single alliance has 24 hours to complete the map... that is the same as before. They aren’t dictating which hours you want to use to do so.

    Noted it will hurt alliances with random people in other places in the world.

    if an entire BG is in the same / similar timezone it will be no issue at all....
    if a BG has 2-3 different timezones it could become very very hard.
    if the boss killers are from AUS it could be really band as most aussies will be asleep for the last 6hrs of war

    Then don’t wait till the last 6 hours of war before opening the boss up. What happened to the 18 hours (and the 3 energy given once Attack phase starts) before the last 6 hours?

    Lol dude....
    Dont think you understand the term “international alliance.
    So ....
    We have americans asleep.....
    Aussies are awake and waiting for americans to unlink us....
    Americans wake up but now it is like midnight in AUS and aussies are sleeping...
    War ends at 6am before us aussies wake up...

    It goes like this.....
    Lunch time for aussies and europeans are asleep.
    Evening time for aussies and americans are asleep.
    Now coming to end of war and aussies are asleep.

    Much much harder to co-ordinate bgs.
    When we could have war start / end 9-10am aussie time everyone is awake.
    Now it wont be.

    See for example right now it is 1pm aussoe time.
    Maybe i have an american waiting to be unlinked by a sleeping european.
    The european wakes up but now the american is asleep.
    Me being the aussie is waiting for the american to unlink me.
    He wakes up but now i am asleep and cant finish my path before war ends.

    What i am saying is it is going to be much much harder for international alliances.

    @Kabam Miike did you guys think bout this??
    Only easy solution is to not be an international allinace....
    And thats not wat we want. We dont wanna have to kick peeps just to be able to do war

    Then swap up the pathings so it's easier to coordinate.

    If you get an Aussie and American to tag team to clear the middle lanes, that's on your path planning right?

    For eg, because the bulk of my alliance is almost from the same timezone (GMT+8), we have the american/european guys help with Paths 1/3/9 first so when we are sleeping, they can still move efficiently. Then when we are awake (and they are sleeping), we finish up the remaining paths and coordinate to clear the middle. At around 10pm my time, the americans/europeans are awake and we take down the boss together.

    Similarly, another BG has an European with predominantly GMT+8 members. He's asleep from 8am to 4-5pm my time. So he helps with the middle path (7-6), which means he can clear his first tier when he's awake, go to bed while the others start clearing the other paths to unlink him, wake up and come on to coordinate to clear the middle.

    Like I said, it just takes just abit more planning on the pathing. You cannot expect changes to be made to accommodate your own alliance and yours only. For the greater good of the community (i.e. not needing to stay up late to start matchmaking, removing collusion and bad mismatches etc), these changes are needed.

    It sure as hell makes things alot harder. Esp when people have lives too.
    Also not everyone has he right champs/skill for certain paths so they have the path they are best at.
    Now we need to spend hours and hours restructuring our bgs and maybe finding replacments and hopint that people can complete their new path assignments.
    We play this game for fun and this just further adds to the stress level of war and means tha now we are going to have to be very demanding of peoples times.

    Yes we needed changes but you cannot ignore the fact that this change very adversly affects international allies.

    My bg1 which is all gmt +8 and +10 will finish in about 12 hrs.
    My other 2 bgs are going to really really struggle now just because of timing.

    Also gmt makes it alot better too cus as you say americans are awake at 10pm ur time. Thats not until midnight in my timezone.
    Thats a huge difference.

    You cannot deny the fact that this makes things alot harder for alot of people and there may very well be alot of alliances that struggle to complete due to this.

    There could have been these chamges made and had the option of 2-3 different start / finish times. Or the attack window could be increased to 30 hours.
    That way there is more time that removes this stress and wars will still be completed in the same timeframe as they are now.

    Just because it is ok for you doesnt mean it is ok for everyone.

    True enough. It makes things harder, but that doesn’t mean you do not adapt and make the necessary changes, instead of wanting Kabam to bend over and accommodate your needs when there is a bigger picture of alliances having mismatches, intentional collusion, and other myriad of issues with the current system affecting the integrity of the game.

    To end it all, look at the comments against these changes in the matchmaking system.

    The vast majority of them start with “I’m against this because my alliance...”

    See the bigger picture from a community perspective instead of from your own well.
  • MaatManMaatMan Posts: 958
    edited February 4
    xNig wrote: »
    MaatMan wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    MaatMan wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    MaatMan wrote: »
    Andrewkole wrote: »
    Also I hear what people are saying about the start times.. but every single alliance has 24 hours to complete the map... that is the same as before. They aren’t dictating which hours you want to use to do so.

    Noted it will hurt alliances with random people in other places in the world.

    if an entire BG is in the same / similar timezone it will be no issue at all....
    if a BG has 2-3 different timezones it could become very very hard.
    if the boss killers are from AUS it could be really band as most aussies will be asleep for the last 6hrs of war

    Then don’t wait till the last 6 hours of war before opening the boss up. What happened to the 18 hours (and the 3 energy given once Attack phase starts) before the last 6 hours?

    Lol dude....
    Dont think you understand the term “international alliance.
    So ....
    We have americans asleep.....
    Aussies are awake and waiting for americans to unlink us....
    Americans wake up but now it is like midnight in AUS and aussies are sleeping...
    War ends at 6am before us aussies wake up...

    It goes like this.....
    Lunch time for aussies and europeans are asleep.
    Evening time for aussies and americans are asleep.
    Now coming to end of war and aussies are asleep.

    Much much harder to co-ordinate bgs.
    When we could have war start / end 9-10am aussie time everyone is awake.
    Now it wont be.

    See for example right now it is 1pm aussoe time.
    Maybe i have an american waiting to be unlinked by a sleeping european.
    The european wakes up but now the american is asleep.
    Me being the aussie is waiting for the american to unlink me.
    He wakes up but now i am asleep and cant finish my path before war ends.

    What i am saying is it is going to be much much harder for international alliances.

    @Kabam Miike did you guys think bout this??
    Only easy solution is to not be an international allinace....
    And thats not wat we want. We dont wanna have to kick peeps just to be able to do war

    Then swap up the pathings so it's easier to coordinate.

    If you get an Aussie and American to tag team to clear the middle lanes, that's on your path planning right?

    For eg, because the bulk of my alliance is almost from the same timezone (GMT+8), we have the american/european guys help with Paths 1/3/9 first so when we are sleeping, they can still move efficiently. Then when we are awake (and they are sleeping), we finish up the remaining paths and coordinate to clear the middle. At around 10pm my time, the americans/europeans are awake and we take down the boss together.

    Similarly, another BG has an European with predominantly GMT+8 members. He's asleep from 8am to 4-5pm my time. So he helps with the middle path (7-6), which means he can clear his first tier when he's awake, go to bed while the others start clearing the other paths to unlink him, wake up and come on to coordinate to clear the middle.

    Like I said, it just takes just abit more planning on the pathing. You cannot expect changes to be made to accommodate your own alliance and yours only. For the greater good of the community (i.e. not needing to stay up late to start matchmaking, removing collusion and bad mismatches etc), these changes are needed.

    It sure as hell makes things alot harder. Esp when people have lives too.
    Also not everyone has he right champs/skill for certain paths so they have the path they are best at.
    Now we need to spend hours and hours restructuring our bgs and maybe finding replacments and hopint that people can complete their new path assignments.
    We play this game for fun and this just further adds to the stress level of war and means tha now we are going to have to be very demanding of peoples times.

    Yes we needed changes but you cannot ignore the fact that this change very adversly affects international allies.

    My bg1 which is all gmt +8 and +10 will finish in about 12 hrs.
    My other 2 bgs are going to really really struggle now just because of timing.

    Also gmt makes it alot better too cus as you say americans are awake at 10pm ur time. Thats not until midnight in my timezone.
    Thats a huge difference.

    You cannot deny the fact that this makes things alot harder for alot of people and there may very well be alot of alliances that struggle to complete due to this.

    There could have been these chamges made and had the option of 2-3 different start / finish times. Or the attack window could be increased to 30 hours.
    That way there is more time that removes this stress and wars will still be completed in the same timeframe as they are now.

    Just because it is ok for you doesnt mean it is ok for everyone.

    True enough. It makes things harder, but that doesn’t mean you do not adapt and make the necessary changes, instead of wanting Kabam to bend over and accommodate your needs when there is a bigger picture of alliances having mismatches, intentional collusion, and other myriad of issues with the current system affecting the integrity of the game.

    To end it all, look at the comments against these changes in the matchmaking system.

    The vast majority of them start with “I’m against this because my alliance...”

    See the bigger picture from a community perspective instead of from your own well.

    Dude i dont think you even read what i said.

    I know these changes are needed.
    I know that people abusing aw needs to stop.
    I am not against them as a whole.

    Heck i even offered two other potential solutions that would allow things to be fixed but also have a better timing for people.

    It seems to me that you love it cus you are banking on the fact some will struggle and hoping that means ur alliance does better.

    I am thinking about the whole community you are not.
    You have the narrowminded tunnel vision here.
    You like this because it fixes a problem.
    So do i.
    But i can also see another problem here and want that fixed.
    You dont.

    Dont be happy to accept a half job.
    Ask for the full job to be done.

    This whole thing is great. Now lets get a timing that works well for everyone.
    As i said lengthen attack phase and it fixes this issue.
    All the benifits of the new system reamain without the downside.

    I will glady accept these changes for the benifit of fairer wars and fairer war system for all.
    I am just stating the downside and asked it be looked at.
    Everyone should always look at the positives and negatives.
    Always ask to fix the negatives.
    The negatives here can be fixed without harming the positives.
  • Haji_SaabHaji_Saab Posts: 2,516
    So when do we replace people? Or are we supposed to go with 29 people? if someone quits / gets kicked?

    May be I am missing something here?
  • MaatManMaatMan Posts: 958
    Haji_Saab wrote: »
    So when do we replace people? Or are we supposed to go with 29 people? if someone quits / gets kicked?

    May be I am missing something here?

    Not missing anything.
    You can recruit during enlistment.
    So basically once a week.

    If you need to replace someone between war 2 and war 3 you cant.
    You either kick them before and have them missing during war 2 so u can recruit for war 3
    Or you kick them after war 2 but then they wint be available for war 3 as matchmaking starts straight after war 2 ends.

    So really the only opportunity is at the conclusion of war 3 and prior to matchmaking for war 1

    Less than ideal really.
    I would like to think it is not something i will have to worry about but if someone does need replacing it is gunna be hard.
    War with only 29 is not ideal although i can say i have won a few like that.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    MaatMan wrote: »

    There could have been these chamges made and had the option of 2-3 different start / finish times. Or the attack window could be increased to 30 hours.
    That way there is more time that removes this stress and wars will still be completed in the same timeframe as they are now.

    Just because it is ok for you doesnt mean it is ok for everyone.

    Dude i dont think you even read what i said.

    I know these changes are needed.
    I know that people abusing aw needs to stop.
    I am not against them as a whole.

    Heck i even offered two other potential solutions that would allow things to be fixed but also have a better timing for people.

    It seems to me that you love it cus you are banking on the fact some will struggle and hoping that means ur alliance does better.

    I am thinking about the whole community you are not.
    You have the narrowminded tunnel vision here.
    You like this because it fixes a problem.
    So do i.
    But i can also see another problem here and want that fixed.
    You dont.

    Dont be happy to accept a half job.
    Ask for the full job to be done.

    This whole thing is great. Now lets get a timing that works well for everyone.
    As i said lengthen attack phase and it fixes this issue.
    All the benifits of the new system reamain without the downside.

    I will glady accept these changes for the benifit of fairer wars and fairer war system for all.
    I am just stating the downside and asked it be looked at.
    Everyone should always look at the positives and negatives.
    Always ask to fix the negatives.
    The negatives here can be fixed without harming the positives.

    First of all, if you wanna talk and claim that you’ve provided solutions, ensure they’re well thought through. Your solutions are ridiculous. Having 2-3 start times makes sure that matches between alliances are narrowed and the system becomes easy to manipulate again. Increasing attack phase to 30 hours, with 4 hour match making window, makes it so that alliances have 14 hours to place their defenders. And someone will say it’s insufficient time because they’re sleeping through the 14 hours especially over the weekends.

    No I don’t see that my alliance will do better. It’s just playing the game as usual because we start AW as soon as possible to guarantee a match. If there are changes, and we can do something about it, we have worked and will work around it, even if it means going through a tough transition phase.

    The problem here is people are unwilling to adapt to changes and make the necessary adjustments to make things work out.

    You mentioned that your alliance will need to put in “hours and hours to restructure BGs and possibly look for replacements” etc. Look man, that’s on you. It’s something YOUR alliance can work around but REFUSE to put in the effort to do so. Instead, you highlight it as a potential “problem” so Kabam can offer the solution to you.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    Haji_Saab wrote: »
    So when do we replace people? Or are we supposed to go with 29 people? if someone quits / gets kicked?

    May be I am missing something here?

    You can replace people anytime but it seems that the optimal period is during maintenance.

    Otherwise it’ll be before the war ends, provided you get the new guy in. This causes them to forfeit their war rewards but in the grand scheme of things, it’s really relatively minor rewards, esp if both alliances are losing their current wars.
  • xNig wrote: »
    SSGNick556 wrote: »
    What about the current matchmaking system failing to match alliances and they end up missing wars during season as a result?! Like now. My alliance has been matchmaking for 2 hrs and nothing and now our season is screwed! This is BS!!

    This system was put in place exactly to combat that. Read the announcement.

    Look fella I appreciate you feeling like you should chime in but your message doesnt help my alliances situation. 30 of us will now lose are status and rewards that we've worked for for the past 4 wks.
  • Fabi1989Fabi1989 Posts: 112
    Can you give a answer what you will do against Shell alliances?
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    SSGNick556 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    SSGNick556 wrote: »
    What about the current matchmaking system failing to match alliances and they end up missing wars during season as a result?! Like now. My alliance has been matchmaking for 2 hrs and nothing and now our season is screwed! This is BS!!

    This system was put in place exactly to combat that. Read the announcement.

    Look fella I appreciate you feeling like you should chime in but your message doesnt help my alliances situation. 30 of us will now lose are status and rewards that we've worked for for the past 4 wks.

    How long from the cutoff did your alliance start matching? What’s the war rating and tier?

    You can’t blame Kabam or expect compensation because no other alliance was searching at the time you were.
  • Was any other alliance in Platinum 3 bracket left without an opponent for the last war of the season? Just wondering how many got screwed. Caused us to drop to gold 1
  • Carmel1Carmel1 Posts: 215
    @Kabam Miike
    can you consider changing the timing a bit, to fit bit better the time you usually release AQ/SA rewards so new players that want change alliances can collect their rewards first?
    or at least to change starting time of AW attack to be closer to the time AQ start (12pm - 1pm PST) so it won't hurt players with smaller roster that run AQ map6 with champtions that usually are place on defense.

    i also recommend to add new feature to the alliance leader to automatically join the AW pool (with an option to run 1/2/3 bgs) so if there are alliances that most of their leadership is in India Timezone they don't need to worry about wake up in the middle of the night to click the "join" button (4 hours window is too short for some)
  • DKTDKT Posts: 13
    Easy way to render the time zone issue is reduce timer for energy. Make it about strategy and not inconvenience
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    Carmel1 wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike
    can you consider changing the timing a bit, to fit bit better the time you usually release AQ/SA rewards so new players that want change alliances can collect their rewards first?
    or at least to change starting time of AW attack to be closer to the time AQ start (12pm - 1pm PST) so it won't hurt players with smaller roster that run AQ map6 with champtions that usually are place on defense.

    i also recommend to add new feature to the alliance leader to automatically join the AW pool (with an option to run 1/2/3 bgs) so if there are alliances that most of their leadership is in India Timezone they don't need to worry about wake up in the middle of the night to click the "join" button (4 hours window is too short for some)

    I think you’ve mistakened. You can click “Enlist” for the next war anytime during the current defense phase, attack phase or maintenance. This gives the leadership 48-72 hours to click the “Enlist” button.
  • This is hilarious everyone complaining about the now having timing issues with war. If you can complete AQ then you can complete war, and war takes half the energy AQ does.
  • Carmel1Carmel1 Posts: 215
    xNig wrote: »
    Carmel1 wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike
    can you consider changing the timing a bit, to fit bit better the time you usually release AQ/SA rewards so new players that want change alliances can collect their rewards first?
    or at least to change starting time of AW attack to be closer to the time AQ start (12pm - 1pm PST) so it won't hurt players with smaller roster that run AQ map6 with champtions that usually are place on defense.

    i also recommend to add new feature to the alliance leader to automatically join the AW pool (with an option to run 1/2/3 bgs) so if there are alliances that most of their leadership is in India Timezone they don't need to worry about wake up in the middle of the night to click the "join" button (4 hours window is too short for some)

    I think you’ve mistakened. You can click “Enlist” for the next war anytime during the current defense phase, attack phase or maintenance. This gives the leadership 48-72 hours to click the “Enlist” button.

    Thanks. I missed that part.
    Still wish they consider to move the start time to match the AQ timing or AQ/SA rewards

  • MaatManMaatMan Posts: 958
    edited February 4
    This is hilarious everyone complaining about the now having timing issues with war. If you can complete AQ then you can complete war, and war takes half the energy AQ does.

    But the linked nodes in war are worse. Which slow down aw compared to aq. Aq is much more free to move.
    I do map5 but some do map 3 due to level of activity if they need to do map3 to make it work then it shpws how timing woth less links is already an issue.

    1 path relies on on another to unlink
    That relies on another
    That relies on another.
    Remove the linkes on the paths.
    Only keep links on minis and bosses
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 7,044
    Lagacy wrote: »
    Can you look at taking out some links in AW now? With war ending at tough times for many people dropping some links would be a HUGE help. Running the middle paths are awful enough when you can choose when your war starts.

    I hear you bro trying to coordinate middle can be so annoying, I wish link nodes were just taken out all together let people take their lanes on their own time.

    I wouldn't mind if they keep the ones going to the mini and main bosses. But all the ones at the start and middle are just annoying. Adds unneeded stress and hassle.

    I tend to agree. Furthermore, the early links seem to run counter to the point of the portals which was to allow players options on pathing and to prevent one stuck path from derailing the map. My guess is that the AW designer(s) want some actual alliance coordination to be part of the game mode, thus the "back and forth" links in the middle. They probably think that because it really only requires two players to do that zig that it is a reasonable imposition.

    I think the problem actually is more of a global problem. The center wouldn't be a big deal by itself if you could just find a couple people to run it. But then you have the separate problems that the left side is super long, so you have further constraints on who you send that way that can clear the links all the way to the top without signing off and the end of their local day. Those constraints can mean that the shorter right side paths get started later, which can delay the right side of the middle.

    Simultaneously solving the problem of which players to put on which path based on who's better at which nodes, and also which players to put on which path based on timing requirements and the need to clear links, sometimes has no good solution. No one thing is a difficult problem to solve but all of them simultaneously is something that is more difficult, and the more dispersed your alliance is the harder it becomes to solve everything simultaneously.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 4,204
    This is hilarious everyone complaining about the now having timing issues with war. If you can complete AQ then you can complete war, and war takes half the energy AQ does.

    Energy is used differently in War and AQ. In AQ you can login for one fight and take out a link. Lots of nodes can be taken down linked. Everyone who is up can attack the boss. In war it is often unreasonable to do one fight because if boosts are needed people need to be able to use them for multiple fights. Many paths require people to be on at the same time for this to work. Some bosses are best soloed with a specific champ, and if the boss kill is 4:00 am for the guy with the ranked version of that champ it can be an issue. In AQ you can take the boss linked and just let people clean up when they get on. Not saying the new start time won't be manageable but the idea that it won't be an issue because it's not an issue in AQ is wrong.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 7,044
    This is hilarious everyone complaining about the now having timing issues with war. If you can complete AQ then you can complete war, and war takes half the energy AQ does.

    I was thinking about this statement, and rather than just ridicule it I realized that deep in here is a potential solution to at least some problems. The problem I think many alliances realize is that it isn't energy, it is energy efficiency. Map 5 takes about 150 energy while AW takes 98 (I believe: I might be off by one or two). So AQ does take more (not twice more, but whatever). But Map 5 has only eight distinct paths while AW has nine, and AW has more cross linking especially at the start. I never get to burn all my energy because I'm quickly capped out before my path gets unlocked. So even though AW requires less energy, many players also have less actual energy to run it than they do AQ due to these inefficiencies.

    Suppose we increase the AW energy cap from five to ten. This does not in any way increase the amount of energy players receive from the game to run AW. But it does reduce the likelihood of capping out on energy, and it means players have a better chance to use the energy they are granted.

    Suppose an alliance is asleep right at the fixed start time. They have a distinct disadvantage relative to other alliances because when they wake up they could have had up to eleven energy points given to them (three plus an eight hour night) but they only get to use five of them. They have essentially lost six energy - sixty energy points for an entire battlegroup. That's actually more than the energy difference between AW and AQ Map 5. Increasing the energy cap means they won't lose most or all of that energy, and while they will lose the time they will have an opportunity to make it up because they can still spend the energy.

    It doesn't solve the problem of fixed start times but it does soften the blow for a lot of alliances and it doesn't really "give" players anything they themselves were not getting by shifting start times to optimize energy burning in the first place. Again: it doesn't solve all path coordination problems, it just seems to help in a lot of ways.

    If you were burning energy efficiently before and can still do so now, this does nothing. If you were burning energy efficiently before but the change will impose bad inefficiencies in your energy usage this might reduce that problem to manageably levels. But it doesn't really improve any alliance's performance relative to what they are currently doing now unless you're not even reaching the boss now, in which case this might help a little. That seems to be a minor buff in the grand scheme of things to address an undesirable side effect of the new match making system.
  • MaatManMaatMan Posts: 958
    @xNig i never said reduce defence to 14 hours.

    I actually said how it would push the time
    Of each war a bit.
    Now you have 6 wars run over 6 days plus about 8 hours.
    Use that same timing to help. A war phase could run for 28hrs being exactly the same as it is now.

    Also i dont need to make sure my ideas are planned out exactly.
    Its to start a thought on possible options. Not final idea.

    But wat about removing the links on the paths?
    That is a good idea.

    Also atleast i am trying to help make everything perfect.
    This is not going to be ideal for everyone.
    Lets ask for a solution that is ideal.

    Either way a fix to the timing issues is highly desirable.
  • While the attempt to help correct some of the issues with AWs, which I applaud, are noble and well meaning. But we are now witnessing the results of unintended consequences. Consequences which I believe have immense problems. Problems many have been addressing in the thread.

    Those who don't seem to be effected, choose to attack those who believe they will be. And then say something about the person needing to think about the community.

    I would merely turn that on its head and say those this works for have forgotten about the community, because they are going to be just fine. An individual alliance is not the community, rather the entirety of all of the alliances are the community.

    I will write more later addressing specific issues, using logical and rational arguments to support my case, instead of insults and attacks.

    I will toss out a little food for thought. What if the matchmaking took into account each player in an alliance's average score of their top 8 champs and took that into account.
    This would directly address matching up a team against a much tougher one, which has been dropping games on purpose, in order to set themselves up for a number of easier Wars in which they will rack up points galore.

    People really need to give this a lot of thought and not be reactionary or make conclusions before taking the time to figure everything out first.

    Thank you all!

    -THE DUDE
  • Drooped2Drooped2 Posts: 2,206
    While the attempt to help correct some of the issues with AWs, which I applaud, are noble and well meaning. But we are now witnessing the results of unintended consequences. Consequences which I believe have immense problems. Problems many have been addressing in the thread.

    Those who don't seem to be effected, choose to attack those who believe they will be. And then say something about the person needing to think about the community.

    I would merely turn that on its head and say those this works for have forgotten about the community, because they are going to be just fine. An individual alliance is not the community, rather the entirety of all of the alliances are the community.

    I will write more later addressing specific issues, using logical and rational arguments to support my case, instead of insults and attacks.

    I will toss out a little food for thought. What if the matchmaking took into account each player in an alliance's average score of their top 8 champs and took that into account.
    This would directly address matching up a team against a much tougher one, which has been dropping games on purpose, in order to set themselves up for a number of easier Wars in which they will rack up points galore.

    People really need to give this a lot of thought and not be reactionary or make conclusions before taking the time to figure everything out first.

    Thank you all!

    -THE DUDE

    Prestige was terrible for aq let's not take the worst of one game mode and force it into another
  • xNigxNig Posts: 2,824
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Like I said, it just takes just abit more planning on the pathing. You cannot expect changes to be made to accommodate your own alliance and yours only. For the greater good of the community (i.e. not needing to stay up late to start matchmaking, removing collusion and bad mismatches etc), these changes are needed.

    Like I said previously, I'm actually in support of the change, and have been for quite some time. But anyone who thinks that the fixed time situation is always easy to solve for all alliances is to but it bluntly wrong. Sure, on paper it is always mathematically possible for an alliance to complete the map for any start time. Assuming everyone's availability is the same during their waking hours, assuming nothing comes up, assuming that you can put the right people on the right paths considering only link timing and not, say, which paths different players might be good at, and assuming you don't actually need the reserve play to be actually in reserve and can just burn energy where ever.

    I coordinate my battlegroup. I assign the paths, I work out timing. Anyone who thinks they can somehow rearrange our paths so that everything completes quicker and at all given the composition of my battlegroup is either a genius or an idiot. And the safe money is not on genius.

    I plan and assign paths for 6 battle groups across my 2 alliances. I’ve coordinated international alliances before as well. We always complete on time even during festive periods. Do you need help?

    You can drop me a pm.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 4,204
    xNig wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Like I said, it just takes just abit more planning on the pathing. You cannot expect changes to be made to accommodate your own alliance and yours only. For the greater good of the community (i.e. not needing to stay up late to start matchmaking, removing collusion and bad mismatches etc), these changes are needed.

    Like I said previously, I'm actually in support of the change, and have been for quite some time. But anyone who thinks that the fixed time situation is always easy to solve for all alliances is to but it bluntly wrong. Sure, on paper it is always mathematically possible for an alliance to complete the map for any start time. Assuming everyone's availability is the same during their waking hours, assuming nothing comes up, assuming that you can put the right people on the right paths considering only link timing and not, say, which paths different players might be good at, and assuming you don't actually need the reserve play to be actually in reserve and can just burn energy where ever.

    I coordinate my battlegroup. I assign the paths, I work out timing. Anyone who thinks they can somehow rearrange our paths so that everything completes quicker and at all given the composition of my battlegroup is either a genius or an idiot. And the safe money is not on genius.

    I plan and assign paths for 6 battle groups across my 2 alliances. I’ve coordinated international alliances before as well. We always complete on time even during festive periods. Do you need help?

    You can drop me a pm.

    There is no help for the boss kill will be in the middle of the night for some people lol. Doesn't mean it isn't manageable but I wish we had a little more flexibility with start times.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 7,044
    xNig wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Like I said, it just takes just abit more planning on the pathing. You cannot expect changes to be made to accommodate your own alliance and yours only. For the greater good of the community (i.e. not needing to stay up late to start matchmaking, removing collusion and bad mismatches etc), these changes are needed.

    Like I said previously, I'm actually in support of the change, and have been for quite some time. But anyone who thinks that the fixed time situation is always easy to solve for all alliances is to but it bluntly wrong. Sure, on paper it is always mathematically possible for an alliance to complete the map for any start time. Assuming everyone's availability is the same during their waking hours, assuming nothing comes up, assuming that you can put the right people on the right paths considering only link timing and not, say, which paths different players might be good at, and assuming you don't actually need the reserve play to be actually in reserve and can just burn energy where ever.

    I coordinate my battlegroup. I assign the paths, I work out timing. Anyone who thinks they can somehow rearrange our paths so that everything completes quicker and at all given the composition of my battlegroup is either a genius or an idiot. And the safe money is not on genius.

    I plan and assign paths for 6 battle groups across my 2 alliances. I’ve coordinated international alliances before as well. We always complete on time even during festive periods. Do you need help?

    You can drop me a pm.

    Saying I coordinate my battlegroup communicates the fact that I'm aware of the specific challenges of my alliance and not just guessing when I say the problems are unavoidable. Saying you coordinate multiple battlegroups so you can solve someone else's alliance issues without actually knowing what they are just communicates you aren't a genius. Given that, and the fact that I'd like to still have an alliance and not a smoking crater in the ground compels me to decline your invitation for assistance.
Sign In or Register to comment.