Why are so many of y’all getting upset about
The timing. The changes state that you can enlist for the next war while you are currently in one. So no one will ever miss getting to match up unless you just forget to enlist. And you still have 20 hours to place which is plenty of time regardless of time zones and 24 hours of attack so it really doesn’t matter where you live or what kind of schedule you have. You still have the same amount of time to complete war rather it starts at 2am or 2pm.
Valid question. I am not apart of condoning shell swapping, but I am taking a look at this from both sides.
Here’s the conundrum. Just because someone or some alliance has an end game roster, doesn’t mean they HAVE to face master alliances in AW every time AND win half of the matchups to stay at that level. Guess what happens if you get an end game alliance that decides “forget this. Don’t boost because it’s too espensive, we’ll probably lose and eventually fall back a tier.” Lower alliances will then see these big rosters.
I’m low-balling when I say 85-90% of plat 1 and master alliances boost every way (it’s more like 95-100%). If you aren’t boosting, the chances of you winning drops significantly.
Considering that, It’s inevitable that lower alliances will face these former master/plat 1 alliances. It’s unfair and unjust to say that those alliances must pay for boosts and win so lower alliances won’t face them.
So some alliances start AW seasons with a lower rating and face lower alliances in the beginning of the season, while other alliances stay put and fall back and face lower alliances towards the end of the season. Either way, lower alliances will face tougher matchups.
Also consider with more content to complete, more players/alliances are putting out better defenses.
I might be incorrect in my perception of this since I don’t have any direct insight on how shell swapping works. Just how I see things from the outside.
Why are so many of y’all getting upset about
The timing. The changes state that you can enlist for the next war while you are currently in one. So no one will ever miss getting to match up unless you just forget to enlist. And you still have 20 hours to place which is plenty of time regardless of time zones and 24 hours of attack so it really doesn’t matter where you live or what kind of schedule you have. You still have the same amount of time to complete war rather it starts at 2am or 2pm.
We are upset that we cannot pick the 24 hours we fight @Batman_6809 . In the old system, we would start a war search at 6:30pm CST, then fight from 7pm day 1 through 7pm day 2, finishing up when we could focus. With this new system, we are locked into the 2pm to 2pm the next day...finishing up while we are all busy at work. It will decrease our ability to focus on work or war...
Why are so many of y’all getting upset about
The timing. The changes state that you can enlist for the next war while you are currently in one. So no one will ever miss getting to match up unless you just forget to enlist. And you still have 20 hours to place which is plenty of time regardless of time zones and 24 hours of attack so it really doesn’t matter where you live or what kind of schedule you have. You still have the same amount of time to complete war rather it starts at 2am or 2pm.
War has different stages of attack. People keep saying there are 24 hours regardless. This shouldn't be hard. If much of the alliance is asleep at the start of attack phase it's all well and good. If much of the alliance is asleep for the end of the attack phase it's very different.
Valid question. I am not apart of condoning shell swapping, but I am taking a look at this from both sides.
Here’s the conundrum. Just because someone or some alliance has an end game roster, doesn’t mean they HAVE to face master alliances in AW every time AND win half of the matchups to stay at that level. Guess what happens if you get an end game alliance that decides “forget this. Don’t boost because it’s too espensive, we’ll probably lose and eventually fall back a tier.” Lower alliances will then see these big rosters.
I’m low-balling when I say 85-90% of plat 1 and master alliances boost every way (it’s more like 95-100%). If you aren’t boosting, the chances of you winning drops significantly.
Considering that, It’s inevitable that lower alliances will face these former master/plat 1 alliances. It’s unfair and unjust to say that those alliances must pay for boosts and win so lower alliances won’t face them.
So some alliances start AW seasons with a lower rating and face lower alliances in the beginning of the season, while other alliances stay put and fall back and face lower alliances towards the end of the season. Either way, lower alliances will face tougher matchups.
Also consider with more content to complete, more players/alliances are putting out better defenses.
I might be incorrect in my perception of this since I don’t have any direct insight on how shell swapping works. Just how I see things from the outside.
1. How an alliance chooses to fight wars factors into their performance, and match making by war rating matches conceptually by performance. This is generally considered to be fair match making in ratings-based competitions. In other words, if alliance A has a huge roster but chooses not to spend any resources on war and alliance B has a small roster but chooses to spend a ton of resources on war, and they end up with the same rating because in actual play they are about equally strong overall, it is considered fair to match them against each other. Yes, alliance B is spending more, but that is their choice and they benefit from that choice by being in a higher tier that earns higher rewards. Alliance A gets those same opportunities by virtue of building a stronger roster, which is an intrinsic advantage of building rosters.
2. This has nothing to do with shells. The idea behind shell alliances, at least in the form that most people complain about, is that there are advantages to fighting in lower tiers or just at lower rating in the same tier relative to higher ones in some cases, but the only way to get to a lower tier normally is to lose, which costs points. So there's an opportunity to manipulate the rating system by having two alliances: in one you put your main accounts that you want to win the best rewards, and you play as hard as possible to try to win as much as possible. This means you will likely end the season with a high rating. In the second alliance you put secondary or place holder accounts and you deliberately lose just enough to lower your rating to exactly the point you want. Then at the start of next season you swap: you put your mains in the shell, and you transfer the secondary accounts to the first alliance. Now you repeat: you go all out in the shell, while you deliberately lose in the first alliance just enough to reset your rating to what you want. Continue indefinitely. This allows you to start every season with the rating you want even if it is lower than the rating you deserve for the amount of times you won. This is very oversimplified just to illustrate the concept: in practice this is often done in more complex ways or in combination with dumping rating during the off season. The idea is if a bunch of people leave their alliance and join a shell, they will inherit the rating of the shell. Done right, they can reset their rating to whatever they want. Shells are used mostly because if you make a new alliance instead your rating gets set to zero, and that's lower than desired. The shell lets you "hang on" to a higher rating to reset to.
War has different stages of attack. People keep saying there are 24 hours regardless. This shouldn't be hard. If much of the alliance is asleep at the start of attack phase it's all well and good. If much of the alliance is asleep for the end of the attack phase it's very different.
We are upset that we cannot pick the 24 hours we fight @Batman_6809 . In the old system, we would start a war search at 6:30pm CST, then fight from 7pm day 1 through 7pm day 2, finishing up when we could focus. With this new system, we are locked into the 2pm to 2pm the next day...finishing up while we are all busy at work. It will decrease our ability to focus on work or war...
The start and end time has nothing to do with kabam though. If most of your alliance is asleep at a certain time than you should recruit for your area or have separate bgs for specific time zones. It doesn’t matter when it starts you still have to communicate with your alliance mates to clear each one of your paths.
War has different stages of attack. People keep saying there are 24 hours regardless. This shouldn't be hard. If much of the alliance is asleep at the start of attack phase it's all well and good. If much of the alliance is asleep for the end of the attack phase it's very different.
We are upset that we cannot pick the 24 hours we fight @Batman_6809 . In the old system, we would start a war search at 6:30pm CST, then fight from 7pm day 1 through 7pm day 2, finishing up when we could focus. With this new system, we are locked into the 2pm to 2pm the next day...finishing up while we are all busy at work. It will decrease our ability to focus on work or war...
The start and end time has nothing to do with kabam though. If most of your alliance is asleep at a certain time than you should recruit for your area or have separate bgs for specific time zones. It doesn’t matter when it starts you still have to communicate with your alliance mates to clear each one of your paths.
[/quote]
I think this is the problem. Most alliances have already recruited for that very reason. Now with this round of changes they’re expected to do it again. Many alliances have been together for years and are getting a little sick of being jerked around every couple of months when Kabam wants to try something different. War has been a cluster f ever since seasons came out. It’s split up many alliances and now looks like it might do it again. A lot of these guys are only hanging on because of friends anyway and the more unrest that war keeps causing is just making people quit.
Why are so many of y’all getting upset about
The timing. The changes state that you can enlist for the next war while you are currently in one. So no one will ever miss getting to match up unless you just forget to enlist. And you still have 20 hours to place which is plenty of time regardless of time zones and 24 hours of attack so it really doesn’t matter where you live or what kind of schedule you have. You still have the same amount of time to complete war rather it starts at 2am or 2pm.
We are upset that we cannot pick the 24 hours we fight @Batman_6809 . In the old system, we would start a war search at 6:30pm CST, then fight from 7pm day 1 through 7pm day 2, finishing up when we could focus. With this new system, we are locked into the 2pm to 2pm the next day...finishing up while we are all busy at work. It will decrease our ability to focus on work or war...
On that same line, would you also complain and blame Kabam if you were unable to get your 3rd match of AW in?
Why are so many of y’all getting upset about
The timing. The changes state that you can enlist for the next war while you are currently in one. So no one will ever miss getting to match up unless you just forget to enlist. And you still have 20 hours to place which is plenty of time regardless of time zones and 24 hours of attack so it really doesn’t matter where you live or what kind of schedule you have. You still have the same amount of time to complete war rather it starts at 2am or 2pm.
War has different stages of attack. People keep saying there are 24 hours regardless. This shouldn't be hard. If much of the alliance is asleep at the start of attack phase it's all well and good. If much of the alliance is asleep for the end of the attack phase it's very different.
But this also means that much of the alliance were awake since the start of attack phase, is that not right? It's 24 hours so assuming much of the alliance is asleep at the end of attack phase, this means they still had at least 13-14 hours awake when they could spend their energy..
The issue is people are jumping the gun and saying it will be “hard to coordinate”, based on their current path assignments.
Will there be issues? Definitely. Not even free gifts can please everyone in the community.
Are the problems unsolvable? No.
Have they tried making changes to see if such issues can be solved? I doubt so.
The problem with varied start times, is the issue with varied end times, which will make it such that collusion becomes possible again as people are separated into tranches.
Yes, I agree international alliances are harder to coordinate but all alliances fall into several country segments. For example, an international alliance might have 4 Indians, 8 Americans, 6 Europeans, 6 Australians and 6 Chinese from China (which is unlikely given how diverse such a group is. Most of the time there’s a majority [or two] amongst nationalities.)
Instead of looking at it from a micro perspective of individual BGs, look at it from an alliance perspective and shift the members amongst the BGs to facilitate coordination.
Like I said, such issues can be worked around. It just depends on whether the leadership of the alliance wants to put in the effort and whether they are willing to go through a transition phase.
The problem with shifting members amongst BG's is that for a lot of alliances BG's are not only based on timezone, but roster dependent too so that they have counters to most issues one might face in AW and are still able to do Map 5/6 smoothly. When you shift BG's, you mess that up. And you can't 'make' members get champs from anywhere, seeing that pulls are entirely RNG and we get **** pulls 90+% of the time.
Yes. Of course that's a problem. That's why it takes effort for leadership to advise members to rank up the correct champs, and also be more selective in who the alliance takes in in future. Change is always tough. But sometimes it is essential.
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.
Since AQ ends after the time for enlistment, that could potentially asking the new players to miss a whole week of AQ rewards ... this needs to be tweaked ... I would suggest either bringing AQ rewards forward or delaying AW match making time beyond 10 PM GMT.
Yeah AQ and AW overlapping might be a problem. But it has always been the case with regards to swapping members.
Something's gotta give, be it AQ rewards, AW rewards, or SA. So most of the time I'll get the consensus amongst the 2 players involved. Most of the time it's AW rewards or SA as, tbh, those few hundred 5/6* shards aren't really anything to shout about. Losing them once in awhile is not a big deal.
And wat would be wrong with only 12 hr defense window? And longer attack window. You didnt like that ifdea. Yet you would ve able to make it work.
Rn war takes 48hrs
4hrs matchmaking.
20hrs defence,
24hrs attack.
Surely
4, 16, 28 would work..... if someone cant log on in a 16hr window they are not gunna be much good to you when it comes to attack anyway.
I can assure you that you'll face the issue that there are people who won't be able to place defenders on time as well if defense phase goes for 16 hours only, especially on Friday/Saturday nights when people go for drinks after dinner and don't wake up 16 hours after that. (It's an easy 9pm drinks start, 3am drinks end, 5am sleep and 2-3pm wake up with a huge hangover. lol)
As the leader of my alliance, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. As a primarily SE Asia alliance, we are now inherently at a disadvantage. People say "just change paths", that's with the assumption that your members roster depth is capable of the path adjustments, as well as the time & availability to take on the new path. We started wars when it was best for our group, it was a general time. With linked nodes and energy restrictions to 5, this significantly reduces less mobile alliance that don't have the same flexibility as top Alliances. AW is fun but it's hard to swallow having to tell my teammates they need to set alarm clocks for us to be the most efficient.
TL;DR
Increase AW energy to 6-7 so that we can at least advance to each three phases of the map. This gives every ample opportunity to participate without reinventing the wheel.
My alliance is mainly SE Asia as well. Matchmaking starts at 3am for us. Has never been an issue.
Generally it's very straightforward. We wake up with full energy, prepare for work and spend some energy first (that's around 8-9am), go for lunch at 1-2pm with 3-4 energy and clear our next segment, finish up our paths and coordinate after work at 6-7pm, go for the boss kill after dinner and family time when the kids go to bed (around 10-11pm).
All in all, our fastest BG clear so far was at 3pm, which was around 6-7 hours after our first guy moved. Latest clear was 11pm because someone's kid didn't wanna sleep lol. We tend to finish around 6pm.
You can say that if AW now ends when I'm asleep the alliance can adjust to that by having someone else do what I do. That's not true, but lets assume it is true. How do *I* adjust to that? Do I quit my job and move to shift work, or do I set an alarm and wake up in the middle of the night to participate? Both of those are theoretically possible, but it is an unintended hardship. Moreover, there are solutions to them.
That's based on your assumption that everything is kept status quo and expect the system to bend around you instead of adapting and making changes to better suit it.
Players could also adjust to the current match making system. They could change their match times, they could take steps to avoid match failures. And they could just get better when fighting alliances far higher in rating. And statistically speaking, bad matches almost certainly affect fewer alliances than inability to shift times do, because bad matches are a very small percentage of all matches.
Players can adjust to anything. If that's a valid reason for not exploring solutions to the start time problem, it should have been used as a valid reason to not change AW and we could have saved a lot of time and resources.
Players have already adjusted to the current matchmaking system. The end result is having a huge variance in matching due to circumstances beyond the control of the alliance, such as other alliances searching for a match at the same time. The unified matchmaking removes this and puts the control back into the hands of the alliance.
The way I intend to adjust to the change is to advocate for adjusting it to account for the new problems associated with fixed start times. I'll keep doing so until the problem gets addressed.
I believe after the introduction of the system and after your alliance makes the necessary adaptations, there wouldn't be a problem.
Some things can be worked with.
Somethings shouldnt have to be worked with.
I co-ordinate my alliance too.
I know this is going to creat unnecessary headache and drama.
If i send the people on paths based only on timezones to ensure completion of bg with 8hrs left then i will have the wrong people on the wrong paths.
If i co-ordinate based on who is best for which path as i do now the bg wont be clear until 3-4 hrs before war ends at which time my boss killers will be sound asleep as it will be like 3-4 am for them.
So this leaves me with 2 options.
Kick people and recruit based in timezones to make things easier.
Or take the chance we may not get done.
Are you saying that your alliance members have only 1-2 attackers ranked up that they can only take 1-2 paths and those 1-2 paths only?
"Unnecessary headache and drama" for who? Since you're the one coordinating, you...? Isn't it leadership's responsibility to figure a solution out if they treasure their existing members and don't want to replace them? You signed up for it dude.
Whether or not this is possible for your alliance is not the question.
The fact is it is evident that a large amount of the community are going to have issue working with this and for benifit of the community it should be looked at.
There are options.
But there is no need for memebers of the communitity here to attack other memebers of the community
It's true, a large amount of the community will have issues working with this, but that doesn't mean people won't adapt and find ways around it. Before giving people a chance to work on and adapt to it, you're shutting it down and saying "it won't work" and want Kabam to solve the problem which has not been proven to exist?
But assumptions like this assume the bulk of the alliance is awake at the same time.
With linked nodes it gets hard. Someone waits 8hrs to be unlinked cus their mate is asleep. Then by the time they are unlinked they are already asleep. That is 16hrs of almost no activity.
Also just cus someone is awakendoesnt mean they can play.
Some people work 10hr days and cant play at all during that time. So get a small window of activity in the morning and the evening.
If they cant move efficiently during that time then they will be useless.
Are you saying that your alliance members have only 1-2 attackers ranked up that they can only take 1-2 paths and those 1-2 paths only?
Yes. Yes i am saying that in the case of some players.
I have some players with 1 4/55 for attack, 1/35 amd one 5/50.
If they are forced to change path they may be able to bring only 5/50 or lower.
Not everyone has a stacked roster.
I have players that do not have a decent ranked bleed or poison immune at all.
And itnis not their fault. They would rank one if kabam gave them on. @xNig you can see the increasing amount of frustration about this. But you still keep telling everyone to adjust.
Its not that simple.
And even if it was. Things should be made to suit the players. Not the players changing to suit kabam.
My life has a particular schedule. I cant change that for kabam. And i cant ask 29 other people to.
Not everyone can take dunny breaks long enough to play at work. Some people have kids and not so much time.
Wateva the reason there is an increasing njmber of people moving down tiers to step back to avoid the burnout of the stress of top tier stuff.
This just makes it worse.
And means even lower alliance now have increased stress and are not suitible anymore.
My alliance is made up and put ls people first.
We will not kick people to get vetter rewards.
Something like this punishes us for being loyal to our members
The start and end time has nothing to do with kabam though. If most of your alliance is asleep at a certain time than you should recruit for your area or have separate bgs for specific time zones.
It should go without saying that fixed start times don't make it impossible for Alliances to work around, if one of the options is simply replacing all the people in it.
The problem is that fixed start times hurts people not "alliances."
I believe after the introduction of the system and after your alliance makes the necessary adaptations, there wouldn't be a problem.
You believe a lot without knowing anything about me or my alliance, which suggests that you don't believe our problems are solvable, you simply believe our problems are irrelevant because neither the people in the alliance nor their situations are relevant. We can simply ask everyone to behave differently, or replace them if they can't.
You asked earlier if I wanted your help. You'd be the first person I kicked. And if our core leadership ever becomes like you, *I* would be the first person I kicked.
Players can adjust to anything. If that's a valid reason for not exploring solutions to the start time problem, it should have been used as a valid reason to not change AW and we could have saved a lot of time and resources.
Players have already adjusted to the current matchmaking system. The end result is having a huge variance in matching due to circumstances beyond the control of the alliance, such as other alliances searching for a match at the same time.
So by your own accounting, there was no problem. Which under your perspective makes the new match making system a solution without a problem.
I would like to think that most reasonable players felt that the current match system had issues, even if those issues didn't directly impact them, and that looking for a better system was worth Kabam's development time. If they were in fact reasonable, they would now acknowledge that the fixed match system contains its own set of problems which are also worth Kabam's development time to address. If they don't see it that way, then they were not being reasonable when wanting a match making change, they were just being selfish and didn't deserve the development time in the first place.
I would personally be far better off with the current system then the new one. But I would never oppose the new system on that basis alone. I'm obligated to support the new system if it is better overall, even if it is not better for me personally. I'm making the presumption that in the long run that's the better strategy. But I'm under no obligation to suffer people telling me that the problems I have are not actual problems, or that they are solvable if only I conform to their approach to playing the game or more importantly their approach to interacting with other players.
The issue is people are jumping the gun and saying it will be “hard to coordinate”, based on their current path assignments.
Will there be issues? Definitely. Not even free gifts can please everyone in the community.
Are the problems unsolvable? No.
Have they tried making changes to see if such issues can be solved? I doubt so.
The problem with varied start times, is the issue with varied end times, which will make it such that collusion becomes possible again as people are separated into tranches.
Yes, I agree international alliances are harder to coordinate but all alliances fall into several country segments. For example, an international alliance might have 4 Indians, 8 Americans, 6 Europeans, 6 Australians and 6 Chinese from China (which is unlikely given how diverse such a group is. Most of the time there’s a majority [or two] amongst nationalities.)
Instead of looking at it from a micro perspective of individual BGs, look at it from an alliance perspective and shift the members amongst the BGs to facilitate coordination.
Like I said, such issues can be worked around. It just depends on whether the leadership of the alliance wants to put in the effort and whether they are willing to go through a transition phase.
The problem with shifting members amongst BG's is that for a lot of alliances BG's are not only based on timezone, but roster dependent too so that they have counters to most issues one might face in AW and are still able to do Map 5/6 smoothly. When you shift BG's, you mess that up. And you can't 'make' members get champs from anywhere, seeing that pulls are entirely RNG and we get **** pulls 90+% of the time.
Yes. Of course that's a problem. That's why it takes effort for leadership to advise members to rank up the correct champs, and also be more selective in who the alliance takes in in future. Change is always tough. But sometimes it is essential.
Ranking up correct champs can only happen if you get them. As an officer, I have told a few people to prioritize rankups that will help them more on their path than another because they don't have some of the 'universal' champs. And after being in an alliance with guys for a couple years, you wouldn't want to dump them because they HAVE to change paths due to a timezone that is out of their control. And how do we foresee the future changes and plan according to that?
I agree that change is tough. And that Kabam has taken a firm stand to try and curb collusion. But couldn't a general consensus have been taken? Dumping a certain time on us that works for some was bound to spark up a debate like this. And there still are ways to help alliances out. Could reduce the energy timers, could increase the limit.
Are you saying that your alliance members have only 1-2 attackers ranked up that they can only take 1-2 paths and those 1-2 paths only?
Yes. Yes i am saying that in the case of some players.
I have some players with 1 4/55 for attack, 1/35 amd one 5/50.
If they are forced to change path they may be able to bring only 5/50 or lower.
Not everyone has a stacked roster.
I have players that do not have a decent ranked bleed or poison immune at all.
And itnis not their fault. They would rank one if kabam gave them on. @xNig you can see the increasing amount of frustration about this. But you still keep telling everyone to adjust.
Its not that simple.
And even if it was. Things should be made to suit the players. Not the players changing to suit kabam.
My life has a particular schedule. I cant change that for kabam. And i cant ask 29 other people to.
Not everyone can take dunny breaks long enough to play at work. Some people have kids and not so much time.
Wateva the reason there is an increasing njmber of people moving down tiers to step back to avoid the burnout of the stress of top tier stuff.
This just makes it worse.
And means even lower alliance now have increased stress and are not suitible anymore.
My alliance is made up and put ls people first.
We will not kick people to get vetter rewards.
Something like this punishes us for being loyal to our members
I believe after the introduction of the system and after your alliance makes the necessary adaptations, there wouldn't be a problem.
You believe a lot without knowing anything about me or my alliance, which suggests that you don't believe our problems are solvable, you simply believe our problems are irrelevant because neither the people in the alliance nor their situations are relevant. We can simply ask everyone to behave differently, or replace them if they can't.
You asked earlier if I wanted your help. You'd be the first person I kicked. And if our core leadership ever becomes like you, *I* would be the first person I kicked.
That’s weird because I’ve built my alliance from scratch and it has been 2 years since it started. And over the course of Seasons, I’ve had a turnover of... hm.... a total of 5-6 people? Just from Season 6 to 7, I had no change of personnel. From 7-8, one guy is leaving as he’s taking a short break due to increasing work commitments.
For AW, without spending items we rank top 50 Plat 3. With spending, Plat 1/2. We 100% our maps latest by 11pm. AQ wise we rank top 200 and all our BGs finish our maps by 11pm as well, even Map 6 if we do so.
So... with decent rewards, efficient clearing, low attrition.. let me know what I did o wrong since apparently your alliance is functioning a lot better than mine.
Players can adjust to anything. If that's a valid reason for not exploring solutions to the start time problem, it should have been used as a valid reason to not change AW and we could have saved a lot of time and resources.
Players have already adjusted to the current matchmaking system. The end result is having a huge variance in matching due to circumstances beyond the control of the alliance, such as other alliances searching for a match at the same time.
So by your own accounting, there was no problem. Which under your perspective makes the new match making system a solution without a problem.
I would like to think that most reasonable players felt that the current match system had issues, even if those issues didn't directly impact them, and that looking for a better system was worth Kabam's development time. If they were in fact reasonable, they would now acknowledge that the fixed match system contains its own set of problems which are also worth Kabam's development time to address. If they don't see it that way, then they were not being reasonable when wanting a match making change, they were just being selfish and didn't deserve the development time in the first place.
I would personally be far better off with the current system then the new one. But I would never oppose the new system on that basis alone. I'm obligated to support the new system if it is better overall, even if it is not better for me personally. I'm making the presumption that in the long run that's the better strategy. But I'm under no obligation to suffer people telling me that the problems I have are not actual problems, or that they are solvable if only I conform to their approach to playing the game or more importantly their approach to interacting with other players.
You’re wrong. The old matchmaking system compromised the INTEGRITY of fair play in the game with alliances having opportunities to exploit loopholes. The new one doesn’t.
With Kabam’s new harsher stance on bottling/cheating/hacking/collusion, this was an expected change that I don’t see will be reversed.
The challenges of reworking BGs and pathings lie on the shoulders of leadership. Idk which country you’re from but if your government were to impose an additional 10% tariff on all imported goods for fiscal policy change, is there anything you can do about it except to adapt and adjust things accordingly?
Are you saying that your alliance members have only 1-2 attackers ranked up that they can only take 1-2 paths and those 1-2 paths only?
Yes. Yes i am saying that in the case of some players.
I have some players with 1 4/55 for attack, 1/35 amd one 5/50.
If they are forced to change path they may be able to bring only 5/50 or lower.
Not everyone has a stacked roster.
I have players that do not have a decent ranked bleed or poison immune at all.
And itnis not their fault. They would rank one if kabam gave them on. @xNig you can see the increasing amount of frustration about this. But you still keep telling everyone to adjust.
Its not that simple.
And even if it was. Things should be made to suit the players. Not the players changing to suit kabam.
My life has a particular schedule. I cant change that for kabam. And i cant ask 29 other people to.
Not everyone can take dunny breaks long enough to play at work. Some people have kids and not so much time.
Wateva the reason there is an increasing njmber of people moving down tiers to step back to avoid the burnout of the stress of top tier stuff.
This just makes it worse.
And means even lower alliance now have increased stress and are not suitible anymore.
My alliance is made up and put ls people first.
We will not kick people to get vetter rewards.
Something like this punishes us for being loyal to our members
I support everything that is being done.
And the reasoning behind it.
As it is better overall
You have now shown me that you are actually not reading what i post and just replying to what you think i have said.
I support all the changes to benifit aw and makenif fairer and stop collusion
However it does not change the fact that the timing will cause a lot of issues for a lot of alliances and a lot of people.
There has to be a way that we can have the benifits kabam intend with the new system but with something a little better for everyone.
As i said i dont want to kick people due to timezones.
If kabam changed wars to start and finish 4 hrs later then now would you be ok with that?
Would that be ideal for everyone?
A longer attack phase is the ideal solution.
If a player a player cannot place defence in a 16 hr window then they are not going to be very active during attack.
This is a solution that goves all the benift but none of the draw back.
Heck here is an option.
How about this.
Add an option where you can select a check box when you place your defence that will auto select and place them on the same nodes every war.
If you want to change your defence you can set it to change for next war during attack for thenwar u are currently in.
This way defense phase is only needed for officers to move around the bgs.
No memeber can ever forget to place defence.
Placement phase could be very short.
And attack phase could be much longer.
AUTO DEFENDER PLACEMENT for the win @xNig
Is this something kabam could look at @Kabam Miike ???
Basically you allocate your defenders and at the start of every placment phase they get auto placed.
Officers then move as needed.
Chamge your defence outside of placement phase for the next war and thereafter whenever you want.
That war placement phase could go for even only 12.
You could go as far as having 4/12/32. That way everyone has more than enough time regardless of timezones
that is why attack phase lasts 24h, any international alliance can organise, as long as early players take outer paths and take the links down for paths 4, 5 and 6, don't see a problem. map is short anyway. 10 players with full war energy can do 51% percent of the map in a single run which means that 5h later the rest can be achieved.
Basically you allocate your defenders and at the start of every placment phase they get auto placed.
Officers then move as needed.
Chamge your defence outside of placement phase for the next war and thereafter whenever you want.
That war placement phase could go for even only 12.
You could go as far as having 4/12/32. That way everyone has more than enough time regardless of timezones
That I agree and it would be a nice touch on Kabam's side. If only you said this earlier...
Comments
The timing. The changes state that you can enlist for the next war while you are currently in one. So no one will ever miss getting to match up unless you just forget to enlist. And you still have 20 hours to place which is plenty of time regardless of time zones and 24 hours of attack so it really doesn’t matter where you live or what kind of schedule you have. You still have the same amount of time to complete war rather it starts at 2am or 2pm.
Valid question. I am not apart of condoning shell swapping, but I am taking a look at this from both sides.
Here’s the conundrum. Just because someone or some alliance has an end game roster, doesn’t mean they HAVE to face master alliances in AW every time AND win half of the matchups to stay at that level. Guess what happens if you get an end game alliance that decides “forget this. Don’t boost because it’s too espensive, we’ll probably lose and eventually fall back a tier.” Lower alliances will then see these big rosters.
I’m low-balling when I say 85-90% of plat 1 and master alliances boost every way (it’s more like 95-100%). If you aren’t boosting, the chances of you winning drops significantly.
Considering that, It’s inevitable that lower alliances will face these former master/plat 1 alliances. It’s unfair and unjust to say that those alliances must pay for boosts and win so lower alliances won’t face them.
So some alliances start AW seasons with a lower rating and face lower alliances in the beginning of the season, while other alliances stay put and fall back and face lower alliances towards the end of the season. Either way, lower alliances will face tougher matchups.
Also consider with more content to complete, more players/alliances are putting out better defenses.
I might be incorrect in my perception of this since I don’t have any direct insight on how shell swapping works. Just how I see things from the outside.
We are upset that we cannot pick the 24 hours we fight @Batman_6809 . In the old system, we would start a war search at 6:30pm CST, then fight from 7pm day 1 through 7pm day 2, finishing up when we could focus. With this new system, we are locked into the 2pm to 2pm the next day...finishing up while we are all busy at work. It will decrease our ability to focus on work or war...
War has different stages of attack. People keep saying there are 24 hours regardless. This shouldn't be hard. If much of the alliance is asleep at the start of attack phase it's all well and good. If much of the alliance is asleep for the end of the attack phase it's very different.
1. How an alliance chooses to fight wars factors into their performance, and match making by war rating matches conceptually by performance. This is generally considered to be fair match making in ratings-based competitions. In other words, if alliance A has a huge roster but chooses not to spend any resources on war and alliance B has a small roster but chooses to spend a ton of resources on war, and they end up with the same rating because in actual play they are about equally strong overall, it is considered fair to match them against each other. Yes, alliance B is spending more, but that is their choice and they benefit from that choice by being in a higher tier that earns higher rewards. Alliance A gets those same opportunities by virtue of building a stronger roster, which is an intrinsic advantage of building rosters.
2. This has nothing to do with shells. The idea behind shell alliances, at least in the form that most people complain about, is that there are advantages to fighting in lower tiers or just at lower rating in the same tier relative to higher ones in some cases, but the only way to get to a lower tier normally is to lose, which costs points. So there's an opportunity to manipulate the rating system by having two alliances: in one you put your main accounts that you want to win the best rewards, and you play as hard as possible to try to win as much as possible. This means you will likely end the season with a high rating. In the second alliance you put secondary or place holder accounts and you deliberately lose just enough to lower your rating to exactly the point you want. Then at the start of next season you swap: you put your mains in the shell, and you transfer the secondary accounts to the first alliance. Now you repeat: you go all out in the shell, while you deliberately lose in the first alliance just enough to reset your rating to what you want. Continue indefinitely. This allows you to start every season with the rating you want even if it is lower than the rating you deserve for the amount of times you won. This is very oversimplified just to illustrate the concept: in practice this is often done in more complex ways or in combination with dumping rating during the off season. The idea is if a bunch of people leave their alliance and join a shell, they will inherit the rating of the shell. Done right, they can reset their rating to whatever they want. Shells are used mostly because if you make a new alliance instead your rating gets set to zero, and that's lower than desired. The shell lets you "hang on" to a higher rating to reset to.
[/quote]
The start and end time has nothing to do with kabam though. If most of your alliance is asleep at a certain time than you should recruit for your area or have separate bgs for specific time zones. It doesn’t matter when it starts you still have to communicate with your alliance mates to clear each one of your paths.
The start and end time has nothing to do with kabam though. If most of your alliance is asleep at a certain time than you should recruit for your area or have separate bgs for specific time zones. It doesn’t matter when it starts you still have to communicate with your alliance mates to clear each one of your paths.
[/quote]
I think this is the problem. Most alliances have already recruited for that very reason. Now with this round of changes they’re expected to do it again. Many alliances have been together for years and are getting a little sick of being jerked around every couple of months when Kabam wants to try something different. War has been a cluster f ever since seasons came out. It’s split up many alliances and now looks like it might do it again. A lot of these guys are only hanging on because of friends anyway and the more unrest that war keeps causing is just making people quit.
On that same line, would you also complain and blame Kabam if you were unable to get your 3rd match of AW in?
But this also means that much of the alliance were awake since the start of attack phase, is that not right? It's 24 hours so assuming much of the alliance is asleep at the end of attack phase, this means they still had at least 13-14 hours awake when they could spend their energy..
Yes. Of course that's a problem. That's why it takes effort for leadership to advise members to rank up the correct champs, and also be more selective in who the alliance takes in in future. Change is always tough. But sometimes it is essential.
Yeah AQ and AW overlapping might be a problem. But it has always been the case with regards to swapping members.
Something's gotta give, be it AQ rewards, AW rewards, or SA. So most of the time I'll get the consensus amongst the 2 players involved. Most of the time it's AW rewards or SA as, tbh, those few hundred 5/6* shards aren't really anything to shout about. Losing them once in awhile is not a big deal.
I can assure you that you'll face the issue that there are people who won't be able to place defenders on time as well if defense phase goes for 16 hours only, especially on Friday/Saturday nights when people go for drinks after dinner and don't wake up 16 hours after that. (It's an easy 9pm drinks start, 3am drinks end, 5am sleep and 2-3pm wake up with a huge hangover. lol)
My alliance is mainly SE Asia as well. Matchmaking starts at 3am for us. Has never been an issue.
Generally it's very straightforward. We wake up with full energy, prepare for work and spend some energy first (that's around 8-9am), go for lunch at 1-2pm with 3-4 energy and clear our next segment, finish up our paths and coordinate after work at 6-7pm, go for the boss kill after dinner and family time when the kids go to bed (around 10-11pm).
All in all, our fastest BG clear so far was at 3pm, which was around 6-7 hours after our first guy moved. Latest clear was 11pm because someone's kid didn't wanna sleep lol. We tend to finish around 6pm.
That's based on your assumption that everything is kept status quo and expect the system to bend around you instead of adapting and making changes to better suit it.
Players have already adjusted to the current matchmaking system. The end result is having a huge variance in matching due to circumstances beyond the control of the alliance, such as other alliances searching for a match at the same time. The unified matchmaking removes this and puts the control back into the hands of the alliance.
I believe after the introduction of the system and after your alliance makes the necessary adaptations, there wouldn't be a problem.
Are you saying that your alliance members have only 1-2 attackers ranked up that they can only take 1-2 paths and those 1-2 paths only?
"Unnecessary headache and drama" for who? Since you're the one coordinating, you...? Isn't it leadership's responsibility to figure a solution out if they treasure their existing members and don't want to replace them? You signed up for it dude.
It's true, a large amount of the community will have issues working with this, but that doesn't mean people won't adapt and find ways around it. Before giving people a chance to work on and adapt to it, you're shutting it down and saying "it won't work" and want Kabam to solve the problem which has not been proven to exist?
With linked nodes it gets hard. Someone waits 8hrs to be unlinked cus their mate is asleep. Then by the time they are unlinked they are already asleep. That is 16hrs of almost no activity.
Also just cus someone is awakendoesnt mean they can play.
Some people work 10hr days and cant play at all during that time. So get a small window of activity in the morning and the evening.
If they cant move efficiently during that time then they will be useless.
Yes. Yes i am saying that in the case of some players.
I have some players with 1 4/55 for attack, 1/35 amd one 5/50.
If they are forced to change path they may be able to bring only 5/50 or lower.
Not everyone has a stacked roster.
I have players that do not have a decent ranked bleed or poison immune at all.
And itnis not their fault. They would rank one if kabam gave them on.
@xNig you can see the increasing amount of frustration about this. But you still keep telling everyone to adjust.
Its not that simple.
And even if it was. Things should be made to suit the players. Not the players changing to suit kabam.
My life has a particular schedule. I cant change that for kabam. And i cant ask 29 other people to.
Not everyone can take dunny breaks long enough to play at work. Some people have kids and not so much time.
Wateva the reason there is an increasing njmber of people moving down tiers to step back to avoid the burnout of the stress of top tier stuff.
This just makes it worse.
And means even lower alliance now have increased stress and are not suitible anymore.
My alliance is made up and put ls people first.
We will not kick people to get vetter rewards.
Something like this punishes us for being loyal to our members
It should go without saying that fixed start times don't make it impossible for Alliances to work around, if one of the options is simply replacing all the people in it.
The problem is that fixed start times hurts people not "alliances."
You believe a lot without knowing anything about me or my alliance, which suggests that you don't believe our problems are solvable, you simply believe our problems are irrelevant because neither the people in the alliance nor their situations are relevant. We can simply ask everyone to behave differently, or replace them if they can't.
You asked earlier if I wanted your help. You'd be the first person I kicked. And if our core leadership ever becomes like you, *I* would be the first person I kicked.
So by your own accounting, there was no problem. Which under your perspective makes the new match making system a solution without a problem.
I would like to think that most reasonable players felt that the current match system had issues, even if those issues didn't directly impact them, and that looking for a better system was worth Kabam's development time. If they were in fact reasonable, they would now acknowledge that the fixed match system contains its own set of problems which are also worth Kabam's development time to address. If they don't see it that way, then they were not being reasonable when wanting a match making change, they were just being selfish and didn't deserve the development time in the first place.
I would personally be far better off with the current system then the new one. But I would never oppose the new system on that basis alone. I'm obligated to support the new system if it is better overall, even if it is not better for me personally. I'm making the presumption that in the long run that's the better strategy. But I'm under no obligation to suffer people telling me that the problems I have are not actual problems, or that they are solvable if only I conform to their approach to playing the game or more importantly their approach to interacting with other players.
Ranking up correct champs can only happen if you get them. As an officer, I have told a few people to prioritize rankups that will help them more on their path than another because they don't have some of the 'universal' champs. And after being in an alliance with guys for a couple years, you wouldn't want to dump them because they HAVE to change paths due to a timezone that is out of their control. And how do we foresee the future changes and plan according to that?
I agree that change is tough. And that Kabam has taken a firm stand to try and curb collusion. But couldn't a general consensus have been taken? Dumping a certain time on us that works for some was bound to spark up a debate like this. And there still are ways to help alliances out. Could reduce the energy timers, could increase the limit.
And he supports the system..
That’s weird because I’ve built my alliance from scratch and it has been 2 years since it started. And over the course of Seasons, I’ve had a turnover of... hm.... a total of 5-6 people? Just from Season 6 to 7, I had no change of personnel. From 7-8, one guy is leaving as he’s taking a short break due to increasing work commitments.
For AW, without spending items we rank top 50 Plat 3. With spending, Plat 1/2. We 100% our maps latest by 11pm. AQ wise we rank top 200 and all our BGs finish our maps by 11pm as well, even Map 6 if we do so.
So... with decent rewards, efficient clearing, low attrition.. let me know what I did o wrong since apparently your alliance is functioning a lot better than mine.
You’re wrong. The old matchmaking system compromised the INTEGRITY of fair play in the game with alliances having opportunities to exploit loopholes. The new one doesn’t.
With Kabam’s new harsher stance on bottling/cheating/hacking/collusion, this was an expected change that I don’t see will be reversed.
The challenges of reworking BGs and pathings lie on the shoulders of leadership. Idk which country you’re from but if your government were to impose an additional 10% tariff on all imported goods for fiscal policy change, is there anything you can do about it except to adapt and adjust things accordingly?
So is Kabam going to reset ratings for this new system? Would be nice so this type of behavior isn’t rewarded.
I support everything that is being done.
And the reasoning behind it.
As it is better overall
You have now shown me that you are actually not reading what i post and just replying to what you think i have said.
I support all the changes to benifit aw and makenif fairer and stop collusion
However it does not change the fact that the timing will cause a lot of issues for a lot of alliances and a lot of people.
There has to be a way that we can have the benifits kabam intend with the new system but with something a little better for everyone.
As i said i dont want to kick people due to timezones.
If kabam changed wars to start and finish 4 hrs later then now would you be ok with that?
Would that be ideal for everyone?
A longer attack phase is the ideal solution.
If a player a player cannot place defence in a 16 hr window then they are not going to be very active during attack.
This is a solution that goves all the benift but none of the draw back.
Heck here is an option.
How about this.
Add an option where you can select a check box when you place your defence that will auto select and place them on the same nodes every war.
If you want to change your defence you can set it to change for next war during attack for thenwar u are currently in.
This way defense phase is only needed for officers to move around the bgs.
No memeber can ever forget to place defence.
Placement phase could be very short.
And attack phase could be much longer.
AUTO DEFENDER PLACEMENT for the win
@xNig
Is this something kabam could look at @Kabam Miike ???
Officers then move as needed.
Chamge your defence outside of placement phase for the next war and thereafter whenever you want.
That war placement phase could go for even only 12.
You could go as far as having 4/12/32. That way everyone has more than enough time regardless of timezones
That I agree and it would be a nice touch on Kabam's side. If only you said this earlier...