War node bottle necks

This content has been removed.

No one says you need to have an international alliance, and Kabam have been firm on the 5 energy cap in the past.

What? So you're all good with Kabam essentially causing regional segregation of the players? I was always under the impression they encouraged players meeting others from different places. This new map leaves international Alliances at a disadvantage. All they need to do is remove 1 link per section and it would allow more flexibility.

No one says you need to have an international alliance, and Kabam have been firm on the 5 energy cap in the past.

Oh thank you! You are soooooooo helpful... I never thought of that!

Let me think...now why didn’t I think of...oh right...have you ever tried recruiting for an alliance? Have you ever led an alliance? It’s hard enough to maintain an alliance nowadays - sometimes you can’t be too choosy on who you want in an alliance.

Try being a leader of an organized alliance that really wants to help others grow their accounts and have fun. Also, people have lives and leave or join other alliances to try things out. It’s very hard to be picky with the way things are. Try that for once and you’ll understand...

I also don’t have the luxury of 29 local friends who play this game or are in the same time zone. To be honest I enjoy the diversity of my alliance.

My original post was just throwing out ideas that would help make this transition to this new map a bit more bearable. I honestly doubt any of it would be taken into consideration. I just wanted to post my thoughts.

Hopefully they do consider the timing and player demand issues that will cause bottle necks. That's now my primary concern. Sure some of the nodes are tough, and some placements are going to be very difficult. Eventually we can figure that out. However the map currently requires 9 players to advance in each section. That's gonna prove troublesome as we go if it's not addressed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

Wish they could? What? Miike said what was unhealthy? The ambiguities in your phrasing is giving me a headache. Try being specific and explain in a cohesive manner. As it stands, what you said makes 0 sense. If you're just trolling, plenty of other places to so. Also, I doubt Miike enjoys people putting words into his mouth. Just saying. If you're unable to do any of the above, I'll just make it a point to scroll past your replies from now on.

This content has been removed.

Hopefully they do consider the timing and player demand issues that will cause bottle necks. That's now my primary concern. Sure some of the nodes are tough, and some placements are going to be very difficult. Eventually we can figure that out. However the map currently requires 9 players to advance in each section. That's gonna prove troublesome as we go if it's not addressed.

This is exactly what my concern is. I have no issue with the node difficulty, as I said earlier. It’s the bottle necks from the linked nodes that are my concern.

@Quicksilver245 Considering I never once even mentioned 30 minute timers as a suggestion, why quote me and say that? I believe 30 minute timers allowing players to get through too quick is the mentality for it being 'unhealthy.' I suppose there's some truth to that. However, how does that have anything to do with my suggestion of removing a link from each section?

It would reduce the chances of bottlenecks occurring, allow flexibility for international Alliances without messing with the timers, and reduce stress across the board. 2 players per section being able to drop the links to advance would be very similar to our previous map, and we'd have the benefit of the new layout. Seems like a win, win to me.

Funny thing is I realized I suggested 15 min timers. So I didn’t even mention 30 min. 😂

I only mention reducing the time because I have a few alliance mates that sometimes don’t have time to join until the 11th hour. So at that time they can only move 5 spaces max. By then it’s usually too late.

Also, as a leader/officer, a lot of time is dedicated to directing people, getting people to move, coordination, and giving people advice throughout the duration of war. This takes a considerable amount of time when you have players with developing accounts. That’s the other reason I was asking for the storing of energy or reduced time so we can move quicker and it would cost me less time overall.

But, @SiriusBreak I do like your idea of removing some of the linked nodes. It makes sense and would be the easiest solution. Hope Kabam listens.

xNig

Funny thing is I realized I suggested 15 min timers. So I didn’t even mention 30 min. 😂

I only mention reducing the time because I have a few alliance mates that sometimes don’t have time to join until the 11th hour. So at that time they can only move 5 spaces max. By then it’s usually too late.

Also, as a leader/officer, a lot of time is dedicated to directing people, getting people to move, coordination, and giving people advice throughout the duration of war. This takes a considerable amount of time when you have players with developing accounts. That’s the other reason I was asking for the storing of energy or reduced time so we can move quicker and it would cost me less time overall.

But, @SiriusBreak I do like your idea of removing some of the linked nodes. It makes sense and would be the easiest solution. Hope Kabam listens.

If they can only join at the 11th hour, why can’t they move in the 3 hours after the war started, assuming they get a healthy 8 hours of sleep? That’s 6 energy a piece.

My BG finished AW 3 hours ago (it’s 6pm now) and AW starts at 2am for most of us.

So for example, some guys I give a chance even if they are less active. Some people have family emergencies, some people work 14hr days and are not allowed to play during that time (plus they need to sleep eventually).

Most times it’s the time zone issue. If you’re waiting on a node to come down and a guy from another time zone takes forever to drop their node, when you’re ready to play again it might not be at the most convenient time for you.

I’m nicer than most Alliance leaders as I give people a chance.

@Ma5terChu Question, leader to leader, do you have assigned BGs? If not, I HIGHLY suggest you do it. Especially in your current predicament. I have 1 BG of oversea players, and 2 North American. Organizing your players by regional locations, or playtimes helps keep things flowing. Just a thought, and maybe it will help if it's possible for you to do. I guess it all depends on how spread out your members are in either case. I'm also a VERY forgiving Leader, and we've grown quite well even so. I was quite happy to wake up to see 2 out of 3 BGs at 100%. Heck, one of them was at 96% before I crashed out. This Map can move quite smoothly as is, but I do see how it can get dicey regardless. The change in requirements is noticeable.

@SiriusBreak Appreciate the advice, but I already have 3 separate BGs and everyone is assigned a specific group.

We don’t have enough from the same area to place everyone in specific time zones. Because of this, I try as best as possible to place them based on when they are active and how well they can clear content. Even by placing people in the same time zone some have odd hours for work and such - so I have to do it by monitoring everyone’s activity and watching how they progress in AW and AQ.

The bigger problem is turnover. The solid core is like 25, but we keep losing 1-2 after filling up a full 30. During the season people seem to stay longer.

I try to place an equal amount of people based on skill and level. This requires me to memorize what works and what didn’t in a war and make adjustments on the next. Problem is a person will leave and I have to adjust again.

As crazy as this is, we have been able to hit gold2-3 in AW seasons consistently. However, with this new map, if things stay as they are I don’t know if we will continue war.

While I have two decent officers they aren’t able to help out to the extent I would like. Also, no one else wants the job. It’s such a thankless job anyways.

Thus, this map has given me headaches - since you basically need 9 on at the same time at the start. Not very easy with a diverse alliance.

@Ma5terChu well best of luck then. There is only so much one can do in these situations, no doubt. Even if they removed 2 (1 from the left, and 1 from the right, keeping 3 in the center) it would make things MUCH more manageable. I know the hardships of building, and maintaining an Alliance all too well and hats off to you sir. It's not for everyone to say the very least. I've been blessed with a FANTASTIC group overall. I have 2 officers per BG, a main BG leader, and back up in case the main is busy. I run BG2 and have a great backup officer for the rare occasions I'm too busy to check in.

Everyone knows their part in the grand scheme and does it quite well. Eventually you'll have a solid group of 30 that rarely needs replacements. It's strange that typically when someone is ready to take a break, someone else who left prior contacts me to return. It's something I'm very lucky to have in general. An Alliance that sticks together through thick and thin. We're on our way up the ranks in both AQ and AW and show no signs of slowing. Even with this new Map. Just the same, I would never say it's all good just because my group can swing it well. Not every Alliance is so fortunate.