Alliance Wars - Defense Tactics and Rewards Update Discussion Thread

1235715

Comments

  • ArylAryl Posts: 263 ★★
    So new harder, sometimes impossible nodes are introduced, and now we're giving alliances the ability to further buff those defenders on said nodes?

    I'm all for a challenge... but c'mon.
  • PaytoPlayPaytoPlay Posts: 764 ★★★
    I don't understand why AQ rewards and AW rewards has to be similar... can we not get shards and feature crystals from 1 and rank up materials from another? That way ppls can choose what to focus on instead of trying to compare rewards...
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 1,882 ★★★★
    DrZola said:

    NinjAlan said:

    Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures.

    So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards?

    Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.
    The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season.
    Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes.
    Which means that AW is the more difficult mode and yet somehow has worse rewards
    Difficult is relative. Depends on where you're playing, what you're running with, what your goals are, how hard you're pushing, etc. Can't always be the best in all modes. That's where choice comes in.
    Top tier AQ is MUCH easier than top tier AW.
    So that would mean the choice is to focus on AQ and let the cards fall where they do in War.
    I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that @Worknprogress isn’t looking for game advice—and if he is, it’s likely going to be from players who have played at the highest levels. I don’t want to discourage dialogue, but it’s probably prudent to assume different level players have very different experiences. I wouldn’t deign to lecture top tier AW or AQ alliances on the game.

    Dr. Zola
    I'm open to everyone's opinions. I personally think he's wrong here but that's also just my opinion.

    I'm not on team discount everything GW says just bc it's GW as I agree with some of his opinions as well. Here however, I feel that having that experience playing in T1 wars would give him a better idea of just how imbalanced AW rewards are vs AQ when considering effort/resource costs
  • Ironman3000Ironman3000 Posts: 60

    What level of rewards would be satisfactory for those saying they aren't better? Lots of negative remarks but zero suggestions besides the victory/defeat crystal.

    Considering the cost and difficulty, they should be better then a month of AQ, which they aren't.
    We're very interested in hearing more about this, but could use some more information. In a month of AQ, what are you running? Is it 5x7 every series? Additonally, those don't include any 5 or 6-Star Shards, but is that something you are interested in or is that not something you worry about?
    I run 7*5 top 20. For a month of AQ I get:
    From Rank rewards:
    20k t5b
    100k t2a
    11200 glory

    From daily map rewards I get:
    18000 t5b
    18000 t2a
    15 map 7 crystals

    From Peak Milestones I get:
    28 map 7 crystals
    64 map 6 crystals
    13600 glory

    From Glory I get:
    108800 t5b

    In total that equals:
    48800 t5b
    118000 t2a
    43 7 crystals
    64 map 6 crystals

    Pretty sure that's correct. Add the t2a and t5b from the crystals and AQ is by far the better mode of game play.

    And crystal shards aren't really worth that much. 90% of the champs are worthless to me and i can sleep walk to top 10% in the featured 5* arena so that doesn't really do it for me either.
    The majority of the community isnt getting these type of rewards though.
    And they don't get the same AW rewards I do either.
  • Ironman3000Ironman3000 Posts: 60

    NinjAlan said:

    Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures.

    So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards?

    Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.
    The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season.
    Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes.
    That must be why there are seporate AW and AQ potions and revives.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    edited July 11
    1 T5CC crystal = 2% of a T5CC.

    On average you need 50 T5CC crystal to get a single T5CC fully formed, that is assuming you pull only that 1 class. Given that there are 6 classes, on average, a player will get an even spread across all 6 classes before any single T5CC forms. That means you need 6 x 50 T5CC crystals to end up with an average of 1 T5CC fully formed of each class. That is 300 T5CC crystals needed.

    You get 5 for being rank 1 in Master. So only 60 seasons of AW to go!!

    The point is, the updated rewards continue to give T5CC at a negligble pace, which means the only real rewards from the updated AW rewards are T5B and T2A. Both of which are very much available from AQ, and for much less price and stress. I don't see this update to rewards reviving interest in AW much. Plus the truth for most of the end game community is we simply don't need any more T5B. I mean there are people with 20 R5 5*s now. People were looking to expand their 6* r3 rosters, not to rank up more 5*s that will be obsolete sooner.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,044 ★★★★★
    FactorQ said:

    GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design.

    No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play.

    That's not the general concensus of the community.
    NinjAlan said:

    If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it.

    You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view.
    Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,044 ★★★★★
    It's not something that is exclusive to the top. It's housekeeping. You have to know what the capabilities of your Ally are, what your common goals are, what people prefer to focus on, all of the things internally within the Alliance that are common goals. If your Ally focuses more on AQ, that's how it is. We're the opposite. War is our competitive streak. We do what we can with what we're working with. AQ is the easy-paced mode for us. That's just how we operate. If people are trying to go all-out in all modes and wondering why they're getting stressed, that's pretty apparent. The other option is to accept that playing that way comes with stress.
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★

    FactorQ said:

    GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design.

    No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play.

    That's not the general concensus of the community.
    NinjAlan said:

    If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it.

    You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view.
    Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all.
    It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,044 ★★★★★
    Kobster84 said:

    FactorQ said:

    GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design.

    No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play.

    That's not the general concensus of the community.
    NinjAlan said:

    If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it.

    You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view.
    Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all.
    It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers
    Specifically higher Tiers because that's where the most difficulty has been added. Not a general concensus. However, there's a tendency for War discussions to be piloted by the Top Tier on here.
  • RasiloverRasilover Posts: 273 ★★
    edited July 11
    2% of t5CC from the crystals?
    Wack
  • Ironman3000Ironman3000 Posts: 60
    Waching Lagacy's vid on the changs and he says what many here are thinking. Really underwhelming.
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★

    Kobster84 said:

    FactorQ said:

    GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design.

    No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play.

    That's not the general concensus of the community.
    NinjAlan said:

    If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it.

    You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view.
    Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all.
    It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers
    Specifically higher Tiers because that's where the most difficulty has been added. Not a general concensus. However, there's a tendency for War discussions to be piloted by the Top Tier on here.
    Yes so they added a much harder difficulty for higher tiers but not much better rewards
    I’m in high p3 and a few wars ago saw an ally get 150 deaths like I’ve never seen that before
    I’ll reserve my thoughts for when the war to war rewards are announced as it might be a large amount but right now doesn’t seem too great
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,044 ★★★★★
    Kobster84 said:

    Kobster84 said:

    FactorQ said:

    GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design.

    No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play.

    That's not the general concensus of the community.
    NinjAlan said:

    If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it.

    You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view.
    Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all.
    It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers
    Specifically higher Tiers because that's where the most difficulty has been added. Not a general concensus. However, there's a tendency for War discussions to be piloted by the Top Tier on here.
    Yes so they added a much harder difficulty for higher tiers but not much better rewards
    I’m in high p3 and a few wars ago saw an ally get 150 deaths like I’ve never seen that before
    I’ll reserve my thoughts for when the war to war rewards are announced as it might be a large amount but right now doesn’t seem too great
    If you don't feel the Rewards are worth the difficulty at the top, that's how you feel. I'm not debating feedback. I was talking about the AQ vs. AW subject, and the subject of stress in general. War is stressful. It's a competition. It's up to the Ally to set their own limits on how much stress they're willing to invest. If you don't think the Rewards increase is enough, that's not mine to argue against.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,044 ★★★★★
    This is a discussion about War. Not just the Top TIer. One demo does not dominate the discussion in general.
  • Midnite93Midnite93 Posts: 1,627 ★★★★
    Yawwwnnn I guess it’s Aq for me causally playing war for fun as well.
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★

    This is a discussion about War. Not just the Top TIer. One demo does not dominate the discussion in general.

    It kinda does when defense tactics only applies to t1-5
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,044 ★★★★★
    edited July 11

    This is a discussion about War. Not just the Top TIer. One demo does not dominate the discussion in general.

    you do know that these changes only apply to the top tiersof AW right? why would someone who will never play at this level try to tell those who will how they should feel?
    I LITERALLY said I'm not debating how people feel because it's not my place, and I respect everyone's feedback.
    The changes to Rewards are throughout Wars. This Thread is for everyone, and about all changes. I'm not justifying my presence again.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 940 ★★★
    So by adding platinum 4, does that allow the top 800 in gold 2 to now move up to gold 1 ? The way it’s all stated is kind of confusing, Master is top 20, p1 is top 50, etc, but it’s not clear if p1 is top 21-50 or 21 to 71. That goes the same for p4 and gold 1; is p4 for 800 teams or the teams who have an overall rank inside the top 800 but outside the top 300 in p3 for a total of 500 teams. Please clear this up as it is pretty vague the way it’s worded currently.
  • Robby199696Robby199696 Posts: 61
    I personally am fine with the rewards increase but only as long as it matches the difficulty. I was quick to judge the aw map change but have found myself enjoying the new aw map much more than the old and have only boosted 2 or 3 times this season as opposed to every war on the old map. So as long as defense tactics doesn’t make the nodes completely crazy I’m fine with this except that there should be less RNG in war crystals
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★
    Kpatrix said:

    So by adding platinum 4, does that allow the top 800 in gold 2 to now move up to gold 1 ? The way it’s all stated is kind of confusing, Master is top 20, p1 is top 50, etc, but it’s not clear if p1 is top 21-50 or 21 to 71. That goes the same for p4 and gold 1; is p4 for 800 teams or the teams who have an overall rank inside the top 800 but outside the top 300 in p3 for a total of 500 teams. Please clear this up as it is pretty vague the way it’s worded currently.

    Nah it’s basicallg just splitting gold 1 as gold 1 used to be 301-1499
  • Kpatrix said:

    So by adding platinum 4, does that allow the top 800 in gold 2 to now move up to gold 1 ? The way it’s all stated is kind of confusing, Master is top 20, p1 is top 50, etc, but it’s not clear if p1 is top 21-50 or 21 to 71. That goes the same for p4 and gold 1; is p4 for 800 teams or the teams who have an overall rank inside the top 800 but outside the top 300 in p3 for a total of 500 teams. Please clear this up as it is pretty vague the way it’s worded currently.

    @Kpatrix It's split down like this...

    Master - 1-20 (20 slots)
    Platinum 1 - 21-50 (30 slots)
    Platinum 2 - 51-100 (50 slots)
    Platinum 3 - 101-300 (200 slots)
    Platinum 4 - 301-800 (500 slots)
    Gold 1 - 801-1,500 (700 slots)
    Gold 2 - 1,501-3,000 (1,500 slots)
    Gold 3 - 3,001-4,500 (1,500 slots)

    ...and so on. Hope that helps clarify how the season tiers work.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 940 ★★★

    Kpatrix said:

    So by adding platinum 4, does that allow the top 800 in gold 2 to now move up to gold 1 ? The way it’s all stated is kind of confusing, Master is top 20, p1 is top 50, etc, but it’s not clear if p1 is top 21-50 or 21 to 71. That goes the same for p4 and gold 1; is p4 for 800 teams or the teams who have an overall rank inside the top 800 but outside the top 300 in p3 for a total of 500 teams. Please clear this up as it is pretty vague the way it’s worded currently.

    @Kpatrix It's split down like this...

    Master - 1-20 (20 slots)
    Platinum 1 - 21-50 (30 slots)
    Platinum 2 - 51-100 (50 slots)
    Platinum 3 - 101-300 (200 slots)
    Platinum 4 - 301-800 (500 slots)
    Gold 1 - 801-1,500 (700 slots)
    Gold 2 - 1,501-3,000 (1,500 slots)
    Gold 3 - 3,001-4,500 (1,500 slots)

    ...and so on. Hope that helps clarify how the season tiers work.
    Thanks, that helps
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said. The "buffed" war season crystals are absurd. 1500-22,500 T5 basics? Why give rewards for a month's worth of war such a huge RNG swing? The minimum is garbage. Why not have a higher floor? Unless you have buffed the drop rate, I'll be getting the minimum just like I have every single damn season since season 1. Some other dude in Plat 4 will get way more t5 basics because RNG. These crystals were announced as one of the major perks to AW seasons and they are trash. High level AW requires a lot of resources and time. Stop making the payout RNG dependent.

    Fully agreed. We will see Gold 3 players who get a single crystal obtain the 22k T5B shards in a single crystal, and basically match the rewards for those in lower Plat tiers.

    I truly believe that Kabam introduces RNG into these rewards so as to provide a legitimate way to catapult lower players into the higher tiers with massive RNG drops, while the top end players are limited by bad RNG pulls.
Sign In or Register to comment.