Idea For A New Vision of Alliance War

I am the leader of a diverse alliance, what I mean by that is that we have players who are Cavalier as well as some who haven't reached Uncollected yet. So the problem that we run into in war is that the entire alliance is being punished for the mistakes of those who aren't able to play at the same level as the top players. I feel this is a recipe for a toxin in-game experience, the top players begin to resent the weaker players and the weaker players feel the stress of not wanting to mess up and shame if they do.

I feel that I've come up with a solution...

What I'm pitching is a war setup where different battlegroups have different star gates attached to them depending on the alliance's war tier.

So for example, let's say there's an alliance at a mid-range tier:
BG1 has no gates, any champs can be brought in
BG2 has a 5* gate, no 6* can be used
BG3 has a 4* gate, nothing 5* or above

As the alliance succeeds or fails, the gates are raised or lowered accordingly with their changing war tier. Top endgame alliances will have no gates, while beginning alliances may be restricted as low as 4*/3*/2*. I feel that this would create a more balanced experience for many mid-range alliances without affecting the gameplay that high tier alliances are used to.

A possible secondary effect of this change would likely be an increased willingness to rank-up champs at a lower star rating, giving value to 3*s and 4*s that has been lost as the game has progressed.

Comments

  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,452 ★★★★
    No we don’t need gates in war especially with the new defense tactics would be horrible
  • YoodenVranks_1YoodenVranks_1 Posts: 31
    Kobster84 said:

    No we don’t need gates in war especially with the new defense tactics would be horrible

    The new defense tactics don’t apply to mid/lower tier rated alliances, they are doing nothing to improve wars for those alliances, that is what I’m trying to address.
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,452 ★★★★

    Kobster84 said:

    No we don’t need gates in war especially with the new defense tactics would be horrible

    The new defense tactics don’t apply to mid/lower tier rated alliances, they are doing nothing to improve wars for those alliances, that is what I’m trying to address.
    They still increased the rewards so they have improved it
  • YoodenVranks_1YoodenVranks_1 Posts: 31
    Kobster84 said:

    Kobster84 said:

    No we don’t need gates in war especially with the new defense tactics would be horrible

    The new defense tactics don’t apply to mid/lower tier rated alliances, they are doing nothing to improve wars for those alliances, that is what I’m trying to address.
    They still increased the rewards so they have improved it
    I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re understanding the problem that I’m addressing...
    My alliance has been gradually loosing interest in wars, regardless of what rewards they are offering, simply because it isn’t fun to continually lose wars due to the mistakes of our weaker players. We don’t want to become elitist dictators that kick inexperienced players for not being good enough. If you have a better solution to improve the war experience for mid/lower tier alliances, I completely welcome it, but to me it sounds like you are fighting this for the sake of fighting it and I don’t understand why.
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,452 ★★★★

    Kobster84 said:

    Kobster84 said:

    No we don’t need gates in war especially with the new defense tactics would be horrible

    The new defense tactics don’t apply to mid/lower tier rated alliances, they are doing nothing to improve wars for those alliances, that is what I’m trying to address.
    They still increased the rewards so they have improved it
    I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re understanding the problem that I’m addressing...
    My alliance has been gradually loosing interest in wars, regardless of what rewards they are offering, simply because it isn’t fun to continually lose wars due to the mistakes of our weaker players. We don’t want to become elitist dictators that kick inexperienced players for not being good enough. If you have a better solution to improve the war experience for mid/lower tier alliances, I completely welcome it, but to me it sounds like you are fighting this for the sake of fighting it and I don’t understand why.
    I’m really not don’t see how gating would help solve anything especially as your suggesting this for lower tiers would probabalg make the problem worse

  • YoodenVranks_1YoodenVranks_1 Posts: 31
    Kobster84 said:

    Kobster84 said:

    Kobster84 said:

    No we don’t need gates in war especially with the new defense tactics would be horrible

    The new defense tactics don’t apply to mid/lower tier rated alliances, they are doing nothing to improve wars for those alliances, that is what I’m trying to address.
    They still increased the rewards so they have improved it
    I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re understanding the problem that I’m addressing...
    My alliance has been gradually loosing interest in wars, regardless of what rewards they are offering, simply because it isn’t fun to continually lose wars due to the mistakes of our weaker players. We don’t want to become elitist dictators that kick inexperienced players for not being good enough. If you have a better solution to improve the war experience for mid/lower tier alliances, I completely welcome it, but to me it sounds like you are fighting this for the sake of fighting it and I don’t understand why.
    I’m really not don’t see how gating would help solve anything especially as your suggesting this for lower tiers would probabalg make the problem worse

    My thought process on this is making it similar to AQ... my alliance runs maps 654, the more experienced players are able to play more challenging content while the mid-level and lower-level players are all able to also play at a difficulty that they are comfortable at... adding gates to AW would create a similar dynamic, limiting the strength of the defenders in certain battlegroups so that less experience players can compete against similarly matched opponents. The gates would be the same for both offensive and defensive champs and the same for both teams in the match up. The whole system could be easily balanced so that all members of an alliance are feeling included and as the alliance improves the gates would open up to more challenging gates, encouraging roster development.
  • SquishyjrThe_4THSquishyjrThe_4TH Posts: 1,358 ★★★
    Wait you’re telling me that you put your alliance In a situation where they have a good chance at losing then you come up with some random solution that can be easily exploited along having gates in certain bg that limits players in alliances?
    Seems legit
    I don’t see this as an issue this is a you problem
  • YoodenVranks_1YoodenVranks_1 Posts: 31

    Wait you’re telling me that you put your alliance In a situation where they have a good chance at losing then you come up with some random solution that can be easily exploited along having gates in certain bg that limits players in alliances?
    Seems legit
    I don’t see this as an issue this is a you problem

    Wow, I’m sorry I’ve offended people. So much for speaking my mind in an open forum in an effort to make my alliance members feel included. I feel that Kabam should be interesting in developing a system that includes a wider player base instead of only focusing on war tiers 1-5.

    What is your suggestion for a solution to the alliances that aren’t interested in war anymore because of how it’s structured to exclude a percentage of their team? Because if you’re suggesting we just stop joining war, like so many other alliances have done, I don’t think that’s the solution that Kabam is interested in. I’m hearing everyone’s criticisms, but I don’t hear anyone else offering something constructive to work towards solving the problem.

    Out of curiosity, how would this theoretical system be exploited? Maybe if we share thoughts we can iron out some of the details.
  • What's to prevent a higher tier player who's looking to take it easy from utilizing Group 3? They could place a slew of top dog maxed out 4* defenders, bring a full team of 4* R5 champs, and dominate those who are still learning. That's what I'm guessing they see as that's what I see as a possible problem. Here's the reality, the Maps below Challenger (below T5) aren't too bad. What Map/tier are you currently running? You say you don't want to become 'elitist' but you also seem to want to remain competitive.

    Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do both. I get that you want to give these lower tier players a place to grow (at least that's what I'm guessing anyway). Which is commendable. Truly, good stuff! However, you're going to be forced to make a decision at some point. Either make it clear that performance in AW isn't something that they should worry too much about, or start phasing out those that can't keep up. Inevitability, some players will get tired of 'picking up the slack' as it were and find a spot that suits their progress.

    I tried this method for a bit in the earlier stages of my group's development. Eventually you come to the conclusion that if all 30 aren't pretty close in progression, there will inevitably be issues to deal with. We decided that we wanted more and to move up. As a result, we became 'elitist' as you put it. The way I put it, we increased our desire for growth and did what was necessary to make it happen. Considering how competitive AW is in general, creating sub tiered gates inside the the lower tiers is a recipe for disaster. What looks to be nice on paper will inevitably be taken advantage of. Which kind of blows as what you're proposing would be interesting to see for lower tier Alliances.

    I wish I had something to offer to help you make both sides of that equation balanced. Truly I do. Trouble is, I also have seen enough to know where this would inevitably go. The way this game is structured, to remain competitive, it's best to group based on progress. Otherwise, you should plan to make sacrifices to help the lower tier players find their way up. Which inevitably stunts your growth. If that's something you and your group can live with, cool. Rock out. I've just seen people get frustrated with such a situation and don't see that changing.
  • YoodenVranks_1YoodenVranks_1 Posts: 31

    What's to prevent a higher tier player who's looking to take it easy from utilizing Group 3? They could place a slew of top dog maxed out 4* defenders, bring a full team of 4* R5 champs, and dominate those who are still learning. That's what I'm guessing they see as that's what I see as a possible problem. Here's the reality, the Maps below Challenger (below T5) aren't too bad. What Map/tier are you currently running? You say you don't want to become 'elitist' but you also seem to want to remain competitive.

    Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do both. I get that you want to give these lower tier players a place to grow (at least that's what I'm guessing anyway). Which is commendable. Truly, good stuff! However, you're going to be forced to make a decision at some point. Either make it clear that performance in AW isn't something that they should worry too much about, or start phasing out those that can't keep up. Inevitability, some players will get tired of 'picking up the slack' as it were and find a spot that suits their progress.

    I tried this method for a bit in the earlier stages of my group's development. Eventually you come to the conclusion that if all 30 aren't pretty close in progression, there will inevitably be issues to deal with. We decided that we wanted more and to move up. As a result, we became 'elitist' as you put it. The way I put it, we increased our desire for growth and did what was necessary to make it happen. Considering how competitive AW is in general, creating sub tiered gates inside the the lower tiers is a recipe for disaster. What looks to be nice on paper will inevitably be taken advantage of. Which kind of blows as what you're proposing would be interesting to see for lower tier Alliances.

    I wish I had something to offer to help you make both sides of that equation balanced. Truly I do. Trouble is, I also have seen enough to know where this would inevitably go. The way this game is structured, to remain competitive, it's best to group based on progress. Otherwise, you should plan to make sacrifices to help the lower tier players find their way up. Which inevitably stunts your growth. If that's something you and your group can live with, cool. Rock out. I've just seen people get frustrated with such a situation and don't see that changing.

    First of all, thank you for a well thought out response.

    It had occurred to me that some people with stacked rosters would fill the defense with maxed out 4*s, in fact I would assume they would, but I don’t see how that would be exploiting it... I’m not saying hand the weaker alliance members an easy win, I’m saying that fighting a maxed out 4* is going to give them more of a fighting chance than against a maxed 5* or higher. The tier point multipliers could still be in place, so what benefit would a endgame alliance gain by slumming it in a lower war tier?

    I guess bottom line is that there’s a glaring contradiction in the design difference between AQ and AW... they restructured AQ making it possible for strong and weak players to coexist in the same alliance, but the flip side is that now AW is a nightmare for both the strong and the weak players. It’s like they can’t decide which direction they want to go with this. Does Kabam want players of different skills levels in the same alliances or not?

    But I digress. It still seems like a viable option to me, whether people share my opinion or not.

    Regardless, my alliance has decided to take a giant step back from AW after this season is finished... I hope Kabam sees the declining participation numbers across several alliances and realizes that many people are not happy with the mode of gameplay.
  • SquishyjrThe_4THSquishyjrThe_4TH Posts: 1,358 ★★★
    Not offended
    I don’t see how that could work. Since the reason you based off that was because your alliance specifically
    The main issue I have is that you decided to have the diversity that you speak of. I think if you decided to have that, you are responsible for what are the results. My alliance has a few guys that hit or are near 1mil rating while some guys are 400k. We do lose wars but the bug guys don’t blame the little guys. We work together and help each together grow, we spread them out between all 3 battle groups so it’s balanced and each group has a good defense and offense.
    The gates make obsoletely no sense to have especially with such a small attacking team. As I said it can be easily exploited. What could be meant for those underdeveloped rosters can now be easy picking for higher tier players
    If winning is such a big issue that your alliances mates are looking down at some other members you can either decide to kick them out, or you can switch to 2 BG and cycle the weaker ones that way they are not such a drag on your war
  • SquishyjrThe_4THSquishyjrThe_4TH Posts: 1,358 ★★★
    Also it makes no sense to encourage 3* rank ups
    4* are still viable
    But you’re restricting the growth of the people you want to help
    If they have a new 5* ghost or Corvus , well guess what they can’t bring them up instead they have to take up that 4* falcon or sentry because they have war to deal with and they don’t have enough resources to take both up
Sign In or Register to comment.