Due to issue with the "Not Another Anime Reference" Solo Event, we will be disabling the event for the time being. We will return the event at a future date when the issues have been resolved. We apologize for the inconvenience.
**BANQUET EVENT PSA**
To fully participate in the upcoming Banquet's Alliance Event you will need to be in your alliance for 14 days prior to the event's start date on December 20th. That means, stay in your alliance from December 6th onwards to enjoy all there is to offer in the Banquet event.
To fully participate in the upcoming Banquet's Alliance Event you will need to be in your alliance for 14 days prior to the event's start date on December 20th. That means, stay in your alliance from December 6th onwards to enjoy all there is to offer in the Banquet event.
15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Returning to the old ways of placing all their OP defenders. Some of these nodes are way too OP if you’re up against a team who didn’t place for diversity.
This is silly as now we will more than likely be doing the same as the cost will be too high to 100% the map. And I’m sure the trend will continue as more and more allys face these non diverse defences on this new map.
So if we go back and start placing all our magiks, dorms, mordos, Mephisto’s, spidey etc.... there is a good chance we can stop the other team if they are not big spenders. Also this way we can get some of our stronger attackers back that would have otherwise been used on our diverse defence. And this will also allow us to utilise all our defenders we worked so hard to Aquire and rank and we can now also remove suicides as we are not looking to win on rating anymore. We can also make better use of MD which most of us worked so hard to unlock. And now we can forget about ranking **** champs as well. So all good things I guess. But of coarse if the other team is willing to spend and still manage to 100% then we are certain for a loss. But what’s to say we wouldn’t of lost on rating anyway, It’s really a gamble either way.
But then the whole diversity thing kinda back fires doesn’t it? You said you are working towards making diversity the main thing. Well I can tell you it is trending in the opposite direction now. So we will basically be back where we were in the old war structure, but with no defender kills and a more OP map.
Maybe this was the plan from the begging? I wouldn’t be surprised to be honest. Use the new war structure to remove defender kills and then add diversity to make people place weak defence. Then bank on everyone crying about how easy it is, then increase difficulty to the point where it pays to place all the OP defenders again.
This war structure is beyond stupid now. Well done Kabam lol.
I'm 100% convinced that they don't understand AW at the top tiers or can do simple math.
This is rather disappointing. You took away slashed tires and thorns -- which were mildly annoying but provided a kind of balance ... and then the map was too easy to complete to 100%. You've now added back nodes which means that defending teams can shut down attackers -- but only some of them are on optional paths (unlike the slashed tires node).
The end result is a fight which is much more boring. As an attacking team, you decide at the beginning what you're going to do and then grind through it. In the old version, it was exciting to see how many paths we could clear (and yes, occasionally we'd use potions when we bit off more than we could chew or someone got stuck unexpectedly). In the new version ... the paths are mostly all linked together, take more time to get through, and ultimately the fights feel meaningless.
Changing it to prevent double 100%s will be an improvement, I guess, but it won't make the format good -- just less obviously broken; the problem remains the lack of diverse strategies and strategic trade-offs. Planning for defense will mean choosing maximally effective defenders for a handful of nodes that can potentially shut down attackers -- and maximal diversity (== whatever high PI champs we've got) elsewhere. We won't be able to get away from spreadsheet wars.
As I said, I thought Kabam promised to be more transparent after 12.0. Maybe I misunderstood; apparently that only lasted until 12.1.
Another day another loss where both sides 100%, both sides 100% diversify, our side has more defender kills but other side wins bc of “rating.” Joy
Sorry for the delayed reply: I've been on vacation (from work, the internet, and the English language).
The problem with this analysis is that it makes the break even point seem much smaller than it actually is. It seems like all you have to do is stop 5% exploration and you win, and 5% can't be much. But that's an illusion: it depicts the war as being something where every 5% is contested. At the moment, every 5% is not contested. Realistically speaking, the first 50% is practically free. It is hard to avoid getting to at least 75% if you have a full battlegroup of players that have a heartbeat. The war is really fought over the last 10% - 25% of the map, depending on the tier and strength of the alliances. The 5% you need to win in your scenario is anywhere from 20% to 50% of the actual contested map.
But it is even worse than that. Almost everyone is at least placing strong defenders on the miniboss nodes. Those are generally the most difficult nodes to defeat. If you can't defeat those, you're likely going to lose anyway. So the scenario you are considering is the case where one alliance gets to 100% which is all bosses defeated and the entire map cleared, and another group somehow getting to 95% and defeating the boss, but somehow leaving just a few percent unexplored. That is more likely to be a navigation mistake than an actual node lost due to a strong defender.
You can't count on this happening, nor can you engineer it to likely happen by placing defenders. If you believe you are facing a battlegroup that can clear all the minibosses and the final boss, you have to believe they are likely to be able to clear the rest of the map, because that's the hardest hurdle. If you believe you are facing a battlegroup that might not be able to clear the minibosses, you're more likely to stop them there regardless of what else you place anywhere else. Stronger is better, but not at the cost of diversity points.
Not every point score is equally likely. 95% vs 100% can and does happen, but it happens more often due to one battle group failing to defeat the final bosses than it does because a couple nodes on a path are not completed but the entire rest of the map is completed. The odds favor presuming that this won't be a deciding factor in most wars, and all it takes is a 51/49 split in the odds to favor going with full diversity.
You say the players create the meta, but that's not true in two senses. First, that's not semantically correct: Kabam creates the meta, given the way the term "the meta" is used by Kabam and parroted by most of the players: the "meta" is the metagame, the game outside the game. In this context, it is the rules that govern what the players do to get better at actually playing the game, which is ultimately dictated by the rules of the game which Kabam alone creates.
But second, even in terms of the way you are using the term (calling "strategy" the "meta"), it is still Kabam that dictates the meta for AW. The players aren't choosing to place diverse defenses arbitrarily: that is being dictated by the scoring rules of AW which penalize the kind of strategy you are proposing as an alternative. Alliances which choose to employ your strategy will lose more often than they win until they drop to a tier where they are so much more powerful than their average opponents that any strategy will win, however suboptimal. It is not that your proposed high strength defense won't win ever: it will. But it will lose more often than it wins against equally skilled opponents, which is tantamount to saying it will penalize any alliance that consistently uses it (by causing them to lose and drop tiers until the strategy starts winning).
There's an objective test to determine if my reasoning is correct, although it will be hard to find volunteers to test it. If I'm right, any alliance that chooses to place strong but non-diverse defenses will *eventually* start winning, but they will win most of their wars when their opponents fail to reach the bosses at all, not because they marginally win by a few percent of exploration. That will imply they are winning against opponents far below their overall strength, which implies their defense placement strategy is hurting them, just in an invisible way that costs them rewards rather than apparent victories.
Keep in mind: every war has a winner and a loser. By definition, every alliance's long term winning percentage should gravitate to 50/50. What skill and strategy do isn't cause you to win all the time, it causes you to move up to higher tiers that offer more rewards and stronger opponents. Eventually, alliances should move to a tier where they are winning only about half the time. So all strategies eventually win. To know if a strategy is a good one you have to look past win/loss record and see what kinds of opponents your overall win/loss pattern is placing you against, and what kinds of rewards you are getting.
On a rare occurance draw.
It would help the players greatly if you could explain what this means. With all due respect, this statement is meaningless on its face. When you say that a goal of 15.x AW is to make defender diversity points a tie breaker, that implies that defender diversity should do nothing unless there is a tie before factoring it in. But two things about that statement make it essentially meaningless. First, what do you even mean by "tie?" If you mean a literal tie, then isn't the goal of the current set of node tweaks in part to eliminate ties? It isn't easy for a war to end in a literal tie unless both sides "hit the rails" and 100% the map, which seems to be something Kabam is trying to eliminate or reduce.
But second, in the current version of AW diversity points are unlikely to be tie breakers at all because defender rating points are breaking all ties completely separate from diversity points, and in a way many players are unhappy about.
Saying a current goal is for defender diversity to act as a tie breaker seems nonsensical to me when a) one of the current goals seems to be to eliminate maximal ties from happening and b) defender rating makes literal point ties extremely unlikely anyway.
It is trivially easy to make defender diversity points a tie breaker. Only count them if a tie happens. The fact that Kabam hasn't implemented such a system suggests that "tie breaker" means something completely different to Kabam than it means to the players. It might be helpful to know what that something is. And that's separate from the fact that even if you somehow many defender diversity points a tie breaker, that doesn't address most of the complaints about the current system.
I will stress that the common denominator behind most complaints is not that any one particular part of the current system is bad, it is that the current system is missing something. It lacks an emphasis on player skill determining the outcome of the war. Nobody cares if you make defender diversity less impactful, if that just means defender rating takes over. Players advocating stronger competition built into the system won't be appeased by eliminating one bad way to win, if other bad ways to win take over. The good way to win is: we are better attackers than them. The second best way to win is: we placed better defenders that made the other attackers look bad. Every other way should only happen rarely and be corner cases.
Players used to post war ties almost fondly, like a winning lottery ticket that while it cost them rewards was something magical that happened only once in a blue moon. Now they post even war victories like they were bitter wins. A system designer needs to ask themselves why this shift happened, and realize what the system changes did to the way many players perceive war.
There are other threads about AW issues, including a strange update to matchmaking and tier system, and questions if node 24 (Hard map and above) is really working as intended.
Partially it is because they are trying to do contradictory, and thus impossible things, and partially because they aren't explaining their position eloquently.
They want to encourage players to attack, but they don't want players to always succeed. They think there is a nice balance between those two. They are wrong. Even if it existed, the tools they are using to try to reach it are too coarse to achieve that pencil-tip balance.
I *think* what they are trying to do is eliminate the situation where a player will give up while they still have live attackers but still encourage alliances to try to kill all of the opposing alliance's attackers. So they can honestly say their *objective* was not for alliances to always 100%, but rather for players to try, and then if the circumstances are such, ultimately fail in their objective to clear the map.
The problem is that while they are trying to not discourage players from attacking, vis-a-vis removing defender kills, what they actually did in total was make it far easier to attack, to encourage players to attack. It is important to note that not discouraging is not the same thing as encouraging. Removing defender kills removes the discouragement from attacking. Making the map easier encourages continued attacking. This ultimately leads to maps getting completed much more often.
The map doesn't actually have to be fully explored to unlock the bosses and finish the map. That's a literal true statement. But I think most experienced players here will note that the nodes you can theoretically skip are among the easiest nodes to kill - why *would* you skip them, except by mistake? If they were the absolute hardest nodes on the map, then it would be true that maybe (at least in some tiers) it is a reasonable thing to say that 100% is not driven by the map. But when the hardest nodes have to be killed and the easiest don't, as a practical matter while you don't have to 100%, the map all but mandates 100%. That's a design error.
What they should have done was make the middle paths the easiest paths, and from those paths you could get to *every* miniboss. That would be the minimum completion path. But the outer paths would be harder, and thus it would take more skill to bring them down. What's more, the outer paths should *debuff* the minibosses. This is not a new trick, its in Act 4. If an alliance chose to do more exploration, they would be removing debuff nodes and making the bosses *harder*. So now you have a choice: do 50% explore with easy bosses, do 75% with harder bosses, or 100% with maximal difficulty bosses.
But why not kill the bosses and *then* go for full completion after the debuff nodes don't matter? You design the top (boss side) of the map with ten minibosses, each with a different buff on the final boss. Some buffs easy, some harder. If you send all ten players into the boss "pit" you don't have any players left to clear outer paths. You could try to bring down the boss after clearing six inner minibosses and then have four players left to continue outer explore, or other complex tactics. But you don't get a free easy shot at the boss and then an easy shot at full explore. To get to 100%, you would have to do all paths up front and then kill the boss fully buffed (i.e. not debuffed).
I think that's what they *intended* to do, but for some reason it did not occur to them to do. Instead they did this weird jumble of outer/inner paths with cross buff nodes and crossing paths that ultimately still all-but-requires full explore. There's only one real reasonable option: to clear every path, defeat every miniboss, and then defeat the boss. That is simultaneously the easiest way to complete the map and the one that gives the most points.
In a competition, "easy" should give smaller points than "harder." The three point shot should be farther away. 50% explore should offer an easier completion, 100% explore should offer a harder completion. And again: this shouldn't be a novel idea: it exists in the game in Act 4.
That theory does not fit the facts. In particular, it is contradicted by three objective facts:
1. Higher tier champions do not as a rule make defenses harder. Players generally rank up attackers first and defenders second. This means introducing 6* champions will first make attacking easier, and then when defenders catch up it will return the status quo. Moreover, rank up resource limitations combined with the overlap in ranks means the introduction of 6* champions will have an overall effect of making defenses relatively weaker still: we are a long way from alliances fielding even a full complement of 5* defenders. That means when 6* champions are introduced, they will be facing predominantly 4* defenders, mixed with some 5* defenders. 6* champions do not, and simply cannot, make attacking harder unless players completely lose their minds when it comes to rank up materials. That is for all intents and purposes mathematically impossible.
2. Kabam explicitly stated, via Kabam Miike, that the primary defensive strategy for war is intended to be to place defenders designed to stop alliances from making progress, and in effect winning the war on kills. This is supported by the node buff changes Kabam made which only make sense if this statement is true, and the original intent was not to make attacking alliances survive intact. This means it is not a matter of opinion that generating defensive kills is the primary focus of AW, it is the explicit stated intent of the developers supported by their actions. The fact that Kabam isn't doing a particularly good job of it doesn't change the intent.
3. Defensive placement strategy has not "developed" over time. That is factually false. For as long as alliance war has existed, the one and only strategy for placing defenders has been to choose the defenders that have the greatest chance of generating kills. Not only is there no other strategy, there is no other conceivable strategy that is not nonsensical. In fact, the optimal strategy even now is to place defenders that will generate the most kills if that is even possible without drawing diversity penalties. You still see Magik and Iceman on the boss nodes. You don't see Spider Gwen on a miniboss node unless someone is punking you. Boss and miniboss nodes are still being placed under the strategy of "inflict that maximum amount of pain on the opponent by killing them." We stopped doing that in 15.0 for non-boss nodes mostly because few champions were strong enough to generate enough kills to compensate for the diversity penalty. In the current 15.0.1 iteration of AW, in *some* tiers you are seeing players begin to place strong defenders on certain nodes, again to generate as many kills as possible. And what's more, the devs seem to actually *want* this to happen.
I'm not trying to convince you that people won't place 6* defenders, so I don't know why you state you aren't convinced of that idea. What I stated was the objective fact that players in general rank up attackers over defenders. That's a statement of history, not conjecture.
The stated issue with defender kill points by Kabam was that they discouraged attacking strong defense nodes. This is a binary issue. 6* champions by definition cannot exacerbate a binary issue by generating more kills, because the number of kills was irrelevant to the issue as stated by Kabam. 6* champions would only be relevant to this issue in terms of whether alliance war defenders will get stronger relative to alliance war attackers. I think that obviously won't happen in general.
I'm primarily concerned with the problems Kabam has stated were issues to them, because those issues directly impact the future development of AW. I'm aware of your own personal issues with defender kill scoring in general, but as they do not influence future AW development and as you aren't really narrow and specific with those objections I don't think there's any merit in my challenging them with logic.
Had to edit your post for space, but am aware that alliances can take a boss down without 100% completion. I'm guessing most alliances are exploring 90-100% with the current set up.
I do agree that they were trying to accomplish some things that contradict, but above all, diversity and more item use/spending is what is seemed they strived for. Most people's point here is that they really don't know what they're doing... and like I said in my earilier post, anything we get now is just lip service.
If I may be so bold, he's not trying to convince you of anything as he stated. He's saying that your perceived problem is not the same as the stated problems by Kabam. 6* champs have never once been referenced by Kabam when discussing war changes. So unless you have insider knowledge, the discussion of 6* champs and CR within this thread is off topic.
Personally, I would love to see @DNA3000's napkin drawing of war used in this game. There's no way it's worse than what we currently have. I really wish Kabam would cut the losses and just come up with a new plan and map.
Nodes 23 and 24 can be a pain now -- possibly because healing is based on scaled health rather than base health, which they may fix -- but if they add additional difficult nodes in the center paths, I think it's possible that an alliance could choose to skip one or two of the center platforms and come in from the sides. They'll have to make the nodes harder for this to be a reasonable strategy -- most of the center paths are easy -- but I could imagine them adding more chapter 5 buffs there and making optional paths that way -- so alliances could kill the boss but differentiate on exploration.
OTOH, I generally agree with you about the absurdity of making most paths either mandatory or trivially easy -- of course this provides a strong incentive to explore the map 100%, and that was obvious by the second time we played the map. (We didn't plan extensively the first time -- I think we assumed that it was going to be reasonably well calibrated -- but after the first loss on diversity, we paid much more attention to scoring and the map itself.)
The only time we don't see double 100%s is when one team screws up on paths, decides to give up, or losses players -- that hasn't changed ... at least not yet.
You need to YouTube Louis C.K.'s bit about arguing with a 3 year old.
Or accept that sometimes there is a place for ignoring adults. (I didn't ignore my kids when they were 3yo, though arguing rationally was only effective for one of them.) I feels like a failure to add someone to your ignore list, but sometimes it's the least bad strategy.
Arguing with someone on the internet is nothing like arguing with a three year old. I've argued with my three year old niece. It is a winnable situation.
An internet debate is a form of performance art. You aren't trying to defeat the other performer. You are trying to get the audience to think about the art. What matters isn't whether the person you're debating thinks you won. What matters is who the audience thinks won.
And that audience can include the developers in this case, which is why I think it is still worth my time to discuss the subject, even though it seems increasingly long odds that anything productive will come of it. If I wasn't the kind of person that would spend time and money on long odds, I probably wouldn't be a player of this game.
I actually didn't say it was stated by them. I see it as another layer. Their main reason was given. I see more than one problem with Defender Kills.
No No No No