The current AW format can be simplified into the following
1) Each alliance choose the defenders they want.
2) Click SUBMIT and system will work out which alliance will win, based on Defenders Diversity and Defenders rating (if less than 150 defenders are chosen, there will be a penalty).
AW can be completed within 24 Hours rather than 48 hours. No need to have to fight, since everyone (or almost everyone) will do 100% anyway.
@Kabam Miike We could really use an update about any tweaks that will be made to alliance war scoring and when we can expect the Diversity score to go back to alliance wide as it was intended. It is really hard to plan for an entire alliance when we don't know what to plan for and the longer it goes, the more people will rank up champs that might not even be needed if there are changes. This thread is spiraling and an update would help.
Sorry guys, but we can't offer any more information until we have it. You guys know this. We're working with the team and are gathering information to share from you to them, and vice versa. Changes will not be made in a rush, and as we have said before, this will be an iterative process.
You guys at Kabam are hilarious. You produce a car that has balloons instead of wheels, put it through an extensive testing, then you release it pissing of all the drivers out there and then you're looking for a fix that takes forever. How about you first design a car, test the concept and then produce it based on the tested and FUNCTIONAL concept?? So when you release it, there are no balloons instead of wheel and no chopsticks instead of gear shift stick etc.
The scoring is not a coding bug - that's a major flaw that is very easy to calculate and predict. If anyone working there knew basic math or how to work with Excel / Numbers apps, this wouldn't have happened. We just lost another war. Both alliances explored practically 100% without any problems, mine actually did 0.5% better job, yet mine cocked up on placement by 7 defenders, so we lost the war from the very beginning. Both alliances had 2 boss kills.
How pathetic is it - to fight a war that's decided from the beginning!! One more stupidity like this and I'm done. Way to go, Kabam. Create something amazing and then **** all over it.
Again we a 10m Alliance faced a 6m Alliance and destroyed them but they paid their way through the bosses and diversity beat us by mere points. In no War is it realistic for a 10m to be beat by a 6m. Im about to give up on this war ever becoming a war again and not a fashion show or who brings the most diverse hero's, not skill, not the time and strength of hero's. Nodes are to weak and everything is decided on diversity now. I think me and my team (est march 2015) are about done waiting for War to become skill based again. Every war is 100% now, reminds me of handing a trophy to every kid as a form of false accomplishment.
We lost a war today by 500 points b/c of diversity when our defender rating was 210k+ higher and we had 20 deaths to their 139. Why even show defender kills if they don't mean anything? We learned our lesson the hard way when it comes to the diversity issue.
Really when is the current format changing? We need defensive kills back at least. The new system is just tearing apart alliances are starting in fighting in alliances over how to run aw. Really really hoping things change soon.
another
another bs war for the books. thanks kabam!
what makes you think you deserve this one?
im just showing how an alliance with a higher rating makes it impossible for lower rated allies to win. i couldnt care less if the match making didnt match us with allies that are 4 million higher rated then us. im showing you how as soon as we see the alliance is higher rated then us we dont stand a chance when back with defender kills we used to win wars like this one. how do you think we got the rating we have now it wasnt from winning tons of easy wars. this just shows how much easier it is for top rated allies to just rake in more rewards while we get the remaining pile of s#!% at the end of the road.
We lost a war today by 500 points b/c of diversity when our defender rating was 210k+ higher and we had 20 deaths to their 139. Why even show defender kills if they don't mean anything? We learned our lesson the hard way when it comes to the diversity issue.
This is a pure F#^% UP by Kabam! LOL 210k higher defender rating is pretty impressive!! That should mean something! Instead, in means nothing more than 400 pts...
another
another bs war for the books. thanks kabam!
what makes you think you deserve this one?
im just showing how an alliance with a higher rating makes it impossible for lower rated allies to win. i couldnt care less if the match making didnt match us with allies that are 4 million higher rated then us. im showing you how as soon as we see the alliance is higher rated then us we dont stand a chance when back with defender kills we used to win wars like this one. how do you think we got the rating we have now it wasnt from winning tons of easy wars. this just shows how much easier it is for top rated allies to just rake in more rewards while we get the remaining pile of **** at the end of the road.
Ooooh okay now it makes more sense it's hard to tell without being able to see the ratings of both alliances
another
another bs war for the books. thanks kabam!
what makes you think you deserve this one?
im just showing how an alliance with a higher rating makes it impossible for lower rated allies to win. i couldnt care less if the match making didnt match us with allies that are 4 million higher rated then us. im showing you how as soon as we see the alliance is higher rated then us we dont stand a chance when back with defender kills we used to win wars like this one. how do you think we got the rating we have now it wasnt from winning tons of easy wars. this just shows how much easier it is for top rated allies to just rake in more rewards while we get the remaining pile of **** at the end of the road.
Ooooh okay now it makes more sense it's hard to tell without being able to see the ratings of both alliances
@Kabam Miike You should have said - from now on every war will be a tie and because of this we're introducing a defender diversity!!! It will decide the war before the attack phase even starts!!! Yay - that'll be so much fun, guys!!! No more stressing over fighting challenging nodes or getting stuck on paths. NO need to worry from now on - less stress = more fun
Both alliances explored practically 100% without any problems, mine actually did 0.5% better job, yet mine cocked up on placement by 7 defenders, so we lost the war from the very beginning. Both alliances had 2 boss kills.
While I sympathize with the diversity scoring problem, technically speaking you didn't lose the war from the start because you only had two boss kills. The other alliance had a 776 point advantage at the start but that was surmountable with a third boss kill.
I would be curious to see what the defender kill stats were for this war: would that have made a difference if they had counted.
I'll keep posting smart comments until I get banned on the forums and the game, because I think I'd regret it if I deleted my game profile and then the game got fixed 5 years later after being bought up bankrupted and abandoned from a developer's scrapyard by a team of hardcore fans from back in the days when the game was still fun and playable... I'm pretty sure "being smart" is a banable offence at Kabam
the logic isn't there. If allies are getting away with placing 3 star champs to. Wet diversity requirements, then it takes away from building rosters worth anything. The new system still wont get me to use rank up resources on champs like Luke Cage and IP.
139 to 20. Just think about that. Their entire squad died almost 5 times completing a map we had no trouble with. We took out their Spidey with left mini still up in our big just to get some simblance of a challenge. It's sad man.
the logic isn't there. If allies are getting away with placing 3 star champs to. Wet diversity requirements, then it takes away from building rosters worth anything. The new system still wont get me to use rank up resources on champs like Luke Cage and IP.
139 to 20. Just think about that. Their entire squad died almost 5 times completing a map we had no trouble with. We took out their Spidey with left mini still up in our big just to get some simblance of a challenge. It's sad man.
maybe kabam should stop giving you such easy wars. our last 30 wars we have been the underdog by alliance rating yet we still managed to claw are way up to 2k rating
"Diversity will be just a small amount of points - a tiebreaker..." Tiebreak my A**
Actually, evidence suggests that it is in fact behaving that way. Unintentionally but not entirely unexpectedly, it is also helping to generate ties in the first place in combination with the new scoring system.
Whoever designed the new scoring system apparently is unfamiliar with Nash equilibrium. The system contains a very strong and very nasty attractor to a bad equilibrium point: the maximal diversity point. It tends to encourage weaker but more diverse defense, which increases the likelihood for maximal exploration, which increases the odds of a close score, which increases the probability that the diversity score will become the deciding factor. And as players come to realize this as being a problem it encourages them to lock their defense strategy into perpetuating the problem indefinitely because no change in strategy can differentially improve matters. That's basically the textbook definition of a Nash equilibrium, for budding game theorists out there.
Both alliances explored practically 100% without any problems, mine actually did 0.5% better job, yet mine cocked up on placement by 7 defenders, so we lost the war from the very beginning. Both alliances had 2 boss kills.
While I sympathize with the diversity scoring problem, technically speaking you didn't lose the war from the start because you only had two boss kills. The other alliance had a 776 point advantage at the start but that was surmountable with a third boss kill.
I would be curious to see what the defender kill stats were for this war: would that have made a difference if they had counted.
I guess I forgot to mention - it was only 2 group war. I thought it was apparent from the screen shot - 100% exploration with 100 kills for both alliances....
the logic isn't there. If allies are getting away with placing 3 star champs to. Wet diversity requirements, then it takes away from building rosters worth anything. The new system still wont get me to use rank up resources on champs like Luke Cage and IP.
139 to 20. Just think about that. Their entire squad died almost 5 times completing a map we had no trouble with. We took out their Spidey with left mini still up in our big just to get some simblance of a challenge. It's sad man.
maybe kabam should stop giving you such easy wars. our last 30 wars we have been the underdog by alliance rating yet we still managed to claw are way up to 2k rating
Then alliances would be selling off their useless champs, such as 1,2 and 3* to get their rating lower and the diversity would suffer from it LOOOOL I don't know what it should be, I don't have the data. Kabam does.
"Diversity will be just a small amount of points - a tiebreaker..." Tiebreak my A**
Actually, evidence suggests that it is in fact behaving that way. Unintentionally but not entirely unexpectedly, it is also helping to generate ties in the first place in combination with the new scoring system.
Whoever designed the new scoring system apparently is unfamiliar with Nash equilibrium. The system contains a very strong and very nasty attractor to a bad equilibrium point: the maximal diversity point. It tends to encourage weaker but more diverse defense, which increases the likelihood for maximal exploration, which increases the odds of a close score, which increases the probability that the diversity score will become the deciding factor. And as players come to realize this as being a problem it encourages them to lock their defense strategy into perpetuating the problem indefinitely because no change in strategy can differentially improve matters. That's basically the textbook definition of a Nash equilibrium, for budding game theorists out there.
This should have been a predictable flaw.
As much as you made my head spin, I totally understand and agree. For those who passed out from the spinning - it's just really fancy way of saying - Kabam did a bad bad job and came up with a game design that is fundamentally not functional, so now they have to fix it, having very little idea about how, because they came up with this the first place, so we're all F^%#ED.
Haven't ranked anyone since this thing started other than a 5* I was already planning on ranking. Certainly won't be ranking any champs for the sake of diversity.
I saw the alpha offer and laughed. When I saw similar offers in the past, it might have been hard to resist.. And I've bought various t4 packages in the past so I could save some time and get some champs upped.
Now I'm in no rush at all. If resources come, they come. If they don't, they don't. My roster can sit stagnant and it won't really bother me. Why rank anyone when things change so drastically? I've got what I need for now. This might be the side effect you didn't expect with this war silliness.
same here. Won't be ranking up anything past 3/30 until it gets fixed!
The more wars fought, the more obvious the problems with this setup. I'm holding out hope that this was just another forced beta test. The concept is misguided. The implementation is extremely bad. The data and feedback are showing you exactly that.
I see handfuls of players walk away every day. Sure, drops in the bucket. But the drops are multiplying. I can't see how this setup benefits kabam either. If you're dead set on diversity, add it as a scoring category in aw 1.0 and scrap the rest of this trash. Just don't make it so heavy as to be a deciding factor.
Once an alliance have reached a maximum diversity, then what matters would be purely defenders ratings.
So alliances with maximum diversity would want only players with good defenders rating, and not necessarily skilled players. Some players have taken to ranking up the meh champs just so to give their alliances a better defenders rating.
Comments
what makes you think you deserve this one?
1) Each alliance choose the defenders they want.
2) Click SUBMIT and system will work out which alliance will win, based on Defenders Diversity and Defenders rating (if less than 150 defenders are chosen, there will be a penalty).
AW can be completed within 24 Hours rather than 48 hours. No need to have to fight, since everyone (or almost everyone) will do 100% anyway.
You guys at Kabam are hilarious. You produce a car that has balloons instead of wheels, put it through an extensive testing, then you release it pissing of all the drivers out there and then you're looking for a fix that takes forever. How about you first design a car, test the concept and then produce it based on the tested and FUNCTIONAL concept?? So when you release it, there are no balloons instead of wheel and no chopsticks instead of gear shift stick etc.
The scoring is not a coding bug - that's a major flaw that is very easy to calculate and predict. If anyone working there knew basic math or how to work with Excel / Numbers apps, this wouldn't have happened. We just lost another war. Both alliances explored practically 100% without any problems, mine actually did 0.5% better job, yet mine cocked up on placement by 7 defenders, so we lost the war from the very beginning. Both alliances had 2 boss kills.
How pathetic is it - to fight a war that's decided from the beginning!! One more stupidity like this and I'm done. Way to go, Kabam. Create something amazing and then **** all over it.
Glad this is what wars come to now
im just showing how an alliance with a higher rating makes it impossible for lower rated allies to win. i couldnt care less if the match making didnt match us with allies that are 4 million higher rated then us. im showing you how as soon as we see the alliance is higher rated then us we dont stand a chance when back with defender kills we used to win wars like this one. how do you think we got the rating we have now it wasnt from winning tons of easy wars. this just shows how much easier it is for top rated allies to just rake in more rewards while we get the remaining pile of s#!% at the end of the road.
This is a pure F#^% UP by Kabam! LOL 210k higher defender rating is pretty impressive!! That should mean something! Instead, in means nothing more than 400 pts...
Ooooh okay now it makes more sense it's hard to tell without being able to see the ratings of both alliances
I'm finding less and less interest to continue, the more I read into all these posts here.
true i guess that would of helped my case. lol
While I sympathize with the diversity scoring problem, technically speaking you didn't lose the war from the start because you only had two boss kills. The other alliance had a 776 point advantage at the start but that was surmountable with a third boss kill.
I would be curious to see what the defender kill stats were for this war: would that have made a difference if they had counted.
139 to 20. Just think about that. Their entire squad died almost 5 times completing a map we had no trouble with. We took out their Spidey with left mini still up in our big just to get some simblance of a challenge. It's sad man.
maybe kabam should stop giving you such easy wars. our last 30 wars we have been the underdog by alliance rating yet we still managed to claw are way up to 2k rating
Actually, evidence suggests that it is in fact behaving that way. Unintentionally but not entirely unexpectedly, it is also helping to generate ties in the first place in combination with the new scoring system.
Whoever designed the new scoring system apparently is unfamiliar with Nash equilibrium. The system contains a very strong and very nasty attractor to a bad equilibrium point: the maximal diversity point. It tends to encourage weaker but more diverse defense, which increases the likelihood for maximal exploration, which increases the odds of a close score, which increases the probability that the diversity score will become the deciding factor. And as players come to realize this as being a problem it encourages them to lock their defense strategy into perpetuating the problem indefinitely because no change in strategy can differentially improve matters. That's basically the textbook definition of a Nash equilibrium, for budding game theorists out there.
This should have been a predictable flaw.
That's a terrible idea. There are enough alliances out there who would sell their 1*,2*, and 3* just to lower the alliance rating.
fine by me then that would be the standard so it would balance out in the end
I guess I forgot to mention - it was only 2 group war. I thought it was apparent from the screen shot - 100% exploration with 100 kills for both alliances....
Then alliances would be selling off their useless champs, such as 1,2 and 3* to get their rating lower and the diversity would suffer from it LOOOOL I don't know what it should be, I don't have the data. Kabam does.
As much as you made my head spin, I totally understand and agree. For those who passed out from the spinning - it's just really fancy way of saying - Kabam did a bad bad job and came up with a game design that is fundamentally not functional, so now they have to fix it, having very little idea about how, because they came up with this the first place, so we're all F^%#ED.
same here. Won't be ranking up anything past 3/30 until it gets fixed!
hail @Seatin
I see handfuls of players walk away every day. Sure, drops in the bucket. But the drops are multiplying. I can't see how this setup benefits kabam either. If you're dead set on diversity, add it as a scoring category in aw 1.0 and scrap the rest of this trash. Just don't make it so heavy as to be a deciding factor.
So alliances with maximum diversity would want only players with good defenders rating, and not necessarily skilled players. Some players have taken to ranking up the meh champs just so to give their alliances a better defenders rating.