Another war we lost because of defender rating. Played great. Few deaths. Doesn't matter. The other alliance had higher rating. War is not fair and it's not fun. @Kabam Miike@Ad0ra_
Spreadsheet War is ****. No point of playing if the other team has a higher rating. before it would come down to strategy. How it's decided as soon as war begins. We keep losing wars and there's nothing we can do because we are getting matched up against bigger alliances. Every team does 100% every war. It's a waste of time and it's stupid and boring. @Kabam Miike@Ad0ra_
@Kabam Miike This new war is horrible. It's no longer a skill based. It's way to easy to 100%. The alliance with the higher defender rating will win all the time now. How was this new war thought thru? We all ranked up champs that were great for defense. Now we are all trying to adapt to this new war and have to rank up worthless champs and we are not receiving any type of compensation for this.
If you had killed that last defender you would have won.
Actually, when I look at those scores it seems the OP's alliance had the diversity advantage, and the other alliance won due to one more attacker kill and the associated exploration score (and slightly higher defender rating, but the old war also gave points for defender rating). If we remove diversity scoring they just would have lost by more.
No matter how bad the current system is, you can't blame every close loss on the new system. If nothing else, it just undermines the valid claims against the system if the devs perceive that many of the complaints are not based in the real properties of the system, or if players are so irrationally angry that nothing they do will change that, so nothing should be done.
@Kabam Miike This new war is horrible. It's no longer a skill based. It's way to easy to 100%. The alliance with the higher defender rating will win all the time now.
At the highest tiers that is probably true much of the time. It isn't true in the lower tiers yet. But even if it never gets there, I believe AW will evolve towards that direction even in lower tiers, just because the incentive to diversify is strong and lower tier AW has fewer high rank defenders - so diversity means lowering difficulty on attack. The push is towards diverse and weaker defenders, commensurately higher attacker performance, and wars decided more strongly by diversity scores.
I don't think this is 100% unintentional either. Their explicit stated goal of encouraging attackers to continue to fight by lowering the penalties on attackers that die inevitably means attackers will complete the map more often, and I believe the devs want attackers to complete the map more often. But the side effects of pushing for that don't seem to have been well thought out. I believe the devs think things that are mathematically impossible and game theoretically nonsensical about how the players are likely to react over time to the new scoring system. Players have to act against their own interests to make the system work in the way I believe they think it will. They can only do that out of ignorance, and ignorance doesn't last forever in a competitive environment. It gets weeded out over time.
[snip]
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
Option 3: you're taking trolling seriously.
I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of trolling. However, I will say that while the best thing to do to trolls is to ignore them, there are those of us who grew up during the golden age of the internet that have learned to confront trolls on their own turf. I don't respond emotionally to trolls. I ask them to explain themselves like I'm asking a comedian to explain the joke.
If they are not a troll, they will try. If they are a troll, it will drive them crazy. Trolls want to throw grenades. They won't want people to bring them back and ask them to autograph them.
These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
I don't think many if anyone is debating what problems the devs believe existed, or what the devs did to address them. Almost the entirety of the discussion surrounding the AW changes has revolved around a) were those problems significant enough to address, b) are the changes the devs made reasonable ways to address those problems, c) what the side effects are of those changes, and d) taken as a whole, does the new AW system present a reasonable alliance competition platform.
Just separating the two. Meaning, I'm owning my thoughts and not adding conjecture as to what their intentions were.
In many of your debates you will counter peoples thoughts and opinions buy using Kabams thoughts or what something is or was intended for. Ill use RDT's as an example: When people ask for them for reasons that are good for them you counter with "thats not what they were designed/intended for." And I'll agree, because you are right. And those people will go on and on and argue how they feel its right and good for them and choose to ignore you.
On this thread you do the complete opposite and turn into those people. Your argument seems to be a case of something being good for you while others argue thats not what war was designed for. And you end up being the one going on and on with trying to find justification to something being best for you and not actually for the game as a whole.
First of all, this is a Thread for feedback on the new system. When discussing issues that multiple Threads have been opened on and the response has been given, I will usually reiterate the response given. You are correct about that.
I was asked to give my views and opinions, and I did so. I also offered what I would suggest. If people want to focus on the more personal view I have, that's up to them. That opinion is detached from the other issues I've outlined.
It is not about what would benefit me personally. I'm not operating out of any motive. I described my thought on existing issues. I did so with the system as a whole in mind, and not my own or any other specific demographic or position in mind.
I can choose to reiterate information shared, and I can also share my personal thoughts on it. I did so with hesitation because not everyone agrees with them. That still doesn't mean I don't have the ability to share them if I choose. I won't be criticized for that. They are ideas. Not demands. I will not debate them any further.
If you had killed that last defender you would have won.
Actually, when I look at those scores it seems the OP's alliance had the diversity advantage, and the other alliance won due to one more attacker kill and the associated exploration score (and slightly higher defender rating, but the old war also gave points for defender rating). If we remove diversity scoring they just would have lost by more.
No matter how bad the current system is, you can't blame every close loss on the new system. If nothing else, it just undermines the valid claims against the system if the devs perceive that many of the complaints are not based in the real properties of the system, or if players are so irrationally angry that nothing they do will change that, so nothing should be done.
Actually at some point when everyone gets used to diversity every war will automatically be decided by rating under this system so it’ll all be by this system.
@GroundedWisdom@Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.
Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.
@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.
What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified. 7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion. 8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.
Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.
lol, too competitive? This game is literally called "Contest" of Champions and you're complaining about it being too competitive? Maybe it's time to find a new game chief.
@GroundedWisdom@Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.
Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.
@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.
What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified. 7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion. 8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.
Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.
lol, too competitive? This game is literally called "Contest" of Champions and you're complaining about it being too competitive? Maybe it's time to find a new game chief.
The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.
@GroundedWisdom@Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.
Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.
@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.
What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified. 7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion. 8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.
Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.
lol, too competitive? This game is literally called "Contest" of Champions and you're complaining about it being too competitive? Maybe it's time to find a new game chief.
The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.
I read that drivel earlier and it's still wrong. If you don't want a competitive game play a different one. Don't try to ruin MCOC and bring it down to your level.
These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
I don't think many if anyone is debating what problems the devs believe existed, or what the devs did to address them. Almost the entirety of the discussion surrounding the AW changes has revolved around a) were those problems significant enough to address, b) are the changes the devs made reasonable ways to address those problems, c) what the side effects are of those changes, and d) taken as a whole, does the new AW system present a reasonable alliance competition platform.
Just separating the two. Meaning, I'm owning my thoughts and not adding conjecture as to what their intentions were.
In many of your debates you will counter peoples thoughts and opinions buy using Kabams thoughts or what something is or was intended for. Ill use RDT's as an example: When people ask for them for reasons that are good for them you counter with "thats not what they were designed/intended for." And I'll agree, because you are right. And those people will go on and on and argue how they feel its right and good for them and choose to ignore you.
On this thread you do the complete opposite and turn into those people. Your argument seems to be a case of something being good for you while others argue thats not what war was designed for. And you end up being the one going on and on with trying to find justification to something being best for you and not actually for the game as a whole.
First of all, this is a Thread for feedback on the new system. When discussing issues that multiple Threads have been opened on and the response has been given, I will usually reiterate the response given. You are correct about that.
I was asked to give my views and opinions, and I did so. I also offered what I would suggest. If people want to focus on the more personal view I have, that's up to them. That opinion is detached from the other issues I've outlined.
It is not about what would benefit me personally. I'm not operating out of any motive. I described my thought on existing issues. I did so with the system as a whole in mind, and not my own or any other specific demographic or position in mind.
I can choose to reiterate information shared, and I can also share my personal thoughts on it. I did so with hesitation because not everyone agrees with them. That still doesn't mean I don't have the ability to share them if I choose. I won't be criticized for that. They are ideas. Not demands. I will not debate them any further.
I'm aware of what this thread is. I mentioned it in my comment before the one you chose to quote. You should read that one as well as it has much to do with your comments.
Who asked you for your thought's and opinions? You mentioned you were asked for them, so a bit curious what you mean.
After reading all that I'm unable to pinpoint a part where you you began to refute what I said. Your logic is flawed because you do want changes, but none that go back to the actual competitive part of War and makes this a true contest of alliance vs alliance and the victor being the actual better, stronger, and most skilled team. The longer comment that I previously made is the one you should try to touch on first if you want to counter me and have an actual debate on the meaning of war and whats needed to make it what it was actually designed for.
@GroundedWisdom@Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.
Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.
@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.
What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified. 7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion. 8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.
Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.
lol, too competitive? This game is literally called "Contest" of Champions and you're complaining about it being too competitive? Maybe it's time to find a new game chief.
The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.
Where are you going with that? You think that the new system is a means to stop any of that? Shell alliances can still be a thing, wrong or not is another matter. Only a handful of alliances have the chance to make an attempt not to fight each other, but they do battle. I have seen threads on that but never seen any actual proof of it to make it anything other than a rumor. Not that its not true, I just haven't seen the proof. But again, even if it is true it can still happen with the new system.
I'm not sure how you are able to determine someone has a monopoly in AW.
I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
But how are we supposed to understand where you’re coming from if you don’t fully explain it.
1) WE'RE NOT PATIENT, WE'RE PISSED AND INSULTED!!!
2) " ...will be an iterative process - one that we are dedicated to. We have greatly appreciated all of the constructive feedback..." - DO IT WHILE YOU'RE PREPARING BIG UPDATES AND CHANGES, NOT AFTER YOU RELEASE SOMETHING INSULTING AND BROKEN LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO!!!!!
3) "...diversity dependant on Battlegroups, not based on the entire Alliance" - HOW PATHETIC!!! Unintentional mistakes work out better for the game and the player base than ALL THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES!!!!
4)"We will continue to make more iterations and adjustments until we have fulfilled our goals..." DO IT IN-HOUSE, BEHIND THE CURTAINS!!! WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING US WITH THIS BROKEN NONSENSE???? GIVE US THE OLD WAR BACK, WORK ON THE NEW ONE, COLLECT FEEDBACK FROM US WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT AND WHEN IT'S READY, TEST IT FIRST WITHIN A CLOSED GROUP AND THEN PUT IT ONLINE!! DO YOU WANT US TO BE TELLING YOU HOW TO DO YOUR JOB EACH TIME????? IT'S EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RELEASE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES, IT'S BROKEN AND IT'S GARBAGE AND IT'S INSULTING YOUR PLAYER BASE!
5) "Stay tuned!" - WE'RE PISSED AND WE'RE STAYING THAT WAY UNTIL IT'S FIXED!!!
I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
Oh, my bad. I thought that was the point in quoting and making a reply.
We've dropped a tier down with 4 losses in a row, nothing that had happened to us before this update. No matter what we do, the war is ALWAYS A TIE and it's always about 1-100 pts that decide. It's either defender rating, or diversity and it's ANNOYING!!! We had only had 2 or 3 ties like these in the history of Alliance Wars! Usually around 500 pts!! Only about once or twice both alliances managed to explore 100% or nearly 100% - it's every DAMN WAR NOW!!!
WTF Kabam!!!!!
There is often nothing any of us can do about it! In order to play this game, everyone needs to sit in front of another device to watch a life feed of conversation (LINE App etc.) and only place defence when everyone else knows about it!!!! This war two guys managed to join at the exact time and they both joined with duplicates. We were one diversity percentage away from winning the damn thing, but no, one technicality before the attack even starts decided about the war to our disadvantage.
How were you testing the new mode, @Kabam Miike ????? It doesn't seem to have been even tested!!! Only perhaps for coding bugs, if it's stable or not, but not the concept, it's so F@#$%$ BROKEN it's unbelievable!!
It's so sad once so brilliant team as KABAM is now releasing such SH#%$ out their doors.
Do you need help? Why don't you ask for it BEFORE YOU RELEASE ALL THIS SH%$#!!!!!!
Why is anyone flagging my posts yo?! I'm expressing my and my alliances opinions, I'm not using foul language and I'm not being rude to anyone, especially not @Kabam Miike. He's not the one developing these changes, or deciding about them or releasing them. He's just the voice of Kabam and so everything I have to say to Kabam I'm telling him. Although he does post some weird statements, but those I guess are passed down onto him, so can't blame the guy for much.
I'm gonna keep pounding at them UNTIL SOMEONE READS my comments and LEARNS TO TEST THEIR UPDATES BEFORE RELEASING THEM!!!!!!!!!
GREAT! 5 minis with the same 3 attackers on a much bigger map, means more revives needed! No defender kill points! BIG SPENDERS WIN EVERY WAR!!! FUNNN!!!!!
Bigger map doesn't mean that you'll be having more fights. There will be just as many Defenders as there were before.
ok, just as many defenders. But defender kills, in combo with 5 mini bosses means $$ wins every war. No more skill. Good job killing wars.
The amount of items that any user can use remains the same, so every Alliance Member can still only Revive/Heal 15 times. This hasn't changed. Additionally, 5 Minibosses doesn't mean that any one person will be taking on more than 1.
The goal with the removal of Defender kills wasn't to increase the use of Potions or Revives, but to relieve the feeling of defeat that comes with taking one shot at a defender, losing, and feeling that you're now helping the other Alliance, so you stop playing, even though you have 2 perfectly good attackers still there.
GREAT! 5 minis with the same 3 attackers on a much bigger map, means more revives needed! No defender kill points! BIG SPENDERS WIN EVERY WAR!!! FUNNN!!!!!
Bigger map doesn't mean that you'll be having more fights. There will be just as many Defenders as there were before.
ok, just as many defenders. But defender kills, in combo with 5 mini bosses means $$ wins every war. No more skill. Good job killing wars.
The amount of items that any user can use remains the same, so every Alliance Member can still only Revive/Heal 15 times. This hasn't changed. Additionally, 5 Minibosses doesn't mean that any one person will be taking on more than 1.
The goal with the removal of Defender kills wasn't to increase the use of Potions or Revives, but to relieve the feeling of defeat that comes with taking one shot at a defender, losing, and feeling that you're now helping the other Alliance, so you stop playing, even though you have 2 perfectly good attackers still there.
Anytime you put financial concerns ahead of gameplay quality it backfires, and nobody sits there with 2 perfectly good attackers. The removal of defender kills was done to encourage spending in all situations. Please just be frank about that. Defender kills was a skill based system and Its been replaced with defender diversity which has o skill involved. There is no way to encourage alliances that haven't spent in the Las t 2 years to all of a sudden start spending. Please return alliance wars to a skill based experience again if you don't want to put back defender kills. Put a timer on it so if there's a close matchquickest team wins, that involves coordination and skill. Regardless of what the developers say doing anything other than changing the map was a mistake, hope wars return to a skill based system. Tweaking the current system won't work, not that developers listened before the change when you got the emails about how changing wars was a bad idea.... that's my 2 cents
I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
lol. I totally have an awesome plan, I'm not going to tell you what it is but trust be it's totally awesome. This is getting silly.
I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
lol. I totally have an awesome plan, I'm not going to tell you what it is but trust be it's totally awesome. This is getting silly.
What's getting silly is the semantics over every comment I make. "I" don't have a plan. I offered suggestions as to what they could
do to improve what is currently in place. I said I have theories on how some of the existing changes would curb some of the issues. Which I am choosing to keep to myself. For obvious reasons.
I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
lol. I totally have an awesome plan, I'm not going to tell you what it is but trust be it's totally awesome. This is getting silly.
What's getting silly is the semantics over every comment I make. "I" don't have a plan. I offered suggestions as to what they could
do to improve what is currently in place. I said I have theories on how some of the existing changes would curb some of the issues. Which I am choosing to keep to myself. For obvious reasons.
What's silly is that you've repeatedly said you're done debating your point, tell us to stop talking, and then when we do, you bring it up again.
Comments
Actually, when I look at those scores it seems the OP's alliance had the diversity advantage, and the other alliance won due to one more attacker kill and the associated exploration score (and slightly higher defender rating, but the old war also gave points for defender rating). If we remove diversity scoring they just would have lost by more.
No matter how bad the current system is, you can't blame every close loss on the new system. If nothing else, it just undermines the valid claims against the system if the devs perceive that many of the complaints are not based in the real properties of the system, or if players are so irrationally angry that nothing they do will change that, so nothing should be done.
At the highest tiers that is probably true much of the time. It isn't true in the lower tiers yet. But even if it never gets there, I believe AW will evolve towards that direction even in lower tiers, just because the incentive to diversify is strong and lower tier AW has fewer high rank defenders - so diversity means lowering difficulty on attack. The push is towards diverse and weaker defenders, commensurately higher attacker performance, and wars decided more strongly by diversity scores.
I don't think this is 100% unintentional either. Their explicit stated goal of encouraging attackers to continue to fight by lowering the penalties on attackers that die inevitably means attackers will complete the map more often, and I believe the devs want attackers to complete the map more often. But the side effects of pushing for that don't seem to have been well thought out. I believe the devs think things that are mathematically impossible and game theoretically nonsensical about how the players are likely to react over time to the new scoring system. Players have to act against their own interests to make the system work in the way I believe they think it will. They can only do that out of ignorance, and ignorance doesn't last forever in a competitive environment. It gets weeded out over time.
I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of trolling. However, I will say that while the best thing to do to trolls is to ignore them, there are those of us who grew up during the golden age of the internet that have learned to confront trolls on their own turf. I don't respond emotionally to trolls. I ask them to explain themselves like I'm asking a comedian to explain the joke.
If they are not a troll, they will try. If they are a troll, it will drive them crazy. Trolls want to throw grenades. They won't want people to bring them back and ask them to autograph them.
First of all, this is a Thread for feedback on the new system. When discussing issues that multiple Threads have been opened on and the response has been given, I will usually reiterate the response given. You are correct about that.
I was asked to give my views and opinions, and I did so. I also offered what I would suggest. If people want to focus on the more personal view I have, that's up to them. That opinion is detached from the other issues I've outlined.
It is not about what would benefit me personally. I'm not operating out of any motive. I described my thought on existing issues. I did so with the system as a whole in mind, and not my own or any other specific demographic or position in mind.
I can choose to reiterate information shared, and I can also share my personal thoughts on it. I did so with hesitation because not everyone agrees with them. That still doesn't mean I don't have the ability to share them if I choose. I won't be criticized for that. They are ideas. Not demands. I will not debate them any further.
Actually at some point when everyone gets used to diversity every war will automatically be decided by rating under this system so it’ll all be by this system.
lol, too competitive? This game is literally called "Contest" of Champions and you're complaining about it being too competitive? Maybe it's time to find a new game chief.
The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.
I read that drivel earlier and it's still wrong. If you don't want a competitive game play a different one. Don't try to ruin MCOC and bring it down to your level.
I'm aware of what this thread is. I mentioned it in my comment before the one you chose to quote. You should read that one as well as it has much to do with your comments.
Who asked you for your thought's and opinions? You mentioned you were asked for them, so a bit curious what you mean.
After reading all that I'm unable to pinpoint a part where you you began to refute what I said. Your logic is flawed because you do want changes, but none that go back to the actual competitive part of War and makes this a true contest of alliance vs alliance and the victor being the actual better, stronger, and most skilled team. The longer comment that I previously made is the one you should try to touch on first if you want to counter me and have an actual debate on the meaning of war and whats needed to make it what it was actually designed for.
Where are you going with that? You think that the new system is a means to stop any of that? Shell alliances can still be a thing, wrong or not is another matter. Only a handful of alliances have the chance to make an attempt not to fight each other, but they do battle. I have seen threads on that but never seen any actual proof of it to make it anything other than a rumor. Not that its not true, I just haven't seen the proof. But again, even if it is true it can still happen with the new system.
I'm not sure how you are able to determine someone has a monopoly in AW.
But how are we supposed to understand where you’re coming from if you don’t fully explain it.
@Kabam Miike
Speaking for myself and my alliance:
1) WE'RE NOT PATIENT, WE'RE PISSED AND INSULTED!!!
2) " ...will be an iterative process - one that we are dedicated to. We have greatly appreciated all of the constructive feedback..." - DO IT WHILE YOU'RE PREPARING BIG UPDATES AND CHANGES, NOT AFTER YOU RELEASE SOMETHING INSULTING AND BROKEN LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO!!!!!
3) "...diversity dependant on Battlegroups, not based on the entire Alliance" - HOW PATHETIC!!! Unintentional mistakes work out better for the game and the player base than ALL THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES!!!!
4)"We will continue to make more iterations and adjustments until we have fulfilled our goals..." DO IT IN-HOUSE, BEHIND THE CURTAINS!!! WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING US WITH THIS BROKEN NONSENSE???? GIVE US THE OLD WAR BACK, WORK ON THE NEW ONE, COLLECT FEEDBACK FROM US WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT AND WHEN IT'S READY, TEST IT FIRST WITHIN A CLOSED GROUP AND THEN PUT IT ONLINE!! DO YOU WANT US TO BE TELLING YOU HOW TO DO YOUR JOB EACH TIME????? IT'S EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RELEASE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES, IT'S BROKEN AND IT'S GARBAGE AND IT'S INSULTING YOUR PLAYER BASE!
5) "Stay tuned!" - WE'RE PISSED AND WE'RE STAYING THAT WAY UNTIL IT'S FIXED!!!
Oh, my bad. I thought that was the point in quoting and making a reply.
WTF Kabam!!!!!
There is often nothing any of us can do about it! In order to play this game, everyone needs to sit in front of another device to watch a life feed of conversation (LINE App etc.) and only place defence when everyone else knows about it!!!! This war two guys managed to join at the exact time and they both joined with duplicates. We were one diversity percentage away from winning the damn thing, but no, one technicality before the attack even starts decided about the war to our disadvantage.
How were you testing the new mode, @Kabam Miike ????? It doesn't seem to have been even tested!!! Only perhaps for coding bugs, if it's stable or not, but not the concept, it's so F@#$%$ BROKEN it's unbelievable!!
It's so sad once so brilliant team as KABAM is now releasing such SH#%$ out their doors.
Do you need help? Why don't you ask for it BEFORE YOU RELEASE ALL THIS SH%$#!!!!!!
I'm gonna keep pounding at them UNTIL SOMEONE READS my comments and LEARNS TO TEST THEIR UPDATES BEFORE RELEASING THEM!!!!!!!!!
Anytime you put financial concerns ahead of gameplay quality it backfires, and nobody sits there with 2 perfectly good attackers. The removal of defender kills was done to encourage spending in all situations. Please just be frank about that. Defender kills was a skill based system and Its been replaced with defender diversity which has o skill involved. There is no way to encourage alliances that haven't spent in the Las t 2 years to all of a sudden start spending. Please return alliance wars to a skill based experience again if you don't want to put back defender kills. Put a timer on it so if there's a close matchquickest team wins, that involves coordination and skill. Regardless of what the developers say doing anything other than changing the map was a mistake, hope wars return to a skill based system. Tweaking the current system won't work, not that developers listened before the change when you got the emails about how changing wars was a bad idea.... that's my 2 cents
lol. I totally have an awesome plan, I'm not going to tell you what it is but trust be it's totally awesome. This is getting silly.
I do have to give you credit on this one; you aren't one to flag people unreasonably.
What's getting silly is the semantics over every comment I make. "I" don't have a plan. I offered suggestions as to what they could
do to improve what is currently in place. I said I have theories on how some of the existing changes would curb some of the issues. Which I am choosing to keep to myself. For obvious reasons.
What's silly is that you've repeatedly said you're done debating your point, tell us to stop talking, and then when we do, you bring it up again.