GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot.
Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Voluntaris wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » Twunt wrote: » The end all summary of this will be that you are making Defender rating and Diversity the two tie breakers. Doesn’t matter how you allocate the points. If both teams explore 100%, no skill required. The one with the higher Defender rating (now you lowered diversity points) will win. How can you have two variables to determine winners? That’s a sloppy formula. The point of the map changes is that we want you guys to emphasize your Defenders again. Prevent the other team from getting 100% exploration. ...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map. Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0. I can see where you're coming from. If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference? I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Voluntaris wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » Twunt wrote: » The end all summary of this will be that you are making Defender rating and Diversity the two tie breakers. Doesn’t matter how you allocate the points. If both teams explore 100%, no skill required. The one with the higher Defender rating (now you lowered diversity points) will win. How can you have two variables to determine winners? That’s a sloppy formula. The point of the map changes is that we want you guys to emphasize your Defenders again. Prevent the other team from getting 100% exploration. ...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map. Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Twunt wrote: » The end all summary of this will be that you are making Defender rating and Diversity the two tie breakers. Doesn’t matter how you allocate the points. If both teams explore 100%, no skill required. The one with the higher Defender rating (now you lowered diversity points) will win. How can you have two variables to determine winners? That’s a sloppy formula. The point of the map changes is that we want you guys to emphasize your Defenders again. Prevent the other team from getting 100% exploration.
Twunt wrote: » The end all summary of this will be that you are making Defender rating and Diversity the two tie breakers. Doesn’t matter how you allocate the points. If both teams explore 100%, no skill required. The one with the higher Defender rating (now you lowered diversity points) will win. How can you have two variables to determine winners? That’s a sloppy formula.
xdethsquadx wrote: » JUST PLEASE GIVE US RANK DOWN TICKETS FOR THIS REASON: QUID PRO QUO- EVERY ALLY WILL PUT THE "BEST CHAMP" ON THE "RIGHT NODES," MEANING EVERY MAP WILL HAVE THE SAME DEFENDERS IN EVERY SLOT. YOU MADE AW INTO AQ, WHICH IS ALREADY TOO REPETATIVE. IF YOU ALLOW US TO REALLOCATE SOME RESOURCES FROM OUR SAY SPIDEYS INTO OUR LUKE CAGES, THE FIGHTS MAY BE A BIT HARDER AND MORE FUN. WHEN NO ONE IS GONNA USE ANY RESOURCES TO RANK UP HORRIBLE UNPLAYABLE CHAMPIONS, THEY WILL STICK R3 4*S ALL OVER THE MAPS LIKE THEY DO NOW. JUST LET US RETOOL OUR NOW WORTHLESS CHAMPS. YOUD MAKE MOST OF US SHUT UP COMPLETELY IF YOU'D JUST GIVE US LIKE 5.
RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. Wrong.
SmokinSurfer wrote: » This makes Defender Rating more valuable. So we when are an 8M rated alliance and we face a 10M alliance, we know that they get a huge advantage just for being higher rated. How can we justify this?
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Sorry you disagree. I stand by my theory.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » NevvB wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. So what youre saying is... the strong get stronger and the weaker allis will never have a chance of catching up. Sounds very fun! Great /s No. What I'm saying is Defender Rating adds a mechanic that reflects Ranking Champs. The point of the game is to advance our Rosters by Ranking. One of the things it will do is balance the overpowered Matches. The other aspect is people will advance in part by advancing their Accounts, and in turn, Allies.
NevvB wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. So what youre saying is... the strong get stronger and the weaker allis will never have a chance of catching up. Sounds very fun! Great /s
Huluhula wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Sorry you disagree. I stand by my theory. And that is absolutely your right and you can preach it day and night but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s never going to be accepted. WAR should 100% be based off skill level. I.e. your ability to out maneuver your oppents placement and strategy I.e your ability to out think your opponent and catch them off guard or force them to fight something so hard they either have to step up their game and improve their skill or die trying
LeNoirFaineant wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » NevvB wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. So what youre saying is... the strong get stronger and the weaker allis will never have a chance of catching up. Sounds very fun! Great /s No. What I'm saying is Defender Rating adds a mechanic that reflects Ranking Champs. The point of the game is to advance our Rosters by Ranking. One of the things it will do is balance the overpowered Matches. The other aspect is people will advance in part by advancing their Accounts, and in turn, Allies. This is wrong on so many levels. To lose a war in which you outplayed and outkilled your opponent because they had more bad defenders with higher pi is garbage. But even if I granted your point, as long as they allow alliance jumping for easy wars this natural progression that you posit won't work. It'll just mean that low alliances have even less chance than they did before in their mismatches. @GroundedWisdom
Kabam Miike wrote: » The point of the map changes is that we want you guys to emphasize your Defenders again. Prevent the other team from getting 100% exploration.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Huluhula wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Sorry you disagree. I stand by my theory. And that is absolutely your right and you can preach it day and night but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s never going to be accepted. WAR should 100% be based off skill level. I.e. your ability to out maneuver your oppents placement and strategy I.e your ability to out think your opponent and catch them off guard or force them to fight something so hard they either have to step up their game and improve their skill or die trying That's not skill from the perspective you're talking about. That's overpowering the opponent by placing multiple Champs that gain the highest Kills, and forcing them to lose by their own effort. We will have to disagree on this one. It's seen as skill for the winning team, but the ones who have to lose from trying aren't seeing it the same. It's just a safe way to win everytime.
DNA3000 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. That's not a theory. That is an observation. If the alliances with higher rated defenders win more wars than they lose, the tier sorting algorithm will sort them into higher tiers, and by definition everyone else into lower tiers, with alliance defender rating acting indirectly by affecting the win/loss record. That's a given. The problem is, there's no good justification for making that change. If the devs arbitrarily started giving additional points to alliances with defensive champions that were taller, you could say the exact same thing. The height of the champions was "balancing" the alliances into a new configuration, and eventually the taller alliances would be matched up with other taller alliances and their scoring would become more even. Growth would come from alliances growing their rosters, acquiring an increasingly large percentage of the tall champions. The fact that we could make that observation doesn't make it a good thing to happen.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. That's not a theory. That is an observation. If the alliances with higher rated defenders win more wars than they lose, the tier sorting algorithm will sort them into higher tiers, and by definition everyone else into lower tiers, with alliance defender rating acting indirectly by affecting the win/loss record. That's a given. The problem is, there's no good justification for making that change. If the devs arbitrarily started giving additional points to alliances with defensive champions that were taller, you could say the exact same thing. The height of the champions was "balancing" the alliances into a new configuration, and eventually the taller alliances would be matched up with other taller alliances and their scoring would become more even. Growth would come from alliances growing their rosters, acquiring an increasingly large percentage of the tall champions. The fact that we could make that observation doesn't make it a good thing to happen. It's actually a good thing from my perspective. Advancing in War Tiers is a reflection in part, of advancing in the game. I don't want to argue too much about it. That's my opinion. It's still a theory because we haven't seen enough results to call it an observation. That will be seen over time.