15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread

1969799101102120

Comments

  • WOKWOK Posts: 468 ★★
    @DNA3000 , I must say that you just eloquently surmised one scenario of many viable options of adjustments that could be made for the betterment of AW gameplay, playerbase satisfaction/acceptance, and what could only be assumed as Beneficial for Kabams intended evolution of MCOC.
    I personally thank you for investing the time and efforts to showcase your ideas in a rational, intelligent, and detailed outline of examples/suggestions that IMO, would be difficult for anyone to misinterpret as anything less than a solid foundation on which to build. Through the course of my short time in this forum, I have been pleasantly educated by many outstanding posts from participant that clearly have a great deal of knowledge in this environment and also a gift to voice their thoughts vividly, providing clarity and insights for those like myself.
    I do hope that none of them have fallen on deaf ears and also believe that the community owes its gratitude to you and others like you for your works on our behalf.

    I would like to add one last comment for those that present the argument that Kabam will or will not do X in relation to its effects to their "bottom line" and do not care about the players.
    I'm confident to believe that only Kabam executives would have even the slightest knowledge of what that "bottom line" is and how and when it will be acheived and that they actually do care about the community.
    To state otherwise would be naive and pure speculation, so I say let us focus solely on communicating to Kabam, the issues we encounter and suggestions for solutions we feel are necessary in order to maintain our satisfaction and loyalty as a consumer.
    Once Kabam has accomplished to roll out improvements and solutions, I'm sure our opinions could likely change for the better.

  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,156 Guardian
    Anonymous wrote: »
    Diversity contradicts competition. If we ranked certain champs for war defense because they were effective at stopping the other alliance from beating us, then they shouldn't be penalized if I place them because of diversity.

    This position is problematic in two ways. First, it is essentially always mathematically possible to convert a penalty for one side into a bonus for another side. So any position that says "any penalty on me is unfair" is saying any bonus for the other side is unfair, which is untenable.

    Second, saying a rule change "contradicts competition" isn't saying anything significant, because virtually all rules in all games can be described in that way. But what matters is the overall nature of the game, not the local effects of the rule. The balk rule in baseball can be said to contradict competition because it limits what the pitcher can do. Limiting the pitcher is penalizing the defense and eliminates one way for them to compete. But that rule exists because the loss in competitive options for the defense is seen as a reasonable price to pay for a game that is overall more competitively interesting. That is partially an arbitrary choice, but it is not a baseless one.

    The devs can and should change the nature of the game to make it function better within the context of what they want to encourage. Many players were saying that the competition in AW was a boring kind of competition because defenses had become staid. Altering the rules of the competition is a reasonable way to address that problem, a way that every game in history that lasts long enough eventually utilizes.

    They should just do so in a way that actually makes sense for the intended goals.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,156 Guardian
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,601 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,156 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.

    The inclusion of what metrics again? No one suggested reincluding any metrics "again" so I'm not sure what you are replying to.
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    The fundamental issue with it is the removal of Defender Kills serves a purpose. It was important to remove the penalty for making an effort because the numbers mounted so high that it was a nail in the coffin. There shouldn't be a penalty for trying in Attack. There should be a penalty for the Match (Losing). Again, there shouldn't be a sacrifice for making an effort in Attack. No one should wait 24 hours to give up trying because a Win is not possible due to Kills. There has to be another way to encourage trying and taking a Loss through effort.
    Which is why I mentioned previously that Defender Kills contradict Diversity. Diversity is such a low metric that Allies will inevitably focus on Defender Kills regardless and it will leave Diversity as pretty much insignificant. Reason being, Defender Kills can mount, and Diversity is a set amount. 30 Players, 15 Item Uses each, 3 Champs to start, which means a great deal of Points to accumulate for people trying. Defender Kills are the opposite of Diversity. Which is why I stated that if they introduced it again at all, it has to be at such a low metric it doesn't become the defining metric of Wars.

    Wrong.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,601 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.

    The inclusion of what metrics again? No one suggested reincluding any metrics "again" so I'm not sure what you are replying to.

    I'm talking about the inclusion of Defender Kills again. Thought it was obvious.
  • nuggznuggz Posts: 124
    Diveristy I'm indifferent.
    Defender kills are a must have.
    Dexterity needs to be changed to a passive buff to not interfere with MD

    Fyi. The new nodes didn't effect our war at all. Still 100%, max diveristy, etc... tied up everywhere.

    Defender rating was the only number separating the winner from the loser
  • nuggznuggz Posts: 124
    edited October 2017
    So far allainces have been pretty honest about their rating. If both of us max diversity it's just a matter of rating.

    We just simply ask. Hey what's your rating.

    Due to the fact we both already know we will max explore the map. And diveristy is a no brainer to max out in each bg.

    Still just a matter of rating. Which involves no skill at all. More like, length of time played, money spent on extras, and a touch of luck
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,156 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.

    The inclusion of what metrics again? No one suggested reincluding any metrics "again" so I'm not sure what you are replying to.

    I'm talking about the inclusion of Defender Kills again. Thought it was obvious.

    Fortunately for me, I didn't suggest doing that so I can safely assume you must be responding to someone else.
  • nuggznuggz Posts: 124
    @Kabam Miike

    We aren't denying that kabam knows things aren't perfect.

    What we want to know is what we are looking at. Frankly there's nothing to look forward too.

    What's the plan, what's their ideas.

    We share our thoughts. It would help if you did the same so that before updates are released you can consider some of the compitent feedback
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    Diversity contradicts competition. If we ranked certain champs for war defense because they were effective at stopping the other alliance from beating us, then they shouldn't be penalized if I place them because of diversity.

    This position is problematic in two ways. First, it is essentially always mathematically possible to convert a penalty for one side into a bonus for another side. So any position that says "any penalty on me is unfair" is saying any bonus for the other side is unfair, which is untenable.

    Second, saying a rule change "contradicts competition" isn't saying anything significant, because virtually all rules in all games can be described in that way. But what matters is the overall nature of the game, not the local effects of the rule. The balk rule in baseball can be said to contradict competition because it limits what the pitcher can do. Limiting the pitcher is penalizing the defense and eliminates one way for them to compete. But that rule exists because the loss in competitive options for the defense is seen as a reasonable price to pay for a game that is overall more competitively interesting. That is partially an arbitrary choice, but it is not a baseless one.

    The devs can and should change the nature of the game to make it function better within the context of what they want to encourage. Many players were saying that the competition in AW was a boring kind of competition because defenses had become staid. Altering the rules of the competition is a reasonable way to address that problem, a way that every game in history that lasts long enough eventually utilizes.

    They should just do so in a way that actually makes sense for the intended goals.

    They are penalized. The other alliance benefits if we put multiple magiks and dorms to stop them and they die 200 times but clear it anyway. That penalty is unfair. It's like using a good solid tackling linebacker, and a good solid tackling safety, but because they both can tackle very well, the officials don't allow tackling(ie defender kills removed). In other words, a defender that's good at defense does nothing to help you win.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,601 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.

    The inclusion of what metrics again? No one suggested reincluding any metrics "again" so I'm not sure what you are replying to.

    I'm talking about the inclusion of Defender Kills again. Thought it was obvious.

    Fortunately for me, I didn't suggest doing that so I can safely assume you must be responding to someone else.

    I'm talking in general. I wasn't addressing your ideas. I didn't quote you. The number one subject discussed in the Thread is bringing back Defender Kills. Surely you can see that.
  • nuggznuggz Posts: 124
    @Kabam Miike

    We know that kabam knows things aren't perfect. What we are asking for are plans!!
    Frankly there's nothing to look forward too with the responses we get from the "team"

    We share our thoughts. It would be in everyone's best interest if the kabam team did the same.
    Before updates are released.

    You could at least take some of the compitent feedback and put it to use.
  • nuggznuggz Posts: 124
    What are the ideas moving forward??????

    Kabam. Answer.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,156 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.

    The inclusion of what metrics again? No one suggested reincluding any metrics "again" so I'm not sure what you are replying to.

    I'm talking about the inclusion of Defender Kills again. Thought it was obvious.

    Fortunately for me, I didn't suggest doing that so I can safely assume you must be responding to someone else.

    I'm talking in general. I wasn't addressing your ideas. I didn't quote you. The number one subject discussed in the Thread is bringing back Defender Kills. Surely you can see that.

    Since I've posted a few million words explaining how the root of the defender kill complaint can be addressed without bringing back defender kills, and thus the root of the complaint is more fundamental to how defender kill removal is a direct attack on alliance competition and not about defender kills at all, apparently I am unable to see that.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,020 ★★★
    The fundamental issue with it is the removal of Defender Kills serves a purpose. It was important to remove the penalty for making an effort because the numbers mounted so high that it was a nail in the coffin. There shouldn't be a penalty for trying in Attack. There should be a penalty for the Match (Losing). Again, there shouldn't be a sacrifice for making an effort in Attack. No one should wait 24 hours to give up trying because a Win is not possible due to Kills. There has to be another way to encourage trying and taking a Loss through effort.
    Which is why I mentioned previously that Defender Kills contradict Diversity. Diversity is such a low metric that Allies will inevitably focus on Defender Kills regardless and it will leave Diversity as pretty much insignificant. Reason being, Defender Kills can mount, and Diversity is a set amount. 30 Players, 15 Item Uses each, 3 Champs to start, which means a great deal of Points to accumulate for people trying. Defender Kills are the opposite of Diversity. Which is why I stated that if they introduced it again at all, it has to be at such a low metric it doesn't become the defining metric of Wars.

    War is a competition to see who clears the map in the most efficient way. Should a team who burns through 450 items outscore a team who uses none ? If that's the case why even keep score at all. Just play based on alliance rating and both teams get participation trophies.

    I don't mind losing to a better alliance, but I do dislike getting beat by a team who keeps spending to win. When it starts looking like that, it's not even worth it. I can just hear the hooting and hollering going on when some team thinks they just kicked some ass after being outscored by defender kills at a 3:1 ratio.

    You can agree to disagree, but skill should always be the deciding factor. An alliance with 27 guys should be able to outplay an alliance with 30. This isn't kindergarten, you have to be at least 13 to play. Deal with it, if you get beat, learn from it and develop as a player so next time you get past the node. This isn't story mode after all. It's a team effort.
  • linuxlinux Posts: 281
    zero7 wrote: »
    I got a warning today, and I replied with some horrible language. Out of that came a great dialogue with @Kabam Miike. He's aware of how bad the aw situation is, and sounded like they really want a fix for aw. I'm going to wait and see what they do. Mike didn't have to respond to me individually but he did. Imo if they keep diversity we should get rdt. Or they should make it where our awd 5/50s are useful again. Call me gullible, but I think they're going to fix it. For now I'm backing off, and going to let them work out an aw fix.

    it comes down to one question: which setup makes kabam more money. that’s it. i don’t blame kabam- its a business. but how players feel about the change means zero, except to the degree that it reduces participation and profit.

    This is exactly what I talked about with Sctty2hotty33_, we don't need "pressure" to make changes. We already agree that there is work that needs to be done with Alliance Wars, especially from where it started with this iteration. We're getting closer to where we want to be with Alliance Wars, and we'll know more after this series of wars finish.

    We are committed to making sure we make this mode the best that it can be! We're not giving up, and we want to work with you guys to make it happen. We understand that it's frustrating that it's taking a while, but this might take a few more iterations. Hopefully not many, but we're going to have to wait and see where we're at soon!

    It's no closer this week than it was last week -- I know you changed nodes, but as predicted the result wasn't a change in difficulty. It's frustrating because you were told in no uncertain terms that these node changes wouldn't be enough to prevent full exploration. Last week we cleared every BG 100%. The same for the war that ended today (against 4/55 minibosses & bosses). Our opponents didn't clear one of our BGs -- but the issue wasn't the difficulty, but rather the fact that they only had 8 people who joined in that BG. I assume they knew they weren't going to win, so they didn't both reviving and finishing -- why bother when you know you'd lose anyway because the other team placed 10 more unique defenders?

    So the current version of AW basically requires a minimum of 9 people per BG (and you'll lose against an alliance with 10 unless your champs have much higher PI); so long as everyone shows up, both sides will clear all the maps most of the time. (This is tier 2.)

    I don't mean that I think you're ignoring us -- but I don't see any way in which the node changes actually got to a more engaging AW. And if you believe otherwise, I'd really like to know what metrics you're using. 'Cause it looks to me like alliances which don't finish aren't giving up because they've exhausted their resources, but because either they don't care, or they don't all show up (presumably as a result of not caring).

    This is your chance to demonstrate transparency. I realize plans are going to change, so you may not be able to tell us all your plans -- but what metrics are you using to evaluate if alliance wars are where you want them to be?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,601 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    The fundamental issue with it

    The fundamental issue with what.

    With the inclusion of the metrics again.

    The inclusion of what metrics again? No one suggested reincluding any metrics "again" so I'm not sure what you are replying to.

    I'm talking about the inclusion of Defender Kills again. Thought it was obvious.

    Fortunately for me, I didn't suggest doing that so I can safely assume you must be responding to someone else.

    I'm talking in general. I wasn't addressing your ideas. I didn't quote you. The number one subject discussed in the Thread is bringing back Defender Kills. Surely you can see that.

    Since I've posted a few million words explaining how the root of the defender kill complaint can be addressed without bringing back defender kills, and thus the root of the complaint is more fundamental to how defender kill removal is a direct attack on alliance competition and not about defender kills at all, apparently I am unable to see that.

    I'm aware that you've presented ideas. I respect that. That doesn't mean I was addressing them when discussing the topic. It's not a two-way conversation. Other people have ideas as well. I didn't address your ideas because I don't agree with your perspective completely. Which is fine. We can have different views.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 760 ★★★★
    @Kabam Miike

    Curious what metric you are gauging the effectiveness of these new iterations, would be interesting to see if at all possible.

    I believe defender kills is a pretty good metric for determining AW wins between two groups with all other things being tied.

    An idea would be to make defender kills the same amount of points as diversity or half the amount of points or something along those lines.

    The defining metric for a war with all other things being tied should be how much less did you die than the other group. You can still play for diversity but if you think you will get more than 'x' kills you can go for more points and take the risk. Now you have a choice as opposed to checking a spreadsheet.

    I can't comprehend why anything else would matter in AW when everything else is tied but that could just be me being stubborn. People putting down KK and IP that just get rolled over shouldn't be winning wars on that alone. Groups that have higher rating shouldn't be winning on that alone.
  • Sith_LordSith_Lord Posts: 224 ★★
    @Kabam Miike

    You guys really have to do something about this new War format. Many alliances are back to swapping, in order to manipulate their War rating. Once they hit a certain plateau at a high War rating, they swap with a much lesser alliance that has a very low War rating that said alliance has been keeping on the side until it reached a certain overall low War rating, then they swap & build that one up, while the other one lowers, then will do it again once the previous alliance hits a rock bottom low War rating; & gaining multiple manipulated 5* shards in doing so. Talk about fair play to all MCOC gamer's, eh?


    Screen shots can be provided



    Yeah, dude. It's a joke now! This is one of the main reason's as to why I just left my last alliance...
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    Sith_Lord wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike

    You guys really have to do something about this new War format. Many alliances are back to swapping, in order to manipulate their War rating. Once they hit a certain plateau at a high War rating, they swap with a much lesser alliance that has a very low War rating that said alliance has been keeping on the side until it reached a certain overall low War rating, then they swap & build that one up, while the other one lowers, then will do it again once the previous alliance hits a rock bottom low War rating; & gaining multiple manipulated 5* shards in doing so. Talk about fair play to all MCOC gamer's, eh?


    Screen shots can be provided



    Yeah, dude. It's a joke now! This is one of the main reason's as to why I just left my last alliance...



    What do you mean by it's a joke?

    Meaning he left his alliance because they were shelling for more shards.
  • Didn’t know this thread existed. Am just getting into forum contributions. Someone directed me from a similar thread that I created to this one. Here is a link to my thread for Kabam to maintain continuity on the topic.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/156270#Comment_156270
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    Sith_Lord wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    Sith_Lord wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike

    You guys really have to do something about this new War format. Many alliances are back to swapping, in order to manipulate their War rating. Once they hit a certain plateau at a high War rating, they swap with a much lesser alliance that has a very low War rating that said alliance has been keeping on the side until it reached a certain overall low War rating, then they swap & build that one up, while the other one lowers, then will do it again once the previous alliance hits a rock bottom low War rating; & gaining multiple manipulated 5* shards in doing so. Talk about fair play to all MCOC gamer's, eh?


    Screen shots can be provided



    Yeah, dude. It's a joke now! This is one of the main reason's as to why I just left my last alliance...



    What do you mean by it's a joke?

    Meaning he left his alliance because they were shelling for more shards.




    Not entirely true. I meant that the new season of AW in itself, is a complete & utter joke. No real skill is required anymore to conquer the entire map, as it stood last season, because the entire map itself is laughable. Defender kills & attacker kills are now completely obsolete. It doesn't matter how many items are used on each alliances end, or how many bosses are brought down, anymore. Now, it's all about who has **** champs ranked up, that would never get ranked up other than for running the arena. Who has the highest defender rating, putting all members of the community in a position to add, & or unlock, masteries that will give us the highest pi there is. All this in retrospect truly took the fun out of something that was really fun. Also considering that we have to all conform to this new & horrible format, the rewards weren't even increased. I cannot fathom someone being excited on their train ride home from work, because they're going to R4 their 5* Iron Patriot or Kamala Khan. Let's be for real now...

    My mistake. I 100% agree with you.
  • WOKWOK Posts: 468 ★★
    From the numerous posts Ive been able to read in ths past few weeks, I don't recall if anyone had made a suggestion to have defender rating points removed.
    From my limited knowledge as it is, what I've been able to deduce from the current AW and the issues/inconsistencies in regards to the scoring is that it doesn't suggest that removing that criteria would negatively affect the main objective of making AW more engaging, fair, and competitive without discouraging to press forward. @DNA3000 if you wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts on this idea and its possible benefits/ramifications, I for one would much appreciate it.

    Just came up with a general thought that maybe defender rating could be calculated solely for the process of "fair" matchmaking along with war rating and taken out of the scoring equation.
    with diversity remaining intact and points for defender kills making a return along with some other adjustments in the overall score evaluation, could it possibly be a feasible solution to the current argument that "the winner is determined when it begins"? Much more in depth details are clearly needed I know, but it was just a lump of clay I thought could be molded onto something good.
This discussion has been closed.