The Item Cap is not changing, so it won't be any more spending than before.
This is just not true. Currently, many players do not hit the item cap in each war. You can look at the war videos by youtubers for proof. These are people playing at the highest level and they're not using 15 items in every war.
At least part of the reason is because every death gives the enemy points, so alliances are very careful about when they revive. The incentive is to use as FEW POTIONS AS POSSIBLE.
When you remove the drawback to constant revives, basically, you encourage players to spend AS MANY POTIONS AS POSSIBLE, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15.
Plus, there are different levels of potions. So basically, the player that can buy the most expensive 15 potions has a big fat advantage.
The Item Cap is not changing, so it won't be any more spending than before.
This is just not true. Currently, many players do not hit the item cap in each war. You can look at the war videos by youtubers for proof. These are people playing at the highest level and they're not using 15 items in every war.
At least part of the reason is because every death gives the enemy points, so alliances are very careful about when they revive. The incentive is to use as FEW POTIONS AS POSSIBLE.
When you remove the drawback to constant revives, basically, you encourage players to spend AS MANY POTIONS AS POSSIBLE, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15.
Plus, there are different levels of potions. So basically, the player that can buy the most expensive 15 potions has a big fat advantage.
Which means the Players going up against them are forced into a corner because said Top Allies have the toughest and best Champs, and the only option to get anywhere is to use Resources. Essentially, it's forcing the opponent into a situation where they have to. Simply put, the toughest Allies are overpowering the advantage, and it creates a Lose/Lose situation where the Opponent is burning Resources and getting nowhere because the Points for Attack are less than Defense.
I'm really not into debating this anymore. People feel strongly about it and I respect that. I just have a different view, and I can see a never-ending conversation. Lol.
Not true at all. Why waste the units on potions when you can revive with no consequences. Bring champs with heal abilities and buy large revives 15 times and your unbeatable.
Don't want to argue with you, but, if at the begining you can't survive with your regen champs, don't think you'll be able to hold to long with 1/4 of your health, even if you regen.
But, that's my opinion. We speculate now. We'll see what's going to happen next wars.
It's funny to hear dribble about how defender kills don't matter so much. This is probably true in tier 6. In tiers 1 and 2, they tend to be more impactful.
The Item Cap is not changing, so it won't be any more spending than before.
This is just not true. Currently, many players do not hit the item cap in each war. You can look at the war videos by youtubers for proof. These are people playing at the highest level and they're not using 15 items in every war.
At least part of the reason is because every death gives the enemy points, so alliances are very careful about when they revive. The incentive is to use as FEW POTIONS AS POSSIBLE.
When you remove the drawback to constant revives, basically, you encourage players to spend AS MANY POTIONS AS POSSIBLE, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15.
Plus, there are different levels of potions. So basically, the player that can buy the most expensive 15 potions has a big fat advantage.
Which means the Players going up against them are forced into a corner because said Top Allies have the toughest and best Champs, and the only option to get anywhere is to use Resources. Essentially, it's forcing the opponent into a situation where they have to. Simply put, the toughest Allies are overpowering the advantage, and it creates a Lose/Lose situation where the Opponent is burning Resources and getting nowhere because the Points for Attack are less than Defense.
I'm really not into debating this anymore. People feel strongly about it and I respect that. I just have a different view, and I can see a never-ending conversation. Lol.
You have a multitude of tortuous hoops you're jumping through to try to justify your point of view, so yes, I certainly see a never-ending conversation, too. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Top alliances are all in the top tier of war together and they compete against each other based primarily on skill and roster. Your (or my) lower tier alliance shouldn't be able to spend its way to a win against a skilled alliance, and in the current situation, we wouldn't. So what resources are you talking about spending? What lose/lose situation? Points for attack are worth less than defence? What game are you playing?
The current set up makes every death a choice. How many revives do I need to use to finish my line? How much would these revives helps the enemy? Can I balance that against a boss kill? If not, should an alliance mate help me? How will that impact exploration?
Once you take away defender kills the optimal solution to a death is always the same - revive, and then revive again, with the biggest, most expensive potions possible. Just get the line done.
The Item Cap is not changing, so it won't be any more spending than before.
This is just not true. Currently, many players do not hit the item cap in each war. You can look at the war videos by youtubers for proof. These are people playing at the highest level and they're not using 15 items in every war.
At least part of the reason is because every death gives the enemy points, so alliances are very careful about when they revive. The incentive is to use as FEW POTIONS AS POSSIBLE.
When you remove the drawback to constant revives, basically, you encourage players to spend AS MANY POTIONS AS POSSIBLE, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15.
Plus, there are different levels of potions. So basically, the player that can buy the most expensive 15 potions has a big fat advantage.
Which means the Players going up against them are forced into a corner because said Top Allies have the toughest and best Champs, and the only option to get anywhere is to use Resources. Essentially, it's forcing the opponent into a situation where they have to. Simply put, the toughest Allies are overpowering the advantage, and it creates a Lose/Lose situation where the Opponent is burning Resources and getting nowhere because the Points for Attack are less than Defense.
I'm really not into debating this anymore. People feel strongly about it and I respect that. I just have a different view, and I can see a never-ending conversation. Lol.
You have a multitude of tortuous hoops you're jumping through to try to justify your point of view, so yes, I certainly see a never-ending conversation, too. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Top alliances are all in the top tier of war together and they compete against each other based primarily on skill and roster. Your (or my) lower tier alliance shouldn't be able to spend its way to a win against a skilled alliance, and in the current situation, we wouldn't. So what resources are you talking about spending? What lose/lose situation? Points for attack are worth less than defence? What game are you playing?
The current set up makes every death a choice. How many revives do I need to use to finish my line? How much would these revives helps the enemy? Can I balance that against a boss kill? If not, should an alliance mate help me? How will that impact exploration?
Once you take away defender kills the optimal solution to a death is always the same - revive, and then revive again, with the biggest, most expensive potions possible. Just get the line done.
This is precisely why I'm leaving the conversation. It's verging on insulting, and it's only going to escalate. I've expressed my view. People won't see the validity in what I'm saying because they feel strongly about it. I'm not jumping through hoops, or on a tangent. It's a real situation. Top Allies, or more specifically overpowered Matches that are still based on War Rating, however I describe it, will allow for a chance to gain a Win without KO'ing to death. Bottom line is, my view is that it will just be a change in how we play.
War is about amassing enough Points to win. Defender Kills only amount to 100 Points per KO. I've personally organized many Wars, and it's all about looking at all sources for Points. Many of my Wars have been won with Exploration. I personally never saw it as a wise idea to rely on Defender Kills alone because Exploration gives more Points. It's about organizing a strategy in each individual War that results in a Win. The new system will have other sources for Points. It's just about developing a new strategy. I would never see it wise to rest on Defense alone.
So do you agree with removing defender kills and now alliances can just pay to win
It's about changing the strategy for amassing the most Points at the end of the War. The Item Cap is not changing, so it won't be any more spending than before. The truth is, if someone is relying on Defense Kills to gain a Win, someone else has to use Resources to try and beat them. As I've said, I've never considered it a safe idea to rely on blockading with Defense as opposed to making an effort. Exploration always gives more Points. Defense is something I only pay heed to when the Exploration is close, or higher than us. They're not just removing something. They're also introducing other means for Points. Makes no difference to me because at the end of the day, all it means is adjusting my strategy to gain the most Points. If people are dedicated to winning Wars, they will have to use Resources some time or another. Overpowering the Opponent instead of making an effort to get more Exploration is not a safe bet in my mind personally.
I don't understand this line of thought at all. Defender kills are the combat converse of exploration. Nobody "relies" on defender kills to win, because that's not something you can "do." The whole point of defender kills is to reward good exploration. You get points for exploring the map, but to do so you have to defeat the nodes along the paths. Defender kill points are a form of rewarding attackers for efficient map traversal. It is just done through penalizing attacker deaths (aka defender kills) because that's mathematically simpler.
Defender kills are not about trying to explicitly earn defender points directly. Once you place your defenders you have no control over them. You don't actively earn defender points beyond the initial strategic choices of good placement. You earn points when you attack, and defender kills are a way to reward efficient attackers. Removing defender kill points doesn't somehow shift the meta of AW to a more attacker-focused game. It actually reduces the incentive to be a good attacker.
Sure, they are adding other ways to earn points. But they've actually reduced the way in which the game rewards solid gameplay. Replacing defender kills with defender diversity actually makes AW more passive. You now really are rewarding players explicitly for defender placement, an activity that begins and ends before the actual war begins, and once the war begins there is no active way for the players to help themselves. As a general game design principle, I would consider that to be an objectively bad design choice.
TL;DR: Defender kill points are not about defenders. They are about being good attackers. That's not something you should deincentivize or replace with incentivizing passive gameplay in my opinion.
I'm relying on my own experience, and Defender Kills are usually the last thing I consider when organizing Wins.
You are not supposed to "consider" it. You are supposed to try for as much points as possible on attack. Defender points are what happens when you try and fail to do so efficiently.
Meh, with less focus on defender kills maybe people may not focus on MD and Magik. Seems like a possible work around for a lot of people's pain points. Also everyone is not going to be buying wins. Don't forget to breathe.
I don't see how that's likely. I don't think people placed defenders explicitly to get defender kills. That's actually a side effect of placing an effective defense that forces people to double up on paths to complete the map, which costs them exploration points on untraversed paths. If I see a defender get a bunch of kills from a single player, then I know I just cost that player some units. But if I see a defender get a bunch of kills and it diverts another player to finish the path, then I know I just cost that entire battlegroup a ton of explore percentage points and node kills. To me, that's the real defensive victory.
Removing defensive points doesn't remove the incentive to place the nastiest defenders you can possibly place to try to force the opponent to double up. That's what actually wins you wars in the mid tiers and I imagine occasionally in the high tiers.
War is about amassing enough Points to win. Defender Kills only amount to 100 Points per KO. I've personally organized many Wars, and it's all about looking at all sources for Points. Many of my Wars have been won with Exploration. I personally never saw it as a wise idea to rely on Defender Kills alone because Exploration gives more Points. It's about organizing a strategy in each individual War that results in a Win. The new system will have other sources for Points. It's just about developing a new strategy. I would never see it wise to rest on Defense alone.
So do you agree with removing defender kills and now alliances can just pay to win
It's about changing the strategy for amassing the most Points at the end of the War. The Item Cap is not changing, so it won't be any more spending than before. The truth is, if someone is relying on Defense Kills to gain a Win, someone else has to use Resources to try and beat them. As I've said, I've never considered it a safe idea to rely on blockading with Defense as opposed to making an effort. Exploration always gives more Points. Defense is something I only pay heed to when the Exploration is close, or higher than us. They're not just removing something. They're also introducing other means for Points. Makes no difference to me because at the end of the day, all it means is adjusting my strategy to gain the most Points. If people are dedicated to winning Wars, they will have to use Resources some time or another. Overpowering the Opponent instead of making an effort to get more Exploration is not a safe bet in my mind personally.
No one is talking about "relying on defensive kills", but this thread is an example of why it should matter.
Comments
This is just not true. Currently, many players do not hit the item cap in each war. You can look at the war videos by youtubers for proof. These are people playing at the highest level and they're not using 15 items in every war.
At least part of the reason is because every death gives the enemy points, so alliances are very careful about when they revive. The incentive is to use as FEW POTIONS AS POSSIBLE.
When you remove the drawback to constant revives, basically, you encourage players to spend AS MANY POTIONS AS POSSIBLE, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15.
Plus, there are different levels of potions. So basically, the player that can buy the most expensive 15 potions has a big fat advantage.
Which means the Players going up against them are forced into a corner because said Top Allies have the toughest and best Champs, and the only option to get anywhere is to use Resources. Essentially, it's forcing the opponent into a situation where they have to. Simply put, the toughest Allies are overpowering the advantage, and it creates a Lose/Lose situation where the Opponent is burning Resources and getting nowhere because the Points for Attack are less than Defense.
I'm really not into debating this anymore. People feel strongly about it and I respect that. I just have a different view, and I can see a never-ending conversation. Lol.
Don't want to argue with you, but, if at the begining you can't survive with your regen champs, don't think you'll be able to hold to long with 1/4 of your health, even if you regen.
But, that's my opinion. We speculate now. We'll see what's going to happen next wars.
You have a multitude of tortuous hoops you're jumping through to try to justify your point of view, so yes, I certainly see a never-ending conversation, too. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Top alliances are all in the top tier of war together and they compete against each other based primarily on skill and roster. Your (or my) lower tier alliance shouldn't be able to spend its way to a win against a skilled alliance, and in the current situation, we wouldn't. So what resources are you talking about spending? What lose/lose situation? Points for attack are worth less than defence? What game are you playing?
The current set up makes every death a choice. How many revives do I need to use to finish my line? How much would these revives helps the enemy? Can I balance that against a boss kill? If not, should an alliance mate help me? How will that impact exploration?
Once you take away defender kills the optimal solution to a death is always the same - revive, and then revive again, with the biggest, most expensive potions possible. Just get the line done.
This is precisely why I'm leaving the conversation. It's verging on insulting, and it's only going to escalate. I've expressed my view. People won't see the validity in what I'm saying because they feel strongly about it. I'm not jumping through hoops, or on a tangent. It's a real situation. Top Allies, or more specifically overpowered Matches that are still based on War Rating, however I describe it, will allow for a chance to gain a Win without KO'ing to death. Bottom line is, my view is that it will just be a change in how we play.
You are not supposed to "consider" it. You are supposed to try for as much points as possible on attack. Defender points are what happens when you try and fail to do so efficiently.
I don't see how that's likely. I don't think people placed defenders explicitly to get defender kills. That's actually a side effect of placing an effective defense that forces people to double up on paths to complete the map, which costs them exploration points on untraversed paths. If I see a defender get a bunch of kills from a single player, then I know I just cost that player some units. But if I see a defender get a bunch of kills and it diverts another player to finish the path, then I know I just cost that entire battlegroup a ton of explore percentage points and node kills. To me, that's the real defensive victory.
Removing defensive points doesn't remove the incentive to place the nastiest defenders you can possibly place to try to force the opponent to double up. That's what actually wins you wars in the mid tiers and I imagine occasionally in the high tiers.
No one is talking about "relying on defensive kills", but this thread is an example of why it should matter.