Alliance War Season 19: Updates to Path Identities and New Nodes! [ June 30]

191012141546

Comments

  • Sensei_MaatSensei_Maat Member Posts: 396 ★★★
    the problem is simply 5mil allies do not deserve to be getting rewards from the same pool for fighting only 5mil allies as a 20mil ally gets for only fighting 20mil allies. what this means is that 5mil allies will be taking rewards away from 20mil allies when the 20mil ally would be beating the 5mil ally if they ever fought.

    there are three ways to fix this.

    have wars based on only war rating, then you will fight tougher allies the more you win and will eventually cap out,. stronger allies will climb weaker allies will fall.
    the temporary bad matchups will only come as a result of the benefit that some allies gained from the current broken system.
    there you will see who is number 1 overall.

    another is a division as it is now but instead of war tier only giving you a season multiplier your prestige also gives a season multiplier so a 5mil ally can be in t5 for individual war rewards but will receive lower season points than a 20mil ally at the same tier.
    this is not the best idea and would have flaws and be very hard to get right.

    the other way is make a division based system.
    where 5 mil allies only fight other 5 mil allies but they get their own pool of rewards that is designed to what a 5mil ally needs. 4* shards and t4b
    while 20mil allies fight in a division of 20mil allies getting their own pool of rewards that is designed to what a 20mil ally needs, 6* shards and t2a.

    i feel a division system could work but so does everyone on the same leaderboard.

    THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FIGHTING WITHIN DIVISIONS BUT OBTAINING SPOTS ON A COMBINED LEADERBOARD FOR THE SAME REWARDS IS BROKEN AF!
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,554 ★★★★★
    4* Shards and T4B based on the fact that they're Rated 5 Mil? Are you playing in 2017?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,554 ★★★★★
    Anyone stop to see what that 5 Mil is comprised of, or do you just form a base judgment of their Rating? Seems to me that people want a system that reflects Alliance Rating (only highest Rated get highest Rewards), but they don't want a system that places fair Matches using a metric that determines their strength using Rating (Prestige). How dat work doe?
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★

    Knation said:

    Knation said:

    Knation said:

    I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.

    Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold.
    Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist.
    Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case
    If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points
    Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with.
    Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working
    Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose
    I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea
    At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten
    With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more points
    Your complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work
    A good analogy for this would be football cups
    A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win
    Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge.
    Systematic revenge? What are you on about
    Just be glad you got the benefit out of the horrible matchmaking it’s like complaining that Kabam is fixing a bug
    What benefit? I'm in Silver 1.
    I didn't benefit from it at all. I'm talking about fairness for the people who are on the other end of being forced to lose because the concept of a fair fight is too foreign for the people who think they're entitled to watch them fail. Revenge is exactly what it's about. If they can't get it by beating them through Matches, they'll threaten to start dummy Allies and beat them that way. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's anything but a benefit for anyone. It's sacrificing peoples' Seasons just to keep the top happy.
    I'm done going on about it. Just watch the result when the Season starts. If anyone can call it justified or fair, they need to do some serious rethinking on those definitions.
    Grounded, my alliance, which is not a top alliance, fat cat alliance or whatever you want to call it..by any stretch, has essentially been cheated out of countless rewards both season and per war for months and months because of the prestige matching. If you haven't been on the other side of it you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Before prestige matching started we were t3-5 earning appropriate rewards for our level. We are now t5-7. Doesn't sound that bad? Consider this.. We've only gotten *stronger* since then and have gone *down* in tier when we should have gone up. Even if our strength remained static during this time, that's still a considerable loss of rewards. But factor in the fact that we should have progressed, but instead fell down in rank and it's very unfair.

    It's not just about the fact that lower prestige alliances were effectively taking rewards from people they never have to face in competition and skewing the ranks/tiers. That's only one part of it. The prestige matching system fundamentally changed the entire concept of how the game mode functioned. The concept of how war has always worked in this game is as follows... Win a war? Congrats, you will now face a slightly tougher oppenent. Win again.. next one will be harder still, etc. Until at a certain point, you meet your match and lose. You then receive a slightly less difficult match, etc.. until you level off at a certain point in the rankings.

    With prestige matching, this is no longer the case. In two separate and opposite ways. Lower prestige alliances have been able to perpetually move up in ranks and rewards without any meaningful increase in difficulty. I have real knowledge of this because I have friends in lower prestige alliances who have given me the information. I'm not just speculating. Meanwhile, higher prestige alliances can lose 10 wars in a row and the difficulty never decreases. In fact, in my own personal experience, I can tell you that we were almost always matched with someone 20-30% larger than us. All because the system reaches across many factors just to match prestige. Even during a losing streak. This is never how war worked in the history of the game. During season 17 in particular, we threw up our hands because with each loss the difficulty *increased* ..like significantly..each time. I think you've grossly underestimated how many mid to mid/high level alliances were negatively affected by this. It's not just the "fat cats" or "top dogs" or whatever you want to call them.

    Do I think that this correction to the rankings will be rough for a brief time for lower prestige alliances? Yes, I do.
    Do I think it's the travesty of justice you seem to be describing? Absolutely not. The loss of rewards my alliance and alliances in similar situations experienced over months and the extra rewards that lower prestige alliances have been given is far more impactful. To call it revenge is just plain ignorant and insulting. We've been working for years to grow our alliance. We've paid our dues. Newer players are progressing faster than ever. Along with a sense of entitlement. It takes hard work and dedication to grow your alliance. You have to pay your dues to earn higher ranks and rewards. They won't be handed to you.
    Exactly the same happened to my alliance, we got stronger and dropped 3 tiers and almost 2 reward brackets as punishment under the old system. But apparently that’s ok to happen mid season, but having the war ratings finally adjusted mid season isn’t ok.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    Also we aren’t even considering the fact that even with a loss, many of these alliances that greatly benefitted from the old system would still rack up huge points even in loss because their multiplier is so high.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,554 ★★★★★
    Not at all, really.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,554 ★★★★★
    All I can say is wait and see at this point. Just wait and see what's going to happen. Can't say I didn't try to speak up for people.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    Well some of us are just sick of getting shafted by the old system.
    Atleast the new one will be fair after an adjustment period.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    @hungryhungrybbq How exactly is the fault of those alliances, if they were playing the game as it was meant to be played. It was Kabam that decided match ups based on prestige. If anything, people should be asking them for compensation. Instead you would rather the lower rated alliances suffer through some impossible wars.
    I don't think it was a fair system for high prestige alliances earlier. That does not mean the lower prestige alliances have to suffer now. It absolutely looks like revenge from the higher prestige allainces.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    edited June 2020
    No one blames the weaker alliances for playing the opponents they received (unless they were booting anyone who’s prestige went too high, in which case they’re just as bad as those that tank), but the adjustment period will end and then everyone can be happy.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    Looks like you guys are looking forward to the "adjustment period". Lets see how many " 33 mill alliance against 8 mill unfair AW" post we get and the same people will come and reply " You deserve it. Enjoy the adjustment period".

    I wonder if the same people will be Ok, if they have explored act 6 and kabam says that they will not give any compensation because, it was unfair to players with bad rng. I think I know what the response will be then.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    I’ve explored 6.1 and done an initial pass through the rest and I personally don’t care if they compensate or not...
    I’m just looking forward to a more reasonable experience in act 6, just like I’m looking forward to being able to grow stronger as an alliance without the worry of growing too strong and getting worse rewards because of the prestige matchmaking.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★

    I’ve explored 6.1 and done an initial pass through the rest and I personally don’t care if they compensate or not...
    I’m just looking forward to a more reasonable experience in act 6, just like I’m looking forward to being able to grow stronger as an alliance without the worry of growing too strong and getting worse rewards because of the prestige matchmaking.

    Everyone wants that mate. The point is to not change the system too much too quickly that it screws pretty much most of the alliances playing trying to satisfy the top tier alliances.
  • Sensei_MaatSensei_Maat Member Posts: 396 ★★★

    Anyone stop to see what that 5 Mil is comprised of, or do you just form a base judgment of their Rating? Seems to me that people want a system that reflects Alliance Rating (only highest Rated get highest Rewards), but they don't want a system that places fair Matches using a metric that determines their strength using Rating (Prestige). How dat work doe?

    4* Shards and T4B based on the fact that they're Rated 5 Mil? Are you playing in 2017?

    Firstly i thought you were done.

    Secondly a 5 mil alliance with a full 30 has average Member rating of 166k so yeah.
    Secondly i just made random reward amounts just to show they need to be vastly different.
    I didnt put the time in to come up with an exact amount they should be.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Member Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    And matchmaking based on war rating will result in fair matches eventually, prestige based matchmaking wasn’t fun or fair for anyone past a certain prestige point, my alliance crossed that point and paid the price massively, we aren’t a top dog alliance, there’s several that haven’t even finished exploring act 5, less than half have got past 6.1, and yet 80-90% of our opponents for 2 straight seasons were alliances in which everyone had beaten act 6.

    The adjustment period will, imo, be 2 weeks at most, maybe more for those that are at like plat 1 level when they shouldn’t be, but those losing at that level will earn more points from their loss than others did with their wins anyway.
  • This content has been removed.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★

    And matchmaking based on war rating will result in fair matches eventually, prestige based matchmaking wasn’t fun or fair for anyone past a certain prestige point, my alliance crossed that point and paid the price massively, we aren’t a top dog alliance, there’s several that haven’t even finished exploring act 5, less than half have got past 6.1, and yet 80-90% of our opponents for 2 straight seasons were alliances in which everyone had beaten act 6.

    The adjustment period will, imo, be 2 weeks at most, maybe more for those that are at like plat 1 level when they shouldn’t be, but those losing at that level will earn more points from their loss than others did with their wins anyway.

    I don't think it will be only 2 weeks, may be a 1 or may be 2 at the maximum seasons since some of the alliances do have high war ratings. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not against a fair system. Just don't bulldoze the small guys for something that was not their fault at all. I don't think we can agree at this point. So, we will see how this plays out. Cheers and all the best for the season
  • KnightZeroKnightZero Member Posts: 1,450 ★★★★★
    edited June 2020
    Matchmaking aside, Season 19 still looks like a terrible season based on the nodes on the Map.
    And can we get clarification on all nodes? There are some that aren't on the list.
  • PirateJonPirateJon Member Posts: 82
    So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes?
  • This content has been removed.
  • UltimatheoryUltimatheory Member Posts: 520 ★★★
    PirateJon said:

    So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes?

    People need to try options before declaring it impossible. Honestly Claire could probably solo both. I’m more worried about some of the node combinations with either Flow or Siphon if they stay in any way near their current iterations.
  • Mcord11758Mcord11758 Member Posts: 1,249 ★★★★

    PirateJon said:

    So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes?

    People need to try options before declaring it impossible. Honestly Claire could probably solo both. I’m more worried about some of the node combinations with either Flow or Siphon if they stay in any way near their current iterations.
    How does Claire solo darkhawk on ebb and flow knockdown with tenacity mini? Maybe I am missing something but she will time out and likely not manage 50% damage
  • UltimatheoryUltimatheory Member Posts: 520 ★★★

    PirateJon said:

    So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes?

    People need to try options before declaring it impossible. Honestly Claire could probably solo both. I’m more worried about some of the node combinations with either Flow or Siphon if they stay in any way near their current iterations.
    How does Claire solo darkhawk on ebb and flow knockdown with tenacity mini? Maybe I am missing something but she will time out and likely not manage 50% damage
    You can counter heavy and build until SP3. Knock him down with heavy and launch SP3. The attack increase well overcompensates the amount of armor he gets in shield mode.
  • Mcord11758Mcord11758 Member Posts: 1,249 ★★★★
    edited June 2020
    Idk that sounds a bit optimistic but we will see

    I mean I don’t have Claire but does her l3 hit for like 50k cause it would take 4 l3 at a higher tier if it does to not time out
  • UltimatheoryUltimatheory Member Posts: 520 ★★★

    Idk that sounds a bit optimistic but we will see

    I mean I don’t have Claire but does her l3 hit for like 50k cause it would take 4 l3 at a higher tier if it does to not time out

    Quick test and it’s about 2k on heavy and 30k SP3 with suicides on during his shield mode. It’s probably in the realm of 4-5 SP3 against a rank 3 6* on expert map and 3-4 SP3 against a rank 5 5* depending on boosts. Quake is probably safer but Claire is a decent backup option.
  • Bugmat78Bugmat78 Member Posts: 2,379 ★★★★★
    Some of these nodes look like a bad time eg Ebb & Flow - knock down with DH or the new Hit Monkey... HM looks like the bigger problem as at least if you can manage to have true strike before DH is manageable.
Sign In or Register to comment.