We are currently experiencing an issue causing a delay in delivery of Summoner Advancement, the Alliance Quest event, and other 3-Day X-Men use event. We are working to resolve this, but it will likely take a few days. We will ensure that these rewards are delivered to affected Alliances. Please do not change Alliances until your rewards are delivered.

Dev Diary: Amping Up Alliances

1356

Comments

  • KaspyKaspy Posts: 110 ★★
    I am really looking forward to the energy and node changes to AQ! This is a huge pro player move!

    The thought the road map prelude mentioned adjustments to map 5 AI, but i dont see it mentioned here. Has that already happened?

    I am also super excited for boss rush mode! I think that will be super fun!

    Sounds like lots to look forward to with AW changes, but until we start seeing some of the changes implemented i think i will continue to sit out.
  • Doomsfist79Doomsfist79 Posts: 631 ★★★
    Hey there..
    So.. with what was said about AQ time investment, would that not also apply to the war time investment? With that being said is the intention to apply the new AQ timer and energy start etc to war as well. Or basically nothing time wise has changed for at least 3 days a week as war time investment is still the same?
  • Lo4eathLo4eath Posts: 273
    Nice bit of changes. I'd like to think that they perhaps heard my feedback/idea and listened :)

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/100291/in-game-path-assignment-for-aq-aw#latest
  • KnightZeroKnightZero Posts: 497 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Yash1379 said:

    Bro what? Now when I emptied the Alliance Energy I could be free for like 4h 55m but now the timer is even reduced to 4h 25m to check again and again...... That'll create the pressure to move because I have energy, at least increase the energy cap to 10, please

    I can't tell if this is serious or not, so I'm going to assume it is serious. First, the only reason to feel compelled to move when energy is full is because you don't want to waste energy. But under the new timer you have almost 25% more energy to complete the map. In effect we started with three and then got potentially 24 more energy one per hour. You can't really use the last one as it arrives when AQ ends, so you had 23+3=26 energy. If you slept eight hours, you'd lose an additional three energy as if you played efficiently and burned all your energy before you went to sleep you'd recharge five and then lose three. So your total energy budget was 23 energy. (I suspect we start with three to counterbalance the three we lose over an eight hour sleep period).

    Under the new AQ energy rules, we will start with four, we cap at six, and we recharge in 45 minutes. That means our daily energy budget gives us 24 / 0.75 = 32 energy from the timer, plus 4 to start, equals 36. Once again, call that 35 as you can't use the last one. Over an eight hour sleep period we would gain 8/.75 = 10.7 ~ 11 energy, we'd cap at six and lose 5. So our total energy budget is now 30. Net, players have gained seven points of energy.

    Whatever reasons people have for believing they should now use energy faster and more frequently, they are wrong. This isn't Brewsters Millions: you don't get credit for using more energy. You just have to complete the map. You now have more energy, and you get it faster. This is 100% an advantage for all players everywhere under all conditions so long as they don't completely use their minds and just play reasonably. Anyone who turns this into a negative is doing it to themselves, and I recommend they avoid doing that out of their own self-interest.
    This. Basically what we've been talking about all the time.
    Pleased with the energy changes. Would prefer a larger cap or higher initial energy, but it's better than the usual.
    Rest pretty much looks like words on a page, so not going to comment till they're done. Like the help all and path change part.
  • RogerRabsRogerRabs Posts: 474 ★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Yash1379 said:

    Bro what? Now when I emptied the Alliance Energy I could be free for like 4h 55m but now the timer is even reduced to 4h 25m to check again and again...... That'll create the pressure to move because I have energy, at least increase the energy cap to 10, please

    I can't tell if this is serious or not, so I'm going to assume it is serious. First, the only reason to feel compelled to move when energy is full is because you don't want to waste energy. But under the new timer you have almost 25% more energy to complete the map. In effect we started with three and then got potentially 24 more energy one per hour. You can't really use the last one as it arrives when AQ ends, so you had 23+3=26 energy. If you slept eight hours, you'd lose an additional three energy as if you played efficiently and burned all your energy before you went to sleep you'd recharge five and then lose three. So your total energy budget was 23 energy. (I suspect we start with three to counterbalance the three we lose over an eight hour sleep period).

    Under the new AQ energy rules, we will start with four, we cap at six, and we recharge in 45 minutes. That means our daily energy budget gives us 24 / 0.75 = 32 energy from the timer, plus 4 to start, equals 36. Once again, call that 35 as you can't use the last one. Over an eight hour sleep period we would gain 8/.75 = 10.7 ~ 11 energy, we'd cap at six and lose 5. So our total energy budget is now 30. Net, players have gained seven points of energy.

    Whatever reasons people have for believing they should now use energy faster and more frequently, they are wrong. This isn't Brewsters Millions: you don't get credit for using more energy. You just have to complete the map. You now have more energy, and you get it faster. This is 100% an advantage for all players everywhere under all conditions so long as they don't completely use their minds and just play reasonably. Anyone who turns this into a negative is doing it to themselves, and I recommend they avoid doing that out of their own self-interest.
    I feel like this is like someone turning down a raise because they'd have to pay more in taxes
  • Mcord117Mcord117 Posts: 1,356 ★★★★
    take the positive and base your expectations on the next road map on what we have read so far
  • RogerRabsRogerRabs Posts: 474 ★★★★
    edited June 29
    DNA3000 said:

    Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?

    Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.

    Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.

    I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
    I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
  • iLongoiLongo Posts: 5
    edited June 29
    Werewrym said:

    Raid Bosses sound fun. I like the idea of the whole alliance going to town on a 100 mil health boss.

    Curious to see how'd they implement this. One fun and interesting idea would be to create a boss that can not be killed. Each Alliance member has to at least enter the raid/battle at least once. You take on the fight and see how much damage you can deliver to the boss. Rank each alliance members fight and hand out rewards based on who delivered the most damage.

    Would even be interesting to see if they can do something like this for AQ Bosses as well. Gives you more of a team effort instead of that one boss killer that always takes down the AQ boss.

    @Kabam Miike Is the Champions Roadmap delayed because this one was delayed?
  • Crys23Crys23 Posts: 105
    So, when are bases coming out? 😃

    In all seriousness, good changes and improvements, lets hope you follow through on all and they wont cause more problems than they solve.

    Twi things i was dissapointed I didnt see:
    1. No mention of masteries presets or similar mechanism to make changing masteries easier.
    2. Arena play improvements like requesting help to clear champs to avoid scrolling and locking the champ/class filters between series. Once i select 5* all I want to see is just my 5*'s until I reset the filter.
  • pseudosanepseudosane Posts: 281 ★★★
    one thing i did not see was amping up potions. Such a crucial part of alliance play.
  • GamerGamer Posts: 6,144 ★★★★★
    Crys23 said:

    So, when are bases coming out? 😃

    In all seriousness, good changes and improvements, lets hope you follow through on all and they wont cause more problems than they solve.

    Twi things i was dissapointed I didnt see:
    1. No mention of masteries presets or similar mechanism to make changing masteries easier.
    2. Arena play improvements like requesting help to clear champs to avoid scrolling and locking the champ/class filters between series. Once i select 5* all I want to see is just my 5*'s until I reset the filter.

    Considering the mastery’s might be one the part 4 since that wil be QOF change but we do not ikow
  • Carmel1Carmel1 Posts: 338 ★★
    the small things like reduced timer in AQ\ undo steps and so on are nice because i don't see how they can mess it up.
    but regarding the bigger things like changing nodes, new game play etc... they lost my trust after what I happened with AW season 19.

    by the way, the attacker tactic is a great example how they took a great idea and turn it into nothing... the attackers buffs are so useless, like using EXP boost after level 60.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,454 Guardian
    RogerRabs said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?

    Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.

    Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.

    I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.

    I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
    It doesn't technically count as a loss, because there's no loser rewards. It doesn't count as a win, so neither side gets the winner rewards. The other rewards are participation rewards you get just for showing up.

    If it counted as a loss on both sides, both sides would lose rating and fall in tier. But both sides neither gain nor lose rating in the event of a tie.

    Should they split both the winner rewards and the winner points bonus in the event of a tie? It is not something that bothers me a lot overall, but I wouldn't be opposed to doing that either, except for the small problem of collusion. Both sides could elect to generate a tie and take the bird in the hand over risking the win/loss shot.
  • FrankCYoungFrankCYoung Posts: 207
    Seems like a welcomed addition if it works the way it should 👍🏻
  • RogerRabsRogerRabs Posts: 474 ★★★★
    edited June 29
    DNA3000 said:

    RogerRabs said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?

    Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.

    Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.

    I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.

    I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
    It doesn't technically count as a loss, because there's no loser rewards. It doesn't count as a win, so neither side gets the winner rewards. The other rewards are participation rewards you get just for showing up.

    If it counted as a loss on both sides, both sides would lose rating and fall in tier. But both sides neither gain nor lose rating in the event of a tie.

    Should they split both the winner rewards and the winner points bonus in the event of a tie? It is not something that bothers me a lot overall, but I wouldn't be opposed to doing that either, except for the small problem of collusion. Both sides could elect to generate a tie and take the bird in the hand over risking the win/loss shot.
    That's true, I ignored the implications of Win/Loss outside of season points. Tiebreakers seem to be the simplest, so maybe they should just listen to you and go with that.
  • Mcord117Mcord117 Posts: 1,356 ★★★★
    I agree with you @DNA3000 but I am not certain that is how kabam views it
Sign In or Register to comment.