Did defender kill points discourage you from playing war?

I feel like the excuse for removing defender kill points was pretty weak. I'm curious to see how many people actually feel that way. Did you feel discouraged because of it or not?

Comments

PeterStreit

Yes it did. They want defender diversity to matter but right now it is way too often the only thing that matters.

Zoddymam

Now both groups can finish at 100%. One group could hardly die and another goes on a potion revive spree. However their deaths mean nothing and it will come down to diversity. So skill of fighting which i enjoyed is now being replaced by skill of choosing diverse players which i find boring and uninteresting

Mana_Pot

I'd be totally fine with the state of war if it stayed as counting diversity per BG and defender kills came back.

chunkyb

This poll is confusing. Or I'm dumb. But maybe both. My vote would be that defender kill points were awesome and should be a part of war. And that the lack of them and the great import placed on diversity points discourages me from wanting to participate in the game mode formerly known as war.

Mana_Pot

chunkyb wrote: »

This poll is confusing. Or I'm dumb. But maybe both. My vote would be that defender kill points were awesome and should be a part of war. And that the lack of them and the great import placed on diversity points discourages me from wanting to participate in the game mode formerly known as war.

It's just asking if defender kill points discouraged you. Yes or no.

chunkyb

Their presence in old war or the lack of them now?

Their presence in the old wars did not discourage me.
The lack of them and the prevalence of diversity points in this new **** do discourage me.

Mana_Pot

chunkyb wrote: »

Their presence in old war or the lack of them now?

Their presence in the old wars did not discourage me.
The lack of them and the prevalence of diversity points in this new **** do discourage me.

"Did." Past tense. I dunno how to simplify this further. Don't worry about it.

GroundedWisdom

Personally I don't have any problems with either setup. I just understand the changes and why they came about.

chunkyb

Why did they come about @GroundedWisdom?

GroundedWisdom

chunkyb wrote: »

Why did they come about @GroundedWisdom?

Well, there were a number of issues with the old War System. Abundance of the same Champs, overpowered Matches, penalties for trying, stagnancy In Tiers, just a few I can think of. AW hasn't been changed since they added Expert Tier, and it was time. The changes are most likely a result of wanting to take it in a new direction, as well as feedback from Players on what some of the issues are.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

chunkyb

"Abundance of same champs" is now a penalty for using the champs that kabam created as good defenders.

Overpowered matches is simply war rating. This one makes no sense as the matchups are still based on war rating.

Penalties for trying? No, there were no penalties for "trying". There were penalties for failing... But it's a competition, so the presence of a scoring system like that makes sense.

Stagnancy in tiers isn't changed by a bad scoring system. Unless it's exploited. Better allis are still gonna have enough available diversity to allow that same "stagnancy" to continue. Allis should work hard to avoid stagnancy instead of looking for a game change to assist them.

These are bad points.

GroundedWisdom

chunkyb wrote: »

"Abundance of same champs" is now a penalty for using the champs that kabam created as good defenders.

Overpowered matches is simply war rating. This one makes no sense as the matchups are still based on war rating.

Penalties for trying? No, there were no penalties for "trying". There were penalties for failing... But it's a competition, so the presence of a scoring system like that makes sense.

Stagnancy in tiers isn't changed by a bad scoring system. Unless it's exploited. Better allis are still gonna have enough available diversity to allow that same "stagnancy" to continue. Allis should work hard to avoid stagnancy instead of looking for a game change to assist them.

These are bad points.

That may be your point of view. You're entitled to it. There are others with different points of view.

chunkyb

Actually, those are all facts that disprove what you posted... Except the last part. That's a pov. But it's backed up by the rest of those facts.

phillgreen

From way down here in tier 19 and with an alliance comprising of 5 members, we will probably give war a miss altogether.

I like the idea of diversity points but not at the expense of defender kills.

With strategy that comprises of maximising diversity points, defender kills worth nothing and no chance of matching exploration unless you have a full BG, there really is no point now.

At least the old system meant the alliances we would face, while still having a numerical advantage, were probably lower skilled and good defender placement by us would pick up a lot of points in our favour, while our attacker kills also helped to offset the lack of total participants and exploration.

I guess the new system takes a leaf from the political correct brigade where diversity is worth more than the right person for the job and not hurting feelings is more important than learning from your failures.

My opinion isn't worth squat, as our tier rating shows, so there is no need to point that out but a system that hurts the lowest tiers as well for no reason other than alliance size seems like a stupid idea.

And no, I won't be filling the BG with people who dont have the same strong champs as us and hassling people all day to move just to match diversity and exploration just because that is how the new system needs to be played.

On the plus side, If I rank up all my garbage champs I can probably walk into a reasonable alliance now.

GroundedWisdom

chunkyb wrote: »

Actually, those are all facts that disprove what you posted... Except the last part. That's a pov. But it's backed up by the rest of those facts.

Good Defenders and Bad Defenders is subjective and based on opinion. That's entirely dependent on who people prefer to use, most commonly the Champs that have a good amount of Kills. The issue was the lack of diversity in War. That is not Kabam's doing. Who people use is up to them. Which is why the issue was addressed.
Overpowered Matches were not only because of War Rating. We've seen many instances where War Rating has been close, but Allies are twice and 3 times the size of each other. Which ties in to the monopoly on Tiers. Though not considered an exploit, when there is an allegiance at the top for Allies to avoid fighting each other, that results in continuous Matches where the War Rating is very far off, and the opposition has very little chance. That is not only the monopoly, but it also results in a stagnancy because in a Tiered System, the top affects everything underneath it.
The Defender Kills were a contributing factor to the overpowering. The Ally literally had to die trying. Which means it's not really based on skill at all. Just who has the fattest Roster of the same few Champs who were known to cause many kills. That in essence created a Pecking Order that left very little opportunity for Players to advance easily. When the system Matches you and you have absolutely no chance to win, that's a problem.
It's all point of view.

chunkyb

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

Actually, those are all facts that disprove what you posted... Except the last part. That's a pov. But it's backed up by the rest of those facts.

Good Defenders and Bad Defenders is subjective and based on opinion.

No, it's not. Not at all. It's based on cold, hard numbers over many wars completed by many allis. It's a simple fact that some specific champs are harder to defeat than others.

You said (in a very matter of fact way) that you understood why they made the changes. But your points are all easily refutable by facts.

GroundedWisdom

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

Actually, those are all facts that disprove what you posted... Except the last part. That's a pov. But it's backed up by the rest of those facts.

Good Defenders and Bad Defenders is subjective and based on opinion.

No, it's not. Not at all. It's based on cold, hard numbers over many wars completed by many allis. It's a simple fact that some specific champs are harder to defeat than others.

You said (in a very matter of fact way) that you understood why they made the changes. But your points are all easily refutable by facts.

I understand the logic behind why people used those Champs. It doesn't take away from the fact that it created a problem. Perhaps not for those who were winning. The Wars in general were the same Champs, same Tiers, same Allies, everytime. There was a need for a change. I've already debated the subject to death. You may not agree, but there were problems with the old system.

chunkyb

At this point it seems as though your "understanding of why the changes came about" comes down to either:
1- because you say so
Or
2- because it was hard

Except the war tiers were the control for difficulty and gave players the ability to find the proper difficulty level to be able to either thrive or challenge themselves if they wanted.
So now we're down to the first option.

Since we've figured that part out, i'll add to that it with this. As I've gone thru quest after quest in this game, I've noticed that I very rarely face the champs that most would consider bad defenders. If I do see them, they're buffed beyond belief... for a reason. It seems like kabam knows what makes for a challenging map. And it doesn't include the idea of diversity.

GroundedWisdom

chunkyb wrote: »

At this point it seems as though your "understanding of why the changes came about" comes down to either:
1- because you say so
Or
2- because it was hard

Except the war tiers were the control for difficulty and gave players the ability to find the proper difficulty level to be able to either thrive or challenge themselves if they wanted.
So now we're down to the first option.

Since we've figured that part out, i'll add to that it with this. As I've gone thru quest after quest in this game, I've noticed that I very rarely face the champs that most would consider bad defenders. If I do see them, they're buffed beyond belief... for a reason. It seems like kabam knows what makes for a challenging map. And it doesn't include the idea of diversity.

I'm not debating the existence of Diversity. I voted and registered my view. I see the need for the changes. If you don't, that's fine with me. Regardless, Diversity is here. I'm going to be moving on now because this is pretty cyclical.

chunkyb

It is, you are correct. I asked you what the reasons were because you said you understood them. I was disappointed when your reasons were so easily refuted by simple facts.

Cyclical is a good word because I see the same matter of fact-ness all around the forum with little factual content. No user here is mom or dad and "because I say so" doesn't cut it.

As far as debating existence of diversity, no one is doing that. I was just pointing out that kabam doesn't use that factor in creating content. You said the "abundance of the same champs" was a problem. If that were true, I'd think kabam would fix it in their created content. But then I look at quests and see that is not the case. So it seems like they wouldn't agree with that point at all.

GroundedWisdom

Sure. If that's how you feel, great.

chunkyb

Nothing to do with feelings.

World Eater

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

Actually, those are all facts that disprove what you posted... Except the last part. That's a pov. But it's backed up by the rest of those facts.

Good Defenders and Bad Defenders is subjective and based on opinion. That's entirely dependent on who people prefer to use, most commonly the Champs that have a good amount of Kills. The issue was the lack of diversity in War. That is not Kabam's doing. Who people use is up to them. Which is why the issue was addressed.
Overpowered Matches were not only because of War Rating. We've seen many instances where War Rating has been close, but Allies are twice and 3 times the size of each other. Which ties in to the monopoly on Tiers. Though not considered an exploit, when there is an allegiance at the top for Allies to avoid fighting each other, that results in continuous Matches where the War Rating is very far off, and the opposition has very little chance. That is not only the monopoly, but it also results in a stagnancy because in a Tiered System, the top affects everything underneath it.
The Defender Kills were a contributing factor to the overpowering. The Ally literally had to die trying. Which means it's not really based on skill at all. Just who has the fattest Roster of the same few Champs who were known to cause many kills. That in essence created a Pecking Order that left very little opportunity for Players to advance easily. When the system Matches you and you have absolutely no chance to win, that's a problem.
It's all point of view.

Lol, lack of diversity isn't Kabam doing????

Please stop. Who created these heroes & mystic dispersion? Certainly not the players.

chunkyb

There are sooooooooo many wrong things in that post.

GroundedWisdom

I'm not debating this anymore. Agree, disagree, that's up to you. I answered what I thought was a genuine question, even though I had a feeling it was going to be challenged. The subject is diversity in War Defense. That's why they give Diversity Points. I agree that there was a need. It has nothing to do with Mystic Dispersion, or repeat Champs in Quests. It's about encouraging the use of a variety of Champs in War. I've been debating the issue over multiple Threads and frankly, I'm over it. I registered my view. I answered the question as to the reasons. I could go on and refute every comment, but in my opinion this is going nowhere because people have their own feelings on it. Which is fine by me. I've said how I feel. I'm not getting into semantics about what is fact and what is not, or speculating on any other reason besides what is given. So, if that's how you feel, great. I have my own views, and we will have to leave it at that.

chunkyb

VandalSavage

I wonder if you knuckleheads realize that the poll is about defender kills, not diversity.

I voted no because I ignored the kills unless the score is close or it is obvious that I would be wasting my time trying to beat a hero. In other words, my answer regarding being "discouraged" would depend on the situation but the poll only had Yes or No response. I also don't use health potions or revives so that don't factor in my "discouraged" situation.

At least with the revised rules, you no longer have to worry about giving points to your opponents regardless of the situation. Clearly, certain members of the MCOC community are very keen to the idea of giving points to the opponent. There's nothing suspicious about that. Really.

The best part is that you don't have to worry about seeing threads of another soul getting accused of cheating because he gave 0 defender kills to the opponent while battling Magik.

I bet the game data did suggest that many people under the old rules were discouraged. Many people would battle once or twice and then stop. Some don't even move at all. The truth is that the MCOC community is a community of leeches. They didn't move because they were discouraged. They didn't move because they didn't want to in the first place. They only joined AW to get, at a minimum, the "participation rewards". This is not like AQ where you have to do stuff to get stuff (not counting milestones and such). I don't think the MVP addition to the profile would be enough to encourage leeches to play.

General_Vis

Defender kill points would never stop me playing AW but could sometimes stop me dead in my tracks when I realised that there was no further way to progress forward without gifting kills.

In previous AW if you reached Magik as boss with one or 2 attackers left with 10% health each there was little point in attacking as you'd be losing both champs for little damage. Now I can go in and score as much damage as possible without worrying about losing 2 champs.