Everything that's wrong with current AW in one picture

jx26ti25hh1y.jpg

Dear Kabam/fellow players,

300K player here that's been playing for a long time. Done easy Path LoL so close to end game material.
Previous AW was a lot challenging but everything changed with the current setup.

Summary of what always happens;

- Tier 1/2 always 100%
- Everyone brings 150 diversity
- Defender rating decides the match;

Since defence kills no matter the outcome is already known prior the war start by looking at the teams total PI. In most cases the bigger alliance always wins.

In this case we gave less kills away for fighting a stronger defense. They gave more kills to a weaker defense. But why is this not a criteria that is calculated towards? Why does skill no longer represent the scoreboard?

The new changes that it will be towards full diversity soon will only make things worse. The scoreboard will look more or less the same but the team with atleast one more unique defender will always have the upper hand. How is this faire?

Please rethink the strategy before AW loses it's glory and for me it was the most fun element in the game.
Losing the challenge of AW will mean the end of the game for me and for so many others I know.

There are a lot of changes that can be made to rebalance it. If Kabam is stuck and needs help from the players to advance that's not a shame to admit. Communicate with your players before it's to late and your players abandon the game.

BR

Comments

  • I understand your argument but this is only a snapshot of one war. Let me ask you a couple questions:

    - If this war happened under the old system, are you GUARANTEEING that you would've won?

    - We have had the opportunity to run 6 wars at this point under the new system. Have you lost all 6 in this manner?

    I am a veteran player who is in a semi retired ally and we have lost 5/6 since the new war started. The reason is we have guys that don't play enough so those of us that play a lot can't just dominate the middle and drop bosses. Not good for us but good for the other teams in our 4/5 tier that play more right? There are other tiers besides 1/2 where about 90% of the player fall into that the game needs to think about.

    P.s. Yes I'm looking for a new alliance lol
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    I understand your argument but this is only a snapshot of one war. Let me ask you a couple questions:

    - If this war happened under the old system, are you GUARANTEEING that you would've won?

    - We have had the opportunity to run 6 wars at this point under the new system. Have you lost all 6 in this manner?

    I am a veteran player who is in a semi retired ally and we have lost 5/6 since the new war started. The reason is we have guys that don't play enough so those of us that play a lot can't just dominate the middle and drop bosses. Not good for us but good for the other teams in our 4/5 tier that play more right? There are other tiers besides 1/2 where about 90% of the player fall into that the game needs to think about.

    P.s. Yes I'm looking for a new alliance lol
    Based on defender kills, they would have won on the old system.
    Not sure of the relevance of this having to had happened multiple times to show a flaw in scoring.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    @SuperFarz The image shows you did everything exactly to the T based on the new scoring system. Im assuming you lost simply by having a lower rating than the other alliance?
  • @R4GE it's pretty simple. The other team has 30 guys that got full prizes. OP got participation prizes. If you look at the game as a whole then 30 guys are happy and 30 guys aren't as happy. If we base our entire game experience on one event then OP should join the opposing alliance and expect the same winning outcome every time from that alliance. OR maybe, just maybe, the next war OPs original team will do the same thing to another alliance and a member from that losing alliance will post his pic of his team losing to the OP and we can do this over and over and over in forums every day like Groundhog Day.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    @R4GE it's pretty simple. The other team has 30 guys that got full prizes. OP got participation prizes. If you look at the game as a whole then 30 guys are happy and 30 guys aren't as happy. If we base our entire game experience on one event then OP should join the opposing alliance and expect the same winning outcome every time from that alliance. OR maybe, just maybe, the next war OPs original team will do the same thing to another alliance and a member from that losing alliance will post his pic of his team losing to the OP and we can do this over and over and over in forums every day like Groundhog Day.

    I am trying to understand where you are going with this. But regardless of the OP's single pic, this is a current ongoing issue for the community as a whole. The image shows to alliance who could easily be of equal skill, both used maxed diversity, and followed all aspects of the new scoring system. But in this case the least skilled alliance won, giving up more defender kills and won simply based on on being higher rated. This is a major flaw on its own, among all the other issues alliances are suffering with the new scoring system, thats best saved for the main discussion thread as to not take this one off topic.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    Shadead wrote: »
    @R4GE it's pretty simple. The other team has 30 guys that got full prizes. OP got participation prizes. If you look at the game as a whole then 30 guys are happy and 30 guys aren't as happy. If we base our entire game experience on one event then OP should join the opposing alliance and expect the same winning outcome every time from that alliance. OR maybe, just maybe, the next war OPs original team will do the same thing to another alliance and a member from that losing alliance will post his pic of his team losing to the OP and we can do this over and over and over in forums every day like Groundhog Day.

    Or we could have a system that required some skill instead of just who has the higher PI. With the current setup there is no need for the fights to even happen. Just take one alliance roster and match it against the other and handout rewards. It's a boring waste of time.

    I completely agree. This war was over before it started.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    @R4GE it's pretty simple. The other team has 30 guys that got full prizes. OP got participation prizes. If you look at the game as a whole then 30 guys are happy and 30 guys aren't as happy. If we base our entire game experience on one event then OP should join the opposing alliance and expect the same winning outcome every time from that alliance. OR maybe, just maybe, the next war OPs original team will do the same thing to another alliance and a member from that losing alliance will post his pic of his team losing to the OP and we can do this over and over and over in forums every day like Groundhog Day.

    Reading this again, I understand it. But theres a flaw in it. The OP did do the exact same thing as their opponent, by maxing diversity. They just lost based on ratings. As far as attempting to do that to another alliance would be to assume that they can guarantee they will be higher rated than their next opponent. Thats not possible.
  • After they fix the diversity problem of going per bg instead of ally wide, this will no longer be an issue. I still think defender kills should get 25 points.
  • SuperFarzSuperFarz Posts: 162
    I understand your argument but this is only a snapshot of one war. Let me ask you a couple questions:

    - If this war happened under the old system, are you GUARANTEEING that you would've won?

    - We have had the opportunity to run 6 wars at this point under the new system. Have you lost all 6 in this manner?

    I am a veteran player who is in a semi retired ally and we have lost 5/6 since the new war started. The reason is we have guys that don't play enough so those of us that play a lot can't just dominate the middle and drop bosses. Not good for us but good for the other teams in our 4/5 tier that play more right? There are other tiers besides 1/2 where about 90% of the player fall into that the game needs to think about.

    P.s. Yes I'm looking for a new alliance lol
    - Old system would have gave us the win based on defender kills
    - We lost one war vs an alliance that used the no defense strategy, one war because we didn't place full diversity ( can only blame yourself there ) and now this one. There is nothing we as an alliance can do more based on the current point system. If we are unlucky we can even lose the following 6 wars exactly like this.
    - The changes that can be made should effect all tiers but the biggest weaknesses in the current scoreboard are shown in tier 1/2. I have many ideas on how to improve it but that's another discussion.
    R4GE wrote: »
    @SuperFarz The image shows you did everything exactly to the T based on the new scoring system. Im assuming you lost simply by having a lower rating than the other alliance?
    You are correct.
    Shadead wrote: »
    @R4GE it's pretty simple. The other team has 30 guys that got full prizes. OP got participation prizes. If you look at the game as a whole then 30 guys are happy and 30 guys aren't as happy. If we base our entire game experience on one event then OP should join the opposing alliance and expect the same winning outcome every time from that alliance. OR maybe, just maybe, the next war OPs original team will do the same thing to another alliance and a member from that losing alliance will post his pic of his team losing to the OP and we can do this over and over and over in forums every day like Groundhog Day.

    Or we could have a system that required some skill instead of just who has the higher PI. With the current setup there is no need for the fights to even happen. Just take one alliance roster and match it against the other and handout rewards. It's a boring waste of time.
    Thank you, that's the perfect summary of my whole post.
  • Run477Run477 Posts: 1,292 ★★★
    This has been pointed out since day 1, the team that has thanos, kang, red deadpool, og vision, and the newest champs from crystals will likely win every war (when things are changed to full diversity). And if both sides are totally diverse, the bigger alliance wins essentially automatically (people can say “well the still have to 100%”—they are facing spider Gwen’s and Luke cages with their 5* attackers, c’mon).

    The whole system is flawed from the perspective of the player that believes you should be rewarded for doing well as opposed to being rewarded for having the most money. But, from the perspective of kabam as a business, it is great—reward the alliances that spend more money (assuming people have any interest in playing this terrible system anymore).
  • SuperFarzSuperFarz Posts: 162
    MadMarks wrote: »
    After they fix the diversity problem of going per bg instead of ally wide, this will no longer be an issue. I still think defender kills should get 25 points.

    You are mistaken. The scoreboard is now per BG and will be changed to full alliance if all goes through. As you can see the war is decided on 80 points. As out of this moment there are 106 champions in the game and some real rare ones for example ( OG DP / KANG). If one alliance places one more champ that's unique that will guarantee the win for them. This won't fix anything but will make it even more frustrating for the alliance missing the right champions.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    Run477 wrote: »
    This has been pointed out since day 1, the team that has thanos, kang, red deadpool, og vision, and the newest champs from crystals will likely win every war (when things are changed to full diversity). And if both sides are totally diverse, the bigger alliance wins essentially automatically (people can say “well the still have to 100%”—they are facing spider Gwen’s and Luke cages with their 5* attackers, c’mon).

    The whole system is flawed from the perspective of the player that believes you should be rewarded for doing well as opposed to being rewarded for having the most money. But, from the perspective of kabam as a business, it is great—reward the alliances that spend more money (assuming people have any interest in playing this terrible system anymore).
    Not sure if you're aware, but the 2 biggest alliances who have the champs you mentioned lost their last wars. I'm 100% positive on one of the alliances, since there is an image floating around of it. The other one, MMXIV, Im not certain.....but thats the word going around.
  • Run477Run477 Posts: 1,292 ★★★
    MadMarks wrote: »
    After they fix the diversity problem of going per bg instead of ally wide, this will no longer be an issue. I still think defender kills should get 25 points.

    I really question a lot of your posts. You have this backward. It is now per bg and it is getting “fixed” to ally wide (which will make the problem of the bigger spending alliances always winning worse—it has become crystal wars).

    Previously you claimed to be in tier 1 and have won all of your wars using your old “good” defense. I was already skeptical of that claim—now I just think it’s totally false.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    MadMarks wrote: »
    After they fix the diversity problem of going per bg instead of ally wide, this will no longer be an issue. I still think defender kills should get 25 points.

    While your statement is completely backwards, I do agree on defender kills needing to be worth something.
  • Deadbyrd9Deadbyrd9 Posts: 3,458 ★★★★
    edited September 2017
    I would love to see defender kills worth 25-50 points. That will more than enough make up for the difference in diversity if the more skilled alliance has a lower defender rating
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 3,575 ★★★★★
    You cannot say that under the old system defender kills would have made the difference as the other ally could have played differently by using pots before fights to not risk a death. What you can say is under the old system that win would’ve required item use instead of being free.

    Arguing for defense kills to be a factor is arguing for more expensive wars.
  • R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    edited September 2017
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    You cannot say that under the old system defender kills would have made the difference as the other ally could have played differently by using pots before fights to not risk a death. What you can say is under the old system that win would’ve required item use instead of being free.

    Arguing for defense kills to be a factor is arguing for more expensive wars.

    Actually you can. Based on that image war defender kills would have been the deciding factor.

    You can say that under the old system both alliances would have used a different strategy and the outcome could have been different.

    But we aren't trying to be hypothetical. We are looking at the new system and how an alliance gave up much more defender kills and still won, which wouldn't have happened in the old system. Thats all that is being pointed out.
  • sbb75sbb75 Posts: 208
    Before I make my point just want to say I am 100% in agreement the current scoring has major flaws, its more about stats than skill.

    Defender Kills shouldn't be used in examples showing that you would or have won AW with old scoring.
    The number of defender kills are skewed big time since its not scored. With 15.0 I have started several fights with minimal health because I getting killed doesn't count. I NEVER would have started a fight with 1k health in old scoring. Last war I fought 3 consecutive fights with AA, 1st fight I had 1,200 health. Didn't use a pot and won 2 lost 1.
    That worked out great, but in old system there wouldn't have been a defender kills.

    I have come to like that defender kills aren't counted. If I am forced to use team revives I want to use my entire team. I like that I can sacrifice a champ with min health to damage and scout my next appointment.

    The biggest problem now is with the weight of divirisity scoring. In my opinion their should be a small divirisity bump to the current defender rating. Enough to make the divirisity with PI a tie breaker strategy, And Not a war strategy.
    Scoring weight should be
    #1 boss
    #2 raise exploration (attackers kills is part of this, change % to number node difficulty with Defender scores more)
    #3 defender kills (a fraction of attacker kills weight)
    #4 Defender rating (PI and divirisity)
    #5 Number of defenders placed needs to be minimized, change to penalty for not placing 40+ or whatever number eliminates the no defender strategy.

  • CoatHang3r wrote: »
    You cannot say that under the old system defender kills would have made the difference as the other ally could have played differently by using pots before fights to not risk a death. What you can say is under the old system that win would’ve required item use instead of being free.

    Arguing for defense kills to be a factor is arguing for more expensive wars.

    EXACTLY!!

    OP is suggesting that this screen shot would've been a win under the old system. That may be true but the other alliance wouldn't have played the same way with different circumstances.
  • Hey everyone,

    I know you're all wanting to discuss this matter, but please remember that we have a discussion already open on sharing feedback towards this topic. Opening multiple threads on the topic will make it harder for our game team to go through and see everything being said by all of you. Creating multiple topics about the same matter will clutter the forums.

    Please head over to this thread for continued discussion: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/17904/15-0-alliance-wars-update-discussion-thread#latest
This discussion has been closed.