Alliance War, Defensive Kills ISSUE
FinisHIIM
Member Posts: 1
Hello good evening people of Kabam
Im starting this discussion, because i have a problem with the last changes in war to be more precise DEFENSIVE KILLS. me and my folks are adapting to this new type of war, we lost this last war not because of exploration or boss kill. it was the defender diversity points, i read the post explaining how this new type of war works, and i can say that its focused on the offensive and the diversity of defenders wich is, in my case, an interesting idea for a tie breaker. now thats the reason why my friends and I lost this last war.
What im not agreed with, is the defensive kills giving 0 point and being a statistic im uploading some screenshots to make my point clearer.
Its in spanish but the same for all languages.
As you can see there is nothing strange here, same % of exploration and defenders deployed and everything else except the defender diversity that make the difference in this war, now lets continue to the next screenshot.
Here is where my problem is, in the defensive kills, that as you can see its almost the triple. I understand the changes to refresh the old system of war, but by allow this its almost as you say: Hey guys now you dont have to care if you use the 15 objects just attack, it doesnt matter if you die 80 times. Wich is very unfair, this is a game and the BEST PLAYERS should always win in others words the ones with HANDS with ability to play THE GAME.
Ive been playing this game for more than two years and see all the changes you made to this game, and after all i can say it was all for good it made the game better, to be true i was againt the nerf on the specific characters in the beggining, but now is more challenging to fight without them, and in the end it make me like the game more.
Now to finish this im going to say that AW it a battle 1VS1 when the BEST SHOULD ALWAYS WIN not the one who uses more GLORY or UNITS, that should be clear, well this is my first post wich is more a rant than other thing because of how MAD im because of this result.
Im starting this discussion, because i have a problem with the last changes in war to be more precise DEFENSIVE KILLS. me and my folks are adapting to this new type of war, we lost this last war not because of exploration or boss kill. it was the defender diversity points, i read the post explaining how this new type of war works, and i can say that its focused on the offensive and the diversity of defenders wich is, in my case, an interesting idea for a tie breaker. now thats the reason why my friends and I lost this last war.
What im not agreed with, is the defensive kills giving 0 point and being a statistic im uploading some screenshots to make my point clearer.
Its in spanish but the same for all languages.
As you can see there is nothing strange here, same % of exploration and defenders deployed and everything else except the defender diversity that make the difference in this war, now lets continue to the next screenshot.
Here is where my problem is, in the defensive kills, that as you can see its almost the triple. I understand the changes to refresh the old system of war, but by allow this its almost as you say: Hey guys now you dont have to care if you use the 15 objects just attack, it doesnt matter if you die 80 times. Wich is very unfair, this is a game and the BEST PLAYERS should always win in others words the ones with HANDS with ability to play THE GAME.
Ive been playing this game for more than two years and see all the changes you made to this game, and after all i can say it was all for good it made the game better, to be true i was againt the nerf on the specific characters in the beggining, but now is more challenging to fight without them, and in the end it make me like the game more.
Now to finish this im going to say that AW it a battle 1VS1 when the BEST SHOULD ALWAYS WIN not the one who uses more GLORY or UNITS, that should be clear, well this is my first post wich is more a rant than other thing because of how MAD im because of this result.
0
Comments