AW agreement - sharing defender rating

Simply put, Kabam took away defender kills to encourage 100% completion of AW maps so you can die and revive as much as you want without hurting your chance of winning. Now we can just keep logs and share defender rating and one side doesn’t even have to pursue 100% completion because why do it when you know from the beginning you won’t win. This is probably not what Kabam had in mind when trying to make more money by alliances spending.

Comments

GroundedWisdom

There are a few reasons why this tactic doesn't make sense to me. Ultimately, they may be saving Resources, but they're missing out on Exploration Rewards. It's also not a good idea to trust your opponent in determining whether to fight or not. If those metrics are acting as tie breakers after Exploration, that's their intended purpose. In any event, there are further changes coming. I'm just not in agreeance that Defender Kills are the solution.

Twunt

Thanks Grounded! What do you think is coming down the pipeline?

GroundedWisdom

I'm not sure. The comment was that they apologized for the delay, but that further iterations were coming, and that they wanted to make sure that Diversity and Defender Rating acted as the tie breakers they wanted.

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

There are a few reasons why this tactic doesn't make sense to me. Ultimately, they may be saving Resources, but they're missing out on Exploration Rewards. It's also not a good idea to trust your opponent in determining whether to fight or not. If those metrics are acting as tie breakers after Exploration, that's their intended purpose. In any event, there are further changes coming. I'm just not in agreeance that Defender Kills are the solution.

What? lol. They still get exploration rewards. It's not like they don't clear any of the map. Just no reason to use items when you know you will lose with 100% certainty. Also, you don't have to take the opponent's word for it. You can share screen shots of your alliance's defender rating. Afraid you dropped the ball on this one @GroundedWisdom. And what do you have against defender kills other than Kabam decided against counting them? Defender kills would end the predetermined war outcome. The only reason given by Kabam against them was an absurd post by Kabam Miike in which he alleged that there was a problem with people being discouraged and quitting after losing one champ. Even if this has happened, it certainly wasn't such a widespread problem that the whole scoring system required an overhaul. The cure has been worse than the alleged disease.

RagamugginGunner

It's almost as if he has no idea what he's talking about.

GroundedWisdom

Anything can be doctored. I'm not willing to trust screenshots from my opponent to judge if I want to make a try for it or not. I'm not going into Defender Kills and the issues because I've done that in the War Thread. Personally I think the agreement is the equivalent of saying "If we can't win, we don't want to play.".

LeNoirFaineant

No, it isn't that at all. Alliance potions are expensive. It's saying "Let's get all we possibly can, but don't spend in a war that was lost before it started thanks to Kabam's broken scoring system." It isn't giving up in any way whatsoever. You go ahead and push to win a war in which you think the opponent photo shopped the score lol. @GroundedWisdom both sides are playing, one side is simply not using items to 100% the map in a war they can't win. In what way is this saying "If we can't win, we don't want to play." You often make some sense, but this isn't one of those times.

GroundedWisdom

I wouldn't because I don't participate in War that way. I didn't participate in the 2* Agreement either. If Allies want to save themselves some Pots that is completely up to them to do it that way. That doesn't mean it's a highlight of how the system is flawed. Players came up with that response.

LeNoirFaineant

That's very different from saying that it's giving up. It's fine if you don't want to employ strategy. Players came up with a logical response to a scoring system in which on side has zero chance of winning regardless of what they do if both sides 100% the map. Explain to me in what way that system isn't flawed (kabam even admitted it was flawed)? Obviously if the side that will win fails to 100% the other side can make a push. Seems like a logical response to a broken system to me.

LeNoirFaineant

Just as an aside, when was the last time you admitted that you were wrong? Just wondering lol.

K1lltastic

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Just as an aside, when was the last time you admitted that you were wrong? Just wondering lol.

Last time he was wrong, I'd imagine.

LeNoirFaineant

K1lltastic wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

Just as an aside, when was the last time you admitted that you were wrong? Just wondering lol.

Last time he was wrong, I'd imagine.

He must never be wrong then. Guess I better quit disagreeing with him lol

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

No. If the objective is to save Resources, that's one thing. If the objective is to come up with a response to the removal of Defender Kills that prompts them to add them again, that's a different story. It's not a question of being right and wrong. It all depends on the intentions of Allies, which I cannot presume. The "Agreement" has come up before, and it's been used as an argument to bring them back. If that's the idea, I find that to be poor sport. I have no issues with Allies responding to their own needs. That's part of War. I do, however, point out that creating an issue for the purpose of brining them back would be self-inflicted.

JamezBong

When they bluffing bout their def rating ?
Then you got no will to finish the aw.

Not everyone as honest as you.

And bluffing also known as strategy (poker?)

unknown

This content has been removed.

Dr_ARCHer

Once people realise that we are in it for the long haul, there is no point bluffing about your defenders rating. Yes, you can win one or two AW, but word will get out about how reliable you are.

Since the fight is predetermined, why spend on resources when you could save on them? On the other hand, with defender kills, the fight is sometimes all the way towards the very end. How many of us have ended up sitting next to the boss to decide if they should go for the boss kill within the last 15 minutes?

Born

This definitely happens (at least up in the top ranks of tier 1) and on every occasion I have seen, it has all been honest. We tend to fight allot of the same allys so if someone is dishonest, they won’t be trusted next time round, or trusted with other allys as word gets round pretty quick.

For the most part allys are just in it for the rewards and not to make life difficult for the other team. When both have placed 150 diversity and rating is all that will determine the win, most allys don’t mind giving the other team a break from having to use items to get 100% only to find out they are going to lose anyway. And in turn the favour is returned when they are on the losing end.

War has a different feel about it now. It used to be like a war, where a smaller ally would love to show up a bigger ally with their skills and snatch a win with a little banter thrown in. Now it’s very relaxed.

Ally 1: Oh you have the higher rating? Ok you take this one, we stand no chance anyway so we will save items and hope we have a higher rating next war.

Ally 2: Ok thanks, have a nice day and good luck with the next one.

Not really a war, just a number game now.

Kabam Rimehaven

Hey there everyone!

Several posts here were removed for derailing the thread and breaking the rules. Make sure to stay on topic and remember to be respectful when posting, otherwise the thread will have to be closed.

RehctansBew

What a thread derailed that certain members of the forums are in. Never seen that before. To be fair, war is just a joke now. Lost the other day with a 198/90 kills. Seems logical to me. They know it's broke, but refuse to do anything about it. Just like everything else, this will be swept under the rug with pure skill, 4 hour Emergency Maintenance (at the end of one of the most sought after champs arena & AQ) and lets not forget the Detect masteries. Kabam has a big rug, as a lot can easily be put under it. War is fixed in one simple equation. Defender Kills, they know and we know it.

ClintBeastwood

Born wrote: »

Not really a war, just a number game now.

This.... This is what war has become. Its no longer a war, its a game of numbers. War outcome is essentially pre-determined. Although my relationship with my ex taught me to trust no human, I personally believe that the saving of items through potential deals (especially against recurring opponents) isnt a bad idea at all.

Twunt

I’m not creating this discussion to reinstate defender kills although it is a good idea. Defender kill stat was hidden before. If it stayed hidden and both teams don’t know how many deaths each has, then alliances tend to go for it - go for the completion and boss kills thinking they will win because they died less. Sometimes you go for it and results come in and you are wrong. That makes it a good war and exciting not knowing the end results and hanging by the edge of your seat to find out.

Nerfed2Def

This makes perfect sense. If it's a wash treat it like a wash. Start allowing communication between alliances again prior to war placement. It's our business if we want to make an agreement on rating or even 2 stars. I think the OP has a brilliant idea. Add pre-war communication and we're good!

Mr_Platypus

Lol, didn’t attack or derail anything but whatevs, just pointed out that war at all tiers is different.
Doesn’t change that I’d happily agree to this as it’d save some of the weaker members in my alliance having to rez up to keep up at times

WOK

The argument against not trusting your opponents given information as with forgoing rewards being absurd is a valid one, just not in our AW scenario. And what's wrong with communicating with other players in the first place? And agreements? Even true to life wars have had battles conceded, truce being negotiated to prevent further loss......

The exchange of screenshots is just an informal introduction to the war ahead IMO. We see the info, we calculate its going to be a loss, we place defenders as usual and wait for atk phase.
Once atk phase starts, we see the info without a doubt anyhow. Not too difficult to roughly add up the opponents defender rating, and amount of diversity they have within a minute or two (why kabam decided to show defender info is beyond me). And no ally of sound mind would just not move and completely quit.
All we need is 75% exploration to receive full rewards, so most will simply call it a day once that milestone is reached, and not literally leave the map void of our presence.

Previous AW was much more "in the moment" and engaging for players that enjoyed a good challenge and competition. Only communication was the occasional "good luck" or "f you". Lol

Only being able to see the defender champ class (sans scouter lense) gave us room to strategize and consider which path could be best for a members atk team.
Defender kills gave us a measuring stick to gauge how close/far we were from a victory/loss. Cheering on teammates to push forward to get us to the boss for a chance at victory or survival.
Nearly everyone online the final 20mins looking at the map during tight wars to see what the opponents final moves would be and being alert for a counter move forward.
This was because with its share of flaws, the old system still had a air of uncertainty which created excitement. A total contrast to today's "bigger & better" spreadsheet version of you ask me.

CapWW2

Honestly this sounds to me like an exploit.

GroundedWisdom

No, it's not technically an exploit. If Allies are sharing their own Defender Ratings with each other, that's allowed through Chat. I can understand wanting to determine if using more Resources is prudent. My original point was that it's not a response to get Defender Kills reinstated. It's not really exploitative because people have always been allowed to gauge whether to continue or not. Personally, I would not pursue or trust such an arrangement.

DNA3000

CapWW2 wrote: »

Honestly this sounds to me like an exploit.

Actually, it is valid meta gaming. In every MMO, the developers make the rules but the players dictate the tactics. Sometimes players act the way the developers expect, but often they do not. If the players believe they are playing a game within a set of reasonable rules, they tend to act the way the developers expect. But when the players believe they are playing a game against the developers where the developers are the enemy rather than the obstacles in the game, then all sorts of interesting things start to happen.

We see this all the time. We see players queue up in a line to defeat a respawning object because while the developers intended players to fight over it, the players decided to cooperate so everyone gets the rewards faster (I personally saw this in WoW and SWTOR in particular). We see players cooperate in PvP zones to get the phat loot because the developers designed the loot to be very valuable on the assumption it would be hard to get because players would have to contend with other players, and the players decided not to play along.

This is an interesting meta-meta-gaming issue I don't think gets enough attention. There is a natural tendency for MMO developers to think of themselves as "the enemy" in the competitive sense of being tasked with creating challenges for the players, but they don't realize that when they take that too far they become the enemy in the non-competitive sense of the players deciding they don't want to cooperate with the meta game the developers intend. I have often said that MMO developers should think of themselves as benevolent GMs and not as sadistic task masters. No (or at least few) MMO developers would describe themselves as sadistic, but they often nevertheless take great delight in seeing how difficult their challenges are and how much pressure they place on players. They insulate themselves from comment and criticism (not without good cause in some cases, but still) behind opaque layers of feedback channels. That encourages players to think outside the box and not beat the game within the game, but beat the game itself by not playing along.

I think this situation is an example of this effect in action. At tier 1 the competition is sufficiently high that alliances have already put a lot of pressure upon themselves to fully complete the map to win. This is difficult and sometimes expensive. But in the current AW system this is also often futile. Knowing this, and believing the developers are not representing their interests in the game, the players are taking it upon themselves to correct the problem in their own way, by denying Kabam the potions that would have been spent on the war, while still getting most or all of the rewards associating with participation.

I am critical of MMO developers in general and Kabam developers in particular, but I have respect and sympathy for them. I've worked with MMO developers: I know exactly what their job entails, which is actually why I'm often so critical: I know how the sausage is made, so I know when mistakes are made. But I am all in favor of meta-gaming like this, because I know that sometimes this is literally the only way players can provide actionable feedback that matters. Words count for very little: MMO development is a very data-driven and datamining-driven enterprise. The players cannot open a two-way dialog with developers very often, and it is self-destructive to boycott the game or otherwise attempt to disrupt it. But when players don't cooperate with the developers, when they take the game the developers created and choose to play a completely different game with its moving parts because they don't want to play the game that was created, believe me MMO developers notice.

I doubt if many alliances are doing this or would likely do this: this makes more sense at the top with the strongest competitors and the peer pressure of being in a rarified high echelon of the game. But if a lot of alliances started doing this and turned alliance war into a joke, I would bet money that the devs would change it. Their professional pride would compel them to do so.

Mr_Platypus

Well looks like we essentially get what we wanted for a few weeks, be good to know straight away whether to push for 100% or not.
No point asking if little Timmy has a spare revive so he can clear that 5/50 SG he wiped on so we can get 100% if they have better rating after all.

Slightly OT but would be curious to know how far down into the AW rankings you’d have to go before wars aren’t won purely based on defender rating.

unknown

This content has been removed.