The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
This is exactly why I'm not having the discussion. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic of Wars. This is a discussion for all Players. There is no requirement to participate. Secondly, your only purpose in asking is to try and discredit any point I make using the details of my Account. Shaming Players about where they are in the game is against the rules of the Forum. Have a look. It has nothing to do with the War system overall. It's a discussion on Wars in general. Sorry, but you're not bullying me out of the conversation using Tiers and Ranking. Perhaps it would be more productive to address the points I make.
You might not know as much about the overall war system as you think you do if you've only seen one part of it. And just for the record my IGN is the same as my forum name. Nothing to hide lol.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
This is exactly why I'm not having the discussion. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic of Wars. This is a discussion for all Players. There is no requirement to participate. Secondly, your only purpose in asking is to try and discredit any point I make using the details of my Account. Shaming Players about where they are in the game is against the rules of the Forum. Have a look. It has nothing to do with the War system overall. It's a discussion on Wars in general. Sorry, but you're not bullying me out of the conversation using Tiers and Ranking. Perhaps it would be more productive to address the points I make.
It's rude to say I'm bullying you when I asked about your experience level. You said you rarely lose wars which doesn't make any sense at all if you aren't a high level player in a top alliance. If thats the case you are providing false information and not helping the discussion. I didn't ask for any personal info or anything that would give your game id out. Perhaps it would be more productive if you didn't make up stuff.
In an in depth, intelligent discussion about a topic, people with a vast amount of knowledge about the subject usually have better, more valuable input. That's not a knock on anyone or bullying. It's just a simple fact. If a player has been thru many tiers and has competed in wars at nearly every opportunity, they're going to have the most experience and knowledge of wars.
Whereas a player who may participate once or twice a month (when they know they can focus efforts on it), or a player who participates in 1 bg wars (a third of a full war), and is always at a very low tier is not going to have the same breadth of knowledge about war... And their ability to input valuable information is going to be limited to their extremely narrow view of the matter. Therefore, they can only truly speak to the aspects of the topic that they have experience with. If they try to speak about things they have no first hand knowledge of, their input is usually based on assumptions and outright wrong.
That's also not a knock on anyone... But if all I know about cars is where the gas goes, I won't be discussing transmission timing sensors. And I sure wouldn't do it with any sort of know-it-all attitude towards a person that does have in depth experience in such a thing. If a person attempts to tell me about some complicated matter with my vehicle, I'd be very likely to ask them their credentials to get a feeling as to whether they knew the topic well or were talking out their ass.
It would be nice to get an update as we haven't had one for a while.
I can see them just increasing the nodes again even though about 95% of the player base want defender kills to come back in some form.
Here's hoping they actually listen to us for a change and bring them back to make war more fun.
FYI - my alliance is tier 2 so I see often alliances that buy their way through the war now that there are no penalties for losing a fight and this needs to change...
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
This is exactly why I'm not having the discussion. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic of Wars. This is a discussion for all Players. There is no requirement to participate. Secondly, your only purpose in asking is to try and discredit any point I make using the details of my Account. Shaming Players about where they are in the game is against the rules of the Forum. Have a look. It has nothing to do with the War system overall. It's a discussion on Wars in general. Sorry, but you're not bullying me out of the conversation using Tiers and Ranking. Perhaps it would be more productive to address the points I make.
No one is shaming you. We're trying to ind out where you are in the game to get a better idea of where your argument is coming from. A player's place in the game plays a huge part in how they may feel about the AW system. I'm not sure how that is hard for you to understand.
If you don't believe @GroundedWisdom input to be solid, addressing player concerns & lacks credibility, then just STOP replying to him. To whatever extended this is just fueling more argumentation and more posts without input for Kabam to really take back.
I find it disappointing you prefer to argue credibility over providing further input to posts with ACTUAL PROPOSALS. If you have the time to respond to things you don't agree on, then at least invest the same time to posts with topic related substance.
I truly encourage you to look back at posts that have proposals, go back 4 to 5 pages and dig up the ones presented and discuss on that. That will get us back on track. Ignore people you don't agree with, period. If it's a proposal you don't agree on, that is OK as long as it contains clear background on why. If that reply isn't solid then discussion wouldn't go further. And that's as easy as it gets.
If you don't believe @GroundedWisdom input to be solid, addressing player concerns & lacks credibility, then just STOP replying to him. To whatever extended this is just fueling more argumentation and more posts without input for Kabam to really take back.
I find it disappointing you prefer to argue credibility over providing further input to posts with ACTUAL PROPOSALS. If you have the time to respond to things you don't agree on, then at least invest the same time to posts with topic related substance.
I truly encourage you to look back at posts that have proposals, go back 4 to 5 pages and dig up the ones presented and discuss on that. That will get us back on track. Ignore people you don't agree with, period. If it's a proposal you don't agree on, that is OK as long as it contains clear background on why. If that reply isn't solid then discussion wouldn't go further. And that's as easy as it gets.
have a great day!
People respond to him because if nobody does, then someone reading the thread for the first time will believe he has credible and reasonable opinions on this subject. Frankly, calling out false premises is necessary in a public forum. If flawed ideas were not responded to, then 12.0 would’ve stuck and we would be playing (or not playing anymore) a very different game. That response required nearly universal buy-in from the players to facilitate any change.
Ideas are great, but there is no organization in this thread and talking about wars outside of this thread is immediately shut down and redirected. They don’t want our ideas, that’s been made pretty clear. Ideas in this thread will go nowhere without the players organizing thoughts and coming up with a clear plan that all can get behind.
If you don't believe @GroundedWisdom input to be solid, addressing player concerns & lacks credibility, then just STOP replying to him. To whatever extended this is just fueling more argumentation and more posts without input for Kabam to really take back.
I find it disappointing you prefer to argue credibility over providing further input to posts with ACTUAL PROPOSALS. If you have the time to respond to things you don't agree on, then at least invest the same time to posts with topic related substance.
I truly encourage you to look back at posts that have proposals, go back 4 to 5 pages and dig up the ones presented and discuss on that. That will get us back on track. Ignore people you don't agree with, period. If it's a proposal you don't agree on, that is OK as long as it contains clear background on why. If that reply isn't solid then discussion wouldn't go further. And that's as easy as it gets.
have a great day!
I appreciate your past input and this post. Normally, you'd be absolutely right. But that's not the case here.
This whole thread and the one before it are nothing but a control mechanism to keep the chatter in one place. The thread grows and grows, full of good suggestions and fervent calls for things (like defender kills) that would add fun back to wars and change them from the terrible, farming iteration they are now.. But that thread growth also helps deter more users from entering the thread. The thread also is mostly ignored by anyone that matters unless they need to step in to squash something or make another terrible announcement.
We're kids put in the playpen as far as they're concerned. Nothing significant that's been said here since day one has been used in war changes in the actual context that it's been posted. This is literally just fencing in the vocal users to keep their good ideas as under wraps as possible while still allowing them a voice. It's much easier to ignore them this way.
Yeah, I hear you guys @LocoMotives@chunkyb , until someone in Kabam like @Kabam Miike@Kabam Vydious respond, then ideas won't go nowhere. To address that point I believe at least if we hear out the ideas then we can come up with more solid scenarios to put together, and maybe some of us have the opportunity to discuss with other power users or representers in the community, or give a definitive solution maybe through change.org or something.
About refuting post of contribuitors to avoid new people joining the thread and taking that content as solid when not, I understand the intention and agree. Let's just consider that at some point he said he didn't care what others thought of his opinion. So 1)Answering doesn't solve for helping him get the community perspective, and 2)That message reflects he is solving only for him and not the community. No offense intended to that user, just my view on what happened with his comments. I will recognize that he did answer some other posts with comments grounded to the topic, and that is cool. So I think at this stage we have made our point and circling back won't add
In an in depth, intelligent discussion about a topic, people with a vast amount of knowledge about the subject usually have better, more valuable input.
That may be true in general, but in this case I don't think it is true. AW should work for all players in all tiers, or at least as many as possible, and it is pretty clear to me that different tiers and different strength alliances are seeing different war situations. That's because first the map itself is not the same for everyone and quantitative differences start to have qualitative differences to war, and second because the players themselves behave differently in different tiers. There may be less pressure to spend and complete at lower tiers than at higher ones. And third, there's a complicated relationship between the strength of the defense and the strength of the offense at different tiers. When it is mostly 3/30s and 4/40s, you find the offense tends to be far stronger than the defense most of the time. One single lucky 5* pull and one defender on one side could win the whole war. When it is mostly 4/40s and 5/50s, you tend to see most of the 5* champs on offense and 4* champs on defense and which champion gets placed can have a huge impact on the war: the quality of the defense matters. At the highest tiers you tend to see very strong (i.e. "correct") attackers and very strong defenders, and the situation is different again.
Because of this, having input from players at every tier and in every situation is valuable, because its difficult to really know what's going on at those tiers without many different players giving a solid picture.
But for that input to be useful, it must be specific, unambiguous, detailed, and placed within its proper context. The one thing that isn't very useful, at least from my perspective, is when someone makes declarations about how AW is functioning in general with no context for where that perspective comes from. Without being able to place it in terms of tier, or alliance strength, or the kinds of wars being fought, its impossible to integrate that input into the larger picture. That's why I'm very careful to note when I'm stating my direct experience and what that experience is, and when I'm making generalizations about what I'm hearing from other players across different tiers.
War is not the same everywhere, so any statement about war that claims something is happening everywhere is probably false. Tier 1/2 wars seem to be different than mid tier wars, which seem to be different from the low tiers. Blockades became viable immediately when the first node buffs happened in the mid tiers, but they were slow to adopt them. After the second round blockades seemed to become more viable at the higher tiers at least for some alliances. That seems to confirm that how difficult the nodes are alters different alliances in different tiers differently. And it should tell Kabam that there's no "sweet spot" for node difficulty in AW.
My current player rating is just shy of 400k and I haven't participated in an AW in weeks because it is so broken. I like shards, I like loyalty, I like helping my alliance. I hate AW now! Why... no defender kills! Diversity is the brainchild of a moron.
No door was closed. I'm still here. I'm just not engaging in a discussion about what Tier I'm in or what Rank my Champs are in relation to Defender Kills. I said I have experience organizing Wins. I also said it's entirely possible to have a high success rate if you plan accordingly, and play within the range of the capability of your Ally. It's about finding the sweet spot where your Ally functions best, opening Wars at times where you know people are free, and sometimes not running Wars 3 times a week. We don't like losing. I didn't say what Tier I'm in because it doesn't matter. When we're talking about the War system that affects all Players, that is what I'm addressing, i.e. Defender Kills, Diversity, etc.
Defender kills should be returned diversity failed. TOP alliances dont see diverse defenses anymore and no one can match our defender ratings. Its a for sure win especially when we manipulate who we fight.
No door was closed. I'm still here. I'm just not engaging in a discussion about what Tier I'm in or what Rank my Champs are in relation to Defender Kills. I said I have experience organizing Wins. I also said it's entirely possible to have a high success rate if you plan accordingly, and play within the range of the capability of your Ally. It's about finding the sweet spot where your Ally functions best, opening Wars at times where you know people are free, and sometimes not running Wars 3 times a week. We don't like losing. I didn't say what Tier I'm in because it doesn't matter. When we're talking about the War system that affects all Players, that is what I'm addressing, i.e. Defender Kills, Diversity, etc.
Defender kills should be returned diversity failed. TOP alliances dont see diverse defenses anymore and no one can match our defender ratings. Its a for sure win especially when we manipulate who we fight.
As was mentioned, the significance of Diversity and Defender Rating is intended to be tie breakers more than anything. If the lineup is still the same, all that does is highlight why Defender Kills are best removed. As for Rating, that's pretty much how it should be. Larger Allies will win regardless. Quite plainly, Allies with lower Ratings really shouldn't be in the highest Tiers.
No door was closed. I'm still here. I'm just not engaging in a discussion about what Tier I'm in or what Rank my Champs are in relation to Defender Kills. I said I have experience organizing Wins. I also said it's entirely possible to have a high success rate if you plan accordingly, and play within the
As was mentioned, the significance of Diversity and Defender Rating is intended to be tie breakers more than anything. If the lineup is still the same, all that does is highlight why Defender Kills are best removed. As for Rating, that's pretty much how it should be. Larger Allies will win regardless. Quite plainly, Allies with lower Ratings really shouldn't be in the highest Tiers.
You have to be kidding. You’re saying wars should be decided before a fight starts because bigger alliances are going to win anyway.
You truly just don’t get it GW. Of all the dumb things you parrot in every comment, this might just be the dumbest and shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You just conjectured what I said. I said larger Allies would most often win regardless. Meaning they have the Rosters to do so. All this talk about skill when it was a metric that affected the entire schematic. Crude example. Allies with a 6 Mil Rating going up against Allies of a 12 Mil Rating in Tier 1. Not an actual example, but it highlights the point that the Matches were horribly mismatched. You can call it skill because they died less to get there, but it threw the entire system off. For the longest time, people have maintained that Prestige is all that matters, and Rating doesn't make a difference. Kabam has mentioned that a great deal of factors can be determined by Rating, and I've said multiple times that Rating is a reflection of progression in the game because it signifies time and effort. I've said since the changes have taken place that the Tiers would be more in line with our Rating, and the Matches would reflect that by being closer to our Ally's Rating. For the most part, that's been the case. I'm not saying that the Ally must automatically win because their Rating is larger. I'm saying they are more apt to win, especially when the Match is far off. There is no logical reason why Allies should be Matched with others 2, 3 times their size. Call it skill, call it what you want. Time and effort in an Ally is reflected in its Rating.
My current player rating is just shy of 400k and I haven't participated in an AW in weeks because it is so broken. I like shards, I like loyalty, I like helping my alliance. I hate AW now! Why... no defender kills! Diversity is the brainchild of a moron.
If your alliance has given up on AW because of its current state, I'd recommend match making anyway and just telling your members to do whatever, just don't spend potions or units. Maybe fight one node and then quit, and win or lose collect your rewards without spending any money. Spend no resources on it, but collect the free stuff. Even the loser rewards are not bad, don't deprive yourself of them.
We can't force Kabam to do smart things to AW, but we decide how we participate in AW. If every single alliance that was unhappy with AW started just match making and deliberately throwing the war right at the start - enter but don't fight or only fight trivially - I guarantee you their it will drive their datamining metrics bananas. If they thought attackers giving up with live champions still in their teams was bad, I can only imagine what they will do when their datamining logs show a sizeable percentage of alliances simply stopping attacking for what appears to be no reason.
You can't talk to the devs, but you can send them a message if enough players do likewise.
My Alliance hasn't given up on AW. We spend our time in tiers 3-5. I, personally, have grown weary of this new system and just can't find it in me to join most of the time. My alliance knows if BG1 doesn't fill up I will get in, but I wait till a couple hours before placement phase ends to see if they need me.
I will have to get in a few soon though just for the loyalty as mine is disappearing into weekly donations with only 7k coming back to me from the STILL BROKEN help button. Seriously, how can we expect Kabam to address big issues when this nuisance has been around for so long. Laughable.
I just read two of the absolute dumbest posts I've ever read on this forum. Blown away tbh. I always have a sneaking suspicion that the idiocy has to be on purpose.
It has to be right? I mean, I have the least faith in the general population of anyone I know... But to just accept someone could rly believe the moronic **** they post is still a stretch for me. Idk. I can identify stupid.. I just can't absorb and understand it
I can only fathom this person aspire to be a kabam mod and thinks that he can achieve his goal by consistently and vehemently supporting everything that's introduced by kabam.
Comments
You might not know as much about the overall war system as you think you do if you've only seen one part of it. And just for the record my IGN is the same as my forum name. Nothing to hide lol.
It's rude to say I'm bullying you when I asked about your experience level. You said you rarely lose wars which doesn't make any sense at all if you aren't a high level player in a top alliance. If thats the case you are providing false information and not helping the discussion. I didn't ask for any personal info or anything that would give your game id out. Perhaps it would be more productive if you didn't make up stuff.
Whereas a player who may participate once or twice a month (when they know they can focus efforts on it), or a player who participates in 1 bg wars (a third of a full war), and is always at a very low tier is not going to have the same breadth of knowledge about war... And their ability to input valuable information is going to be limited to their extremely narrow view of the matter. Therefore, they can only truly speak to the aspects of the topic that they have experience with. If they try to speak about things they have no first hand knowledge of, their input is usually based on assumptions and outright wrong.
That's also not a knock on anyone... But if all I know about cars is where the gas goes, I won't be discussing transmission timing sensors. And I sure wouldn't do it with any sort of know-it-all attitude towards a person that does have in depth experience in such a thing. If a person attempts to tell me about some complicated matter with my vehicle, I'd be very likely to ask them their credentials to get a feeling as to whether they knew the topic well or were talking out their ass.
I guess most of those ideas made too much sense ;-)
I can see them just increasing the nodes again even though about 95% of the player base want defender kills to come back in some form.
Here's hoping they actually listen to us for a change and bring them back to make war more fun.
FYI - my alliance is tier 2 so I see often alliances that buy their way through the war now that there are no penalties for losing a fight and this needs to change...
Some people just don’t know when to quit.
That being said, the new war system is a huge mess & isn’t fun. The old map was decided more by Bosskilles and exploration, actual skil and strategy.
No one is shaming you. We're trying to ind out where you are in the game to get a better idea of where your argument is coming from. A player's place in the game plays a huge part in how they may feel about the AW system. I'm not sure how that is hard for you to understand.
If you don't believe @GroundedWisdom input to be solid, addressing player concerns & lacks credibility, then just STOP replying to him. To whatever extended this is just fueling more argumentation and more posts without input for Kabam to really take back.
I find it disappointing you prefer to argue credibility over providing further input to posts with ACTUAL PROPOSALS. If you have the time to respond to things you don't agree on, then at least invest the same time to posts with topic related substance.
I truly encourage you to look back at posts that have proposals, go back 4 to 5 pages and dig up the ones presented and discuss on that. That will get us back on track. Ignore people you don't agree with, period. If it's a proposal you don't agree on, that is OK as long as it contains clear background on why. If that reply isn't solid then discussion wouldn't go further. And that's as easy as it gets.
People respond to him because if nobody does, then someone reading the thread for the first time will believe he has credible and reasonable opinions on this subject. Frankly, calling out false premises is necessary in a public forum. If flawed ideas were not responded to, then 12.0 would’ve stuck and we would be playing (or not playing anymore) a very different game. That response required nearly universal buy-in from the players to facilitate any change.
Ideas are great, but there is no organization in this thread and talking about wars outside of this thread is immediately shut down and redirected. They don’t want our ideas, that’s been made pretty clear. Ideas in this thread will go nowhere without the players organizing thoughts and coming up with a clear plan that all can get behind.
I appreciate your past input and this post. Normally, you'd be absolutely right. But that's not the case here.
This whole thread and the one before it are nothing but a control mechanism to keep the chatter in one place. The thread grows and grows, full of good suggestions and fervent calls for things (like defender kills) that would add fun back to wars and change them from the terrible, farming iteration they are now.. But that thread growth also helps deter more users from entering the thread. The thread also is mostly ignored by anyone that matters unless they need to step in to squash something or make another terrible announcement.
We're kids put in the playpen as far as they're concerned. Nothing significant that's been said here since day one has been used in war changes in the actual context that it's been posted. This is literally just fencing in the vocal users to keep their good ideas as under wraps as possible while still allowing them a voice. It's much easier to ignore them this way.
About refuting post of contribuitors to avoid new people joining the thread and taking that content as solid when not, I understand the intention and agree. Let's just consider that at some point he said he didn't care what others thought of his opinion. So 1)Answering doesn't solve for helping him get the community perspective, and 2)That message reflects he is solving only for him and not the community. No offense intended to that user, just my view on what happened with his comments. I will recognize that he did answer some other posts with comments grounded to the topic, and that is cool. So I think at this stage we have made our point and circling back won't add
That may be true in general, but in this case I don't think it is true. AW should work for all players in all tiers, or at least as many as possible, and it is pretty clear to me that different tiers and different strength alliances are seeing different war situations. That's because first the map itself is not the same for everyone and quantitative differences start to have qualitative differences to war, and second because the players themselves behave differently in different tiers. There may be less pressure to spend and complete at lower tiers than at higher ones. And third, there's a complicated relationship between the strength of the defense and the strength of the offense at different tiers. When it is mostly 3/30s and 4/40s, you find the offense tends to be far stronger than the defense most of the time. One single lucky 5* pull and one defender on one side could win the whole war. When it is mostly 4/40s and 5/50s, you tend to see most of the 5* champs on offense and 4* champs on defense and which champion gets placed can have a huge impact on the war: the quality of the defense matters. At the highest tiers you tend to see very strong (i.e. "correct") attackers and very strong defenders, and the situation is different again.
Because of this, having input from players at every tier and in every situation is valuable, because its difficult to really know what's going on at those tiers without many different players giving a solid picture.
But for that input to be useful, it must be specific, unambiguous, detailed, and placed within its proper context. The one thing that isn't very useful, at least from my perspective, is when someone makes declarations about how AW is functioning in general with no context for where that perspective comes from. Without being able to place it in terms of tier, or alliance strength, or the kinds of wars being fought, its impossible to integrate that input into the larger picture. That's why I'm very careful to note when I'm stating my direct experience and what that experience is, and when I'm making generalizations about what I'm hearing from other players across different tiers.
War is not the same everywhere, so any statement about war that claims something is happening everywhere is probably false. Tier 1/2 wars seem to be different than mid tier wars, which seem to be different from the low tiers. Blockades became viable immediately when the first node buffs happened in the mid tiers, but they were slow to adopt them. After the second round blockades seemed to become more viable at the higher tiers at least for some alliances. That seems to confirm that how difficult the nodes are alters different alliances in different tiers differently. And it should tell Kabam that there's no "sweet spot" for node difficulty in AW.
Defender Kills!
Defender kills should be returned diversity failed. TOP alliances dont see diverse defenses anymore and no one can match our defender ratings. Its a for sure win especially when we manipulate who we fight.
They had to hire that guy. Diversity is also a company policy.
As was mentioned, the significance of Diversity and Defender Rating is intended to be tie breakers more than anything. If the lineup is still the same, all that does is highlight why Defender Kills are best removed. As for Rating, that's pretty much how it should be. Larger Allies will win regardless. Quite plainly, Allies with lower Ratings really shouldn't be in the highest Tiers.
You just conjectured what I said. I said larger Allies would most often win regardless. Meaning they have the Rosters to do so. All this talk about skill when it was a metric that affected the entire schematic. Crude example. Allies with a 6 Mil Rating going up against Allies of a 12 Mil Rating in Tier 1. Not an actual example, but it highlights the point that the Matches were horribly mismatched. You can call it skill because they died less to get there, but it threw the entire system off. For the longest time, people have maintained that Prestige is all that matters, and Rating doesn't make a difference. Kabam has mentioned that a great deal of factors can be determined by Rating, and I've said multiple times that Rating is a reflection of progression in the game because it signifies time and effort. I've said since the changes have taken place that the Tiers would be more in line with our Rating, and the Matches would reflect that by being closer to our Ally's Rating. For the most part, that's been the case. I'm not saying that the Ally must automatically win because their Rating is larger. I'm saying they are more apt to win, especially when the Match is far off. There is no logical reason why Allies should be Matched with others 2, 3 times their size. Call it skill, call it what you want. Time and effort in an Ally is reflected in its Rating.
If your alliance has given up on AW because of its current state, I'd recommend match making anyway and just telling your members to do whatever, just don't spend potions or units. Maybe fight one node and then quit, and win or lose collect your rewards without spending any money. Spend no resources on it, but collect the free stuff. Even the loser rewards are not bad, don't deprive yourself of them.
We can't force Kabam to do smart things to AW, but we decide how we participate in AW. If every single alliance that was unhappy with AW started just match making and deliberately throwing the war right at the start - enter but don't fight or only fight trivially - I guarantee you their it will drive their datamining metrics bananas. If they thought attackers giving up with live champions still in their teams was bad, I can only imagine what they will do when their datamining logs show a sizeable percentage of alliances simply stopping attacking for what appears to be no reason.
You can't talk to the devs, but you can send them a message if enough players do likewise.
I can't believe all this time I've been suckered into debating a jargon bot.
My Alliance hasn't given up on AW. We spend our time in tiers 3-5. I, personally, have grown weary of this new system and just can't find it in me to join most of the time. My alliance knows if BG1 doesn't fill up I will get in, but I wait till a couple hours before placement phase ends to see if they need me.
I will have to get in a few soon though just for the loyalty as mine is disappearing into weekly donations with only 7k coming back to me from the STILL BROKEN help button. Seriously, how can we expect Kabam to address big issues when this nuisance has been around for so long. Laughable.
It has to be right? I mean, I have the least faith in the general population of anyone I know... But to just accept someone could rly believe the moronic **** they post is still a stretch for me. Idk. I can identify stupid.. I just can't absorb and understand it