**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.

Alliance Wars Seasons Discussion Thread

1246715

Comments

  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 9,231 ★★★★★
    For someone who will most likely be in gold tier and with 4 rank 4 5*, 30 5* and at least 5 more 5* I’d like to rank 4. I’d rather have t2 alpha and t5 basic. I do not NEED extra 5* shards (I want them, and they are certainly nice don’t get me wrong, but currently in the game I’d prefer t2 alpha and t5 basic).
  • TheObiJuanTheObiJuan Posts: 43
    Legend wrote: »
    My thread got closed down so here goes my main concern again. Piloting needs to be stopped.

    The new seasons mode looks great, rewards are juiced up and Kabam are delivering the resources we’ve been asking for. That’s the good part. Now the bad...


    Kabam need to ensure that this mode is fair. And they need to monitor it. Piloting in war is as common as ever. Matchmaking as rigged as ever with alliances purposefully avoiding each other. These problems mean that the distribution of the most prestigious rewards in game will not be fairly distributed. This is exploiting the game and should be punishable.

    @Kabam Miike I think you missed this post.

    Is your intent with this description of “gathering data” inclusive of *piloting* accounts? At the top end of the Contest the actual Wars come down to the battle of two highly skilled assassins, much like Hector vs Achilles and Achilles vs Boagrius in Troy and Homer’s Illiad.

    Give these much titans of MCoC their own much deserved title, too. They’ve earned it. 😂

    fblujjag7dsj.jpeg
  • OnlyOneAboveAllOnlyOneAboveAll Posts: 387 ★★
    Legend wrote: »
    CFree just to clarify what I was saying; I’m specifically talking piloting in alliances.

    Piloting as in, all the top alliances are disfunctional in that most of the members at the top are solely there because of prestige. Would the top allies pick these guys if the game was built any other way? No. They aren’t there for skill hence why they pilot. That way the top allies get the best rewards for AQ (prestige) and the best rewards for AW (skill aka piloting aka account sharing). This disadavantages everyone else. As rightly pointed out, matchmaking exploiting may reduce now but there’s nothing changing to suggest so. There have been the rare occasion where matchmaking lasted too long so some top allies missed out but not often.

    My stance is still the same, will Kabam put an end to piloting in war so that the most prestigious rewards in game are evenly and fairly distributed?

    Why don't you be more specific? What is it you think these top alliance do when they account share? I mean this is an accusation. So what are they exactly doing that you think is not fair?
  • BigbowlrBigbowlr Posts: 124
    Maybe I just understood wrong but the way you talk in the announcement it sounds like this is gonna replace AQ as the way to earn rank up materials? If so what's gonna happen to prestige and AQ in general
  • LegendLegend Posts: 25
    edited January 2018
    Legend wrote: »
    CFree just to clarify what I was saying; I’m specifically talking piloting in alliances.

    Piloting as in, all the top alliances are disfunctional in that most of the members at the top are solely there because of prestige. Would the top allies pick these guys if the game was built any other way? No. They aren’t there for skill hence why they pilot. That way the top allies get the best rewards for AQ (prestige) and the best rewards for AW (skill aka piloting aka account sharing). This disadavantages everyone else. As rightly pointed out, matchmaking exploiting may reduce now but there’s nothing changing to suggest so. There have been the rare occasion where matchmaking lasted too long so some top allies missed out but not often.

    My stance is still the same, will Kabam put an end to piloting in war so that the most prestigious rewards in game are evenly and fairly distributed?

    Why don't you be more specific? What is it you think these top alliance do when they account share? I mean this is an accusation. So what are they exactly doing that you think is not fair?


    It’s not an accusation. It happens. So in the interests of fairness and the fact that these rewards are huge, they need to be fairly distributed.

    I’m not going to name alliances or people. That’s against the ToS. I’m bringing the point up to Kabam to get acknowledgement that they will punish those that do because quite clearly, they don’t now.

    Now if you’re unaware of this happening, great. You’re none the wiser but if Kabam do take action then you may just benefit. What is happening is less skilled, high prestige people get piloted in war (account share) to reduce deaths and get a win for the team. It’s not new. Doesn’t happen as much in aq as deaths don’t detriment the alliance and big items can be used but it’s a disease in war.
  • MarzGrooveMarzGroove Posts: 903 ★★★
    TheDemon wrote: »
    Qwerty wrote: »
    TheDemon wrote: »
    Qwerty wrote: »
    420sam wrote: »
    Run477 wrote: »
    420sam wrote: »
    Legend wrote: »
    My thread got closed down so here goes my main concern again. Piloting needs to be stopped.

    The new seasons mode looks great, rewards are juiced up and Kabam are delivering the resources we’ve been asking for. That’s the good part. Now the bad...


    Kabam need to ensure that this mode is fair. And they need to monitor it. Piloting in war is as common as ever. Matchmaking as rigged as ever with alliances purposefully avoiding each other. These problems mean that the distribution of the most prestigious rewards in game will not be fairly distributed. This is exploiting the game and should be punishable.

    Piloting?

    Best I can tell is that he is talking about where alliances purposefully choose times to start war so there is zero chance they will have to face an alliance that is close to their skill/spending level.

    Thought it was already established that skipping a war, which happened a lot during the war matchmaking between top alliances, was bad. I am not seeing how it needs to be addressed.

    he means, as an example, MMX looks for a war at 12PM PST, when they find a match, then CORE looks for a war at 1PM PST, then ISO looks for one at 2PM PST, and so on and so forth.

    His reasoning is flawed! Under the old system they had a schedule for matchmaking that extended past the 7PM PST shutdown on Sunday for war matches. I cannot see all the top alliances agreeing to do this when missing out on an extra war every other week could cost them a spot in the top 20.

    his reasoning isn't flawed since, you know, it's actually happening.

    I think it is hasty to bash something this early before it is even released!

    You are totally missing Qwerty's point.
  • MarzGrooveMarzGroove Posts: 903 ★★★
    Kroc wrote: »
    Will the tiers be reset?

    No.
  • Feeney234Feeney234 Posts: 1,131 ★★★★
    Legend wrote: »
    Legend wrote: »
    CFree just to clarify what I was saying; I’m specifically talking piloting in alliances.

    Piloting as in, all the top alliances are disfunctional in that most of the members at the top are solely there because of prestige. Would the top allies pick these guys if the game was built any other way? No. They aren’t there for skill hence why they pilot. That way the top allies get the best rewards for AQ (prestige) and the best rewards for AW (skill aka piloting aka account sharing). This disadavantages everyone else. As rightly pointed out, matchmaking exploiting may reduce now but there’s nothing changing to suggest so. There have been the rare occasion where matchmaking lasted too long so some top allies missed out but not often.

    My stance is still the same, will Kabam put an end to piloting in war so that the most prestigious rewards in game are evenly and fairly distributed?

    Why don't you be more specific? What is it you think these top alliance do when they account share? I mean this is an accusation. So what are they exactly doing that you think is not fair?


    It’s not an accusation. It happens. So in the interests of fairness and the fact that these rewards are huge, they need to be fairly distributed.

    I’m not going to name alliances or people. That’s against the ToS. I’m bringing the point up to Kabam to get acknowledgement that they will punish those that do because quite clearly, they don’t now.

    Now if you’re unaware of this happening, great. You’re none the wiser but if Kabam do take action then you may just benefit.

    The fact it takes 2 months to actually get these rewards is pretty hilarious. Why do you care so much? Are you being directly effected by this? Let the rich cheat the rich, because an average guy like me will never see top tier rewards.
  • MarzGrooveMarzGroove Posts: 903 ★★★
    TheDemon wrote: »
    MarzGroove wrote: »
    TheDemon wrote: »
    Qwerty wrote: »
    TheDemon wrote: »
    Qwerty wrote: »
    420sam wrote: »
    Run477 wrote: »
    420sam wrote: »
    Legend wrote: »
    My thread got closed down so here goes my main concern again. Piloting needs to be stopped.

    The new seasons mode looks great, rewards are juiced up and Kabam are delivering the resources we’ve been asking for. That’s the good part. Now the bad...


    Kabam need to ensure that this mode is fair. And they need to monitor it. Piloting in war is as common as ever. Matchmaking as rigged as ever with alliances purposefully avoiding each other. These problems mean that the distribution of the most prestigious rewards in game will not be fairly distributed. This is exploiting the game and should be punishable.

    Piloting?

    Best I can tell is that he is talking about where alliances purposefully choose times to start war so there is zero chance they will have to face an alliance that is close to their skill/spending level.

    Thought it was already established that skipping a war, which happened a lot during the war matchmaking between top alliances, was bad. I am not seeing how it needs to be addressed.

    he means, as an example, MMX looks for a war at 12PM PST, when they find a match, then CORE looks for a war at 1PM PST, then ISO looks for one at 2PM PST, and so on and so forth.

    His reasoning is flawed! Under the old system they had a schedule for matchmaking that extended past the 7PM PST shutdown on Sunday for war matches. I cannot see all the top alliances agreeing to do this when missing out on an extra war every other week could cost them a spot in the top 20.

    his reasoning isn't flawed since, you know, it's actually happening.

    I think it is hasty to bash something this early before it is even released!

    You are totally missing Qwerty's point.

    Not really. Pretty sure he missed the most important point about alliances not wanting to miss out on 3 wars per week. You probably just are not privy to that caliber of chats in line. :)

    Very possible!
  • BassanioBassanio Posts: 162
    @Kabam Miike

    Do you know the Chinese new year holiday is begin from Feb 15th and the holiday will last at least 7 days. It's the most important holiday to gather with families, so most Chinese won't be able to play Alliance War. In the meantime, all Chinese alliances will lost lots of points for sure. The new alliance war season calendar is sucks for every Chinese player.

    Do you expect Chinese to spend money to buy red envelops as gift for alliance members and friends during new year holiday? I don't think so.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,123 ★★★★★
    Looks exciting! I'm glad you guys were able to work with the suggestion. It makes sense that you released this after the adjustments. I'm looking forward to stepping in on it.
  • Maximus_SpankersonMaximus_Spankerson Posts: 445 ★★
    @Kabam Miike , with matchmaking frequently taking 5+ hours, how will you insure that competing alliances are able to get 3 wars per week?
  • Sofian_zSofian_z Posts: 11
    Deacon03 wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike will there be changes to AW actual rewards for each war??

    We did take this opportunity to give a small bump to the Alliance Wars rewards. You'll see them in game when you update to the newest version coming later this week.

    @Kabam Miike You said that you bumped up the Alliance Wars Rewards not that much, is it possible to see the changes to the rewards before the 17.0 update on Wednesday ? or can you tell us the changes to the rewards ?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,340 Guardian
    Speeds80 wrote: »
    This was exiting until I’ve realised the decent rewards are all only for top 300, we are a top 1000 alliance who do 5x5 aq, those gold rewards every 2 months aren’t anything significant

    If you are a top 1000 AW alliance you'd be getting Gold 1, which according to the chart includes 2000 6* shards and 6k 5* crystals. I wouldn't call those rewards insignificant for any alliance tier. Since all the way down to Gold 3 - top 4500 - get at least a significant amount of 5* shards, the rewards look decent at pretty much every tier relative to the average strength of the alliances in that tier.
  • SiliyoSiliyo Posts: 1,348 ★★★★★
    Hey @Kabam Miike I know I've given Kabam flak before, and I'm sorry about that. I was wondering with a new Alliance Wars system like this for alliances, is the Game Team developing something for individual players? I would like to participate in a Free-For-All type event where there's a live leaderboard system, similar to the new Alliance Wars: Season. I was thinking of a "Beat the Boss" type of system for individuals, where there would be 4 bosses to beat within a month, 1 boss per week, and there would be rewards at the end of the month for the different qualifying/fastest times. Thoughts? If people don't have a shot at getting some juicy rewards with their alliance, I am sure they would love a chance at getting some rewards through their individual skills.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,340 Guardian
    Qwerty wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike are u going to respond to any of the negative comments? Rich get richer, spending to win etc. I dont think this is fair at all. Brackets should be bigger!

    the rich get richer angle is a terrible angle to take.

    The rich get richer is a massive oversimplification of a fundamental principle of all progressional games. The whole point of making progress in a game that is based on progress is that the reward for progress is greater strength to make even more progress. Any definition of "fairness" that seeks to neutralize the advantage of players that have made more progress is wholly inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the game.

    Anyone who thinks that a player with a larger or stronger roster than them shouldn't have an advantage in combat strength or reward opportunity is explicitly stating that this game is not a game they want to play. Because that won't change, ever, regardless of any complaints or suggestions to the contrary. There simply exist far too many players that explicitly agree with that principle and play the game accepting that idea as the central point of making progress. Progressional games are fully prepared to lose every player that disagrees with that principle in order to retain as many players that agree. And historically speaking games that try to reverse this die quick deaths. Asking a development team to break this principle in a game that already exists is essentially asking them to commit professional suicide.
  • RehctansBewRehctansBew Posts: 442 ★★★
    So it really has become pay to win wars now? Good concept, but this may be the first time you have honestly called it out in the description when you said the most Lucrative wars yet. Making sure the big spenders get a chance to rank up those six stars in the first 2 months must have been high on the priority list. I can't say weather I hate it yet without seeing this "small adjustment" made to the overall rewards but I don't care for the breakdown you've created. Maybe if we all get super deals on units we can hang with the big spenders too.
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    I agree that there is too steep of drop off in rewards. There is a large number of super active players, that also spend money, that fall in the 301-1500 & 1501-3000 range of alliances. There are ZERO Tier 2 alpha shards and ZERO Tier 5 basic shards available to anyone in an alliance that doesn't rank in the top 300. That is not right and will drive an even bigger power discrepancy between the top 9000 players (alliance 1-300) versus the next 81000 players (alliances 301-3000) in the game.

    The dropoff is not as exaggerated as you think. Alliance war is not the only source of T5B. You get 9000 every month from the Uncollected event quest already. The biggest difference between Gold 1 and Platinum 3 is 4500 T5B shards, which would take 20 months to even form 2 T5Bs (assuming 1 season lasts 1 month, which is being generous). There of plenty of T2A in the game right now and there is more than enough going around from Act V, Uncollected event quest, and Alliance Quest to get T2A. I think the reward structure is actually as fair as they could have implemented and much better than previous systems (like old AQ rankings where you either got a T4CC or you didn't and current AW where winning in the top 10 means exactly the same as top 200). People have been asking for more competitveness in this game for a while and this is a great solution.
  • BigPoppaCBONEBigPoppaCBONE Posts: 2,229 ★★★★★
    So it really has become pay to win wars now? Good concept, but this may be the first time you have honestly called it out in the description when you said the most Lucrative wars yet. Making sure the big spenders get a chance to rank up those six stars in the first 2 months must have been high on the priority list. I can't say weather I hate it yet without seeing this "small adjustment" made to the overall rewards but I don't care for the breakdown you've created. Maybe if we all get super deals on units we can hang with the big spenders too.

    What makes you think you need to hang with the big spenders?
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    Does the amount of points depend on how many Battlegroups you play?

    Yeah 3 battlegroups will give you the most points
  • Is aq going to be updated soon? It looks (and is) so outdated compared to aw now.
  • DocJCDocJC Posts: 74
    Will matchmaking search times be fixed? Will you also fix being able to match the same alliance back to back?

    Why aren’t ratings being reset? Keep the tiers, reset the ratings.
Sign In or Register to comment.