Will the end of the seasons rewards be given to every alliance member in your alliance or will they only be given to those alliance members who participated in the wars for the previous season?
so all alliances who have that privilege to be in 300 they will grow faster and we will never be able to reach them...
Leaderboards are not static. What you say can't be done happens all the time.
I will never be the top player in the game. The definition of a fair game doesn't require that I have the same chance of becoming the top player in the game doing whatever I'm doing normally.
And before you consider the unfair advantages of the top 300, you should consider that unless you happen to literally be the alliance in 301st place, many alliances with no reward advantage over you are blocking your way into the top 300, and until you can beat them on a level playing field you have no way to challenge the top 300 either.
I dont want to be in first 300... i undarstand how and why they got there... im just saying they should put alpha t2 fragments in gold1 where are 300-1500 who work hard in aw/aq for their rewards and still somehow we are left behind to "pickup the pieces" from first 300...
Gold 1 contains those black crystals which contain T5B and/or T2A fragments (it is unclear if it is chance for one or chance for both) with a (probably rare) chance to drop a full T2A.
When are we going to see a discussion about the class detect masteries. A lot of us have these unlocked using class cores that were purchased with either units or loyalty. Since these are no longer needed, has the team had enough time to come up with an alternative for these ?
An idea I think that would be awesome would be taking away the option of us finding a war match. If an alliance is interested in participating in a war then they would select a button and place their defense within the customary 24 hour period. And then within that period AI would match up alliance with an appropriate non fixed challenger.
But this would mean that aw would have a fixed time frame.. but definitely worth it imo
And on another note, I believe the rewards are a little top heavy ): The strong will only become much stronger.
Yeah, the need for the multipliers doesn't make sense to me.
You already score more for winning, less for losing. Why should a win for a higher tier team count for more than a win for a lower tier team? Shouldn't a higher tier team already be scoring more wins, which is why they are a higher tier team in the first place, which would naturally make their total score over the season be higher?
Why artificially inflate the higher tier's score?
Without this multiplier, we'd have a strong incentive to sandbag our defenses -- to drop down to a lower tier so we could be sure of always clearing to 100%.
I don't believe that would work, because if you drop to a tier where you always win, the always winning part will automatically cause you to bounce up to a higher tier. The points you lose for deliberately losing probably would end up higher than the points you would gain for clearing a higher percentage of the map, since there is a 50k bonus for winning.
I think it is important to remind people that in AW season one there will be two "ranking" in AW: your AW tier which works exactly the way it works now (as far as we know) which determines (roughly) who you get matched against and what your points multiplier is, and your seasonal ranking which is determined by how many points you have and what AW season reward tier you are in. These are two different things. If you decide to deliberately lose to drop into a lower AW tier, you will also cost yourself points which will cause you to drop lower on the AW leaderboard and thus the AW seasonal reward tier.
Losing constantly to drop AW tier, and then winning every time once you are at a low tier, is basically the same thing as winning half the time at your original tier if you end up in the same place in the end, except your average multiplier will be worse in the first case than the second one. With the multiplier this definitely doesn't work. But even without the multiplier it is unclear if this would do anything, because it looks like you would roughly break even doing this. Your fate would depend on exactly how the ratings adjustments are calculated.
Anyway -- my point is that the multipliers are needed, to deal with the fact that clearing in T1-T3 is much harder than in T4.
While that is a potential problem, I don't believe it is the most important one, because even if the rate of 100% explore was exactly the same in all tiers, the multiplier would still be necessary for AW seasons to function at all. The notion that it is not necessary rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how war tiers themselves function: the notion that being in a higher tier means you win more often. That's subtly but critically wrong: being in a higher tier means you won more often, placing you in a higher tier. But once you reach the tier that matches you against comparable competition, your win rate must then eventually stabilize to something close to 50/50.
If every alliance started in tier 22, and then win/loss record pushed every alliance up or down based on win/loss record, then the multiplier would be less necessary. But in that situation everyone would be randomly matched against potential behemoths who would run them over on their way to marching to tier 1. That's not ideal.
Anyway -- my point is that the multipliers are needed, to deal with the fact that clearing in T1-T3 is much harder than in T4.
While that is a potential problem, I don't believe it is the most important one, because even if the rate of 100% explore was exactly the same in all tiers, the multiplier would still be necessary for AW seasons to function at all. The notion that it is not necessary rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how war tiers themselves function: the notion that being in a higher tier means you win more often. That's subtly but critically wrong: being in a higher tier means you won more often, placing you in a higher tier. But once you reach the tier that matches you against comparable competition, your win rate must then eventually stabilize to something close to 50/50.
If every alliance started in tier 22, and then win/loss record pushed every alliance up or down based on win/loss record, then the multiplier would be less necessary. But in that situation everyone would be randomly matched against potential behemoths who would run them over on their way to marching to tier 1. That's not ideal.
As I said, based on a some simple back-of-the-envelope numbers, if we clear at least two bosses it doesn't make sense for us -- that is, I don't think this is a problem because of the specific multipliers.
But if we rise to hard matches in T1-T3 where we average 1 boss or so for losses (and especially if we average fewer than 3 bosses for wins) then we should sandbag defense to go down in ranking to get easier matches -- I know we can ~always clear 3 maps in T4 (easier nodes), so if we lost on attacker kills in T4 we'd get at least ~900k for wins and ~675k for losses (average of about 787.5k, ignoring the fact that you lose a little more rank on loses than you gain on wins).
I think that probably won't happen though -- the extra 1/3 (4.5 -> 6) makes up for missing a fair chunk of the map at T3 and better.
What I'm trying to say is that while that situation exists for you, that can't be the primary reason for the multiplier because even if that wasn't true the lack of a multiplier would still break the season system. The multiplier helps you out of that problem, but it would be there with or without that problem.
So in the announcement you said the leaderboard would go live one week after Season 1 begins. Season 1 began now and the counter says the leaderboard will be live in two weeks.
A small mistake but now I'm wondering what other errors could be in the announcement.
In the war panel of the game.. they are two counters..I guess one is for the 56 days that the seasons will last.. but the other whit 14 days... what's it for?
In the war panel of the game.. they are two counters..I guess one is for the 56 days that the seasons will last.. but the other whit 14 days... what's it for?
That one is for us to be able to see the live leaderboard. It was supposed to be available in 7 days from now not 14.
matchmaking at 36 minutes ... praying kabam didn't throw prestige back into the matchmaking parameters (which previously resulted in waiting for hours on matchmaking) ... last week's aw matchmaking took less than 3 minutes each time.
plz be a fluke just for this war and have AW matchmaking still only by war rating alone.
edit: match found in 45 mins, may have just been due to higher war rating than last week or two
what happens if we choose to switch alliances during the season?
thanks
The announcement specifies that you must have fought at least five wars with the alliance you are in at the end of the season to be eligible for end of season rewards. If you switch alliances, the counter resets to zero, and you must fight at least five wars with your new alliance to be eligible for the end of season rewards.
Why even care about AW? Everyone on top pilots. It's so unappealing and nothing gets done about it.
I believe you should protest this by starting up match making constantly, and then just not fighting in the war at all. That way you get the loser bracket rewards for free, Kabam gets no money or time from you, and everyone else moves up in rank for better rewards. This is a win-win all around.
Everything you guys have been changing prior to now is to balance the game out per what kabam says. Don’t you realize that this is going to create huge gaps. Your top 300 alliances will be able to r2 their 6*’s, being more 5*’s to 5/65 while alliances 300-25000 get screwed without any t5b’s chances or even T2a. Not right.
It also messed up that my alliance was top 100 until we had seriously 10 matchups in dec/Jan in a row with crazy stronger alliances and now we are tier 6. Those rewards are awesome do top 300 and awful for 95% or the other alliances in the game. Gap is going to be huge now and no one can recover from that after a season or two.
Everything you guys have been changing prior to now is to balance the game out per what kabam says. Don’t you realize that this is going to create huge gaps. Your top 300 alliances will be able to r2 their 6*’s, being more 5*’s to 5/65 while alliances 300-25000 get screwed without any t5b’s chances or even T2a. Not right.
It also messed up that my alliance was top 100 until we had seriously 10 matchups in dec/Jan in a row with crazy stronger alliances and now we are tier 6. Those rewards are awesome do top 300 and awful for 95% or the other alliances in the game. Gap is going to be huge now and no one can recover from that after a season or two.
That has more to do with changing how war was scored. It went from PI/diversity based back to mostly skill based. My alliance has won 13 straight wars. Get better at winning fights without dying if you want to move back up.
I do agree that the t2a and t5b cutoffs are a bit too high. T5b should come down another tier or two before disappearing altogether and t2as should extend down about 4 or 5 more tiers.
I have yet to see the end point screen, however, based on kabam mike’s announcement post, i can assume tat each war’s final score is counted as part of the calculation. This means tat every death counts which is no good. Of course, number of deaths reflect skill, but level of difficulty also depends who u r matched with varying alliance’s death count. Instead, a fixed number for win and lose should only be used with the multiplier...this suggestion makes competition more fair imo. Also, every single death counting, not only as a win condition to each war, but impacting total season score will UNDOUBTEDLY encourage more piloting. Yes, piloting is against tos, but it is a fact tat top alliances pilot. Very easy to prove.
I am guessing that the leaderboard is disabled because u guys wanna monitor how alliances end up on the rank chart. I really hope u guys take my suggestion in mind.
2)Matchmaking:
I have criticized multiple times that u guys need to adjust ur search parameters, so alliances dont take 4 hours to search. Aside time search issues, fair matchups is also a concern, but not a big one atm.
3)Diversity:
30 points still affects aw too much. Top 50, esp top20 alliances r being forced to place high diversity because of increasing piloting and low death rate. Should lower diversity points to 10-15 points. Or even better, diversity should be capped at 20 or 30 out of 50 per bg. This will still encourage people to place diverse defenders, yet not place too-weak defenders which may in turn affect and evaluate attackers’ skill more accurately also.
4)AW season rewards:
I believe the reward difference should be tweaked more. I suggest master bracket to be top30 at least. Or improve platinum brackets’ rewards.
Dear Miike, can you plz explain me why do we need score multiplier for the AW season based on AW tiers?
Don't they give a hugeboost, to the score of top alliances, and let them stay at top at the end of every season?
It makes top alliance to grow thier roster much faster and dominate top spots.
AW season can be much better for all the players if there isnt huge score booster for the top alliances.
Dear Miike, can you plz explain me why do we need score multiplier for the AW season based on AW tiers?
Don't they give a hugeboost, to the score of top alliances, and let them stay at top at the end of every season?
It makes top alliance to grow thier roster much faster and dominate top spots.
AW season can be much better for all the players if there isnt huge score booster for the top alliances.
This has been asked and answered more than once. There are lots of reasons for the multiplier, but the most important reason for the multiplier is that it is absolutely necessary for alliance war seasons to work. Outside of the multiplier, everyone earns more or less the same amount of points in alliance war. Without a multiplier, an alliance with a 50/50 win/loss record in tier 22 could easily have more points at the end of the season as a tier 1 alliance with a 50/50 win/loss record in tier 1.
Because of this, without a multiplier the logical thing for all tier 1 alliances to do would be to disband at the start of every season and create a new alliance that would start at the bottom in tier 22, and promptly destroy every alliance they face, earning a 100% win record and beating everyone else while making a mockery of the match making system. The multiplier creates an incentive to start the season as high as possible. Without it, the incentive would be to start as low as possible - to get the easiest competition. And no one really wants that to be the way seasons work.
To put it another way, you can give tier 1 alliances an incentive to start in tier 1 and gain more points per war, or you can give them no incentive to stay in tier 1 and instead force them to improve their performance by winning more wars - which they can do by dropping down and fighting lower tier alliances and getting guaranteed wins. Pick one. Either way, they are going to be unbeatable.
Comments
Gold 1 contains those black crystals which contain T5B and/or T2A fragments (it is unclear if it is chance for one or chance for both) with a (probably rare) chance to drop a full T2A.
Why no one replied our questions , I'm really hate that way and ignoring.
The least also get the master rank...? @Kabam Miike
But this would mean that aw would have a fixed time frame.. but definitely worth it imo
And on another note, I believe the rewards are a little top heavy ): The strong will only become much stronger.
I don't believe that would work, because if you drop to a tier where you always win, the always winning part will automatically cause you to bounce up to a higher tier. The points you lose for deliberately losing probably would end up higher than the points you would gain for clearing a higher percentage of the map, since there is a 50k bonus for winning.
I think it is important to remind people that in AW season one there will be two "ranking" in AW: your AW tier which works exactly the way it works now (as far as we know) which determines (roughly) who you get matched against and what your points multiplier is, and your seasonal ranking which is determined by how many points you have and what AW season reward tier you are in. These are two different things. If you decide to deliberately lose to drop into a lower AW tier, you will also cost yourself points which will cause you to drop lower on the AW leaderboard and thus the AW seasonal reward tier.
Losing constantly to drop AW tier, and then winning every time once you are at a low tier, is basically the same thing as winning half the time at your original tier if you end up in the same place in the end, except your average multiplier will be worse in the first case than the second one. With the multiplier this definitely doesn't work. But even without the multiplier it is unclear if this would do anything, because it looks like you would roughly break even doing this. Your fate would depend on exactly how the ratings adjustments are calculated.
While that is a potential problem, I don't believe it is the most important one, because even if the rate of 100% explore was exactly the same in all tiers, the multiplier would still be necessary for AW seasons to function at all. The notion that it is not necessary rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how war tiers themselves function: the notion that being in a higher tier means you win more often. That's subtly but critically wrong: being in a higher tier means you won more often, placing you in a higher tier. But once you reach the tier that matches you against comparable competition, your win rate must then eventually stabilize to something close to 50/50.
If every alliance started in tier 22, and then win/loss record pushed every alliance up or down based on win/loss record, then the multiplier would be less necessary. But in that situation everyone would be randomly matched against potential behemoths who would run them over on their way to marching to tier 1. That's not ideal.
What I'm trying to say is that while that situation exists for you, that can't be the primary reason for the multiplier because even if that wasn't true the lack of a multiplier would still break the season system. The multiplier helps you out of that problem, but it would be there with or without that problem.
A small mistake but now I'm wondering what other errors could be in the announcement.
That one is for us to be able to see the live leaderboard. It was supposed to be available in 7 days from now not 14.
plz be a fluke just for this war and have AW matchmaking still only by war rating alone.
edit: match found in 45 mins, may have just been due to higher war rating than last week or two
what happens if we choose to switch alliances during the season?
thanks
The announcement specifies that you must have fought at least five wars with the alliance you are in at the end of the season to be eligible for end of season rewards. If you switch alliances, the counter resets to zero, and you must fight at least five wars with your new alliance to be eligible for the end of season rewards.
I believe you should protest this by starting up match making constantly, and then just not fighting in the war at all. That way you get the loser bracket rewards for free, Kabam gets no money or time from you, and everyone else moves up in rank for better rewards. This is a win-win all around.
Is the Master Bracket still top 20 as the original post suggested or top 25 as the rewards show right now on the AW Season Page in-game?
Every match rewards should be buffed .
Such a terrible idea ...
I got a single L2 health potion last time which was pretty worthless.
It also messed up that my alliance was top 100 until we had seriously 10 matchups in dec/Jan in a row with crazy stronger alliances and now we are tier 6. Those rewards are awesome do top 300 and awful for 95% or the other alliances in the game. Gap is going to be huge now and no one can recover from that after a season or two.
That has more to do with changing how war was scored. It went from PI/diversity based back to mostly skill based. My alliance has won 13 straight wars. Get better at winning fights without dying if you want to move back up.
I do agree that the t2a and t5b cutoffs are a bit too high. T5b should come down another tier or two before disappearing altogether and t2as should extend down about 4 or 5 more tiers.
Some suggestions:
1)Season score calculation change:
I have yet to see the end point screen, however, based on kabam mike’s announcement post, i can assume tat each war’s final score is counted as part of the calculation. This means tat every death counts which is no good. Of course, number of deaths reflect skill, but level of difficulty also depends who u r matched with varying alliance’s death count. Instead, a fixed number for win and lose should only be used with the multiplier...this suggestion makes competition more fair imo. Also, every single death counting, not only as a win condition to each war, but impacting total season score will UNDOUBTEDLY encourage more piloting. Yes, piloting is against tos, but it is a fact tat top alliances pilot. Very easy to prove.
I am guessing that the leaderboard is disabled because u guys wanna monitor how alliances end up on the rank chart. I really hope u guys take my suggestion in mind.
2)Matchmaking:
I have criticized multiple times that u guys need to adjust ur search parameters, so alliances dont take 4 hours to search. Aside time search issues, fair matchups is also a concern, but not a big one atm.
3)Diversity:
30 points still affects aw too much. Top 50, esp top20 alliances r being forced to place high diversity because of increasing piloting and low death rate. Should lower diversity points to 10-15 points. Or even better, diversity should be capped at 20 or 30 out of 50 per bg. This will still encourage people to place diverse defenders, yet not place too-weak defenders which may in turn affect and evaluate attackers’ skill more accurately also.
4)AW season rewards:
I believe the reward difference should be tweaked more. I suggest master bracket to be top30 at least. Or improve platinum brackets’ rewards.
Don't they give a hugeboost, to the score of top alliances, and let them stay at top at the end of every season?
It makes top alliance to grow thier roster much faster and dominate top spots.
AW season can be much better for all the players if there isnt huge score booster for the top alliances.
This has been asked and answered more than once. There are lots of reasons for the multiplier, but the most important reason for the multiplier is that it is absolutely necessary for alliance war seasons to work. Outside of the multiplier, everyone earns more or less the same amount of points in alliance war. Without a multiplier, an alliance with a 50/50 win/loss record in tier 22 could easily have more points at the end of the season as a tier 1 alliance with a 50/50 win/loss record in tier 1.
Because of this, without a multiplier the logical thing for all tier 1 alliances to do would be to disband at the start of every season and create a new alliance that would start at the bottom in tier 22, and promptly destroy every alliance they face, earning a 100% win record and beating everyone else while making a mockery of the match making system. The multiplier creates an incentive to start the season as high as possible. Without it, the incentive would be to start as low as possible - to get the easiest competition. And no one really wants that to be the way seasons work.
To put it another way, you can give tier 1 alliances an incentive to start in tier 1 and gain more points per war, or you can give them no incentive to stay in tier 1 and instead force them to improve their performance by winning more wars - which they can do by dropping down and fighting lower tier alliances and getting guaranteed wins. Pick one. Either way, they are going to be unbeatable.