**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

1679111215

Comments

  • clamch0wderclamch0wder Posts: 20
    Fabi1989 wrote: »
    Avi wrote: »
    Hello Team Kabam...
    thanks for new AW Season.. just want to know that, in new aw season you guys will reset war rating or not because some big alliances left their original alliance and create new alliance for easy wars.. now they can again come to their original alliance coz you guys giving better rewards for better rank.. which is pretty unfair for gold and platinum bracket alliance.. hope you will understand us..i am attaching some pic where top alliance left there original alliance and now all members of that alliance is in low tier in aw for easy winsbbihr8nszldc.png

    thats BS, xilem don’t switch the Alliance in an Low Alliance. Xilem goes down because Kabam Change skill war to no skill war

    Indeed. Season 2's changes made it that skills does not matter.
    Xiliem, an AW focused alliance, once at #2, disbanded because alliances with more and higher rated champs would've won without any efforts or skills.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,348 Guardian
    OMG!!!! The rewards for each match in wars still suck !

    So for any decent rewards you have to wait for 2 months....wth these guys think it would be acceptable to the community.

    Kabam thinks we need to grind for wars for straight 2 months..NO thanks 🙏🏼

    #RIPWARS
    #RIPFEATUREDCRYSTALS

    Kabam added rewards and made it worse? Okay. I think you should protest by sitting out alliance wars until they reduce the rewards again. It would be helpful if you could get as many other players who think likewise to join you.
  • ZBTtargetZBTtarget Posts: 19
    Anyone else’s matchmaking broken? Been over 2 hours searching for a war.
  • Gladiator09Gladiator09 Posts: 287 ★★
    edited February 2018
    @DNA3000 let me explain in simple language as you missed the whole point , I can only try

    Wars rewards were due an update for long ? Yes?

    So ,instead of increasing the rewards per match (they did but not really ) we need to grind for two months for any decent rewards.

    My POINT is these rewards should’ve been broken down to each war match up instead of waiting for 2 months .

  • @DNA3000 let me explain in simple language as you missed the whole point , I can only try

    Wars rewards were due an update for long ? Yes?

    So ,instead of increasing the rewards per match (they did but not really ) we need to grind for two months for any decent rewards.

    My POINT is these rewards should’ve been broken down to each war match up instead of waiting for 2 months .

    Maybe you should have said that, instead of trying to speak for the community by saying the added rewards was unacceptable to all of us, and ending your hyperbole with a #RIPWARS tag which kind of suggests that you think wars are not worth playing anymore. I can only respond to the words you use, not the thoughts in your head that never make it to the post.

    Next time, you can skip "simple" and just stick with "language." I'll work it out from there.
  • dkatryldkatryl Posts: 672 ★★★
    edited February 2018
    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?
  • ThawnimThawnim Posts: 1,461 ★★★★
    dkatryl wrote: »
    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?

    The multiplier is just a nice way to balance out against alliances running less wars or less battlegroups. Yes, you may win more wars, but maybe even if you had lost a few you would still be adjusted up due to the multiplier.
  • dkatryldkatryl Posts: 672 ★★★
    How does that help in that scenario? If you run less wars, or a smaller battlegroup, you are already going to lose out to others in your tier that run more often and/or a 3 battlegroups.

    Only thing the multipliers do is keep those at a higher tier there longer, and those at a lower tier take longer to move up.
  • dkatryldkatryl Posts: 672 ★★★
    edited February 2018
    I guess my point is, on the very 1st war or the season, there is going to be a winner in every bracket obviously. Let's assume that the winner gets full points, plus the 50k, as in the example used on:
    http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/47443/announcing-alliance-wars-seasons
    So, 100k + 50k, for 150k base points.
    Tier 1 x8.0 = 1200000
    Tier 2 x7.0 = 1050000
    Tier 3 x6.0 = 900000
    Tier 4 x4.5 = 675000
    Tier 5 x4.0 = 600000
    ...
    Tier 10 x2.4 = 360000
    ...
    Tier 22 x1.0 = 150000

    So, after the very first war, there is already a massive discrepancy between the points earned by the winner of Tier 1 vs Tier 22. Now, a natural reaction to that statement is that the Tier 1 war would have been much harder than the Tier 22 war, so why should they be treated the same?

    Because it was only the first war of a season that will be comprised of several weeks, if not months. Those that are starting at Tier 1 are doing so because they win most of their wars, right? Those starting at Tier 22 are doing so because they lose most of their wars, right?

    So why have the multipliers that seem keep those already at a higher tier from the start firmly entrenched in their tier unless they have a long string of losses and/or inactivity, and not simply go by the raw points accrued over the course of the season?
  • Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    dkatryl wrote: »
    I guess my point is, on the very 1st war or the season, there is going to be a winner in every bracket obviously. Let's assume that the winner gets full points, plus the 50k, as in the example used on:
    http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/47443/announcing-alliance-wars-seasons
    So, 100k + 50k, for 150k base points.
    Tier 1 x8.0 = 1200000
    Tier 2 x7.0 = 1050000
    Tier 3 x6.0 = 900000
    Tier 4 x4.5 = 675000
    Tier 5 x4.0 = 600000
    ...
    Tier 10 x2.4 = 360000
    ...
    Tier 22 x1.0 = 150000

    So, after the very first war, there is already a massive discrepancy between the points earned by the winner of Tier 1 vs Tier 22. Now, a natural reaction to that statement is that the Tier 1 war would have been much harder than the Tier 22 war, so why should they be treated the same?

    Because it was only the first war of a season that will be comprised of several weeks, if not months. Those that are starting at Tier 1 are doing so because they win most of their wars, right? Those starting at Tier 22 are doing so because they lose most of their wars, right?

    So why have the multipliers that seem keep those already at a higher tier from the start firmly entrenched in their tier unless they have a long string of losses and/or inactivity, and not simply go by the raw points accrued over the course of the season?

    what stops an alliance from running a brand new alliance at the start of every season to start with easy wins as opposed to facing fair challenges
  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    edited February 2018
    @Kabam Miike

    In the top levels of AW your rating will be much higher than those just entering T1 AW.

    Due to this it can take a long time for top alliances to find new wars, also sometimes after finally finding a war alliances will be matched with alliances 1000's of rating lower.

    Both of these things cause a loss of points. One by not being able to find wars fast enough the other by matching with alliance that a victory will award 0 points.

    With the new AW seasons changes will there be any update to the existing match making process?
  • dkatryl wrote: »
    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?

    There are lots of game design reasons for the multiplier, but I'll simply state the most important one. Seasons wouldn't work without it.

    You say that an alliance in a higher tier must be winning more often. That's not exactly true. As far as anyone can gather, up to now the tier you are in is determined by win/loss record. The more wins you get, the higher you go up in tier. But once you achieve a higher rating and enter a higher tier, you start getting matched against stronger opponents. You cannot keep winning indefinitely. Eventually you have to reach a tier where you start to lose, because someone has to lose in every tier. You reach equilibrium when you start winning and losing about half the time. Any alliance that wins a lot more often than half the time keeps increasing rating until they either start getting matched against alliances they can only beat half the time, or they become the absolute top rated alliance capable of beating everyone they get matched against (I'm ignoring match making games for now).

    So actually, on average most alliances win about half the time, eventually. An alliance in tier 3 wins about half the time against other tier 3 alliances, while an alliance in tier 12 also wins about half the time against other tier 12 alliances. If they didn't, they wouldn't remain in that tier.

    So imagine a tier 3 alliance winning about half the time because they are up against tier 3 competition, and a tier 12 alliance also winning about half the time against tier 12 alliances, which is why they are stuck in tier 12. As long as they perform similarly relative to the competition and both run three battlegroups, they will actually score about the same number of points per war. The tier 3 alliance has no way to gain ground on the tier 12 alliance, because they have to face tier 3 competition and cannot improve their win/loss record compared to the tier 12 alliance that can just cruise and still win half the time.

    The multiplier is actually the *primary* way in which stronger alliances will score more points overall than weaker ones. They cannot do so by winning more often, except perhaps initially. In fact a super strong alliance could deliberately lurk around in tier 12 for half the season and then go all out and win every single war to the finish, scoring more points than almost anyone else (by racking up victory bonuses in every war). The multiplier makes this strategy ultimately non-viable.
  • bigmull1bigmull1 Posts: 45
    I appreciate the alliance war changes, I really do. However, removing the ability to see opponents % complete from the war progress screen does suck a little.
  • PoisonDaturaPoisonDatura Posts: 41
    Okay i fully understand what are you saying but i dont think is fair for tier4,there are only in first 300 alliances,platinum and up,alpha t2.. so if we are half winning and half losing we will be in 300-1500(gold1) and we will not be able to r4 our rooster 5☆ there are only 4xr4 5☆ for now in our team and only if we continue going event quest or some calendar rewards we will get one more r4 5☆ in a few months ... so all alliances who have that privilege to be in 300 they will grow faster and we will never be able to reach them... this is like you are locking them on the top and all others have to work hard to achieve the same but will we not be able to do it... im not saying that they dont disrve it... but you should put some t2 alpha fragments in gold1,we need them to improve our r4 5☆ and to be able to put them in defence... it not fair we all have r5 4☆ and still ranking them on max just for fun,when we should spending t4b or t4cc for our 5☆
    @DNA3000
  • 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.
  • linuxlinux Posts: 291
    Qwerty wrote: »
    Cuntessa wrote: »
    Here's a way to alleviate some concerns about the rich getting richer, shorten the durations of the seasons of lower tiers to a month so that small alliances can progress faster than the god tier alliances

    why should small alliances progress faster than those who put in more time and effort?

    considering how long it took for those top alliances to get there, the smaller alliances and newer players are already progressing faster at the same level and time invested than those who started playing when the game was new.

    it used to be that the ONLY way to get a 4* was to grind it out in arena or buy the 2500 unit crystal.

    For a healthy game, you do want it to be possible for new players to compete. That is precisely why Act 4 had to reward T2AC, and Act 5 had to reward T5BC -- enough for a champ each, to at least make it possible for new players to wind up with similar champs to players who've been playing longer.

    This game apparently requires progression to keep players interested, which produces an interesting dynamic: for those at the top, another 5* is of little benefit in terms of progression; for those at the bottom, it's much more. Ideally someone who is playing a lot but starting with less history will progress faster (so they stay interested, and so they can ultimately reach a point where they can compete); you don't want the top tier to be entirely closed to new players, as otherwise it will decay. But new players get a lot more progression out of rewards existing players will shrug off, so I don't think this is an easy balancing act.

    OTOH, I don't think there would be harm in spreading out good rewards more to the various tiers. The drop-off is pretty steep.

    There are a few perverse incentives in the scoring system, which I'll post about separately, but I suspect few alliances will try to take advantage.
  • PoisonDaturaPoisonDatura Posts: 41
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    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... :blush:
  • Run477Run477 Posts: 1,391 ★★★
    We are in the top 300 and it’s not from spending money FYI. Some of our members are totally ftp and I’m basically ftp (I have bought a couple of awakening gems).

    But there are definitely spenders. We won our last war by having to drop some potions bc the ally against us was totally spend to win. We had 2 out of 3 bgs dropped, they had 1 and they were ahead in explore by 1%. I was sitting at a front right 5* r4 spidey miniboss with sig 133. It was brutal. Nearly every attempted hit was an evade (I won’t even bring up how I is that 27% chance to evade seems like 100% and my hulk’s 85% chance to stun does t stun 2 or 3 in a row constantly...). Then they decided to “go for the win” by reviving and dropping so many potions.

    We “won” the war when I had to then revive/heal to clear spidey (all other minibosses were down) and we soloed their boss.

    We died 103 times that war. Their deaths were 199 and they didn’t even make it to the third bg boss. This is when the game gets stupid.

    So yes, there are definitely allies that got there by spending. We see them constantly. It’s annoying.
  • MrTicTac19992008MrTicTac19992008 Posts: 565 ★★
    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?
  • DNA3000 wrote: »
    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... :blush:

    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.
  • @Kabam Miike @Kabam Vydious @Kabam Loto @Kabam Zibiit
    Why no one replied our questions , I'm really hate that way and ignoring.
  • QwertyQwerty Posts: 636 ★★★
    can we get tiered victory/defeated crystals with better rewards? the only decent pulls out of those are alliance pots or loyalty.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    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 ?
  • What are those bottom 20 alliances mean...?
    The least also get the master rank...? @Kabam Miike
  • BadroseBadrose Posts: 777 ★★★
    AQ, new AW, events, 1 hr timer, no more life.
  • linuxlinux Posts: 291
    dkatryl wrote: »
    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%.

    As you win wars, you expect to fight harder alliances; and as you lose wars, easier alliances.

    In the T4+ maps, we ~always clear 100%. In (the new) T1-T3 map, we don't always clear all maps -- the nodes are harder, as are the average defenders. (We're currently in T3.)

    It really is harder to clear to 100% for T1-T3; many alliances won't always do so... which is why a higher multiplier is needed (otherwise alliances will try to get to lower tiers to maximize AW season score).

    AFAIK the inflection point from T3 to T4 is clearing two bosses -- if you can do that, it's better to be in T3; if you average closer to one boss, you should sandbag defenses and try to get down to T4.
  • MissMissyMissMissy Posts: 78
    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.
  • @Kabam Miike you guys should add diversity points for Alliance Wars attack teams. That will really turn up the competition on so many levels.
  • linux wrote: »
    dkatryl wrote: »
    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.
  • linuxlinux Posts: 291
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    linux wrote: »
    dkatryl wrote: »
    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.

    The goal would be to lose because of something other than exploration (to whit: lower attacker bonus) -- to ensure that we always clear all 3 maps. Basically this would be a return to diversity wars, where quality of defense isn't the goal. It's based on considering what happens as we increase the quality of our defense -- we appear to be able to get a good enough defense that we sometimes lose because we fail to clear all three bosses. If our defense was worse, we'd lose before we rose that high.

    I think it could be addressed by giving the winner some points for the difference between the winner and the loser's score, but perhaps that's too competitive. And so long as we clear at least 2 maps, we're better off in T3 than in T4.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.