**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
**KNOWN BG ISSUE**
We are aware of an issue with the seeding for the beginning of the BG season.
We are adding rewards to higher progression brackets to offset the additional grind.
More information here.
**Arcade is being extra tricky with his Murder Box...**
It appears Arcade has been non-cooperative in his approach to this month's side quest and presented his clues in a nonsensical order. Lucky you, Summoners, we have our best and brightest on the case and those clues should now be a lot more straightforward. While messing around in Arcade's files we came across a phrase, highlighted and bolded, with sparkles and pointy arrows: "the abode for the dead" ... Maybe that will help you along the way!
Options

Alliance Wars Season 3 Discussion Thread

1171820222337

Comments

  • Options
    Dazman220Dazman220 Posts: 49
    This is all to drive crystal sales in the end game.

    Currently if one guy in your bg pulls the latest best defender, theres no need for the other 9 to continue purchasing crystals thanks to diversity.

    Now with diversity going, they are expecting the other 9 who would have stopped to continue buying.

    This is a long thought out plan stretching way back to the renoval of the old style 15k featured 5* crystals.

    Remember guys, kabam dont rush these decisions, they plan months and months ahead yet tell us at the last possible time.

    Only reason we found out about 12.0 a week or 2 earlier was because it got leaked
  • Options
    WOKWOK Posts: 468 ★★
    Reading the consistency in the majority of complaints posted and the official response given regarding those complaints, I believe point towards two choices needing to be made by the player base
    The method of choice is irrelevant, what's important is the "class" solidarity needed to get into "action" and stand against being defrauded and exploited.
    You would hope that these sort of shady practices would be extinct from companies that reached out to a global market.
    Pity to see that isn't the case here.
  • Options
    iRetr0iRetr0 Posts: 1,252 ★★★★
    g3chcp2uxxxc.jpg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxq-H1VJ1Uw
    These two basically sum this update up.
  • Options
    BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 578 ★★★
    So wheres the compensation for screwing over our defence teams AGAIN?
  • Options
    StingerbkStingerbk Posts: 160 ★★
    I just hope this time, the player base is smarter than to fall for a "we are sorry, here is some compensation " nonsense, we need them to listen up and fix things not a bunch of compensation.
  • Options
    RJ03RJ03 Posts: 67
    "Aspect of Evolution" what node is that? can someone explain to me..
  • Options
    gahrlinggahrling Posts: 199
    RJ03 wrote: »
    "Aspect of Evolution" what node is that? can someone explain to me..

    I think it might be related to a phase that uncollected Thanos had - bleed armor & autoblock
  • Options
    Heartless wrote: »
    hurricant wrote: »
    NevvB wrote: »
    So you made the nodes harder, any changes in rewards?

    The rewards have not changed (aside from Season rewards being halved to match the change in length). This is because Alliances were still finding these Maps
    [
    100% exploration should be a rare instance, and if achieved, should be helping to decide the winner of a War. It should not be a common occurrence for both Alliances to be able to hit 100%, and then the deciding factor becomes Attacker Bonus points.
    hurricant wrote: »
    NevvB wrote: »
    So you made the nodes harder, any changes in rewards?

    The rewards have not changed (aside from Season rewards being halved to match the change in length). This is because Alliances were still finding these Maps far too easy. The goal of these changes is to put an end to the near 100% of wars ending in 100% Exploration.

    what's wrong with 100% exploration? people will continue to pay for 100% you know that right?

    100% exploration should be a rare instance, and if achieved, should be helping to decide the winner of a War. It should not be a common occurrence for both Alliances to be able to hit 100%, and then the deciding factor becomes Attacker Bonus points.




    Then if you are going back to that mode, make the champions not locked for use in quests.

    The argument from kabam that war meant to be quick and you’d get your champs back.

    Thank goodness kabam doesn’t hand out a $1 each time it back tracks on its word. I’d have a Lamborghini!
  • Options
    VoluntarisVoluntaris Posts: 1,198 ★★★
    I highly recommend Kabam adjust the AW Season 3 start time to close to the end of July and place the changes to AW Season 3 on hold for adjustments to yesterday's blind siding adjustment (removal of defender diversity and the silly idea that most top tiers shouldn't be 100%'ing the map).
  • Options
    Xthea9Xthea9 Posts: 829 ★★
    Whatever I say it won’t matter, you identified the gaps and pushed the changes for next season, in a way , it doesn’t hurt at all, my only suggestion is please keep that in mind you don’t derail from your objective which is in this case I don’t remember what objective you are following, is it players should have more fun or something else, cause if your matchmaking strategy is same every change for me is same , as I can’t win a war when 5/65 champs swipes off your defense even if they make mistakes the health pool is too big with the damage output my defense which is still 5/50 champs can’t even stand.

    Honestly if the matchmaking is balanced we really don’t need harder content, it’s like you are matching a under weight champion with an over weight champion in the ring and no matter how skilled the underweight champion is after few fights he is going to get KO.

    Fix the basics of this game , you will see the changes you bring in will have more usefulness.

    Just sharing my voice.
  • Options
    SgtSlaughter78SgtSlaughter78 Posts: 464 ★★★
    This motivated me to check back and see how much I’ve spent on his game in the last 18 months. I’m ashamed and embarrassed to admit that it’s over £7k. Those little single deals and purchases sure add up!

    Now, that doesn’t make me a whale, but it does make me someone who contributes to the overall revenue ‘take’.

    And as someone who has up until now contributed I can assuredly say: Not one pence more.

    I genuinely cannot believe how badly run things are and how little regard you guys have for your player base when your game requires such an investment both in financial terms and time.

    Thank you for the previous 18 months (and for freeing up some much needed spare time).

    All the best and I hope your decisions don’t come to impact the people who work for you lower down the chain and have bills to pay and families to support.
  • Options
    richo82richo82 Posts: 50
    I understand the direction your taking, but the alliances will still push for 100% exploration, especially if that is what is determining the win.
    The attack bonus system is floored as it reduces visibility of what will be a clear win or obvious loss.
    Last war my alliance only gained 6000 attack bonus above our opponent even though we had 44 defender kills to their 1. Now that reflection of skill, champ availability or whatever should count to a larger part of the determination of a win.
    At least before the attack bonus system was introduced there was transparency to when a war was out of reach and a decision could be made to cut the losses and not continue to use items for no benefit.
  • Options
    Chill510Chill510 Posts: 17
    Why does Kabam make it more complicated than it has to be?
    @Kabam Miike if the purpose of diversity was to be a tiebreaker, then why not just make it the official tiebreaker. This can easily be done by not counting any diversity points towards victory at all unless their is an actual tie. That way alliances place whatever defense they want and in the off chance their is a tie....then both alliances will be expecting the team with best diversity to win. No surprises. But theirs no loss of points for now focusing on diversity.

    The combination of slightly harder nodes and diversity as the official tiebreaker would be the only change needed to AW. Instead you guys opted to completely remove it and change the meta of the game mode all over again. Causing a big uprise.
  • Options
    NarcuulNarcuul Posts: 115
    I am honestly trying to decide if you guys just do not care about the decisions you make and how it will impact the player community by and large, or if the decisions that are being made are just not well thought through. If it is the latter, then I would suggest you guys creating some kind of open forum where these kind of ideas can be introduced without the declaration of "this is happening, get ready" to prevent this kind of backlash.

    A game like this evolves as time goes on, true, but the way it is being forced upon us with all of your recent decisions is kind of staggering.

    For the longest time wars were littered with mystic defenders, primarily because of the way MD and Dexterity masteries interacted. You seemed to think this was a bad idea, so you introduced diversity. To further drive home this point, you introduced blade, the be all and end all counter to the worst defenders around, mystics, at that point in the game.

    Now, you are moving towards defenders that Blade has no advantage against, and finally are listening to all the rampant complaints about the MD/Dexterity interaction and modifying it. You did always say you were not going to nerf Blade, instead, you are just removing his usefulness from war. To further this along, you are removing a feature in diversity which you so highly, highly touted as being so important so we did not have wars fighting against the same opponent time and time again.

    So while for now, the newest top defenders are still relatively scarce compared to older champions, we wont see them in the mass numbers as the old mystic defenders, but what about in 6 months, are you going to bring back diversity as a way to be the hero and save us all from battlegroups full of the worst characters to fight? Then all the resources people spent to rank up battelgroups full of IMIW and Medusa strictly for defense are now wasted as those characters sit on our bench, unused.
  • Options
    JRock808JRock808 Posts: 1,149 ★★★★
    Chill510 wrote: »
    Why does Kabam make it more complicated than it has to be?
    @Kabam Miike if the purpose of diversity was to be a tiebreaker, then why not just make it the official tiebreaker. This can easily be done by not counting any diversity points towards victory at all unless their is an actual tie. That way alliances place whatever defense they want and in the off chance their is a tie....then both alliances will be expecting the team with best diversity to win. No surprises. But theirs no loss of points for now focusing on diversity.

    The combination of slightly harder nodes and diversity as the official tiebreaker would be the only change needed to AW. Instead you guys opted to completely remove it and change the meta of the game mode all over again. Causing a big uprise.

    Make diversity worth 1 point. The whole thing. Whoever has the highest gets 1 point. Instant tie breaker with zero impact on the actual outcome.
  • Options
    RJ03RJ03 Posts: 67
    gahrling wrote: »
    RJ03 wrote: »
    "Aspect of Evolution" what node is that? can someone explain to me..

    I think it might be related to a phase that uncollected Thanos had - bleed armor & autoblock

    What you mean? anyone knows more about this node? "Aspect of Evolution"?
  • Options
    World EaterWorld Eater Posts: 3,631 ★★★★★
    edited June 2018
    NevvB wrote: »
    So you made the nodes harder, any changes in rewards?

    The rewards have not changed (aside from Season rewards being halved to match the change in length). This is because Alliances were still finding these Maps far too easy. The goal of these changes is to put an end to the near 100% of wars ending in 100% Exploration.


    "The goal of these changes is to put an end to the near 100% of wars ending in 100% Exploration."

    If that is the goal, why does the map demand 98%-100% exploration to kill the boss?

    Never mind the increased difficulty and poor way this has been communicated to your customers.

    I’m glad I bailed on any competitive play in this game this year. It’s not worth the time and energy & Kabam certainly doesn’t deserve any of my $$$$. There has been a poor vision for the future of this game dating back to March 2017 (12.0).
  • Options
    Jac094Jac094 Posts: 198
    Do you have a legend for all the buffs? What is "Dismay" for instance

    I will talk to the team about getting the list of Buff Descriptions for newer nodes that players might be less familiar with, but in the meantime, this is Dismay:

    "Whenever the Attacker loses their highest achieved Combo in a fight, they gain a Degeneration Debuff that deals damage every second equal to {1} times the lost Combo."

    This is basically the "Don't lose your Combo" Buff.

    no, this is the "those buggy evade champs, sometimes ridiculous power gain champs that will catch you, will certainly kill you node". Or "when you don't proc dex and domino hits you, now you degen" node

    And what about node 27? Basically the "you can't block an attack or you die node" or "better lose your combo cause it will guarantee less block damage"?
  • Options
    WerewrymWerewrym Posts: 2,830 ★★★★★
    Jac094 wrote: »
    Do you have a legend for all the buffs? What is "Dismay" for instance

    I will talk to the team about getting the list of Buff Descriptions for newer nodes that players might be less familiar with, but in the meantime, this is Dismay:

    "Whenever the Attacker loses their highest achieved Combo in a fight, they gain a Degeneration Debuff that deals damage every second equal to {1} times the lost Combo."

    This is basically the "Don't lose your Combo" Buff.

    no, this is the "those buggy evade champs, sometimes ridiculous power gain champs that will catch you, will certainly kill you node". Or "when you don't proc dex and domino hits you, now you degen" node

    And what about node 27? Basically the "you can't block an attack or you die node" or "better lose your combo cause it will guarantee less block damage"?

    Yeah that's node sucks... We will only be able to fight it with like Iceman or LC
  • Options
    BronxHugethBronxHugeth Posts: 36
    edited June 2018
    It's basically "Bait and Switch" that Kabam has done. Easy solution. Call your banks or credit cards and look for refunds for your purchases going back to Sept. 2017 when they introduced "Diversity". Most, if not all, purchases from that point were directly influenced by trying to maximize diversity and gaining new champs. Only way to make Kabam wake up is to hit them in the pocket. I'm sure if the entire player base did this, they would start to realize.
  • Options
    GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 843 ★★★★
    hurricant wrote: »
    NevvB wrote: »
    So you made the nodes harder, any changes in rewards?

    The rewards have not changed (aside from Season rewards being halved to match the change in length). This is because Alliances were still finding these Maps far too easy. The goal of these changes is to put an end to the near 100% of wars ending in 100% Exploration.

    what's wrong with 100% exploration? people will continue to pay for 100% you know that right?

    100% exploration should be a rare instance, and if achieved, should be helping to decide the winner of a War. It should not be a common occurrence for both Alliances to be able to hit 100%, and then the deciding factor becomes Attacker Bonus points.

    Only it won't be rare. I'm sure if you have insights to this data you'll see that anybody in any platinum rank or Master will always 100% these new maps so wins will be decided by attack bonus. For the majority of wars that is exactly what has decided a win vs. a loss as it should be. Why shouldn't the group that performed the same action with less deaths be the victor?

    All you've done is made it more expensive to 100% wars which will be done 100% of the time in the upper ranks.
Sign In or Register to comment.