**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
I don't think it would be hard to implement, but we'd probably be fighting over the item values because that's not something that you can mathematically determine: it is a value judgment as to how many points to deduct for item usage relative to the points to earn on attack bonus.
It is also unclear to me how this solves the problem Kabam is trying to solve. Apparently they don't want alliances to win on diversity points, and they also don't want alliances to win on attack bonus points. If you add another source of points (or point deductions) alliances will probably start winning or losing due to item usage points, which I'm guessing Kabam will also not like and try to "fix." The only way point deductions for item use does what Kabam is saying they want to do (which I still find irrational, but setting that aside) is if the item usage deductions are so large and so punitive that no competitive alliance would ever risk using any items during seasonal wars. Which is almost functionally identical to an item ban.
Even if you are naughty, you'd still get a visit from Sump'n Claus
(Hopefully someone recognises that joke)
Old school AW which focused more on defender kills worked so much better, as it was much more focused on skill rather than pay power.
This can destroy alliance and friendship if this is still on going.
That is, it only comes to play when both alliances have an equal total number of points from clears, exploration, attack bonus, and defenders remaining. That would make it the tie-breaker it has long been touted to be
That would mean non-diverse defences would always win.
This is so true. This along with a reduced item use in AW would certainly aid in preventing 100% the map. Players wouldnt be able to simple pay their way to 100%. The penalty from deaths would actually mean something. But They prefer the stress inducing version, in which everyone pays to 100% no matter how hard they make the map.
I'm not in a top tier alliance and my own alliance doesn't complete 100% every war, but I still personally feel enormous pressure to complete my paths every single war. The problem is the map design: you have paths with widely varying difficulty from node to node, and you have links that buff between paths. So if I don't finish, I'm making it difficult for other people to finish, and I'm giving up all the points further down my path, and the next node I'm giving up is very likely to be a node I could finish, if only I get past the current node.
It is simply irrational to expect players to give up on exploration, because it is never a good idea to do that in general.
And it is also nonsensical for Kabam to care about players giving up on a node, which was the justification for removing defender kill points, then turn around and also say they don't want maps to explore 100%. The combination of the two borders on sadistic game design: you want to encourage players to attack, and you want to design the maps so that they don't succeed. Allowing players to reach the end of their paths and judging them based on how well they did so is psychologically far less antagonistic. If you get to the end but you died twice, that's the best you could do. It is far easier to live with than if you give up in the middle of the path, because that's very obviously not the best you could have done.
That means they should stop calling it a tie-breaker. It's all semantics at this point, but for as long as they refer to it as that and it doesn't do the job of a Kabam-defined tie-breaker, it's always in the greatest danger of being removed. It should have no other expected purpose but as another criteria like attack bonus, etc
tl;dr: Stop calling defender diversity a tie-breaker. It is not
It actually isn't just semantics: calling defender diversity points a "tie breaker" creates actual problems I warned about back when they were first introduced. It implies that they shouldn't ordinarily matter: that most of the time they shouldn't factor into the result of the war. After all, most games do not execute tie breakers. This mental error is exhibited directly by Kabam: they keep saying that defender diversity points are intended to function as a tie breaker, but they are deciding too many wars. That's a nonsensical statement on its face, but the reason it is nonsensical is because defender diversity points aren't tie breakers.
Points are fungible. That means when you look at a score like 147,000, there's no way to actually say which set of points is more important than any other. No set of points is the set that "reaches" 147,000. They all do collectively. But when you decide arbitrarily to call one specific set of points a "tie breaker" you're giving those points special significance, and ironically in two logically incompatible but psychologically problematic ways. If two alliances end up scoring 147,000 and 148,000, and the difference in diversity points is 1200, then *because* you call them "tie breakers" you naturally tend to conclude that they decided the war. After all, those points "broke the tie." And yet we score those points first. Diversity points are set the moment you set your defense, before the war even starts.
So calling them tie breakers when they aren't actually tie breakers creates the problem that some people - both Kabam developers and some players - simultaneously count diversity points *last* and say they decided the war, and *first* and also say that the war was decided before it was fought. Which of course is "bad" and has to be "fixed."
I've been saying since 14.1 we shouldn't call defender diversity points tie breakers, because doing so is not just literally wrong, that literally wrong idea creates other problems. It generates an impossible problem for diversity points to solve. As long as that is true, Kabam will keep returning to defender diversity and either radically altering it or attempting to remove it completely, only to add it back when they discover that removing them creates larger problems. There's no way out of this through iteration, until Kabam starts thinking about what their scoring system actually does, not what they want it to do to the players.
So the wars are going to be more difficult and you decrease the rewards how is that logical at all?
Nevermind the season is shorter bit still why half the rewards?
And some revives free of charge and let us spend units or glory on ranking up champs ao we can continue to grow? I’m sick of your money grab ways and all
That matters is how much we can spend. This next season will be my last and final if this
Doesn’t become a normal fun game.
You explained my problem with defender diversity as tie-breaker much better than I ever could
Counter Tactics
Stupefy
Aspect of Evolution
Feats of Power
@Kabam Miike
Stupefy - Increases Stun duration
Aspect of Evolution - Each time Defender fills a bar of power, gain a permanent 5% boost to most stats, like Attack, Armor, Ability Accuracy, etc.
Feats of Power - At one bar of power, Defender gains Fury. At 2, Precision (I think), at 3, Cruelty. I believe they stack, unlike how Angela works.
The problem with making offers better is people will finish Act 5, LOL and AQ map 5/6 too easily. No challenge means no interest in the game. Basically Kabam has to slow down the progression of top players so they spend as much time as possible in the game.
Imagine if tomorrow's offer is $30 for a 5* awakening gem and another offer for $30 that contains rank up materials to rank up a 5* from rank 4 to rank 5. Kabam would see a massive spike in sales that day, but...those offers would make players' roster much better and they would have spend less potions in end-game content. In the end, Kabam would have to up the difficulty of future content to match better rosters and we would be at same point we are now.
Can we get the +/- rating of win/loss removed?
Can we get the defender name removed from war screen so everyone doesn't have to change their name to lllllllllllllllll?
You guys really need to look into this nonsense with barcode names. Clearly this isn’t in the “spirit of the game.” Lucky enough, there’s a simple fix - hide player names on the war map.
You also haven’t addressed matchmaking.
But on the changes that appear to be staying, the new miniboss nodes should not have links of any kind. It's one thing to not want us to 100% but at least allow us to strategically avoid certain mini bosses early on if we deem it not worth the items or effort. The way it is now if the mini boss on 27 or 31 prove too difficult it locks up the whole side that mini is on and the entire center of the map. That has given these new boss nodes total control over progression.
This would still give Kabam it's desired lack of constant 100% but give the alliance an ability to strategize as it saw fit to accomplish as much exploration and still a chance to take a boss down. Though as I said I still believe having deaths be the determining factor and not exploration was a much better system
Can see why you want this say tier 1-2 but lower than that is just too punishing. Drop the links so we can work round it!