Options

War Seasons Suggestion

13»

Comments

  • Options
    RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    JamesM wrote: »
    I don't understand why people make such a big deal about war anyways, I have played in plat2 and plat3. When you breakdown the rewards by a per war basis, the difference between rewards from one tier to the next aren't that appealing. I didn't like the culture of alliances pushing in war for such nominal rewards and went to a laid-back plat3 Ally. No death counts, no forced boosting and healing, no tracking defenders, only requirement is bosskill. I have enjoyed season much more doing so.

    It's because they put the most scare rank-up resource in AW season rewards and people went nuts. I'd so much rather they drop seasons and just put small amounts of t5b and t2a in the top tiers of normal AW rewards.
  • Options
    thegrimmlingthegrimmling Posts: 167
    JamesM wrote: »
    I don't understand why people make such a big deal about war anyways, I have played in plat2 and plat3. When you breakdown the rewards by a per war basis, the difference between rewards from one tier to the next aren't that appealing. I didn't like the culture of alliances pushing in war for such nominal rewards and went to a laid-back plat3 Ally. No death counts, no forced boosting and healing, no tracking defenders, only requirement is bosskill. I have enjoyed season much more doing so.

    It's because they put the most scare rank-up resource in AW season rewards and people went nuts. I'd so much rather they drop seasons and just put small amounts of t5b and t2a in the top tiers of normal AW rewards.

    I would love it if the seasons were dropped and the rare resources were done as peak rewards.
  • Options
    KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    They did have milestone rewards over 7 days for war before, not sure why they dumped that. Having peak milestones wouldn't be a bad idea, just do them weekly and eliminate off-seasons, go 3 weeks with war, minimum 3 war participation then one week off and repeat. You could even run wars in the off week and people would be less inclined to tank as the multiplier would be more important towards peak rewards
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,312 ★★★★★
    I would even support removing Off-Seasons, and reallocating Rewards. Perhaps even a break in-between Seasons that way.
  • Options
    thegrimmlingthegrimmling Posts: 167
    edited September 2018
    Looks like they may if blocked tanking but still allowing growth?88eianonxu8k.png
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,312 ★★★★★
    Looks like they may if blocked tanking but still allowing growth?88eianonxu8k.png

    I don't get that from that.
  • Options
    thegrimmlingthegrimmling Posts: 167
    Looks like they may if blocked tanking but still allowing growth?88eianonxu8k.png

    I don't get that from that.

    They mention earned, nothing about lost.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,312 ★★★★★
    Looks like they may if blocked tanking but still allowing growth?88eianonxu8k.png

    I don't get that from that.

    They mention earned, nothing about lost.

    You can't lose Points for Seasons. Well, unless you break the rules. Lol. All this means is Seasons is back.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,262 ★★★★★
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.

    It is also not an indication that it is not acceptable. Nobody is getting punished for this as they have said nothing. Fair until then

    I never suggested anyone get punished. I suggested steps be taken to prevent people from manipulating the system and taking advantage of weaker Allies. It is not fair.

    No stance has been taken by the mods and it is being used as a perfectly fair, equal opportunity strategy. If they take any of your suggestions then people will just find a way around them. Come and stop us. Until then, all is fair. What you call manipulation is simply strategy.

    It is NOT fair. It's manipualting War Rating to take advantage of weaker Allies, just for easy Kills and a Points boost. You don't need an official comment to know what is fair or not. What about the Points those Allies are potentially missing out on because they're being overrun with Matches? Do you consider that fair, or does it matter? Learning right from wrong is not something that can be done on a Forum.

    It IS fair. It is a trade off that an alliance decides to do, giving up winner offseason rewards to get into a more favourable position during the season. The points that allies are potentially missing out on because they are being overrun with matches? You don’t know if they will win or lose with any random match anyways. Alliances are just doing the smart and completely FAIR thing to get ahead. Until it is banned it is fair by definition. Just like piloting in season one and the barcode names until recently. Anything else you say is just your opinion and frankly means nothing. The reality is that it is happening and nobody has done anything to try to counter it yet so it IS fair.

    From the perspective of the Ally doing it, that might seem fair. To the Allies who are coming up against them, it's not. The system is designed to Match based on relatively proportionate ability using War Rating, and that Rating shows ability based on Wins and Losses. What people are doing is pecking off easy Wins by dropping their Rating. It's not at all fair. They're gaining an unfair advantage by doing it, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and it wouldn't be easy Kills. The argument that you never know doesn't hold water because the Matches are not naturally progressed. It's manipation plain and simple. Personally, I don't want to win by pecking off weaker Allies. Doesn't qualify as earning it to me. In any case, it's not that ambiguous. It's milking the system at the expense of people lower.

    Then keep playing with your “code of honour”. They can’t do anything unless they scrap seasons completely or have no offseason. And even if they had no offseason shells would be used. How can that be stopped? Lol you think you have answers but they will do nothing. Fact is that people are being smart to get an advantage when it matters to them the most. And the ones that get trampled on deserve it because they didn’t adapt.

    They didn't adapt? Right. How do you adapt to a system that blindsides you because people are altering it?
    They can do more than that, which is why I suggested alternatives. They've been consistent in showing that they're dedicated to improving the fairness of Seasons and War in general, and this is just another aspect that can be looked at. If you want to go on the premise that they can't change it and that it's their fault people are playing unfairly, be my guest. You've added your stance. I can move on and discuss it with others.

    What’s gonna happen is.. the system improves, then you get matched up with allies that also trample over yours.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,312 ★★★★★
    xNig wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.

    It is also not an indication that it is not acceptable. Nobody is getting punished for this as they have said nothing. Fair until then

    I never suggested anyone get punished. I suggested steps be taken to prevent people from manipulating the system and taking advantage of weaker Allies. It is not fair.

    No stance has been taken by the mods and it is being used as a perfectly fair, equal opportunity strategy. If they take any of your suggestions then people will just find a way around them. Come and stop us. Until then, all is fair. What you call manipulation is simply strategy.

    It is NOT fair. It's manipualting War Rating to take advantage of weaker Allies, just for easy Kills and a Points boost. You don't need an official comment to know what is fair or not. What about the Points those Allies are potentially missing out on because they're being overrun with Matches? Do you consider that fair, or does it matter? Learning right from wrong is not something that can be done on a Forum.

    It IS fair. It is a trade off that an alliance decides to do, giving up winner offseason rewards to get into a more favourable position during the season. The points that allies are potentially missing out on because they are being overrun with matches? You don’t know if they will win or lose with any random match anyways. Alliances are just doing the smart and completely FAIR thing to get ahead. Until it is banned it is fair by definition. Just like piloting in season one and the barcode names until recently. Anything else you say is just your opinion and frankly means nothing. The reality is that it is happening and nobody has done anything to try to counter it yet so it IS fair.

    From the perspective of the Ally doing it, that might seem fair. To the Allies who are coming up against them, it's not. The system is designed to Match based on relatively proportionate ability using War Rating, and that Rating shows ability based on Wins and Losses. What people are doing is pecking off easy Wins by dropping their Rating. It's not at all fair. They're gaining an unfair advantage by doing it, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and it wouldn't be easy Kills. The argument that you never know doesn't hold water because the Matches are not naturally progressed. It's manipation plain and simple. Personally, I don't want to win by pecking off weaker Allies. Doesn't qualify as earning it to me. In any case, it's not that ambiguous. It's milking the system at the expense of people lower.

    Then keep playing with your “code of honour”. They can’t do anything unless they scrap seasons completely or have no offseason. And even if they had no offseason shells would be used. How can that be stopped? Lol you think you have answers but they will do nothing. Fact is that people are being smart to get an advantage when it matters to them the most. And the ones that get trampled on deserve it because they didn’t adapt.

    They didn't adapt? Right. How do you adapt to a system that blindsides you because people are altering it?
    They can do more than that, which is why I suggested alternatives. They've been consistent in showing that they're dedicated to improving the fairness of Seasons and War in general, and this is just another aspect that can be looked at. If you want to go on the premise that they can't change it and that it's their fault people are playing unfairly, be my guest. You've added your stance. I can move on and discuss it with others.

    What’s gonna happen is.. the system improves, then you get matched up with allies that also trample over yours.

    The only way I see it improving is to include a mechanic like Prestige that accounts for the overall strength of the Allies Matched. That could be in combination with War Rating. Then it becomes a matter of skill versus skill. There has to be another factor that comes into play. No matter how skilled you are, you're only as capable as your Rosters. Considering those Rosters are developed and acquired in part by Wars, that would progress as your Ally progresses.
  • Options
    xNigxNig Posts: 7,262 ★★★★★
    Honestly, the idea of having each member have a war rating tagged to them sounds very awesome.

    A possible way to make it recent and relevant is to run a moving average of 12 wars, which make up a season.

    Let me illustrate it with an example.

    At the introduction of this system, everyone starts off with the individual war rating that is the same as the current alliance that they are in.

    For simple illustrative purposes let’s use 2,000 war ratings. Assuming after 12 wars, the alliance is now 2,300 ratings and each members rating is that.

    Let’s say at the end of season, player X retired from the ally and player Y (with a war rating of 3000) is found as a replacement.

    So the alliance war ratings will now be (2300 x 29 + 3000)/30 = 2,324.

    A point to add is that the +- shown in the war ratings screen now affects individual players instead of the alliance. And individual war ratings are calculated based on the average of the past 12 wars this player participated in.

    This would, in effect, remove shell alliances.

    If we couple this with using war ratings to calculate Season Scores (as previously suggested by me), we will also be able to eliminate tanking in the off season.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,312 ★★★★★
    That's not a bad base idea.
  • Options
    MrTicTac19992008MrTicTac19992008 Posts: 574 ★★
    Why don't they just make it a proper season or 'league' with promotion and relegation. So each of the current tiers would be leagues. So for example: if you finish in top 200 of silver 1 this season you get promoted to Gold 3 for next season and if you finish in bottom 200 of Gold 3 you get relegated to silver 1 so on.

    What I would change is that you remove war rating. You would only be matched with other alliances in your tier. This would eventually stop the problem of facing alliances that are way stronger than you. yes, if you get promoted to higher tier, you will find the matches tough but eventually over time you get stronger.

    This system would automatically stop tanking in the off-season as it would make no difference to their league.

    Another benefit is that there is less pressure as you know you will be guaranteed rewards for whichever tier you are in. You can decide which seasons you decide to push for promotion or decide to relax for a season.

    It would also be a more natural representation of each level of alliances. Currently, if you get a good run of matches you can finish in tier that is way higher than your alliances strength and ability.

    One drawback about this would be that it would mean top alliances may pull further away however with the relegation system, each war season would have at least 5 new alliances in Master bracket. Bottom 5 of master would be relegated to Platinum 1.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,312 ★★★★★
    It's somewhat close to what I had in mind. If Seasons progress stayed within Seasons, that would isolate it. You pick up where you left off the previous Season. You advance, and stay there when the Season ends. You go down, same deal.
Sign In or Register to comment.