**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.

15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread

1…1516182021…120

Comments

  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    I still can't believe it's not butter
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    vikky89 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snarf81 wrote: »
    Hi...Please forgive me is someone already had this suggestion but I think there might be something that deals with most of the criticism of removing defender kills while still enabling the desire by the developers to encourage people to use all their healthy heroes.

    What if each player gets 3 deaths or timeouts without any penalty, and deaths or timeouts after 3 give points to the opponents?

    This would allow users to attack and die with their heroes and thus fulfill the developers' stated intent, while limiting people from infinitely healing their Iron men with timeouts or using 15 team revives per game.

    Thoughts?

    I suggested a similar, but not identical idea here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/104329#Comment_104329

    The difference is mainly that instead of penalizing dying, the idea is to penalize reviving. So there's never a penalty for using any champs you have, which was the problem Kabam Miike stated was the problem being addressed by the change. But it is similar to the idea you're expressing here.

    But penalizing revives doesnt stop from exploiting regen champs. regen-pause-timeout-repeat. They dont have to revive can just do unlimited tries. Even with regular champs can just timeout-heal. No revives needed so no defender kills. How do you address that. Current defender kill system works just fine with timeouts regarded as KO

    They could count those situations as a revive. Technically speaking in the current system the game just arbitrarily decides to count a reset as a kill even though nothing actually dies. So it is just as valid to count a reset as a revive for the purposes of score keeping as it is to count a reset as a kill. Either way you are basically giving the opposing alliance points when the attacker resets.

    You have to look at it from Kabam's perspective. Awarding points for reviving wouldn't be a benefit to anyone. If their reasoning for removing defender kills was the feeling of being penalized when dieing, then adding a penalty for using revives would be even worse. Now players would feel hesitant about using/buying a revive (a Kabam feature that would make players hesitant to spend?) AND in a common situation where the player lost all his champs with enemy having a sliver of health left, they would have to pop a team-revive (3x penalty and guilt) for that little node. It just doesn't fit with the theme they are going for.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    It probably is butter, but they want to sell us a new product that sounds cool and healthier than butter but really isn't
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    7gocfhnob4ef.gif
  • Summoner88Summoner88 Posts: 4
    Not a fan of no def kills. Money will run AW.
    Rewards for Diversity is even more worrying.
    Will I have to construct a brand new def team. Leaving existing one on the bench?
    Rank down offerings to compensate?
    Or will the diversity bonus be so bad we have to face 5x mini boss R4 magiks
    And an R4 magik boss ergghhh
    I feel my pants being pulled down :/
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    Hulksmasshh wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    vikky89 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snarf81 wrote: »
    Hi...Please forgive me is someone already had this suggestion but I think there might be something that deals with most of the criticism of removing defender kills while still enabling the desire by the developers to encourage people to use all their healthy heroes.

    What if each player gets 3 deaths or timeouts without any penalty, and deaths or timeouts after 3 give points to the opponents?

    This would allow users to attack and die with their heroes and thus fulfill the developers' stated intent, while limiting people from infinitely healing their Iron men with timeouts or using 15 team revives per game.

    Thoughts?

    I suggested a similar, but not identical idea here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/104329#Comment_104329

    The difference is mainly that instead of penalizing dying, the idea is to penalize reviving. So there's never a penalty for using any champs you have, which was the problem Kabam Miike stated was the problem being addressed by the change. But it is similar to the idea you're expressing here.

    But penalizing revives doesnt stop from exploiting regen champs. regen-pause-timeout-repeat. They dont have to revive can just do unlimited tries. Even with regular champs can just timeout-heal. No revives needed so no defender kills. How do you address that. Current defender kill system works just fine with timeouts regarded as KO

    They could count those situations as a revive. Technically speaking in the current system the game just arbitrarily decides to count a reset as a kill even though nothing actually dies. So it is just as valid to count a reset as a revive for the purposes of score keeping as it is to count a reset as a kill. Either way you are basically giving the opposing alliance points when the attacker resets.

    You have to look at it from Kabam's perspective. Awarding points for reviving wouldn't be a benefit to anyone. If their reasoning for removing defender kills was the feeling of being penalized when dieing, then adding a penalty for using revives would be even worse. Now players would feel hesitant about using/buying a revive (a Kabam feature that would make players hesitant to spend?) AND in a common situation where the player lost all his champs with enemy having a sliver of health left, they would have to pop a team-revive (3x penalty and guilt) for that little node. It just doesn't fit with the theme they are going for.

    That is a potential issue, however my suggestion was an attempt to find a compromise position between the issue Kabam Miike specified was the goal of the change and the desire for many players to get credit for placing strong defenders. If you include the issues you're describing as non-compromisable, then I don't believe there is ultimately any alternative that addresses all of the perceived problems equally.

    Either dying generates some sort of penalty or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we have the situation currently announced: no penalty for any death ever. But if there is a penalty, that penalty however it affects scoring must either treat dying as the penalized event or revival as the penalized event. There are no other ways to count a death. Counting deaths is the situation we have. To address the issue Kabam Miike mentions the only way to simultaneously count deaths but not at the actual point of death is to count revives.

    If the act of dying generates no penalty and the act of reviving generates no penalty then there's no penalty possible. You can try to hide the penalty with math games, but the penalty still has to be computed based on deaths or revives. Kabam doesn't want to discourage people from using a healthy champion and risk death generating a penalty, so that eliminates counting deaths. There's nothing else left to count.

    Snarf81's suggestion tries to get around this problem by essentially not counting the first three deaths. That works, but it doesn't address Kabam Miike's stated problem it defers it. Instead of getting no penalty for any of your first three deaths, you now have the problem that if you revive those champions you will now be, so to speak, in foul trouble. Each of those deaths now counts. That could cause people to hesitate reviving but more directly to KM's post it would also cause them to hesitate using them.
  • vikky89vikky89 Posts: 80
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Hulksmasshh wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    vikky89 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snarf81 wrote: »
    Hi...Please forgive me is someone already had this suggestion but I think there might be something that deals with most of the criticism of removing defender kills while still enabling the desire by the developers to encourage people to use all their healthy heroes.

    What if each player gets 3 deaths or timeouts without any penalty, and deaths or timeouts after 3 give points to the opponents?

    This would allow users to attack and die with their heroes and thus fulfill the developers' stated intent, while limiting people from infinitely healing their Iron men with timeouts or using 15 team revives per game.

    Thoughts?

    I suggested a similar, but not identical idea here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/104329#Comment_104329

    The difference is mainly that instead of penalizing dying, the idea is to penalize reviving. So there's never a penalty for using any champs you have, which was the problem Kabam Miike stated was the problem being addressed by the change. But it is similar to the idea you're expressing here.

    But penalizing revives doesnt stop from exploiting regen champs. regen-pause-timeout-repeat. They dont have to revive can just do unlimited tries. Even with regular champs can just timeout-heal. No revives needed so no defender kills. How do you address that. Current defender kill system works just fine with timeouts regarded as KO

    They could count those situations as a revive. Technically speaking in the current system the game just arbitrarily decides to count a reset as a kill even though nothing actually dies. So it is just as valid to count a reset as a revive for the purposes of score keeping as it is to count a reset as a kill. Either way you are basically giving the opposing alliance points when the attacker resets.

    You have to look at it from Kabam's perspective. Awarding points for reviving wouldn't be a benefit to anyone. If their reasoning for removing defender kills was the feeling of being penalized when dieing, then adding a penalty for using revives would be even worse. Now players would feel hesitant about using/buying a revive (a Kabam feature that would make players hesitant to spend?) AND in a common situation where the player lost all his champs with enemy having a sliver of health left, they would have to pop a team-revive (3x penalty and guilt) for that little node. It just doesn't fit with the theme they are going for.

    That is a potential issue, however my suggestion was an attempt to find a compromise position between the issue Kabam Miike specified was the goal of the change and the desire for many players to get credit for placing strong defenders. If you include the issues you're describing as non-compromisable, then I don't believe there is ultimately any alternative that addresses all of the perceived problems equally.

    Either dying generates some sort of penalty or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we have the situation currently announced: no penalty for any death ever. But if there is a penalty, that penalty however it affects scoring must either treat dying as the penalized event or revival as the penalized event. There are no other ways to count a death. Counting deaths is the situation we have. To address the issue Kabam Miike mentions the only way to simultaneously count deaths but not at the actual point of death is to count revives.

    If the act of dying generates no penalty and the act of reviving generates no penalty then there's no penalty possible. You can try to hide the penalty with math games, but the penalty still has to be computed based on deaths or revives. Kabam doesn't want to discourage people from using a healthy champion and risk death generating a penalty, so that eliminates counting deaths. There's nothing else left to count.

    Snarf81's suggestion tries to get around this problem by essentially not counting the first three deaths. That works, but it doesn't address Kabam Miike's stated problem it defers it. Instead of getting no penalty for any of your first three deaths, you now have the problem that if you revive those champions you will now be, so to speak, in foul trouble. Each of those deaths now counts. That could cause people to hesitate reviving but more directly to KM's post it would also cause them to hesitate using them.

    Well I dont think kabam mike's excuse for defender kill change is even legit. How did they even come to the conclusion ? Did they have any polls or in game survey ?? . Been playing AW close to 2 years now. I have never seen a war where someone stopped trying even with 2 full health champs.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    Greywarden wrote: »
    za827xnfxsds.png

    @Kabam Miike so what happens in the above scenario where one group barely wins only because of defender kills?

    It is pretty obvious what happens. The other alliance explored more and killed more nodes, so unless you had a huge advantage in defender diversity score you would have lost.

    I think what you mean to ask is how is that fair, and I think most players would agree with you it is not fair by the definitions of fair most players would agree to in an alliance war. However, the change to defender kill scores unavoidably changes the definition of fair in alliance war. The new definition of fair in 15.0 is "you shouldn't be penalized for dying more times on offense than your opponent, what matters is how much you accomplish with your champs." That's the logical inevitable consequence of negating defender kill scoring, whether intended or otherwise.


  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Hulksmasshh wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    vikky89 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snarf81 wrote: »
    Hi...Please forgive me is someone already had this suggestion but I think there might be something that deals with most of the criticism of removing defender kills while still enabling the desire by the developers to encourage people to use all their healthy heroes.

    What if each player gets 3 deaths or timeouts without any penalty, and deaths or timeouts after 3 give points to the opponents?

    This would allow users to attack and die with their heroes and thus fulfill the developers' stated intent, while limiting people from infinitely healing their Iron men with timeouts or using 15 team revives per game.

    Thoughts?

    I suggested a similar, but not identical idea here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/104329#Comment_104329

    The difference is mainly that instead of penalizing dying, the idea is to penalize reviving. So there's never a penalty for using any champs you have, which was the problem Kabam Miike stated was the problem being addressed by the change. But it is similar to the idea you're expressing here.

    But penalizing revives doesnt stop from exploiting regen champs. regen-pause-timeout-repeat. They dont have to revive can just do unlimited tries. Even with regular champs can just timeout-heal. No revives needed so no defender kills. How do you address that. Current defender kill system works just fine with timeouts regarded as KO

    They could count those situations as a revive. Technically speaking in the current system the game just arbitrarily decides to count a reset as a kill even though nothing actually dies. So it is just as valid to count a reset as a revive for the purposes of score keeping as it is to count a reset as a kill. Either way you are basically giving the opposing alliance points when the attacker resets.

    You have to look at it from Kabam's perspective. Awarding points for reviving wouldn't be a benefit to anyone. If their reasoning for removing defender kills was the feeling of being penalized when dieing, then adding a penalty for using revives would be even worse. Now players would feel hesitant about using/buying a revive (a Kabam feature that would make players hesitant to spend?) AND in a common situation where the player lost all his champs with enemy having a sliver of health left, they would have to pop a team-revive (3x penalty and guilt) for that little node. It just doesn't fit with the theme they are going for.

    That is a potential issue, however my suggestion was an attempt to find a compromise position between the issue Kabam Miike specified was the goal of the change and the desire for many players to get credit for placing strong defenders. If you include the issues you're describing as non-compromisable, then I don't believe there is ultimately any alternative that addresses all of the perceived problems equally.

    Either dying generates some sort of penalty or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we have the situation currently announced: no penalty for any death ever. But if there is a penalty, that penalty however it affects scoring must either treat dying as the penalized event or revival as the penalized event. There are no other ways to count a death. Counting deaths is the situation we have. To address the issue Kabam Miike mentions the only way to simultaneously count deaths but not at the actual point of death is to count revives.

    If they were going to go back down the route of some penalty for dieing, awarding the opponent points for using a revive just doesn't feel right. It accomplishes the same thing as before but introduces more unfavorable situations such as using team revives vs single revives.

    In my opinion a compromise would be that deaths give 50 or less points than the current 100 you give for a death. That way, deaths will play a lesser role in determining the winner, players should feel better awarding less points for dieing, and high tier wars will remain the same where deaths play the tiebreaker role in 100% full clears.
  • DD2DD2 Posts: 309 ★★★
    Removing defender points is like getting knocked out in a title fight then waking up and bribing your way to victory. Makes no sense at all.
  • Mcord11758Mcord11758 Posts: 1,249 ★★★★
    edited August 2017
    So does next aq start tuesday?
  • Awesomeness44Awesomeness44 Posts: 139
    I don't think that defender kills should be totally disregarded, having good defenders should matter, and if it doesn't, people might start putting stupid defenders
  • vip662009vip662009 Posts: 32 ★
    @Kabam Miike is there any special event is coming like web slinger ?
  • BT1984BT1984 Posts: 11 ★
    @Kabam Miike I personally think the changes to war was really needed and I do hope that this will result in more challenging/fun wars. However, a lot of us ranked up champions for very specific nodes.
    My question is what will Kabam do for us to work better with the new aw map?
    I think it's very reasonable/fair to get rank down tickets as there will be champs that no longer work effectively in war defense. I can easily think of cyclops/KG on thorns etc..
  • OnlyOneAboveAllOnlyOneAboveAll Posts: 387 ★★
    Rank down tickets to redo defenders would be nice. Won't need so many Magiks and Mordos and NightCrawlers anymore. If having diverse amounts of defenders is a thing Now, most need to rethink defender placements please. Preferably before new update comes out. Not too much to ask.
  • Ready61Ready61 Posts: 11
    vikky89 wrote: »
    Ready61 wrote: »
    Most of you guys making heavy complaints don't spend a dime on this game. If you gonna complain about something complain about the rewards. Keep complaining and all the spenders leave and there won't be no game to play. It's not all about spending on the game either. Cause spenders are limited to just 15 items. So make them count. It's the BEST game play they came up with IMO. Cause people who pilot accounts was winning the wars. Where is the fun at in that?

    I think you got it wrong about what everyone is complaining about. I dont think anyone has issues about ppl spending. As you said before it was not all about spending, ppl with skill had a chance. Now kabam took that away by eliminating pts for defense kills. And pleased stop with 15 items cap. someone using 2 lvl3 single heals is not equal to other using 2 lvl4 team heals, even tho both have same item usage count.War was more balanced before because skill is rewarded. Not anymore

  • wray1976wray1976 Posts: 459 ★★
    Mcord11758 wrote: »
    So does next aq start tuesday?
    Mcord11758 wrote: »
    So does next aq start tuesday?

    "For the Alliance Quests series running from Sunday, August 29th until Sunday, September 3rd, there will be Zero cost to run any of the Maps, and Alliance Quest energy will refresh every 30 minutes."
  • wray1976wray1976 Posts: 459 ★★
    wray1976 wrote: »
    Mcord11758 wrote: »
    So does next aq start tuesday?
    Mcord11758 wrote: »
    So does next aq start tuesday?

    "For the Alliance Quests series running from Sunday, August 29th until Sunday, September 3rd, there will be Zero cost to run any of the Maps, and Alliance Quest energy will refresh every 30 minutes."

    Those dates don't even add up. Sunday is the 27th.
  • Ready61Ready61 Posts: 11
    vikky89 wrote: »
    Ready61 wrote: »
    Most of you guys making heavy complaints don't spend a dime on this game. If you gonna complain about something complain about the rewards. Keep complaining and all the spenders leave and there won't be no game to play. It's not all about spending on the game either. Cause spenders are limited to just 15 items. So make them count. It's the BEST game play they came up with IMO. Cause people who pilot accounts was winning the wars. Where is the fun at in that?

    I think you got it wrong about what everyone is complaining about. I dont think anyone has issues about ppl spending. As you said before it was not all about spending, ppl with skill had a chance. Now kabam took that away by eliminating pts for defense kills. And pleased stop with 15 items cap. someone using 2 lvl3 single heals is not equal to other using 2 lvl4 team heals, even tho both have same item usage count.War was more balanced before because skill is rewarded. Not anymore

    It's not the end of skills. Think about it... If you have skills no need to worry about using all 15 items. If you have skills no need to worry about not completing the paths. I'm in a top 10 alliance for war rating. And don't die on my path at all. I know exactly what you mean about skills. Kabam is not trying to eliminate SKILLS from winning WARS. They are trying to eliminate people from piloting ACCOUNTS. That's a BIG issue! And most of the alliances that continuously win WARS have 2-3 people piloting all accounts on they team. My alliance went the mile to have all skilled fighters with reasonable prestige to make our way to the top. By KABAM making defender kills a non factor does not mean victory for spenders! Skill fighters get through paths. I know plenty of spenders that used all 15 items (lvl4 health portions included) and still couldn't finish a path. Just remember this complainers.... DEFENSE WINS WARS! If your members willing to make that sacrifice to invest in better defenders you will see your team advancing in WARS.. if not, then maybe you should take this time to think about the team your playing with. I know how hard it is leaving alliances that you have friends in. But that's the altimate sacrifice you have to make in this game if you CHOOSE to advance sometimes.
  • Ready61Ready61 Posts: 11
    So many of you guys worried about defender kills smh... you should be asking why are we getting the SAME rewards? And you all should be happy with the fact that defender kills won't make a big impact on who WINS the war. They announced 5 MINI BOSSES in AW now. That's gonna be a task itself. That means half of your BG will be facing a mini BOSS. That's gonna take some SKILLS to get done. Unless the ones who complaining about defender kills are the ones who fighting for other members in they alliance lol.
  • wray1976wray1976 Posts: 459 ★★
    Ready61 wrote: »
    So many of you guys worried about defender kills smh... you should be asking why are we getting the SAME rewards? And you all should be happy with the fact that defender kills won't make a big impact on who WINS the war. They announced 5 MINI BOSSES in AW now. That's gonna be a task itself. That means half of your BG will be facing a mini BOSS. That's gonna take some SKILLS to get done. Unless the ones who complaining about defender kills are the ones who fighting for other members in they alliance lol.

    Agreed. The rewards should have been increased. Difficulty will be higher yet rewards stay the same. Not sure how that gets "overlooked" when they revamp wars.
  • OnlyOneAboveAllOnlyOneAboveAll Posts: 387 ★★
    wray1976 wrote: »
    Ready61 wrote: »
    So many of you guys worried about defender kills smh... you should be asking why are we getting the SAME rewards? And you all should be happy with the fact that defender kills won't make a big impact on who WINS the war. They announced 5 MINI BOSSES in AW now. That's gonna be a task itself. That means half of your BG will be facing a mini BOSS. That's gonna take some SKILLS to get done. Unless the ones who complaining about defender kills are the ones who fighting for other members in they alliance lol.

    Agreed. The rewards should have been increased. Difficulty will be higher yet rewards stay the same. Not sure how that gets "overlooked" when they revamp wars.

    I'm sure rewards will increase. They just haven't announced them yet.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    I've been saying I want better rewards for being in top 100 than a shell beating a small alliance for a while. This has been the main issue of alliance wars. Why go back and forth winning and losing and getting minimal shards when you can shell and win every war. A lot more 5* shards that way.
  • wray1976wray1976 Posts: 459 ★★
    OnlyOneAboveAll wrote: »
    wray1976 wrote: »
    Ready61 wrote: »
    So many of you guys worried about defender kills smh... you should be asking why are we getting the SAME rewards? And you all should be happy with the fact that defender kills won't make a big impact on who WINS the war. They announced 5 MINI BOSSES in AW now. That's gonna be a task itself. That means half of your BG will be facing a mini BOSS. That's gonna take some SKILLS to get done. Unless the ones who complaining about defender kills are the ones who fighting for other members in they alliance lol.

    Agreed. The rewards should have been increased. Difficulty will be higher yet rewards stay the same. Not sure how that gets "overlooked" when they revamp wars.

    I'm sure rewards will increase. They just haven't announced them yet.

    Why wouldn't they announce them with the war update news. Seems the only reason it would be increased is because of the uproar from the community. They announced the event rewards increase when they gave that information.
  • vikky89vikky89 Posts: 80
    Ready61 wrote: »
    So many of you guys worried about defender kills smh... you should be asking why are we getting the SAME rewards? And you all should be happy with the fact that defender kills won't make a big impact on who WINS the war. They announced 5 MINI BOSSES in AW now. That's gonna be a task itself. That means half of your BG will be facing a mini BOSS. That's gonna take some SKILLS to get done. Unless the ones who complaining about defender kills are the ones who fighting for other members in they alliance lol.

    Its pretty straight forward no defender kills no reward for skill. What happens when we go up against an alliance who spend heavily to just clear maps. Who wins then. Where is the reward for skill in those situations. with 5 mini bosses spenders have even more clear advantage. They can just spend their way without any consequences of dying.And what happens with regen champs you can just use regen-pause-timeout method unlimited times till they can get bosses down ? how do u address that. And just because there are few pilot alliances, you want to punish rest of us. Not fair.
  • Timone147Timone147 Posts: 1,276 ★★★★
    So since we are adding a MVP function can we also add a kill/death ratio or total function from AW or overall from AQ/AW.

    Would be very useful for recruitment sake and fun for bragging rights in an alliance. Probably more so than MVP as that tends to be driven more by the paths assigned then anything else.
This discussion has been closed.