Previously, we’ve mentioned that Alliance War maps were not designed to be 100% completed. This philosophy came about in a time where many Wars resulted in ties and results came down to Diversity. In response, we increased the challenges and complexity in Alliance Wars. Today, we’re seeing that this has been pushed too far – this is a problem. While our goal was to increase granularity to avoid ties, the result was continuously pushing difficulty higher. We understand that this isn’t sustainable and are looking into different solutions in order to achieve our goal!
Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?
Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.
Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.
I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
Could use prestige as a tie breaker. The alliance with lower prestige wins. Lol
Kabam you need to do better than this, especially concerning aq, these proposed changes are way too small considering all the negative feedback. Also aw needs to be taken out back and shot.
Kabam you need to do better than this, especially concerning aq, these proposed changes are way too small considering all the negative feedback. Also aw needs to be taken out back and shot.
What's wrong with the AQ changes, increased energy cap and decreased energy refresh time is exactly what everyone asked for albeit its not cut in half but it's still a decrease, what else do you want about AQ?
I'm glad that this got some more work. This is how a roadmap should look like. Much better than the quest roadmap. Timeline on every short term item to fix. And also some good long term ideas on where the game is going. Looking forward to this.
The quests update had me pretty pumped... The alliance update (and I'm the leader of my gold 2 map 5 alliance) had me more "meh"... Its almost as if you guys aren't listening to what we don't like about aq and aw... Raid bosses will hopefully be cool but you completely missed the mark on AW and the fact that most summoner (even Brian Grant... Who is in a master alliance....) thinks it needs to be completely overhauled.
AQ is ok... Its more like going to work.... You show up you do your path and you get solid rewards... But the fact it is so time consuming and so stressful on leaders and officers (making sure everyone does their job, heaven forbid someone try to go out to dinner with their significant other on a Friday night when their link is still up - hopefully the link changes will help but I'm waiting to see what is actually done there) takes away the enjoyment... The bare minimum was done with energy but still we are bejng forced to spend our resources we earn in the game to enter another part of the game (can't get my guys to spend gold to run map 6 when they are struggling to grind out enough gold to rank up champions they are waiting on)... There are enough things in game to keep us logging in (calendars, quest energy, arena grind refreshes) that I think you can relax the way AQ is run and make the players have a much more enjoyable experience
@Kabam Miike , @Kabam Team you guys mention " TRANSPARENCY " in the Dev Diary 29.06.2020 post . If you really want to be transparent .. be transparent, why didn't you announce before launching Season 19 the fact that these changes were already to go live !? Just be honest from the beginning.. 3 weeks ago when you heard the users complaining about AW .. you should have said: "GUYS ,WE HEARD YOUR OPINIONS BUT WE ALREDY HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES FOR SEASON 19 AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO ADJUST AW/AQ IN THE MATTER YOU GUYS WANT . PLEASE BE PATIENT, WE WILL ADDRESS YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR AQ/AW IN SEASON 20 " But you didn't say anything.. you let the users complain .. then you say "WE HEAR YOU, CHANGES ARE COMING " and then you put out the changes that don't address the latest peoples complaints.. and then USERS ARE NOT HAPPY AGAIN ,THEY CALL YOU OUT ON THE FACT THAT "THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED" and then you @Kabam Miike come out and admit that "WELL.. WE ALREDY HAD THESE CHANGES PLANNED, BUT DON'T WORRY NEXT TIME WILL REALLY LISTEN TO WHAT YOU GUYS WANT " Where is the TRANSPARENCY!? I don't get it , why do you do this !? It comes out like you tried to "fool" the users, did you think the people forgot their problems in 3 weeks!? I don't know what to say anymore.. please be careful from now on .. and please adjust (increase) AQ/AW rewards in such a way to be fair to everyone, not just to the top alliance bracket Waiting for more feedback from anyone who wants to give it Thanks for taking the time to read this
Well I wanted to post a pic of this AW currently I am in silver 2 and we have some wins and losses but right now both us and the other team r stuck at FIRST MINI boss which has never happened it's this Tunnel Vision now we got wrecked somewhat last war but this time all of us and our opponents are stuck at the same spot and we dont win everytime but this is rediculas
Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?
Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.
Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.
I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
You can't do that because teams would tie on purpose.
Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?
Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.
Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.
I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
You can't do that because teams would tie on purpose.
Why would people tie on purpose to get half the win points? Plus it’s not always possible to engineer a tie.
Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?
Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.
Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.
I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
You can't do that because teams would tie on purpose.
Why would people tie on purpose to get half the win points? Plus it’s not always possible to engineer a tie.
I know you're probably in a low level alliance and have no clue how smart people are at this game if you think you can't engineer a tie. The issue is that he said the tie people shouldn't lose any points so it basically like a double win. Then teams would just buddy together especially towards the end of the season and make sure everyone wins.
So I have been pretty quiet when it comes to the road map and overall I like the changes so far. Especially because I don't care about AW so most of my gripes aren't the same as other players. Trust me AQ focused alliances are so much better. Easy for me to say because I'm in one but that option out there.
I love the changes for AQ, the nodes they're removing or replacing the champions with will be a great help to officers from a recruiting and time commitment perspective. I wanted 30 min timers but more energy and 45 mins is good enough for sure.
The only real issue I would like to address that is game breaking that hasn't been mentioned is the gold problem. You all will eventually have to address this issue directly whether you like to or not. 5 and 6 stars take far too much to rank in order to keep this up after awhile. So I suggest (just like I did with act 6 when I predicted you would have to nerf it) you cut the rank ups gold for 5 and 6 stars in half or you double and triple the iso for 5 and 6 star dups respectively.
It is not a huge problem now but once rank 3 6 stars become common even the guys with 96 million gold will struggle so better to just fix it now.
Comments
Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.
Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.
I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
Could use prestige as a tie breaker. The alliance with lower prestige wins. Lol
Shouldnt we have an Continue button here as well?
AQ is ok... Its more like going to work.... You show up you do your path and you get solid rewards... But the fact it is so time consuming and so stressful on leaders and officers (making sure everyone does their job, heaven forbid someone try to go out to dinner with their significant other on a Friday night when their link is still up - hopefully the link changes will help but I'm waiting to see what is actually done there) takes away the enjoyment... The bare minimum was done with energy but still we are bejng forced to spend our resources we earn in the game to enter another part of the game (can't get my guys to spend gold to run map 6 when they are struggling to grind out enough gold to rank up champions they are waiting on)... There are enough things in game to keep us logging in (calendars, quest energy, arena grind refreshes) that I think you can relax the way AQ is run and make the players have a much more enjoyable experience
If you really want to be transparent .. be transparent, why didn't you announce before launching Season 19 the fact that these changes were already to go live !? Just be honest from the beginning.. 3 weeks ago when you heard the users complaining about AW .. you should have said:
"GUYS ,WE HEARD YOUR OPINIONS BUT WE ALREDY HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES FOR SEASON 19 AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO ADJUST AW/AQ IN THE MATTER YOU GUYS WANT . PLEASE BE PATIENT, WE WILL ADDRESS YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR AQ/AW IN SEASON 20 "
But you didn't say anything.. you let the users complain .. then you say "WE HEAR YOU, CHANGES ARE COMING " and then you put out the changes that don't address the latest peoples complaints.. and then USERS ARE NOT HAPPY AGAIN ,THEY CALL YOU OUT ON THE FACT THAT "THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED" and then you @Kabam Miike come out and admit that "WELL.. WE ALREDY HAD THESE CHANGES PLANNED, BUT DON'T WORRY NEXT TIME WILL REALLY LISTEN TO WHAT YOU GUYS WANT "
Where is the TRANSPARENCY!? I don't get it , why do you do this !? It comes out like you tried to "fool" the users, did you think the people forgot their problems in 3 weeks!?
I don't know what to say anymore.. please be careful from now on .. and please adjust (increase) AQ/AW rewards in such a way to be fair to everyone, not just to the top alliance bracket
Waiting for more feedback from anyone who wants to give it
Thanks for taking the time to read this
The issue is that he said the tie people shouldn't lose any points so it basically like a double win. Then teams would just buddy together especially towards the end of the season and make sure everyone wins.
I love the changes for AQ, the nodes they're removing or replacing the champions with will be a great help to officers from a recruiting and time commitment perspective. I wanted 30 min timers but more energy and 45 mins is good enough for sure.
The only real issue I would like to address that is game breaking that hasn't been mentioned is the gold problem. You all will eventually have to address this issue directly whether you like to or not. 5 and 6 stars take far too much to rank in order to keep this up after awhile. So I suggest (just like I did with act 6 when I predicted you would have to nerf it) you cut the rank ups gold for 5 and 6 stars in half or you double and triple the iso for 5 and 6 star dups respectively.
It is not a huge problem now but once rank 3 6 stars become common even the guys with 96 million gold will struggle so better to just fix it now.